The paper 'The Way People Are Managed Is Vital for the Performance of Organizations" is a perfect example of business coursework. In the current world where we are witnessing an unprecedented increase of competition in both national economic and global environment, it has been acknowledged that the competitive advantage of any organization is not only pegged on technology and products but also on its employees. It is paramount to appreciate that employees are managed via HRM (human resource management) capacity. As a result majority of the organization have come to appreciate that their most important part of their business is their employees (Adrian, Noel, & Liezel, 2009).
This is because organizations have appreciated that the only way they can succeed is through its people. It is an apparent fact that products only cannot maintain the competitive advantage but energy, diversity and creativity that the people input into the organization. The main meaning of competitive advantage in employees is founded on an attempt to make something in the company that would not be straightforwardly copied by the competitor. From this background, it is apparent that the way people are managed is vital for the performance of any organization. The relationship between employer and employees is very important and it has a huge effect on the performance of any organization.
There is where industrial relations come in. It tends to explain the relationship between employer and employees within settings of organization. The relationships that emanate at the place of work mainly include the relationship between individual employees and the relationship between employers and workers. From unitarism perspective, the organization is viewed as a single and harmonious system, seen as a single happy and united family.
The main assumption in this approach is that the staff and management, and every member of the organization subscribe to the same purposes, interests, objectives. As a result, it is possible to work in unison and hand in hand in an effort of achieving mutual aims. Additionally, unitarism has adopted an approach of demanding loyalty of every employee (Nirali, 2008). As result trade unions are rendered unnecessary and conflict is deemed as a disrupting process. The employees under the unitary approach have several views.
The first view is that working practices are supposed to be flexible. Also, employees should be multi-skilled, business process improvement-oriented and prepared to handle any task with high efficacy. Another view that employee should have is that if a union is acknowledged, its duty is that of facilitating a means of passing information between employer and employees. The third view is that the presence of emphasis on sound terms and good relationships and terms of employment. This approach is mainly found in various small family-owned organizations.
It is also evident in a big entrepreneurial organization that has expanded within a short period, but where the founder still remains at the helm of all operations. Such examples are Virgin of Richard Branson, Amstrad of Alan Sugar or Body Shop of Anita Roddick (Howard & Gill, 1993). Another approach is Pluralist which views the organization as being comprised of pluralist of interest groups where each has varying and genuine objectives and aspirations. As a result, this approach appreciates that firm cannot always avoid conflicts and trade union can take a major role in such a scenario.
The enterprise that embraces the pluralist approach acknowledges trade unions and is ready to share decision making within the organization with them. To give an example is public sector management in Britain which is known to take a pluralist approach from early days. The above-mentioned approaches will definitely have an effect on the performance of an organization. Under the pluralist approach, it is apparent that the organization is more participatory as compared to unitarism approach. When workers are involved more in organization decision-making processes they become more motivated and as a result their performance increases (Juliette & Jeff, 2005).
Adrian, R., Noel, P., & Liezel, R. (2009). Human Resource Management. Cape Town: Formeset
Barbara, M., & Białostocka, P. (2010). Cultural Diversity in Organisational Theory and Practice.
Journal of Intercultural Management , 2 (2), 5-15.
CSC. (2013). Diversity. Retrieved April 18, 2013,
Gregory, S. (2007). 401 Proven Ways to Retain Your Best Employees. Georgia: CYC
Howard, G., & Gill, P. (1993). British industrial relations. London: Routledge.
Juliette, S., & Jeff, H. (2005). Employee participation and company performance. A review of the
literature , 1 (1), 1-90.
Kramar, R., Bartram, T., De Cieri, H., Noe, R., Hollenbeck, J., Gerhart, B. & Wright, P. (2011).
Human Resource Management: Strategy, People, Performance, 4th Edition . Sydney: McGraw-Hill .
Lake, S. (2000). Low-cost strategies for employee retention. Compensation , 32 (4), 65-72.
Nirali, P. (2008). Human Resoure Management: Managing People at Work. Mumbai: Nirali
Sunil, R. (2003). Managing Employee Retention as a Strategy forIncreasing Organizational
Competitiveness. Applied H.R.M. Research , 8 (2), 63-72.