Unitary, Pluralist and Radical Approaches in LIPC Integration Plant Plc - Case Study Example

Unitary, Pluralist and Radical Approaches in LIPC Integration Plant Plc.

• Introduction

Performance based payment has emerged as an important strategy among the organisations all over the world. As per the views of Gillam, Siriwardena and Steel (2012), the contribution of the system in enhancing the performance level of employees explains its implementation. Apart from the fact that it improves the salary structure of workers, the system is popular among the employers because it has the capability of improving the overall financial performance of the companies. Since the system is beneficial and CIPD (Chartered Institute of Personnel Development) advised LIPC Integration Plant Plc. to use it, therefore the organisation has introduced it. However, the strategy was criticised and appraised by different departments of the company, which clearly reflects the unitary, pluralist and radical views. The chief aim of the paper will be to discuss the same.

• Identification of commonalities and differences among departments

The implementation of performance related pay structure in LIPC Integration Plant Plc. highlighted disparity and commonalities in views of the departments. For instance, Poole (2013) stated that the fabrication department’s reaction to the pay system clearly highlights the unitary approach. According to Dundon and Dobbins (2015), the unitary perspective of industrial relations shows that, there is a harmonious relation between the staff members and management, which is absent in the cases of pluralist and radical approaches. The employees have similar objectives like the organisation and both of them share a common purpose. An analysis of the reactions of fabrication department, highlights that the performance based pay structure was welcomed by it. The regulations regarding the reward system, acted as a motivating factor for the workers and their performance was positively affected. The workers of LIPC Integration Plant Plc. increased their level of dedication towards the organisation. Kaufman (2014) stated that, the rise in employees’ interest is evident from their demands of conducting frequent training sessions. This in turn improved the relation between management and the employee groups working under the fabrication department. According to Poole (2013), one of the chief characteristic features of unitary approach is the presence of better relationship between the employers and workers unlike pluralist and radical perspectives. This feature was visible in case of fabrication department of LIPC Integration Plant Plc. From the employer’s perspective, the staffing policies and reward system are meant to encourage workers. In case of fabrication department Vogel (2013), argued that the workers were highly encouraged by the performance based pay system and thereby, worked with full dedication. Therefore, from the discussion, it is evident that there was commonality between the manager and workforce working under the fabrication department of LIPC Integration Plant Plc.

According to Ackers (2014), pluralist approach in industrial relations highlights the difference in opinion between the management and the employee groups, which is absent in unitary perspectives. In LIPC Integration Plant Plc.; Thursfield and Kellie (2013), pointed out that the pluralist perspective was visible in case of design department. The reason cited by the department against the performance based pay structure was that their work was based on creativity. Therefore, their demand from the management was that they should be rewarded on their degree of creativity and talent instead of their performance. Moreover, Vogel (2013) stated that the department wanted their creative ideas to be their intellectual property instead of LIPC Integration Plant Plc. This was quite unacceptable among the management and the outcome was occurrence of constant conflict between the two groups- employers as well as employees (Kaufman, 2014). Ackers (2014), stated that the difference in interests is common in a pluralist organisation, where there is conflict in profit distribution and this aspect is rare in the case of unitary approach. Van Buren III and Greenwood (2011), stated that in case of design department, the management wanted to reap the profits from workers’ creativity whereas the employees demanded intellectual property rights over their design. This information also demonstrates the pluralist perspective in the design department. Burchill, et al. (2013), stated that another characteristic feature of such an approach is that management tries to persuade the workers for coordination, which is hardly witnessed in radical approach. This kind of a feature was present in the design department, which is evident from the management’s decision of negotiation. The management decided on rewarding the staff members as consultants instead of full-time employees. Thus, from the decisions taken by the management of LIPC Integration Plant Plc., it is evident that in order to solve the issues, the management applied harmonious steps. This reflects the pluralist approach of the organisation for the design department.

According to Vogel (2013), the radical approach is based on the Marxist perspective where industrial relations are constantly under stress and conflicts are common. This feature is absent in unitary approach but initially present in pluralist perspective. However, the disagreement between the management and the employees are invisible. As per the views of Burchill, et al. (2013), in the case of radical approach, both the groups of employer and employee bargain for a better position and decision. This further aggravates the conflict. Dundon and Dobbins (2015), argued that the same scenario was noticed in the assembly department of LIPC Integration Plant Plc., where the performance based pay structure was unacceptable to the workers. The reason was that the workforce under assembly department compared their incentives with that of the fabrication department.

The assembly department considers their work as monotonous and repetitive. Consequently; Kaufman (2014), argued that the employees of the department demand for frequent breaks, in order to refresh themselves. However, the dismissal of the proposal by the management, invited further conflicts. The revision of the pay structure and reward system as demanded by the workers was unacceptable to the management. Instead of avoiding the proposal, the management threatened the assembly department to relocate them in India and Vietnam, which are low cost nations. Vogel (2013) pointed out that, this in turn invited the unfavourable behaviour of the workers, which is a chief characteristic feature of radical approach. The discussion clearly demonstrates that there were hardly any commonalities between the opinion of workforce and management.

• Recommendations in relation to each of the departments

After considering the opinion of different departments on performance based pay, it is better to recommend ideas, which will contribute to the smooth functioning of LIPC Integration Plant Plc. The organisation needs to apply varied reward system for each of the departments. For instance, in case of design department, the incentive system requires to be based on creativity. This kind of a transformation in reward system will work in the favour of both departments. The management will benefit from such a step because it will be able to negotiate with the workers on intellectual property rights based on creative ideas. The rewards based on creativity, will motivate the workforce to stay satisfied with the incentive system. This will further end the conflicts between management and design department; thereby, transforming the approach to a unitary one.

In case of fabrication department, the performance based pay structure was acceptable to the employees. The motivation and satisfaction level was already high in the department. However, in order to enhance it and encourage the workers, the management needs to conduct frequent training sessions. This will improve the performance of the labourers operating in the fabrication department and the overall financial profits of LIPC Integration Plant Plc. will increase.

In case of assembly department, the approach requires transformation into a unitary one instead of radical in order to stop the conflicts. The workload of the department is quite high and the monotonous operations reduce the interest of the workers. Therefore, the management needs to provide frequent coffee breaks to the department in order to encourage them. This is beneficial for both the management and the department, because it will satisfy the employees and they will not raise their voices against the performance-based pay scales. The management will ultimately share a harmonious relation with the workers and convert the approach into a unitary one. From the department’s perspective, the allocation of short breaks will reduce their workload and help them to contribute to the organisation’s welfare. Therefore, it is evident from the discussion that unitary approach is the best one for the wellbeing of companies, because it enhances the profit level of it and motivates the employees by building better relation.

• Conclusion

Performance based pay is only favourable in an corporation where unitary approach is present. This is evident from the reaction of fabrication department that welcomed the changes. The unitary approach was present in fabrication department and this in turn encouraged the workers to demand for frequent training sessions. Since the relation between the management and the department was harmonious; hence, the prior agreed to the persuasion of the latter.

On the contrary, the practice of pluralist approach in the design department is evident from the conflict between management and workers regarding creativity based pay structure. In order to deal with the matter and prevent employee turnover, the management ultimately listened to the opinion of the workers. This means that in pluralist approach, the conflict finally is solved and in the case of LIPC Integration Plant Plc., the same was noticed. However, the unending conflict between assembly department and management clearly demonstrates the radical approach followed by the prior.

• Reference list

Ackers, P., 2014. Rethinking the employment relationship: a neo-pluralist critique of British industrial relations orthodoxy. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(18), pp.2608-2625.

Burchill, S., Linklater, A., Devetak, R., Donnelly, J., Nardin, T., Paterson, M., Reus-Smit, C. and True, J., 2013. Theories of international relations. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Dundon, T. and Dobbins, T., 2015. Militant partnership: a radical pluralist analysis of workforce dialectics. Work, Employment & Society, 29(6), pp.912-931.

Gillam, S.J., Siriwardena, A.N. and Steel, N., 2012. Pay-for-performance in the United Kingdom: impact of the quality and outcomes framework—a systematic review. The Annals of Family Medicine, 10(5), pp.461-468.

Kaufman, B.E., 2014. History of the British industrial relations field reconsidered: getting from the Webbs to the new employment relations paradigm. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 52(1), pp.1-31.

Poole, M., 2013. Industrial relations: origins and patterns of national diversity (Vol. 4). London: Routledge.

Thursfield, D. and Kellie, J., 2013. Unitary practice or pluralist empowerment? The paradoxical case of management development in UK trade unions. Personnel Review, 42(4), pp.488-504.

Van Buren III, H.J. and Greenwood, M., 2011. Bringing stakeholder theory to industrial relations. Employee relations, 33(1), pp.5-21.

Vogel, L., 2013. Marxism and the oppression of women: Toward a unitary theory. Leiden: Brill.