Modern Education Management - Thesis Example

Education Management Name: Course instructor: Course: Institution: Date: Education Management Introduction The primary objective of modern businesses is to optimize production while maximizing profits. To this end, businesses invest more time and resources in sourcing; recruiting and retaining a quality work force that helps them meet strategic goals and objectives (Bach & Sisson, 2000 p.45). Employment relationships are broadly categorized into two groups, namely; managerial relations and market relations. Managerial relations involve the role of management in deployment of an organizations workforce in accordance with the laid down policies and procedures, while market relations involves the economic aspects that influence recruitment of labor, and the terms and conditions that human resource managers employ in the process. The paper seeks to provide an analysis of conflicts that arise in employment relationships in higher education institutions and how the management attempts to stay in control despite major relationship conflicts and interest disparities. At the advent of trade union movements, employees had little say in regard to the terms and conditions under which they were engaged. This necessitated the emergence of trade unions whose objective was to empower employees. Trade Unions are essentially the umbrella bodies that enable employees to collude with others for a stronger bargaining position. The primary objective of trade union movements was to economically empower and protect employees against unfavorable employment terms and conditions. The use of employment contracts is a significant phenomenon in modern organizations as well. Contracts are however regarded to be instruments of imposing undesirable conditions on employees, particularly in consideration of the fact that employers retain the final authority to determine terms and conditions of employment. Work relationship challenges are largely attributed to the disparity in power and interest between employers and employees (Jerome, 2004 p.77-78). Terms and conditions of employment that are instituted by organizations are largely superficial, as employees often do not have the ability to institute legal action in the event of management misconduct. Contracts often simply provide a framework of responsibility, such as the requirement of employers to create work and pay wages, while employees are required to meet performance targets, be honest, have integrity, and maintain confidentiality of work related issues. Three perspectives have been advanced to explain aspects of employment relationships. They include; unittarism, Pluralism and Marxism (Zagelmeyer, 2004 p.121). The objective of this paper is to employ these three perspectives in analyzing the challenges of human resource management in research –intensive higher education institutions. Unitarism Unitarism is a system of management that is based on the assumption that conflict in the workplace involving managers and employees is not inevitable. The relationship between the two is essentially cooperative, even though conflict could arise but on rare occasions. Unitarists hold that the organization is the single source of influence and authority, and other alternatives such as trade unions and shop stewards should be eliminated from the organization (Dorpalen, 1995 p.64). Managers and employees are perceived to have similar interests and have equal commitment to the organizations goals and objectives, to the extend that cases of conflict may not necessarily compromise or disrupt the normal working of the organizations functions. Cases of conflict are attributed to improper recruitment, personality disorders, deviance, and ineffective communication. In order to prevent relation conflicts from disrupting normal functioning of the organizations processes, the management team must pay keen attention on eliminating potential sources of conflict. The management is hence obliged to undertake recruitment processes that are fair, equitable and in consideration of the organizations interests (Lumby, 2003 p.11). It must as well develop an effective communication framework which ensures that employees are duly informed of their true rights and interests. Individuals who are prone interpersonal conflicts and those who do not cooperate are either dismissed or suppressed. Values and assumptions held by unitarists have are significantly reflected in other theoretical and practical schools of thought. Tayslors (1974 p.81) scientific management theory for instance, holds that human resource managers must make their choices in consideration of the assumption that employees are practically immature in work related issues, are inclined to avoid working, and have aspirations that are limited and self centered. This is deemed by management to be in conflict with the organizations goals and objectives, and deliberate and rigid measures should be put in place to prevent any external manifestation of these traits. The management is therefore obliged to exemplify rational leadership in recruitment and control of employees, and to make a comprehensive assessment of the tasks and roles they expect employees to undertake. Organizations that wish to employ this form of management style should consider reducing the scope of work employees are expected to do to the very basic elements, and this is to minimize the challenge of finding suitably skilled people to undertake the tasks. The management is expected to handle all workplace issues, thereby treating all employees equally, collectively and impersonally. This organizational framework is tailored to have the management retain ultimate authority and knowledge in regard to the organizational structure and work processes. The second theory that is based on unitary assumptions is the human relations theory. Conflict in the workplace is in this perspective essentially minimized by employee’s inherent need to find self-fulfillment from work. Workers are considered to have ability to think and be creative in the workplace, and if they are denied the opportunity to do so, then they will inevitably come up with ways to get around the control measures put in place to suppress their abilities. The obligation of management from this perspective is to develop workplace relations that enhance employee’s ability to find personal fulfillment in their work. The third theory that borrows heavily on Unitarists assumptions is the human resource management theory. From this point of view, it is believed that workplace tension and conflict can easily be eliminated by the management developing workplace culture and environment where employees feel obliged to cooperate because of the psychological contract they have for their work and organization. In this case, the decisions managers make in management of relations are influenced by the assumption that forces that unite employees and managers are stronger than those that divide them. It is hence the obligation of management to identify and develop aspects of work that enhance unity of purpose and cooperation. To this end, social classes in the workplace must be discouraged, while enhancing communication channels among various stakeholders to promote a collective approach to achievement of the organizations objectives. Pluralism Pluralists advanced their argument based on the assumption that workplace conflict is to be expected in any organization. Pluralists are of the view that employee relations are bound to be strained by the very nature of a business organization, which is an intricate social construct formed by an amalgamation of various interest groups. Employees and management are a constitution of such groups which in this perspective are considered to exemplify different objectives and values. With this kind of organizational framework, it is apparent that there will be multiple centers of authority in an organization, and conflict is abound to arise due to differences in the structure and allocation of responsibilities, as well as disparities in rewards and remuneration. The pluralist perspective recognizes that workplace conflict is inevitable, and therefore conflict of interest is regarded as a necessary ingredient in developing a healthier organization as it reveals grievances and concerns that workers have. The argument also points out that potential for conflict provides an impetus for managers to be innovative in developing better solutions to employee concerns and grievances. Management is also in such a case able to efficiently institutionalize employment regulations that minimize workplace conflict. This also encourages better workplace relationships as employees are enabled to organize themselves and counter-balance the authority of management when negotiating contracts (Freeman, Richard and Daniel, 2009 p.101). The systems theory that is based on pluralist assumptions holds that work is essentially governed by both formal rules and regulations that cover issues involving recruitment, performance, wages, working hours, holidays and other employment details. Trade unions are hence accepted by pluralists as legitimate organizations for employees to collectively bargain for better terms of employment. The research carried out in the six research intensive universities refers to the pluralist perspective that management need to recognize the significance of financial incentives. In all the six universities, financial incentives were given to universities, individual researchers and schools as an incentive for pursuit of more research. Marxism Following the decline of communism and the breaking up of the Soviet Union, reference to Marxist ideology may as well be conceived to be redundant. The significance of Marxism in workplace conflict analysis is however attributed to the fact that the assumptions on which the perspective is based serve as a necessary critic to unitarism and pluralism. Carl Marx’s argument was that there was an apparent class conflict in capitalist societies that was attributed to unequal distribution of wealth and disparities in possession of means of production. Marx’s observation was that property and wealth were owned by a small class of people (bourgeoisie), while the majority of workers (proletariat) remained poor and had only their labor to sell (Dorpalen, 1995 p.54). According to Marx, societies that had this form of social, economic and political dispensation developed systems of governance that legitimized capitalist dominance while coercing the lower class of workers into accepting the status quo. His observation was that capitalism and class based systems could not stop the workers from recognizing their impoverishment, and consequently organizing themselves to fight back. Management of employment relations in academic institutions In order to expound on the challenge of managing employment relations in academic institutions, this paper will refer to a research done to investigate research management in six universities from Canada, the U.S., the United Kingdom, and Australia. The research revealed that an attempt to manage research presented a lot of contradictions and difficulties in the six universities. A good number of interviewees emphasized that no attempts had been made to manage research. A senior officer who was interviewed from the University in U.S. was categorical that the institution does not, and cannot manage research. This view was insinuated by the interviewees from the universities in Canada and Australia. But with further interrogation, it became apparent that research was actually managed in all the universities. What emerged from the research was that there was an apparent confusion between academic freedom and research management. Of more significance is that all the interviewees rejected an over-managerial approach to research that would defeat the objective of academic freedom and research initiative. A common trend that was observed in all the universities is that by virtue of the significance of research in these institutions, research initiatives pervaded all management aspects. What emerged is that all the interviews indicated that it was impossible not to manage research, but of more significance was the style of management that was employed. It had to be supporting, mentoring and supporting, but not controlling and directing (Countouris, 2007 p.6). Of paramount significance to research universities is the quality of researchers they employ. All the six universities placed significant emphasis on objective development of the human resource function. Policies of recruitment in these universities were very selective, with more emphasis on research potential and achievement. Some of the universities required researchers to attain international recognition before their appointments could be confirmed, a requirement that made some researchers to quit their jobs before the management made the final decision. Appointments to senior positions were through informal headhunting, rather than advertising which was deemed to be ineffective. Interviewees in the six universities indeed confirmed that appointments to senior positions would take even months to find suitable candidates. The universities would more often than not opt to recruit teams to undertake some projects, instead of an individual researcher. Despite recruitment challenges, the universities had staff development programs that provided training in research functions such as project management, writing research proposals, post graduate supervision, and research publishing. Mentoring schemes were also effectively employed, where junior researchers were linked with experienced professionals. To enhance the researchers imitative and commitment to more research, most of the universities had clear reward schemes that recognized individual research output on annual basis. It is important to recognize that in reference to the pluralist perspective, the employment contracts awarded to staff in the universities had immense consideration of the employee’s needs and interests. For instance, none of the universities gave contracts that had specific hours of working or the time that they should commit to research work. Researchers were expected to put in hours of work that was sufficient in achievement of desired results. In response, researchers felt obliged to demonstrate individual commitment to their projects, and apparently, it was indicated that most researchers put in longer hours tan was expected. Managing the unmanageable The objective of this section is to provide an evaluation of the challenges faced by research intensive universities in leadership, human resource management and resource allocation. Based on the evaluation of the three perspectives, it is accurate to conclude that management of employment relations in academic institutions can seem like attempting to manage the unmanageable. In this section of this paper, an analysis of the challenge of managing employment relations in research-intensive universities is presented. The significance of the research that is undertaken in universities and institutions of higher education is increasingly recognized by diverse stakeholders, including governments, businesses, non-governmental organizations and industries. This is attributed to the significant role that education plays in generation and dissemination of new ideas and concepts, and the contribution it has made in economic development of many countries. Nonetheless, higher education institutions and especially research intensive universities are facing a drastically changing environment that presents significant challenges especially in funding, increased emphasis on high quality standards, and the inevitable effects of the radical technological innovation, globalization and marketisation (Njoya, 2007 p.22). The difficulties observed in management of employment relations in research intensive academic institutions are largely attributed to the nature of research itself. Research is largely a personal activity that relies on the imagination and ideas of individual researchers or groups of researchers. Researchers as expected want to own their research, as it is single most significant determinant of their career progression and the role they play in the welfare of society at large. Effective research is largely dependent on the ability and opportunity to work in an environment that enhances freedom of thought and action. Successful research can therefore not be undertaken in an environment that has stringent management systems and control. Research can however not be undertaken away from academic institutions despite the fact that they are subject to external and internal checks and balances. Financial aspects are particularly critical in research. There are funding and quality aspects that require a comprehensive consideration of priorities to ensure resources are optimally expended. There are also numerous ethical and legal considerations that must be factored before research projects are undertaken. In consideration of the financial and legal implications of research, it is apparent that research is essentially a risky undertaking that must not just be understood, but well managed (Sivarethinamohma, 2008 p.61) According to Smith and Langston (2009 p.99), the concept of centralized research where research activities are managed by academic institutions has received immense concern from many critics. Despite the fact that research projects must be planned and priorities set to influence effective and efficient deployment of resources, such measures can substantially compromise an institutions research profile. The research environment is highly competitive, which requires that the best opportunities are taken on time, or otherwise this will negatively impact on overall research initiative. Nonetheless, this is a dilemma that can only be resolved by employing a pluralist kind of perspective. Pluralists agree that management and employee relations are bound to be in conflict and this is inevitable. The best alternative for management in such academic institutions is to attempt to achieve a win-win result for both parties, and this is to identify and facilitate funding for priority projects, while retaining sufficient funding for new and better projects. Conclusion It is important to recognize from the pluralist perspective that the managers and employees of research intensive universities have different objectives and values. In this case researchers have the right to demand freedom for ownership of their projects, but management has the obligation to ensure there is optimal distribution of resources to maximize on the potential and opportunities available to the institutions. But this is based on the assumption that management is able to recognize research projects that are more significant in comparison with the rest. Research is in actual reality a path into an unknown destination, it is about discovering knew knowledge by venturing into unknown paths. Ultimately, it may not be very precise to conclude that attempting to manage employment relations in search institutions is in actual reality “trying to manage the unmanageable”. Institutions cannot claim ownership of research projects undertaken by researchers, and yet the conditions in the institutions ultimately affect research initiative and productivity. With the understanding that research must managed to some extend in the interest of all stakeholders, the obligation of management should then be to effectively manage research projects as a sure path in maintaining an environment that supports and enables research to thrive. Bibliography Bach, S, and Sisson, K 2000, eds (3rd ed) Personnel Management in Britain. Blackwell: Oxford Beardwel I 1996, Contemporary industrial relations: a critical analysis, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Bennett, M. J 2007, Basic concepts of intercultural communication: selected readings Intercultural Press. Bush, T. & Middlewood, D 2005, Leading and managing people in education, SAGE, London. Bubb S. & Earley P 2007, Leading & Managing Continuing Professional Development: Developing People, Developing Schools, SAGE, London. Braveman, H 1974, Labour and Monopoly Capital, Monthly Reviw Press, New York Clancy, N and Seifert, R 2000, Fairness at Work? Institute of Employment Rights Countouris N, 2007, The changing law of the employment relationship: comparative analyses in the European context, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. New York. Coyle-Shapiro, J. A-M 2005, The Employment Relationship: Examining Psychological and Contextual Perspectives, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Da Costa N. C. A 2003, Science and partial truth: a unitary approach to models and scientific reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Department for Education and Employment, 2000, performance Management in Schools Dorpalen, A 1995, German history in Marxist perspective: the East German approach, Wayne State University Press, Wayne. Flösser, G. & Uwe Otto H 1998, Towards more democracy in social services: models and culture of welfare, Walter de Gruyter. Freeman, Richard B. & Goroff, D L 2009, Science and Engineering Careers in the United States: An Analysis of Markets and Employment, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Grady, S 2000, Drama and diversity: a pluralistic perspective for educational. Heinemann Publishing Company, New York. Gill, W., Ironside, M. & Seifert, R 2002, “The consequences for the management of conflict of the reforms of the Local government finance and structure” Critical Perspectives on Auditing. Ironside, M. & Seifert, R 2000, Facing up to Thatcherism, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Jerome J 2004, Industrial relations: towards a theory of negotiated connectedness, SAGE Publishers, NY. Lumby J. et al. 2003, Managing human resources in South African schools. Commonwealth Secretariat, Mc Graw Hill, Melbourne. Njoya W 2007, Property in work: the employment relationship in the Anglo-American firm, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. New York. Sivarethinamohma, 2008, Industrial Relations And Labour Welfare: Text And Cases. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd Smith, A. Langston, A 2009, Managing staff in early years settings, Routledge, New Jersey. Stone, R 2005, Human Resource Management, 5th edition, John Wiley and Sons, QLD Australia. p 412-414. Tomlinson H 1997, Managing continuing professional development in schools, SAGE, London Verma, A. & Lansbury R. D 2005, Employment relations in the growing Asian economies, Routledge, New York Verma A. & Lansbury R. D, 1995, Employment relations in the growing Asian economies, New York : Routledge. Wood, J, Wallace, J, Zeffane, R, Champan, J, Fromholtz, M, Morrison V 2004, Organisational Behaviour: A global perspective, 3rd edition, John Wiley and Sons, QLD, Australia. p 355-357. Wraga W. G. et al. 2000, Research Review for School Leaders, Routledge, London. Zagelmeyer, S 2004, Governance structures and the employment relationship: determinants of employer demand for collective bargaining in Britain, Peter Lang, London. Read More