Mapping Management Styles in Industrial Relations by John Purcell - Assignment Example

Part A Question 2 In the article, “Mapping management styles in industrial relations”, John Purcell illustrates two main dimensions of management styles namely, individualism and collectivism. Purcell illustrates that individualism as a management style entails the extent to which the management gives attention to the views and feelings of its employees with the aim of developing, encouraging and enhancing the capacity of its employees in their work performance. In companies whereby the individualistic style of management is practiced, employees are regarded as the most important resource of the company thus the management of the company accentuates on nurturing and developing the talent or skills of each employee. Most companies that practice the individualistic style of management are characterized by broad welfare provisions, high pay and promotion ladders among many other factors. Moreover, such companies put their paramount efforts in employee recruitments, training, safety, development and pay. On the other hand, Purcell illustrates collectivism as a management style that entails the recognition of the management in regards to the rights of its employees to express their views to the management on matters that affects them. Companies that exercise collectivism as a style of management recognize the voice of trade unions or other employee unions in determining matters revolving around employee work conditions and pay through collective bargaining. Purcell (1987, pp. 533-548). In his article, Purcell further introduces an interconnection between the individualism and collectivism dimensions of management style. Survey conducted in various firms established that interconnection between the two dimensions of management necessitates a combination of union recognition and commitment towards employee development with the aim of actualizing business policies that promote the competitive advantage of a company. Peter Boxall in the article, “Human resource strategy and competitive advantage in the service sector” identifies three industries in the United States that their competitive advantage is greatly affected by the Human resource strategy. The clothing manufacturing industries is among the industries identified by Boxall. According to the sentiment echoed by Boxall in this article it evident that the collectivism management style is the mostly likely to be used in the clothing manufacturing industry. It has been proved that in this industry factors revolving around employment models and work systems have proved to enhance the performance of employees. Unlike other industries which are characterized by rigorous employee recruitments, training systems, better and inclusive employee incentives such as career promotion and employee bonuses, the clothing manufacturing industry is different Purcell (1987, pp. 533-548). In this industry, employee productivity is largely based on a mix of practices revolving around systemic interactions. For instance, a constant investment on human resource practices has over thee years proved to enhance the agility of employee performance. It has been established that the main contingency in the clothing manufacturing industry is competitive strategy. As a result most employers aim at complementing high investment on physical capital with that of human capital so as to increase productivity. Boxall further notes in his article, that Human resource practices can only be effective when it competitive advantage is sustained through organizational processes and capital. This view further accentuates on Purcell’s theory on interconnection between the individualism and collectivism dimensions of management style. Humana resource practices and operational strategies are geared towards opportunity, motivation and employee performance. As a result of these practices, employee potential is increased thus improving the performance of the company Boxall (2003, p 5-20). Part B Question 4 There are several stable features that determine the bargaining process in any given system. Generally, the bargaining structure consists of five main features namely, the bargaining form, the bargaining agent, the bargaining scope, the bargaining unit and the bargaining level. The bargaining agent overly refers to the workers unions that are recognized by acknowledged by the employer for collective bargaining. The bargaining form is in regards to whether the bargaining agreements are written or unwritten, formal or informal. Unwritten or informal agreement can also be regarded as practice and custom. Despite the fact that substantial efforts have been directed towards formalizing and writing agreements particularly in regards to the terms and conditions, most bargaining agreements are often informal and unwritten(Waring et al 2008). The bargaining level can regarded as a point within a particular system where the process of bargaining takes place between employers, unions and the involved representatives. For instance, in a particular company the process of bargaining may occur in one or more than one level. In this case bargaining may occur at the cooperate level, the divisional level covering all the employees in the company or a certain category of employees. The process of bargaining may also occur at the factory level either covering all the employees in the factory or a particular category of employees. Generally, this can be referred to as single-employer bargaining. In the private sector the process of bargaining occurs at the industrial level this is regarded as multi employer bargaining since it involves trade union confederations and Employer’s Associations. This sought of bargaining is mostly carried out through bodies named as Joint Industrial Councils, National Joint Committees or National Joint Industrial Councils. The work conditions and wages of employees in the private sector are largely determined by more than one level of bargaining that is single-employer bargaining and multi-employer bargaining. However, in the public sector especially in large public enterprises the bargaining process occurs at the national level thus this form of bargaining is single-employer bargaining (Waring et al 2008). The bargaining scope revolves around the wide range of issues in which the bargaining process occurs. Traditionally in most companies the bargaining scope is often restricted to issues regarding working terms and conditions and, in other instances, the bargaining scope covers work intensity and the organization. In some jurisdictions, extensive strategic issues can as well be covered within the bargaining scope. The bargaining unit is the unit or category of employees who a covered by a certain agreement. For instance, in a particular bargaining level, in a certain company there can be different categories of employees such as white collar or craft workers who are covered by different bargaining agreements (Waring et al 2008). Collective bargaining in Company A Company A is hairdressing salon with two hairdressing outlets. The company has five full time employees, three part time employees and two casual employees. The workforce is non-unionised. Given the fact that there are various categories of employees, those that are employed full time, part time and casual, the bargaining agreements are bound to be different. The workforce of company A is non unionized thus bargaining will occur between individual or small groups of employees, their representatives and the management at the low level. Bargaining at this level is likely to be informal and agreements are bound to be unwritten. The bargaining agents in this case are the employees in the company. The scope of bargaining in company A is likely to revolve around working terms and conditions. Bargaining in this case is autonomous and fragmented and is likely to cause problems since there is no framework of influencing or monitoring agreements. In addition problems are likely to arise since the bargaining agents have no specified or formal authority to enter into any agreement. Collective bargaining in Company B Company B is a regionally based bank that has employed 140 employees comprising of 20 branch managers, 90 branch customer service officers (tellers), 10 information technology support staff, 10 “head office” financial advisers, and 10 “head office” department managers. The customer service officers are unionised. The scope of bargaining in Company B is between one trade union with regards to the various categories of workers in the company and a single employer. It may involve the company bargaining and the plant bargaining. The scope of collective bargaining in this case can be termed as single employer bargaining since it involves one trade union and a single employer. The bargaining agent in this case is the union representing the 90 branch customer service officers. The bargaining form is most like to be formal with the agreements conveyed in a written form. The scope of bargaining may not only revolve around working terms and conditions but also organizational strategies. Collective bargaining in Company C Company C is a large national supermarket chain consisting of 40,000 employees of which 28,000 are supermarket outlet staff, 4,000 are supermarket outlet department managers, and 8,000 are clerical, warehouse, information technology and transport staff. The company has a national head office, five State or regional offices and 250 retail supermarket outlets. The supermarket outlet staff and the transport employees are unionised. The bargaining agent in this case is the union representing the supermarket outlet staff and the transport employees. The bargaining form is most like to be formal with the agreements conveyed in a written form. The scope of bargaining may not only revolve around working terms and conditions but also organizational strategies. The bargaining process in this case occurs at the national level thus this form of bargaining is single-employer bargaining. Bargaining at the industrial and national level takes place between groups of employers united in trade unions or employers' association. Part C Question 6 Report for the Proposed Workplace Change: Automatic Check-in Machines Quality Airways Ltd, an Australian-based airline which serves both the domestic and international passenger air travel markets is a airline that is dedicated to not only provide quality service but also to take care of the needs of its most important asset, its employees. The airline as found the needs to introduce a new check-in system of technology for use by its domestic flight passengers. The system comprises of automatic check-in machines that make it easier for passengers to use the new technology to carry out self service. This will ensure that future passengers will conduct their own check-in procedure by selecting their preferred seats, and also in printing their own boarding passes before proceeding to the check-in counter. Effect The new technology will ensure that check-in counters are converted into ‘bag drop’ facilities only, a move that will speed up the boarding time for the passengers hence saving a lot of time. In addition, efficiency will be increased within the airline making the airline more preferable in the competitive industry. Some passengers may also feel more comfortable and assured if they are able to conduct the procedures themselves as their needs are taken care of to their own specifications at the time of boarding. In addition, congestion will be reduced, an aspect that should make more passengers prefer travelling with us. This will also reduce workload and work related stress to the personnel in charge of the check-in and boarding stations. Regulations In accordance with the employment conditions and remunerations level implemented y the Quality Airways Ltd Collective Bargaining Agreement of 2009, the airline trusts that a considerable improvement in the efficiency of its operations will be achieved by the implementation of the new technology. To be specific, safety accuracy and speed will be assured using the new technology’s processes and procedures. Despite the possibility of eventual key changes in the composition, size of workforce and operational detail, the new technology will not bring about negative disruption in offering its services to its current and future customers. In the event the new technological enforcement results in significant negative effect to the exiting employees job opportunities within the industry be it, reduction of work hours, work opportunity or the need for additional training or reallocation of employees to new or other stations, the airline pledges to consult the union concerning an appropriate implementation process that will be in the advantage of exiting employees. The airline has however consulted with its planning department for an utmost favorable plan of implementation for the new check-in system. How it Works In reliance with the collective Bargaining Agreement, check-in counter staff is categorized under ‘level 3’ employees. Due to the nature of their less demanding tasks s a result of the introduction of the new technology, the management at Quality Airways believe it is a appropriate move to re-categorize the check-in counter staff into ‘level 2’ employees after the full implementation of the new system instead of getting rid of them. Under statutory jurisdiction of the company’s policies, level 2 workers receive a yearly compensation of between $7500 and $5000 a year in salary. This can be translated to $150 to $100 a week which is less than what level 3 employees receive. There is a notable correlation between level 2 and level three employees in terms of knowledge and duties performed. The job description for level 2 workers entails acquisition of knowledge in prescribing routine asks from experience gained by observation instructions and familiarization of tasks within the job. Problem solving skills required under the job description require the officer to complete tasks with adequate information provided which lead to giving solutions to an assortment of problems that may arise. The officer is also accountable for training tasks and that lead to role outcomes and also ensuring that work is well done and supervised. Level 2 workers typically reconcile passenger lists with tickets and also conduct public relation duties like meeting and greeting passengers, assisting passengers in wheelchairs and also unaccompanied minors. On the other hand, level 3 personnel are expected to comprehend standardized work systems that require knowledge of the product. They are charged with the responsibility of adapting to transfer knowledge and their complexities. These personnel possess good problem solving and communication skills. They are responsible for achieving the expected results in their duty and should seek approval before any alterations in the procedures are made. They may also give a hand to staff in group or individual work but cannot be rendered accountable for other people’s duties. They are typically expected to identify passengers’ profiles, do the actual checking in which includes checking the passports and visas, baggage assessment, conducting domestic and international interline transfers, check-in detail and functions, and other assistance in arrivals and departures. They also greet and welcome passengers at the reception. According to The New York Times, mobile check-in is considered the first step in establishing a direct link between airlines and their passengers in terms of communication (Stellin, 2010). Ultimately, research findings reported by vice president of Forrester Research, Henry Harveldt indicate that sending messages on mobile phones between airlines and passengers could ease or make flexible the process of booking and rebooking, baggage pick up, purchase of tickets and general boarding services. In an extensive revelation, it has been revealed that the current use of single-dimensional barcodes adopted by many airlines would benefit from a more recent technology that embraces the use of an electronic boarding pass comprising of a 2-dimesional barcode that makes it harder for terrorists to fake boarding passes. This makes the airline safer and reliable. In addition this reduces cases of ticket fraud that costs airlines thousands of dollars in loses. This technology will require the bear of the pass to show photo identification that is mandatory to match with the information posted in the barcode on bearer’s phone. The transformation airline interactions with their passenger has seen a lot of improvement in times of saving time and extra cost, and also increasing profits through online booking and should be extended to electronic check in. The Association of International Air Transport claims that it expects the 2-dimensional barcodes to be in use before the end of 2010 which will save the industry a whooping $500 million every year. This money could be used t raise the salaries of the level 2 employees should this money be actually saved. As a result, the overload of work to the officers is reduced and they get to earn as much as they did before if not more. This is because the new system could prove to be beneficial beyond the projected scope. According to Lott Steve, who is a spokesperson for the association, this will pave way for bigger adoption of the electronic boarding passes that some carriers such as Continental and Air Canada have by now embraced and fond them to be of benefit (Stellin, 2010). Harteveldt adds that research conducted by his company shows that approximately 47% of their regular passengers are keen to try the new technology as it seems to cater to their time saving and flexibility needs. This indicates a positive welcome of the technology to the industry by the customers, hence a promising approach to its adaptation by them. Bibliography Boxall, P., 2003, Human resource strategy and competitive advantage in the service sector, Human Resource Management Journal, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 5-20. Purcell, J., 1987, Mapping management styles in industrial relations, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 533-548. Stellin, S. (2010). At airport check-in, cellphones replace paper. The New York Times ;Technology . Retrieved on 5th September from: Waring, B. et al, 2008, Employment relations: theory and practice, McGraw-Hill, New York. Read More