Perspectives to Industrial Relations - Coursework Example

Perspectives to Industrial Relations Name: Institution: Professor: Course: Date: Perspectives to Industrial Relations In industrial relations, there are a wide range of perspectives that operate within the realm of employer-employee interactions. One thing in common for all these perspectives is that they function at the level of the meta-theory. This is crucial when observed at the lower level of industrial relations. There is undeniable theorization of the labour relationship factors which is inadequately established. This may pay relevance to the fact that industrial relations are significantly interdisciplinary. The implication here is that there is no precise status as a field and no defined conceptual framework in which grounds can be based. This description will focus on the two main perspectives in industrial relations (Unitarism and pluralism), as well as explaining the difficulty and cooperation at the workplace from these perspectives (Drori, John & Hokyu, 2006). Unitarism Perspective Research indicates that unitarist approach takes an upper hand in major organizations that are reasonable in the business environment today. The perspective asserts that all individuals or employees within a corporation have a similar purpose and thus, committed to accomplishing the same purpose (Jepperson, 2001). Taken from this viewpoint, it is inevitable that the perspective excludes the possibility of workplace crisis in any form. In addition, it overrules the possibility of systematic recognition of the conflicts. It is implied that the interrelationship between managers and other employees is recognized in the form of partnership, between the source of resources, control and the employees. Due to the fact that the perspective has continuously ruled out conflicts at the workplace, most of the critics have been directed to this kind of assertion. The main argument put across by unitarists in relation to conflicts is that there should never be a conflict being integral to a firm. According to them, the existence of conflicts in an organization signals the breakdown of the entire system in terms of communication and its operations (Drori, John & Hokyu, 2006). This however does not mean that the system is faulty. Nevertheless, they recognize that any form of conflict may only emerge from the following factors: a) There might be inappropriate management by the managers b) Communication breakdown may as well conflicts c) Interests may differ and as a result, the groups fail to reach a consensus d) Resistance from employees At the beginning of the 1980s, a new perspective came in. This relates to the unitarist perspective and therefore, the name neo-unitarist philosophy. This turned its attention to the larger scale of the marketplace instead of looking at the workplace relationship. As such, organization is inclined to success in the market place, while paying close attention to reduction of the gap between customer satisfaction and appreciation. This has resulted in high levels of quality in terms of products and services offered to clients (Mohr & Francesca, 2007). The most important concept in the neo-unitarism is the emphasis given to the relevance of the HRM in an organization. According to this perspective, it is presumed that any organizational transformations should be accomplished through the establishment of full expertise from employees. Most imperative to this view is the growth and sustenance of the company’s values that are focused to develop all people to their optimal potential. This secures full and fervent commitment to the goals of the firm. As such, the neo-unitarist perspective lays emphasis on the training of people, offering them career development schemes, chances for promotion as well as incentives in relation to their individual performance. It is noted that this viewpoint counters that conventional union theory of collective bargaining. On the contrary, this perspective tried to stipulate frameworks within which employees should operate on a group basis. On the other hand, the neo-unitary theory works towards unifying personnel activity imperative in any organization (Mohr & Francesca, 2007). For the well being of the corporation, it is vital to consider issues such as recruitment, selection, induction, career development, training as well as motivation. All these factors contribute towards making the unitary and neo-unitary theories the most significant concepts in the contemporary organizational sphere. Pluralism Perspective According to this view, a company or corporation is seen as comprising of formidable and different sub-groups. These groups may include the management and the trade unions. In this view, there is a constant conflict of interest and crisis between employers and employees. It is normal for them to conflict especially in the event of profit distribution and general incentives. As a result, the management of the organizations will focus on enforcement, control and persuasion as well as coordination of employees to perform within a workplace (Meyer & Richard, 2008). On the other hand, trade unions are taken to be legal representatives of employees to meet their interests. As a result, most conflicts within the organization are handled through collective bargaining, as opposed to the view of unitarism (Greif, 2006). According to pluralism, collective bargaining is not a bad thing since it can be managed well to bring about progress and positive transformation. Basing on this assertion, the pluralists argue that reasonable employers should embrace conflicts whenever they occur within a workplace. The most important thing is that out of conflict, there is a lot of propensity, as opposed to harmony. The best way to solve this is laying down agreed processes for conflict resolution. This, however, should not be confused with the Marxist theory that inclines itself on conflict and rebellion (Meyer & Brian, 2007). Conflicts in the pluralism perspective are resolved peacefully since this is the best way forward to reach a consensus whenever there is a conflict of interests. In as much as managers are identified as the key holders of the balance of power, pluralism asserts that organizations and procedures of institutional relationship should look for solutions emanating from this power. This is only attainable through working out an acceptable compromise to all parties involved in the conflict. As a result, conflict resolution is the central function that collective bargaining and trade unions do. In this case, pluralism allows each party within the stakeholders’ paradigm to sustain their opinions, as the common point worked out by managers keeps a balance for the conflicting interests (Hoffman, 1999). The key role of management for both parties is to maintain peace and harmony, while giving room for compromises and agreement to be reached between the two conflicting groups. Depending on the manner in which the conflict is resolved, pluralism can either be hard or soft. In hard pluralism, the conflict is resolved through collective bargaining. However, soft pluralism perspective takes on a more diplomatic approach that utilizes consultation to reach a workable consensus. As much as unitarism focuses on the HRM, pluralism takes concepts from the neo-institutionalism. It has in fact been argued that neo-institutionalism is an extension of the pluralist rationale. This is all about the way of making rules in the employment relationships. As explained earlier, pluralism focuses on stability and interests of group relationships, as opposed to the outcome or employment relations. However, the neo-institutional perspective is all about the employment relations through the establishment of the rules that comprise a relationship. In the event of forming these rules, considerations are put on their formality or informality, in which case each has its way of establishment and enactment (Greif, 2006). Within the neo-institutional view, the employment relationship is known to be inclined in the core of social capitalist theory. It is therefore imperative to understand boundaries that shape the wider environment of the workplace. Pluralism and neo-institutional theories coincide at the moment employees’ terms of the contract are renewed over time. This requires that new terms are negotiated to meet the interests of both the employee and employers. In most cases, the management changes its interest on what is to be offered and how delivery should be done. This may lead to eventual acceptance from the employees or they may as well withhold their services to the organization (Dobbin & John, 2003). A conflict usually emanates at this level and therefore, trade unions come in to help solve the conflict. Employees usually decide to ask for more payment during the process of withholding their services or totally disagree with the terms of production. For the ongoing contract to be successful, it is imperative that the two parties continue to agree on the currently operating terms. According to the neo-institutional perspective, the current employee behavior has a link to the past ongoing characteristics. As a result, understanding the past circumstances is crucial in solving the current problem for the two parties. It can be argued that the two theorists (pluralism and neo-institutionalism) basically try to unravel the real world. They link the current situations in an organization to the past and ongoing behavior. Conclusion Industrial relationship is a key concept that has hit most contemporary headlines as well as research. This is basically concerned with the interaction between employers and employees at the workplace. There is always a baseline upon which each group has to operate. As a result, the analysis has looked at two major perspectives that try to shape the field of industrial relations. Focus has been on the unitarism and pluralism theories and how they perceive conflicts at the work place. Evident is the fact that unitarism does not believe in existence of conflicts at the workplace. The human recourse management is the most imperative concept according to the unitary perspective and this should focus on empowering employees. On the other hand, it has been noted that pluralism recognizes conflicts at the place of work but is inclined on the manner in which such conflicting interests are resolved. Concepts covered at this level are collective bargaining and diplomacy. Pluralism as seen coincides with neo-institutionalism in laying emphasis on renewal of contracts for employees, which leads to major conflicts in organizations. References: Dobbin, Frank, & John R. Sutton. (2003). “The strength of a weak state: The employment rights revolution and the rise of human resources management divisions,” American Journal of Sociology 104:441-76. Drori, Gili S., John W. Meyer, & Hokyu Hwang, eds. (2006). Globalization and Organization: World Society and Organizational Change. New York: Oxford University Press. Greif, Avner. (2006). Institutions and the Path to the Modern Economy. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hoffman, Andrew J. (1999). “Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the US chemical industry," Academy of Management Journal, 42(4): 351-371. Jepperson, Ronald L. (2001). “Institutions, institutional effects, and institutionalization.” Pp. 143- 63 in the New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio, eds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Meyer, John W. & Brian Rowan. (2007). “Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony,” American Journal of Sociology 83:340-63. Meyer, John W., & Richard Scott. (2008). Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Mohr, John & Francesca Guerra-Pearson. (2007). “The Differentiation of Institutional Space: Organizational Forms in the New York Social Welfare Sector, 1888-1917.” In How Institutions Change, Walter W. Powell and Daniel L. Jones, eds. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Read More