Understanding workplace changeWorkplace change can be unexpected and can occur in many different forms. The long-term employee leaving the organization or institution can be such one example that can be used to demonstrate the existence of workplace change. In other occasions the core-workers can leave the company for unknown reasons. These tendencies are likely to trigger serious reactions that might have a serious impact on employees at workplace environment. When the employees leave any particular organization without any clear reason, every person is affected and hurt emotionally. Similar feelings are expressed when the co-worker dies (John 1999).
In an ideal situation, workplace change can be very constructive or destructive depending on the nature and need for the change itself. Shock, anxiety and persistent animosity are some of the negative changes workplace change can trigger. On the other hand, constructive change at workplace is associated with high employee satisfaction, commitment and performance (Spoehr and Ray 1996). Based on these two scenarios then it’s very important to determine what kind of change an organization should advocate for and it’s positive and negative impacts on employee loyalty and hard work.
awareness of what is expect from a person and the rest of the team members, helps the organization from the initial stages to identify the measures that can be taken to counter any negative reactions and implications that result from sudden organizational adjustments. The primary objective of this essay is to present a detailed review of the pluralism and neo-liberalism concepts in bringing about workplace change. The specific case involving Australia will be used to evaluate the role of the policy reform in causing neo-liberalism at workplace (Briggs 2004).
The essay will also take a closure look on the factors that trigger neo-liberalism in terms of economic, political and social environments. This paper will also discuss the role of the state, management and employee participation in facilitating smooth transition into bringing change at workplace. Pluralism is the most common form of orientation to realizing workplace change. Important considerations which include employment relationships and the process of evaluating the industrial relationship (IR) practice all of which must be applied in bringing change to workplace.
Taking a pluralist position at workplace, helps qualify two important legitimate issues which include employee and employer interests. Even though these two factors need to be taken into consideration, there is always a possibility that a conflict will occur (Bacon et al 2008). Lack of enough space for expressing and accepting that a conflict exists which needs to be solved is very common in many organizations. Pluralism orientation at workplace does fully take into consideration the balance of power between the employee and the employer. This forces many of the workers to be dependent of their employers to get into their positions of interest at workplace.
To fit into the situation of the employer, the employees are always subjected into a situation where they have to abide by the policy of the employer to survive. However in pluralism, the employees have the right to engage in industrial relations through trade unions which allow them to acquire power to counter some of the unfair pressures that may be exerted on them by the employer. Pluralism concept is a conviction by the organization employees in taking a collective responsibility towards crating an employee union that can champion their bargaining powers.
The trade unions are also very essential in moving the employee interests forward and at the same time serve the general public to some level. Different features of IR such as neo-liberalism, Marxism and feminism. IR has persisted all over the world as a step towards establishing how different employees feel when they are at their workplace. IR research is the genesis of pluralism in many organizations (Barley and Kunda 2004) and (Green 2006). This is because research has been a key tool in evaluating unethical and oppressive systems of employee management.
A good example of this scenario is Britain. Sisson (1993), established that the employers’ associations in Britain were not taking into consideration the employee plight. There was a public outcry that many of the employers failed to respect different stakeholders’ interests and thus they were more interested in realizing short-term interests. In general, the concept of pluralism has been advocating for the establishment of a policy that encourages collective bargaining as tool towards defeating oppressive regime of the employers’ workplace policy.