Human Resource Management Approach to Managing - Essay Example

?The Human Resource Management Approach to Managing Employment Relationship Before the 20th century, companies in Britain were under unilateral management. This changed in early 20th century to joint regulation through trade unions and bargaining efforts (Foot, 2002:326). Joint regulation in an employment relationship is a system of agreed rules, which regulate work relationships aspects in a company. It involves the use of collective bargains between unions and employers to come to an agreement and is used to reduce areas of potential conflict between the two parties (Banfield and Kay, 2008:238). It is a means of industrial government since it is different from unilateral and workers’ control management. The Donovan Commission bargained for it in 1960s, but in 1980s and 1990s, the employers reduced the range of issues regulated jointly, e.g. work pace and organization, and restored unilateral management (Braton and Gold, 2001:318). After the World War II, bargaining was used to determine the working condition of employees and their pay. This transformed the workplaces bringing with it power balance and the growth of shop stewards’ organization. This organization aimed at fighting for the employees’ rights using striking strategies (Inman et al., 2010:214). The conservative government in 1970 was against the trade unions; a move that led to political and industrial militancy. This saw the labour government create a social contract in order to control the employees’ wages. This was followed by strikes between 1978 and 1979 to oppose the move by the government (Gilmore and Williams, 2009:24-44). In light of this information, this paper examines the managerial styles, objectives and strategies used in trade union and non-union organisations. Employment relationship With the election of Margaret Thatcher under the Conservative government in 1979, the reversal of conservatives’ policies was experienced. This period, 1980-1990, saw the formation of policies that allowed union formation at the same time restricted them. A decline in trade union memberships, control and bargaining coverage was also experienced. With this came the human resource management and Japanisation of the employment relations in Britain. Formation of new labour policies met public criticism and debates were raised about its funding in relation to the Labour Party (Marchington and Wilkinson, 2005:71-99). This saw election of union leaders and an increased union militancy. Major challenges during this time included reduced state jobs and services and an increase in the private sector influence. This had a dramatic influence on employment relations leading to massive opposition from trade unions (Price, 2007:413). Managerial Styles and Objectives of Managing the Employment Relationship There are four styles of managing employment relationships, which influence management strategies and human resource management practices. These are traditionalist, sophisticated paternalists, sophisticated moderns and standard moderns. These styles have different objectives that define their nature. The traditionalist style is authoritative, hostile and does not entertain trade unions (Pynes, 2008:215). Sophisticated paternalists refuse to recognize unions, but they ensure employees are committed to the organizations’ goals and their needs are satisfied. Sophisticated moderns, on the other hand, accept trade unions as well as collective bargains to determine the terms and conditions of employment relations. Standard moderns also accept trade unions, but they change their approach towards them depending on internal and external pressures and responses. It is thus clear that, in traditionalist and sophisticated moderns style, both the manager and employees have the same goals and interests i.e. they are unitary. The other two recognize that the employees and the manager have different goals and interests (Guest et al., 2003:291-314). Managerial Strategies to the Employment of Non-union Organizations Non- union organizations are a disadvantage to the employees in that their issues are not fully addressed by their employers (Laursen and Foss, 2003). Thus, the management can use two styles of management; individualism or collectivism. In individualism, the company looks at the interests of the employees individually aiming to increase their work role and capacity. Collectivism, on the other hand, recognises employees’ rights to participate in making decisions that affect them. Depending on the style in use, the managerial strategy in use can be good, lucky, ugly or bad. A good strategy uses a clear HRM strategy to manage human resource and involves the employees at the same time. Lucky strategies do not have a HRM strategy, while ugly has a strategy that oppresses only the employees. A bad strategy is, on the other hand, purely aristocratic (Lauren and Foss, 2005:429-462). Most Appropriate Managerial Strategy towards the Employment Relationship in Trade Union Organizations Management strategies can either be hard or soft. Hard HRM puts emphasis on the resource element while soft emphasizes on the human element. Hard HRM sees employees as passive resources that can be used and gotten rid off if need be. They see people as human capital and develop them in order to get more gains. That is why they do not agree with trade unions. Soft HRM values its employees emphasizing on collaboration and trust between the two parties. Their competitive edge comes from enhancing performance through communication and motivation. There is a place for trade unions to be consulted in the decision making. Therefore, soft HRM is the most appropriate management strategy in trade union organisations (Wall, 2005:429-462). Relevance of Study of Employment Relations to an Understanding of Society Strong employment relations are crucial for the success of a firm. It involves avoiding and solving work related issues to ensure high productivity and satisfaction of both the management and employees. Through a healthy employee relationship, motivated, efficient and productive employees are nurtured which leads to increased sales (Armstrong, 2003: 827). Study of employment relations gives one a better understanding of the society at large. The understanding between the employee and management in the work setting can be extended to the societal setting. This is because the two settings share the following similarities. First, just like at work, there are some things one cannot do alone and would need help from others in the society. Secondly, work becomes easier when shared. Thirdly, work mates and a society that works together as a family is a happy one. Fourthly, health relations reduce conflicts at work and in the society. Lastly, a good relationship with other people, whether at work or at home, is necessary since one never knows when they may need assistance (Deb, 2006:120). Extent of Employment Relationship Base on Expression of Conflict of Interest There are three perspectives to employment relationships and how they cater for the interests of both parties. These are Unitarianism, pluralist and radical perspectives. Under the pluralist perspective, the firm is made up of divergent groups each with its leaders and objectives. It uses collective bargain to solve conflicts between the management and trade unions. In the radical perspective, there is a division of interest between labour and capital. Therefore, conflicts are bound to happen owing to continuous power struggle between workers and managers. Workers use trade unions as defence against exploitation (Armstrong and Series, 2008:114). In Unitarianism, on the other hand, the management and other staff members share a common goal and exist under mutual cooperation. Trade unions are considered unnecessary since the two parties are loyal to each other implying that the management is the source of authority. Conflicts are seen as a result of communication breakdown, negative influence and interpersonal friction. Such is favoured by HRM and non-union employers. However, the Unitarianism framework is not adequate to explain employment relationships. Though there is a harmonious existence between managers and workers, conflict of interest is inevitable. Therefore, since the management is the sole source of authority and no trade unions are allowed, the worker is disadvantaged because he does not have the right to be heard (Shortland and Perkins, 2006:156). Conclusion Management styles vary depending on their objectives towards the managerial staff and the employees. Traditionalist and sophisticated paternalists are anti-trade unions; sophisticated moderns allow their formation while standard modern vary with internal and external pressures. Non-union organisations do not have trade unions; thus the management is the sole authority. Depending on the strategy in place, the managerial strategies can be classified as hard or soft depending on how they view the employees i.e. as a resource or human resource. Conflicts of interest in the work place can be solved depending on the employment relationship base and perspective. These include the unitarists, pluralists and radical perspectives. Pluralist organisations have two groups, the managerial and the trade unions. Each of the groups has their leader and objectives. Conflicts between them are solved through collective bargaining. Groups in radical companies are divided into labour i.e. the employees and capital which in turn is the management. The power struggle between the two groups is the source of conflicts between them, with the employees use trade unions to defend their interests. Such conflicts are rare in Unitarianism firm since both the management and employees share common goals and exist under mutual cooperation. Therefore, trade unions are deemed unnecessary in a firm under Unitarianism management since the two parties are loyal to each other. Though, the existence seems harmonious, conflicts are bound to occur, and since the management is the sole authority the employees are disadvantaged because the system does not allow for trade union to intervene on their behalf. References Armstrong, M. (2003) A handbook of human resource management practice, Kogan Page Publishers. Amstrong, M. and Series, P.K. (2008) Strategic human resource management: a guide to action, Kogan Page Publishers. Banfield, P. and Kay, R. (2008) Introduction to Human Resource Management, Oxford University Press. Bratton, J. and Gold, J. (2001) Human resource management: theory and practice, Routledge. Deb, T. (2006) Strategic Approach to Human Resource Management, Atlantic Publishers & Dist. Foot, M. and Hook, C. (2002) Introducing human resource management, Financial Times/Prentice Hall. Gilmore, S. and Williams, S. (2009) Human Resource Management, Oxford University Press. Guest, D.E., Michie, J., Conway, N. and Sheehan, M. (2003) ‘Human Resource Management and Corporate Performance in the UK’ British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 291-314. Inman, M., O'Sullivan, N., Murton, A. and Needham, D. (2010) Unlocking human resource management, Hodder Education. Laursen, K. and Foss, J.N. (2003) ‘New human resource management practices, complementarities and the impact on innovation performance’ Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 243-263. Marchington, M. and Wilkinson, A. (2005) Human resource management at work: people management and development, CIPD Publishing. Price, A. (2007) Human Resource Management in a Business Context, Cengage Learning EMEA…..Length648 pages. Pynes, J. (2008) Human resources management for public and non-profit organizations: a strategic approach, Wiley & Sons. Shortland, S.M. and Perkins J.S. (2006) Strategic international human resource management: choices and consequences in multinational people management, Kogan Page Publishers. Wall, T.D. (2005) ‘The romance of human resource management and business performance, and the case for big science’ SAGE Journal of Human Relations, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 429-462. Read More