The Difference between Unitarist and Pluralist Views of the Employment Relationship - Essay Example

Introduction Over years, it has been established that in a situation where a happy and harmonious working place is created, employees are always ready to work towards fulfilling the company objectives. This is because the employees’ work seems to be fulfilling and everyone is motivated. Employment Relationship management is very critical in realizing company objectives. Different views by different scholars and management professionals have been proposed as foundation for employment relationship management approaches. The commonly used views are the unitarist and pluralist. Bray et al (2011) suggests that employment relationship is particularly important in situations where employers seem to benefit at the expense of the employees. However, many of the views concur at a point that employment relationship is aimed at reaching a common ground where both the employee and the employer benefit as the company seeks to prosper. In this case bargaining is expected to play a major role to reconcile different economic differences that exist in social hierarchies (Guest 1987, pp. 43). The objective of this essay is to discuss the differences that exist between the unitarist and pluralist approaches to employment relationships and how helpful the understanding of the views is of importance to management in the contemporary society. The unitarist model sees organisational employees as psychological beings who have more social that need to be satisfied rather than economic beings whose employment relationship is based on economical and financial rewards (Budd and Bhave 2010, pp. 57). In this kind of employment relationship, the rational decision making process is discouraged while social elements such as fairness and social pressure as well as cognitive limitations are given due consideration. This approach has particularly extensive reference on the theory of Maslow which greatly emphasized the need to show love, create self esteem and actualization after providing the psychological and security needs of the employees according to Brewster (2007, pp. 761). This unitarist view is characterized by the long-term partnership relationship that exists between the employee and the employer under common interests (Muller 1999, pp. 125). As mentioned earlier, this approach is much more than extrinsic money rewards where consumerism is supported. This view assumes that both the employer and the employee share some unity based on common interests. In this case, therefore, conflict is not seen as a permanent characteristic of an employment relationship but rather as an indicator of inadequate human resource management policies and procedures. Many of the scholars such as Muller 1999, Hayton 2005 and Brewster 2007 argue that that unitarist view provides an appropriate and most accurate description of the employment relationships in organisations. According to the pluralist view, the employees are seen as complex agents who present both economic and psychological challenges to the employer. This is because they have some specific rights that have to be met and are entitled to speak on their rights and areas where they think the employer is undermining their rights (Chuang et al 2004, pp. 26). Further, unlike the pluralist view, the unitarist view maintains that in any employment relationship, the employer and the employee interests meet at a point (Cooper 2011, pp. 112. Many of the organisations are profit oriented and therefore they are always looking for productive workers. However, according to the pluralist view, conflicts are inherent in any working relationship as there are several employee interests that have to be taken care of which include: working safety and speed, flexibility, security, wages and profits (Hodgkinson et al 2009, pp. 297). Nature of the market: Unlike the unitarist view, (which assumes the imperfectly competitive market) the pluralist view holds that imperfect labor market is a must. According to the unitarist view, the employers are known to have a variety of options to maximize on their profits including managing employees’ needs. However, for this argument to be valid, the assumption that both the employer and the employees share a common ground in their interests must hold (Guest 1987, pp. 46). On the other hand, the pluralist view is based on the existence of the imperfect labor market and it maintains that bargaining should always be used where divergent needs and interests between the employers and the employees exist. Interests: In the unitarist view, both the employer and the employee have common interests which make them work as long-term partners. However, with the case of the pluralist view, at workplace, different groups with different interests exist. This means that as the organization seeks to realize its objectives it must take into account the interests different stakeholders have and the ways to meet them. The pluralist view is seen to have a more stable solution to avoiding conflicts that may arise at workplace as a result of mistrust and poor working relations (John and Devasheesh 2010, pp. 57). Further, unitarist employment relationship is perceived by many of the scholars such as Richter Dawson and West as an approach to establishing a long-term partnership relationship between the employer and the employees on the existing common interests. However, with the case of pluralist view, Interests presented by different stakeholders are always competing and the only way a common ground can be reached is through bargaining (Cooper 2011, pp. 112). However, it is important to note in the case of the pluralist view, there is the influence of the state laws and market structure on the bargaining process Hayton 2005, pp. 21). Trust and loyalty: In the unitarist view, the employment relationship can be said to be built on trust and loyalty where the employer is always expected to do what is best for him and his workers. The unitarist view to employment relationship is characterised by the fact that the company goals and objectives move hand-in-hand with the process of working towards creating a fulfilling work where fair treatment and employee satisfaction and other intrinsic needs are top of the priority list according to Kathy and John (2001, pp. 157). This way, the employees will always be convinced that the employers respects their desires and is having the will to develop their livelihood as he seeks to move the business towards reaching its objectives. On the contrary, the pluralist is characterized by egoism where different stakeholders tend to have different interests. In this case therefore, it means that various concerns such as balancing of equity and efficiency as well as voice through the government laws or labor union laws. the government laws are used to provide the guideline for negotiations under the pluralist context. Existence of conflicts: while in the unitarist view, conflicts are seen as an outcome of poor human resource management practices, the pluralist view maintains that conflicts in employment relationship is a result of existing conflicts among different groups. Conflicts in the unitarist view are attributed to a human resource managerial context where employees’ contribution to the overall organisational performance is not recognized and appreciated by the employer. However, with the right management policies and polices it is possible to address different interests and create an environment where all benefit and thus no need to continuous try to work on employee rights (Budd and Bhave 2010, pp. 46). However, with the pluralist view, the interests are different and therefore applying economic incentives and existing market structures is considered very important in allocating available scarce resources to meet the available egoist interests (Budd and Bhave 2010, 58) Bargaining and power: The pluralist view is that, since conflicts in employment relationship exist, they should be managed through bargaining and power. This is to ensure that at least there are some economic gains of some sort in the employment relationship (Fleetwood and Hesketh 2008, pp. 243). Actually, it’s through the process of bargaining that the role of trade unions comes into play in employment relationship. The work of the trade unions is to present employee concerns in the bargaining process (Cooper 2011, pp. 112). However, many scholars and management professionals are of the view that the pluralist approach neglects the role of individuals strengthening the industrial relations and the different situations where workplace struggles occurs. With this regard therefore, pluralist approach as opposed to the unitarist view, is seen as a flawed process since it assumes that there are those groups that posses more powers than others without completely investigating into the ways in which powers and authorities are acquired (Budd and Bhave 2010, 58). Under the unitarist view, the issue of power and authority is left unto the human resource management that has the responsibility to enact policies and procedures that promote good understanding and management of both the employer and the workers’ interests. The human resource management plays the overall role of managing employment relationships in an organization (Benson 1996, pp. 45). Unitarist and pluralist views in the contemporary society Employee participation: Employee participation in the contemporary management is seen as an important approach towards making decisions that have the support of the majority of the members. The unitarist view recognizes that employee participation in deciding on important matters that affect them and the company in general, helps in empowering them to carry out their duties as a team (Richter et al 2011, pp. 750). Further, employee participation allows for creativity, innovation and enhancement of quality in service delivery by different groups (Fleetwood and Hesketh 2008, pp. 237). On the other hand, the pluralist view to employee participation is that all members should participate through industrial relations where specialist teams and members will have to advise to the management on important managerial matters (Budd and Bhave 2010, pp. 46). The specialists advise on issues such as staffing and other management issues that can be handled by the union bargaining and consultation process. The pluralist view in this case is more preferable in that it’s not always easy to have members participate in the decision making process. Pluralist view is important in decision making especially on those issues that are and affect majority of the workers. Using a view specialists in the decision making process simplifies the process by addressing only those issues that are critical for the majority of the employees by Kathy and John (2001, pp. 157). Commitment: Employee commitment in a working environment is to do with the level of determination of the employees to work towards completing their tasks as expected of them (Guest 1987, pp. 46). Employee commitment can also be associated to the extent to which the employees and employers are ready to remain bound by the relationships that exist between them (Chuang et al 2004, pp. 27).The unitarist view on commitment is that all groups involved in the employment relationship are expected to take their responsibilities more seriously in order to work towards mutual understanding and common goals (Fleetwood and Hesketh 2008, pp. 243). Commitment from the pluralism view is that every group interests have to be respected and taken care of. The view supports the need to embrace the bargaining process where the employer and the employees agree on responsibilities of each without infringing on the rights of the other. The two approaches in the contemporary society are of great significance since they demonstrate how different parties in the employment relationship will be work towards supporting each other (Benson, 1996, pp. 45). Both views are important with regard to commitment in an employment relationship. This is because they explain the concept from two different perspectives. The unitarist view maintains that the employer and the employee have the role to play in ensuring a more stable relationship while the pluralist view maintains that the agreed terms of the bargaining progress have to be respected and upheld by each party (Richter et al 2011, pp. 49). What this means is that the preference of any particular view depends on the context in which it is to be applied as argued by Chuang et al (2004, pp. 28). Reward systems: Rewarding is becoming increasingly important in the contemporary management. This is because many of the employees are very cautious of what they get in terms of pay by contributing to the overall performance of the organisation and if it’s truly a reflection of their effort to the business (Sheehan and Sparrow 2012, pp. 393). The unitarist view for instance argues that rewarding of employees should be used to foster loyalty and employee commitment (Budd and Bhave 2010, pp. 58). Rewards may not only be in monetary terms, they can take different forms such as promotions, opportunities for training and even assigning new roles which are more challenging (Hodgkinson, et al 2009, pp. 277). Even though the unitarist view supports that rewarding could enhance loyalty and commitment among the employees, it adds that alone is not satisfactorily (Richter et al 2011, pp. 49). It should be supported by other programs such as transparency, accountability and honesty which are perceived as key in any management context. Creating a conducive and fair working environment also add to ensuring employee commitment and loyalty. In this case, the pluralist view is more preferable as it looks at employee commitment from a wider perspective. In general, the unitarist view is more preferable in designing the reward systems within an organization as it points out that rewarding could mean much more than money (Budd and Bhave 2010, pp. 48). Conclusion Employment relationship at workplace is seen as a very important strategy in dealing with interests that exist among various groups and more especially between the employer and the employees. Different views among them unitarist and pluralist have been developed to explain the concept of employment relationship. In brief, the two views agree that the role of management is to promote organisational performance by making sure that they make adequate management policies. However, the two views give two different approaches to management of people at workplace. While the unitarist view holds that both the employer and the employees have common interests which ensure a balanced employment relationship where both the organisation and the employees benefit, the pluralist view argues that in an organisational setting, a variety of interests exist and therefore bargaining and power are very critical to managing conflicts. In general terms, in the contemporary management, the two views are increasingly becoming very important in ensuring good industrial relations at workplace. References Ackers P 2002, 'Reframing employment relations: the case for neo-pluralism', Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 2-19. Bray M, Waring P and Cooper R 2011, 'Employment Relations: Theory and Practice -2 edition', McGraw-Hill Australia Pty Ltd, Sydney, Australia. Benson, J. 1996, ‘Management strategy and labour flexibility in Japanese manufacturing enterprises’, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 6, No.2, pp.45-57. Brewster, C 2007 ‘Comparative HRM: European Views and Perspectives’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 769–787. Budd JW and Bhave D 2010, Human Resource Management: The employment relationship, SAGE Publications Ltd, London, pp. 57-58. Chuang Y-T, Church R and Zikic J 2004 “Organisational culture, group diversity and intra- group conflict”, Team Performance Management 10, 1, 26-34 Cooper R 2011 'Employment Relations: Theory and Practice -2 edition', McGraw-Hill Australia Pty Ltd, Sydney, Australia. Fleetwood, S. & Hesketh, AJ 2008, Theorising Under-theorisation in Research on the HRM – Performance Link, Personnel Review, Vol. 37, Vol. 2, pp. 237-319. Guest D 1987 'Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations'. Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 503-521. Hayton, J 2005 ‘Promoting Corporate Entrepreneurship Through Human Resource Management Practices: A Review of Empirical Research’, Human Resource Management Review, 15, 21–41. Hodgkinson, G., Sadler-Smith, E., Burke, L., Claxton, G & Sparrow, PR 2009, Intuiton in organisations: Implications for strategic management.  Long Range Planning.  Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 277-297 Kathy M. & John M. 2001, Designing and aligning an HR system, Human Resource Management, Vol. 11, No.2, pp. 57–72. Muller M 1999 'Unitarism, Pluralism and Human Resource Management in Germany', Management International Review, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 125-144. Richter, AW, Dawson, J F & West, MA 2011, The effectiveness of organisational teams: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Human Resource Management. Vol. 22, No.14, pp. 749-769. Sheehan, M and Sparrow, PR 2012, Global human resource management and economic change: a multiple level of analysis research agenda. International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 23 No. 12, pp. 393-403. Read More