Understanding Workplace Change - Essay Example

Running Header: Understanding Workplace Change Student’s Name: Instructor’s Name: Institution: Course Code: Date of Submission: Understanding workplace change Workplace 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. Even though pluralism system of change has been a very common practice in understanding workplace change, there has been several criticisms and challenges about the practice as part of the IR. The challenge of pluralism has been founded on three main theories which include: feminism, Marxism and neo-liberalism (Hyslop and Mare 2005). Each theory has been very fundamental in challenging the core believes of pluralism in IR. This particularly has been directed towards the employment relationships that exist between the employer and the employee at workplace. The concept of neo-liberalism has formed a very strong challenge on pluralism. The neo-liberal right has constituted a small deal in criticizing the pluralism orthodox by major scholars who have based their arguments on specific themes that are found in today’s public policy on workplace change in different countries more especially Australia, the unite states, the united kingdom , new Zealand and many other global countries (Australian Council of Trade Unions 2005). Many of the scholars are of the view that the normative orientation is just a reflection of the Marxism theory whereby employers privileges are taken it consideration before those of the employees. Even though neo-liberalism proponents support that that can be true, it is not complete and does cover the whole case of workplace change. According to some of the neo-liberalists, employees have got legitimate interests that will always fight for. This means that inefficiencies can easily lead to compromising the quality of service delivered to the customer. In other words, if the legitimate interests of the employees are not taken into consideration, it’s the final consumer who will suffer (Hirsch and Macpherson 2003). Based on this concept of neo-liberalism, it can therefore be argued that competition and control are the major forces that can be used to keep the employer on toes. It is also believed that such institutions that prohibit competition and at the same control the management hierarchies are viewed cause a lot of suspicion and hostility. The interference of different states into issues that regard employee unions and regulation of wages and salaries are some of the institutions that have been pointed out as a source of problems at workplace. Many of the scholars view these institutions that pretend as solution providers as major source of worries at workplace. This is because these institutions introduce certain workplace policies with specific vested interests. Hirschman (1991), has identified several neo-liberalism arguments against pluralism in industrial relationships. The first challenge of neo-colonialism against pluralism is the magnitude of social problems that are caused by such interferences by the pluralists (Hodgkinson and Perera 2004). This concern is perhaps the ant-pluralists believe that the unions cannot manage to address issues that have already demonstrated imbalance in the areas of employment relationships whereby most employees are depended on one single employer e.g. the state. The other challenge that has been labeled against pluralism is the capacity to manage and control the market trends for a relatively longer period of time. Perhaps this is because it is not to harmonize the informal and the formal sectors. Australia provides a good example of workplace change. In Australia, workplace reforms have been on existence in nearly two decades. Australia for many years, has had a centralized conciliatory and arbitration system. Based on the depression which occurred in the 1890s in the country, many disputes have emerged at workplace more especially between the owners of capital and the owners of labor. It was the view of the state legislators that the establishment of the conciliatory and arbitration system will offer the best platform to solve such conflicts that existed between the employees and the employers. According to Sharpe (1971) `the introduction of the conciliatory system had led to faster establishment of trade unions in the country an later on the introduction of the centralized systems and legal procedures that could be used to the appropriate employee wages and working conditions (Wilkinson et al 2009). By the end of 1920s more than half of the employees in Australia were represented by unions and many tribunals both at state and federal level were introduced to determine the Australian wage rates including the basic wage. This means that basic wages were determined by tribunals. The basic wages were adjusted quarterly particularly to make sure that the wages were paid were in line with adjustments in the retail prices of goods (Dabscheck 2006) After ascending into power in 1983, the Australian Labor Party was faced with major challenge of moderating wage rates and rampant employee strikes. This is a decade that followed a major world recession which had heightened tension between the employees and their respective employers. The neoliberal legislatives and other administrative workplace adjustments had started taking shape in the late 1980s. In enhancing understanding and bringing about change at workplace through appropriate adjustments, the employer or rather the management team has to lead from front. This is perhaps of their role in motivating the rest of the workforce into getting to understand the need for change and the ways in which change is likely to benefit the different stakeholders to the process (Peetz 2002). Employee and institutional wellbeing is the expected to be achieved to major intervention of the employer and the management team. It is a collaborative responsibility of the different teams to identify the best practices that can be used to establish a health and conducive working environment for the workers through openness and acceptance of individual expressions and concerns. For example based on the case of a large Hospital in Sweden, workplace change was well understood through quality work, adequate support in terms of resources by the management team and the concern on the individual wellbeing (Cooper and May 2005). Occupational stress at workplace helps to understand the need for workplace change and the process for executing workplace change. More often than note a great percentage of those workers who feel stressed at workplace blame their bosses and their employers for their problems. The Michigan Manufacturer of auto parts plant and unionized company applies the action research methodology to manage stress at workplace (Perry 2006). The management is charged with the responsibility of creating a collaborative process of expressing concerns through learning and participating in important matters that affect their workplace and their wellbeing. Workplace change can also be anchored in the company’s goal. The case of the Volkswagen AG (VW) has been identified as the best practice for workplace change. According to (VW), creating a safe working environment and protection of corporate objectives has been considered as a platform for understanding change at workplace. Proper mechanisms for ensuring good governance and promotion of good workplace change plans at VW are depended on the creation of environment where different key stakeholders including workers, management and unions helps transition from one workplace condition into the other without much rebellion and tension between the employees and the employers (Stewart 2006). This policy has helped the VW to embrace different changes at workplace which include organizational structure and job design, sexual harassment and discrimination as well as ergonomic job design. Employee participation is important in bringing about workplace change. It is the responsibility of the workers to make sure that there grievances are heard and attended to by the respective authorities. Based on the case of Australia whereby the majority of the employees are represented by their trade unions, it is always important for the workers to join those organizations that can present their complaints to the employers (Perry and Wilson 2000). Change in workplace in many occasions is occasioned by the interest of the employers to achieve certain objectives. According to many scholars, workplace change is not intended at benefiting the employee but the employer. Stress, animosity, tension and hatred are some of the likely reactions, the employees are likely to exhibit incase they feel they are left out in an important process that affects personal life and that of their work. It is always prudent for the workers the importance of becoming members of recognized workers unions. This is because their concerns and issues that affect them at workplace can be channeled to their employers and respective companies. In general, understanding workplace change is very important process. This is because it helps both the employer and the employees to overcome any stress, tension and animosity that may arise as a result of change. Workplace change involves a number of stakeholders who include the workers, the employers, the worker union and the government. Better consideration of all the stakeholders’ interests requires that proper policies and procedures are applied. Pluralism concept is considered by many scholars as the normative orientation to workplace change. This is because of its responsibility in creating an environment where the majority concerns are taken into account. However, there numerous workplace theories and concepts that have been put forward as a criticism for the normative orientation. The theories that have been developed to challenge pluralism at workplace include: feminism, Marxism and neo-liberalism. In the case of Australia, workplace change and neo-liberalism has been on existence for very many years. Real workplace reforms in the country have been on existence in nearly two decades. Australia for many years, has had a centralized conciliatory and arbitration system. In general terms, even though pluralism has been widely discussed and criticized by many, it is still very important to note that it still applies as many of the institutions that are formed with the primary objective of solving workplace problems do so for specific interests. References Australian Council of Trade Unions 2005, In defence of the umpire: An information paper on the role of the AIRC in setting minimum wages—Chronological history of federal wage setting arrangements 1904–2004 [Online], Available: http://www.actu.asn.au/public/news/files/factsheet0303_pmletter.doc [2006, Dec 16]. Bacon, N., Blyton, P. and Fiorito, J. 2008, The SAGE Handbook of Industrial Relations, SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 12-21. Briggs, C. 2004, ‘The return of the lockout in Australia: A profile of lockouts since the decentralisation of bargaining’, Australian Bulletin of Labour, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 101– 112. Cooper, R. & May, R. 2005, Union revitalisation in Australia and New Zealand, 1995–2005, New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 1–17. Dabscheck, B. 2006, ‘Work Choices: A critical analysis’, Economic and Labour Relations Review, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 1–264. Hodgkinson, A. & Perera, N. 2004, ‘Strike activity under enterprise bargaining: Economics or politics’, Australian Journal of Labour Economics, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 437–455. Hirsch, B.T. & Macpherson, D.A. 2003, ‘Union membership and coverage database from the current population survey: Note’, Industrial and Labour Relations Review, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 349–354. Hyslop, D.R. & Mare, D.C. 2005, ‘Understanding New Zealand’s changing income Distribution, 1983–1998: A semi-parametric analysis’, Economica, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 460–495. John, K, 1999, Beyond the Contract State: Policies for Social and Economic Renewal in South Australia. Adelaide: Wakefield Press. Peetz, D. 2002, ‘Sympathy for the devil? Attitudes to Australian unions’, Australian Journal of Political Science, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 57–80. Perry, L.J. 2006, ‘Labour market reforms and lockouts in New Zealand’, Australian Bulletin of Labour, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 401–420. Perry, L.J. & Wilson, P. J. 2000, ‘The Accord and strikes: An international perspective’, Australian Journal of Labour Economics, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 232–247. Spoehr, J and Ray B, 1996, Altered States: The Regional Impact of Free Market Policies in the Australian States. Adelaide: Centre for Labour Studies & the Social Justice Research Foundation. Stewart, A. 2006, ‘Work Choices in overview: Big bang or slow burn’, Economic and Labour Relations Review, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 25–60. Wilkinson, A, Bailey, J, and Mourell. M. 2009, ‘Editors’ introduction: Australian industrial relations in transition’, Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 40, 5, pp. 358-371. Read More