Pluralist, Unitary and Radical Approaches to Employment Relationship - Case Study Example

Understanding Management Name: Lecturer: Course: Date: Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Commonalities and differences of interests 3 Recommendations to the departments 5 Methods to provide employees with a voice 7 Conclusion 8 References 9 Introduction The three main approaches to the study of employment relationship include pluralist, unitary and radical perspective (Abott 2006). Each of the three have own ideological viewpoints and analytical framework that generates different interpretations of industrial-relations problems. This paper provides analysis of case study of LIPC Integration Plc to explain the commonalities and differences of interests (radical, unitarist and pluralist), recommendations to departments, and lastly methods to provide employees with a voice. Commonalities and differences of interests At LIPC Integration’s Design department, the employees in the department have different interests to that of the management. They strongly believe that the designs they come up with should be their intellectual property. On the other hand, the management reiterate that as long as design department staff remains its employees, the innovations they create remain its property. Additionally, the employees at the Design department stress the complexity of their work. Therefore, they demand that they should be given better recognition and rewards for their innovativeness. This signals a pluralist perspective. The pluralist perspective believes that an organisation has people with different varieties of interests, goals and aspirations. Power is also diffused among the different internal bargaining groups in such a way that none dominates the other. Unlike the unitarist approach, which admits only one source of power, pluralist perspective suggests that different interest groups and varied forms of loyalty and interests exist. Indeed, Abott (2006) comments that, under pluralist perspective, the management recognises that different legitimate sources of power exist, which therefore, focuses on instilling loyalty. This applies in the case study, as LIPC’s management issued payment and reward schemes to motivate and promote loyalty and shared interests. At the Fabrication department, the members of staff share the same interests with the management. They welcome the new performance-based pay and reward systems, and share the same goal that will motivate them to work for longer periods, and become more loyal and committed to work. Additionally, the employees in this department have communicated their interest in receiving more training, a stand that the management supports. This work relationship signifies a unitary theory, which views employee relations to be fundamentally harmonious and marked with the belief that the organisation consists of an integrated entity with shared goals and a common purpose (Cullinane & Dundon 2013). Chidi and Okpala (2009) explain that under the unitary theory, employee-employer relationship is rooted in harmony of interests and mutual-cooperation. Hence, there is no any fundamental conflict of interest. These scenarios are evident at the Fabrication department. The staff members cooperate with the management by accepting the new payment and reward system. On the other hand, the management shows mutual-cooperation by agreeing to initiate training in compliance with the wishes of the staff in the department. Workers at the Assembly plant are in constant conflict with the management. This is unlike at the design department, which accepts to negotiate with the management through the Board. The members of staff have resisted the performance-based rewards. They claim that they have never seen any increase in their pay unlike in the Fabrication department. Against this background, the employment relation in the Assembly department signals the radical theory. The theory perceives employment relations as being in constant structural conflict between the employees and the employer. Abott (2006) opines that under the radical perspective, the employer predominantly controls the employees who in return feel exploited. At the Assembly department, the management views its position as having the last say and demands loyalty from the members of staff rather than the motivation. Therefore, rather than implementing the staffs idea of motivating them through flexible work hours and frequent breaks to ensure greater productivity, the management disputes the idea. Recommendations to the departments At the design department, the central issue of concern is the conflicting interests between the staff in the department and the management. The management needs to view the conflict at the Design department as healthy for the organisation. This is since it allows the employees to bring up their grievances. Still, the management needs to come up with innovative methods of solving the conflicts (Abott 2006). For instance, it should have clear guidelines and rules that make its interests clear, such as regarding who owns intellectual property to the staff. The management should therefore, institutionalise employment rules to reduce the level of workplace conflict to match that at the Fabrication department. It should also encourage fairer outcomes by allowing members of staff to organise and offset their power when negotiating workplace contracts. Overall, pluralist perspective (as seen at the Design Department) is different from the unitarist perspective (as seen at the Fabrication department) in that it starts from a set of viewpoints and values that view conflicts at the workplace as inevitable. Unlike at the Fabrication department, the management and members of staff at the Design department subscribe to different objectives and value. At the Fabrication department, the management should continue motivating the employees through performance-based bay and reward systems to promote productivity. The management should also provide training to employees as part of its employee development program. Unlike the pluralist perspective, unitary perspective begins from a combination of values and viewpoints that see workplace conflict as not inevitable between the management and the employees. While conflicts may periodically come up, they should not be left to manifest themselves to levels that can destroy the cooperation between the employees and the management. To minimise conflicts in order to ensure things run in the ‘natural order of things,’ the management has to removes sources of potential conflict (Abott 2006). The Assembly department faces a situation of continual conflict between the employees and the employers. What the management needs to do is to bring some aspects of pluralism, where it brings a negotiator, such as the Board to arbitrate in the conflict. It should also eliminate sources of conflict and make sure that it has communication systems in place to inform the staff of where their legitimate rights lie, and that those who are ‘difficult’ to control conflicts will be dismissed. Hence, some features of pluralist perspective should be embraced. Indeed, there are, however, several elements of pluralists identifiable in Assembly department. These include the existence of inherent conflict. The only difference between pluralism in the Design department and radicalism in the Assembly department is that the employer and employees shared some common goals, such as that the Board can arbitrate their conflict to ensure mutual gain. On the contrary, radical perspective views the employee-employer relations as the only aspect of conflicts that cannot be solved unless some basic structures are changed (Abott 2006). Methods to provide employees with a voice Wilkinson et al (2004) defines voice as an alternative on how employees present their concerns and interests to the employer. Employees at LIPC can be given voice in three key ways. These include joint consultation, upward-problem solving and collective representation, through trade union membership, recognition and representation (Wilkinson et al 2004). In the design assembly, the employees and employer have conflicting difference regarding which of the two parties should own copyright of designs. Such a situation would require joint consultation with the management. The method would allow the employees to raise their concern at an official level to the management. The two parties will be able to exchange view concerning what the copyright law says through a collective consultation with a lawyer. In the Fabrication department, the employees and employers share interests and goals for overall growth of the company. They however, need a better platform to present their constructive ideas, such as the need for training. For such scenario, upward-problem solving is crucial. The employees in the department will be provided with an opportunity to air their feedback on the success of the training (Wilkinson et al 2004). The employees will also have dialogue with the management as a means of providing ideas on how to improve their performance. In the Assembly department, the employees and the management face constant conflicts. This has prompted the management to seek drastic measures of relocating the department to India or Vietnam. This signals a serious concern that could only be handled through collective representatives. Here, the representatives of the employees through the trade union will need to communicate their view to the management through collective bargaining. Conclusion The employees at the Design department have different interests from that of the management, which signals a pluralist perspective. Workers at the Assembly plant are in constant conflict with the management, which indicates the radical theory. At the Fabrication department, the members of staff share the same interests with the management, depicting a unitary theory. The design department should come up with clear guidelines and rules that make its interests clear, such as regarding who owns intellectual property to the staff. At the Fabrication department, the management should continue motivating the employees through performance-based pay and reward systems to promote productivity. The Assembly department should also eliminate sources of conflict and make sure that it has communication systems in place that inform the staff of where their legitimate rights lie. Overall, employees at LIPC can be given voice in three key ways: joint consultation, upward-problem solving and collective representation through trade union membership, recognition and representation. References Abott, K 2006, "A Review of Employment Relations Theories and Their Application," Problems and Perspectives in Management vol 1, pp.187-199 Chidi, C & Okpala, O 2009, Theoretical Approaches to Employment and Industrial Relations: A Comparison of Subsisting Orthodoxies, viewed 22 Feb 2015, Cullinane, N & Dundon, T 2013, ‘Unitarism and employer resistance to trade unionism’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, pp.1-31 Wilkinson, A, Dundon, T, Marchington, M & Ackers, P 2004, “The changing patterns of employee voice: case studies from the UK and Republic of Ireland,” Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol 46 (3), pp 298‐323. Read More