Theories of Employee Relations - Coursework Example

Theories of Employee Relations Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Name Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Course Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Lecturer Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 7th August, 2012 Introduction Employment relations are seen as the heat of most employee relations systems. Successful employee relationship is the major building block to various successful organizations no matter their size. There are various approaches that are used in the study of employment relations; they include the unitary approach, pluralist approach and the radical approach. The three approaches have been described by employee relation scholars and they tend to contrast each other in their understanding as well in their analysis of workplace relations. Each of the three theoretical perspectives offers an exact perception of the workplace relations and they interpret concepts such as the conflicts that may occur within the organization, role played by the unions and job regulation differently from each other. Each of the three perspectives is discussed below based on how each of the perspective views conflicts, the role played by the unions as well as the job regulation in the organizations. The paper also offers a discussion on the relevance of the three theories to the study of employee relations. Pluralist perspective This theory analyses the work in the organization and the employment relationship form a speculative perspective that is deeply rooted in the inherent conflict of interest between both the employers and the employee who are interacting in an imperfect labor market (Ross & Bamber, 2009). This theory perceives the organization is seen as comprising of both the powerful and divergent sub groups and each of the groups having their own legitimate loyalties, leaders and set of objectives. The organization therefore has to manage tension as well as the competing claims so as to maintain a collaborative structure within the organization. In respect to this perspective conflict is seen as acceptable as well as inevitable due to the existence of various interest groups. Also conflict is limited to some level due to the interdependence of the involved parties for economic survival (Storey & Sisson 2000, pp. 30). The management and the union apply interactive mechanisms so as to settle any disputes that are likely to occur. It respect to the settlement of disputes negotiation as well as collective bargaining are seen as been among the major mechanisms that can assist in the settlement of disputes. The employers have a great recognition of the trade unions as been part of the labor scene. The trade unions are acquainted to the role of the management team within the enterprise and the management team does not place restrictions on issues being bargained and negotiated for (Gennard & Judge 2005). Trade unions are renowned as organizations that are capable of communicating the needs of the workers to the management and the aims of the management team to the workers. This perspective takes note of the fact that an organization is in a dynamic state of tension which is brought about by competing interest of the two major players that is the management and the trade unions. So as to manage conflict that may occur institution as well as processes must be put in place so as to assist in the management of conflict. Based on the interdependence nature of the parties involved destructive conflict ought to be avoided. Relevance of the pluralist theory to the study of employee relations The theory has some relevance to the study of employee relations. One of it relevance is that it recognizes the relationship that exists between activities and decisions that are made across the different levels of the employment relation system (Delaney & Godard 2001, pp. 400). In respect to this a decision that is made by the strategic managers for examples to incorporate new technologically improved capital equipment in the organization, this decision will certainly have consequences to the collective bargaining over the future training in the organization and the manning levels, there will also be a severe consequence on the conduct of workplace relations in the manning kevels in the organization are to be changed or if the jobs are reorganized. The theory also acknowledges the impact that strategic decision will have on various different actors in the system. For example, if the government makes certain strategies changes to the macroeconomic policy may have a great impact on the company’s long term investment strategy and mostly in instance where the change will have an impact on the bank interest rates. In instances when the interest rates increase, they will diminish the urgent need to maintain the existing manning levels, thus there will be certain consequences to the company’s employment strategies, hr policies, collective bargaining, nature as well as conduct of employment relations in the organization in future (Delaney & Godard 2001, pp. 400). The unitary approach According to Gennard & Judge (2007, pp.55), the unitary approach views a corporation as a unified group of people with a common loyalty framework and common objectives/ purposes. Thus, the unitary approach views employees as integrated members of one team; which is the organization (Gennard & Judge 2007, pp.55). The fundamental elements of the unitary approach include the following: First and foremost, there is only one centre of power in the corporation, which is the management (Ross & Bamber 2009, pp. 26). This means that there is no room for opposition leaders in the company. Secondly, the organization’s management has the mandate of facilitating employee loyalty and commitment (Storey & Sisson 2000, pp. 4). Thirdly, corporations are viewed to be comprised of teams with common organizational goals (Ross & Bamber 2009, pp.24). Thus, the unitary approach regards conflicts of interest between workers and managers to be nonexistent since employees and managers are members of the same team with common objectives. The fourth element of the unitary approach is strong leadership from the management (Gennard & Judge 2005, pp.45). According to the unitary approach, demonstration of good leadership by the management is necessary for the attainment of the organization’s goals (Gennard & Judge 2005, pp.45). Fifth, trade unions are perceived to be illegal interferences to management goals (Gennard & Judge 2005, pp.46). According to Dzimbiri 2008 (pp.2), the unitary approach views trade unions as unnecessary parties in an organization’s conflict management. Sixth, the unitary approach views conflicts in a corporation negatively. This is because conflicts affect team work and in turn, this leads to non attainment of the respective organization’s goals (Curseu et al 2009, pp.20-21). Lastly, under this approach, the State is self-directed and it defines the industrial relations systems (Gennard & Judge 2005, pp.48). The main advantage of this approach is that it seeks to incorporate workers interests to those of the management so as to promote workers’ loyalty (Gennard & Judge 2005, pp.52). Thus, under this approach, employees are considered to be important stakeholders in a company and therefore their well being is paramount (Storey & Sisson 2000, pp. 6). Another advantage is that the unitary approach advocates for strong leadership in the organization. This approach stresses on the role of managers in making desirable decisions for both the organization as well as the employees (Gennard & Judge 2005, pp.54). Under this approach, managers are compelled to go beyond their typical managerial styles and demonstrate their leadership capabilities (Ross & Bamber 2009, pp.25). Indeed, if managers can demonstrate good leadership skills, the demand for trade unions can be done away with (Storey & Sisson 2000, pp. 7). In addition to the above advantages, this approach views all stakeholders as rational members who are committed to finding similar interests. This belief facilitates a stable rationale for addressing common objectives so that a steady employee relations system can be attained (Gennard & Judge 2005, pp.57). This system has its disadvantages too, for example, it does not reflect on the reality that there is a power disparity between workers and mangers and/or employers which is always bound to be a source of conflict in an organization (Kessler & Purcell 2003, pp.315). In reality, many are times when managers make use of their power to determine the work environment of employees. Employees on the other hand tend to agree with the decisions made by the management, unlike what this approach suggests (Gennard & Judge 2005, pp.58). Moreover, this approach treats conflicts too negatively. This approach fails to recognize that there are different kinds of conflicts and not all are conflicts are bad (Bacon & Blyton 2007, pp.817). Indeed, some types of conflicts can be advantageous to a company. A good example of such is task conflicts. Task conflicts occur when members of the same team/work group differ on how duties are to be delegated amongst them or how the tasks are to be tackled (Bacon & Blyton 2007, pp.818). According to Simon & Peterson (2000, pp.35), this type of conflict can promote positive results of a workgroup. In addition to the above disadvantages, this approach does not clearly stipulate how employees’ sentiments can be effectively incorporated into a corporation’s objectives. This is mainly because the approach is too normative and it does not describe how similar interests can be recognized (Gennard & Judge 2005, pp.67). According to Gennard & Judge (2005, pp.67), this approach only assume that employees and the management are thoughtful enough to make a rational conclusion of how both parties interests are to be combined (Ross & Bamber 2009, pp.28). Relevance of the theory to the study of employee relations This approach is not as relevant today as it was in the 19th century (Gennard & Judge 2005, pp.67). This is mostly because many organizations in the contemporary society have a decentralized form of management, unlike what the unitary theory suggests. Moreover, this theory advocates trade unions to be done away with. This may not be possible because trade unions are an integral part of the contemporary society. In addition to this, the unitary approach does not accommodate non conforming individuals and thus positive criticism is barred.4 Radical perspective This view is commonly seen as a by-product of a theory of social change and capitalist society. Marx was of the opinion that contradiction and weakness that were inherent in capitalist system would lead to a revolution as well as to an ascendency of communalism over capitalism. This view of employee relations deals with aspects related to the nature of a capitalist society, in which there are fundamental division of interest between both labor (employee) and capital (employer). This approach views relationships within the organization against this background. The two classes in most instances struggle so as to merge their positions so that they have a greater power over each other in the bargaining process (Marcy & Goldstein, 2009). The proponents of this perspective are of the view that can be able to survive longer without the labor that is provided by the employee than the employees can survive without a job. In this perspective the relationship within the organization are marked by augmented conflict of interest in that there is class conflict. There is also imbalance of power since the owner has a high authority thus there is a reflection of exploitative relationship within the organization. In organization where this theory is applied there is an inevitable, constant as well as irreconcilable conflict of interests. Though the disputes may try to be solved the underlying conflict tends to prevail in anticipation of a change in society structure. In most instance social unrest are used so as to break the status quo in the organization and employee relations in this perspective do not alter the organizations status quo. The unions mainly act as the collaborators and they assist a lot in the maintenance of the status quo, in relation to this workplace democracy proves to be impossible since the workers do not have full control of the means of production. The compensation paid to the employees is seen as an outcome of the power struggle between the employees and the employer. Relevance of the radical approach The Radical approach is still relevant in the contemporary society to some extent. This approach acknowledges that conflicts occur, although presently there is petite balance between structured employment and capital, particularly in this age of globalization (Blyton 2004, pp.17). While there is a significant disparity in power amongst various groups in the community as well as in the workplace, the group which possesses more power seldom has to use it (Marcy & Goldstein 2009, pp.82). This is due to the fact that disproportionate power usually converts itself into a legitimate authority in the minds of those it looks to manage (Clark & Clements 1978, pp.112). Therefore, employees usually come to the conclusion that there is no substitute to the way “their world is” (Braham & Janes 2005, pp.35). Thus, the way “their world is” becomes justifiable to the employees and they tend to conform to the orders of those with the greater power (Blyton 2004, pp.18). The radical approach differs with the pluralist approach on the belief that joint bargaining levels the playing ground between the management of an organization and trade unions (Clark & Clements 1978, pp.113). The Radical approach recognizes the importance of trade unions and it explicitly supports the trade union efforts but at the same time agrees that trade unions conventionally dispute the existing arrangement of society merely at the “margins” (Marcy & Goldstein 2009, pp.84). Even when an agreement is arrived at, the management still issues instructions and employees are still forced to oblige. Otherwise the management, if critically challenged can deploy their maximum power resources and this can wipe out at once the false impression of power equilibrium (Blyton 2004, pp.20). Nonetheless, the radical approach of employment relations views capitalism as a way in which the society is currently arranged rather than a natural phenomenon (Clark & Clements 1978, pp.116). However, many opponents of the radical approach claim that it is only good on paper but not in practice (Braham & Janes 2005, pp.39). Conclusion Based on the discussion above, the three perspectives play a major role and have a great relevance to the employee relations. The employee relations theories offers a means of explaining of what is occurring as well as providing a means by which organizations can predict their future. A combination of the three theories can work best since each of them will solve the drawbacks of the other for the full benefit of the organization. References Bacon, N. & Blyton, P., 2007, Conflict for Mutual Gains. Journal of Management Studies 44, (5) pp.814-834. Blyton, P., 2004. Dynamics of Employee Relations (Management, Work and Organizations). Palgrave Macmillan publishers. Braham, P. & Janes, L., 2005. Social Differences and Divisions (Sociology and Society). Wiley Blackwell publishers. Clark, T. & Clements, L., 1978, Trade Unions under Capitalism (Marxist Theory and Contemporary Capitalism). Humanities Press publishers. Delaney, J. & Godard. J., 2001. “An Industrial Relations Perspective on the High- Performance Paradigm.” Human Resource Management Review 11 (4) 395-429. Gennard, J. & Judge, G., 2005, Employee Relations. Chartered Inst of Pers/Develop publishers. Kessler, I. & Purcell, J., 2003, Individualism and Collectivism in Industrial Relations. Industrial relations: Theory and Practice. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Marcy, S. & Goldstein, F., 2009, High Tech Low Pay: A Marxist Analysis of the Changing Character of the Working Class. New York; World View Forum publishers. Ross, P. & Bamber, G.J., 2009, Strategic Choices in Pluralist and Unitarist Employment Relations Regimes: A Study of Australian Telecommunications. Industrial & Labor Relations Review 63, (1) 24-41. Storey, J. & Sisson, K., 2000, Human Resource Management: Still Marching On or Marching Out? The Realities of Human Resource Management: Managing the Employment Relationship. Buckingham: Open University Press: 3-32. Read More