Definitions and Impact of Collectivism and Individualism - Essay Example

Essay for Review: The Movement from Collectivism and Individualism Impact on Pay Systems since 1979 Impact of Collectivism and Individualism: Modern-day Trade Unions and Pay Systems Brief Overview of the Definitions of Collectivism and Individualism Collectivism is the belief that the individual person is subjugated to a group for the common good of all. Individualism is the belief that the group is nothing without the actions of the individual. Several models are used to demonstrate individualism, including the ontological model which states that social science is reduced to individual actions and decisions; and the methodological model which states that individuals should be left alone to determine their own financial and ethical matters for the future (the politics of individualism). "Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich." -- William F. Buckley, Jr. Brief Overview of the “Movement” Tribalism fueled the ideas associated with collectivism. At one time, there was no individuality, per se, except that which existed within the realm of the group or the whole. All that was done was for the good of all and all concerned. In laymen’s terms, what people thought of one another and how they interacted within their own undefined communities was all that mattered. This began to change in the late 1800s and early 1900s as group-think gave way to hedonistic self-preservation, or what is now known as individualism. A well-known Scottish hedonist and individualist by the name of John Stuart Mill, who was born in London, had a belief system that is still considered a standard in group psychology to this day. Mill was a self-described ‘socialist’ who believed that liberalism should advance the cause of individual freedoms and minimize state action, as opposed to what many believe today about socialism. Terms and usages of these different words and ideologies overlapped over time and many today believe that socialism is another word for “let the state (government) reign over the man,” which is untrue. Socialism’s purist term means that the state is the guiding hand in a partnership between the collective group and the individual citizen. The state is also held responsible, to some degree, for providing opportunities in which individuals can not only survive, but thrive. It took some time to ponder, but it appears today that ‘statism’ (or collectivism) and individualism are not necessarily always diametrically opposed to one another. Differences in intertwined ideals, philosophies and opinions define collectivism ‘as opposed’ to individualism, or benevolence (‘socialism’) versus self-love (‘narcissism’ or ‘hedonism’). The suffix ‘ism’ itself means that there is a body or system of principles and practices in place that impact the cyclical values of life. Those principles and practices either hinder or advance a group of people, or hinder some while advancing others, or vice versa. The dominant theory underlying all of this school of thought is that no one should seek their own good at someone else’s expense, or one man’s rights end where another man’s begins. Though there is much confusion involved with these swinging pendulum debates and many questions yet remain unanswered, collectivism and individualism actually work together. The many shades and hues of individual responsibility is measured in terms of what is called moral and ethical behavior and moral and ethical behavior determine what is the overall responsibility of the state (government) to each and every individual within it’s judicial reach. Socialism should not interfere with capitalism, but should enhance it through an equitable distribution of knowledge, goods, services, and benefits. Socialism (collectivism) also takes for granted that there is never such a thing as economic justice; the odds were already uneven from the start. Moreover, through economic reconstruction, the state has a moral and ethical responsibility to secure the proper conditions in which individuals can grow and prosper. Each person is supposed to subsist and reach their highest potential when the state supports the idea that true economic equality in the purist sense is not a sensible goal. The state can only as go as far as taking an active role when the economy is at risk and whenever the rights of the working class, or labourers, need to be protected. Without guidelines in place, business owners and managers are free to tip the scales in their own favor and the worker has no choice but to go along or miss out. The biblical Pharoah of Egypt once demanded that the Hebrew slaves make brick without straw simply because Moses was irritated with him for demanding the “people” be let go. That which is not earthly or heavenly possible to do, the state must attempt to fill in the gaps, or make the difference, by providing the ‘impossible’ straw so production can roll on and tasks not miss a beat. The movement of the early 20th century carried over from full-blown collectivism to a middle-of-the-road compromise between the two opposing poles: Collective conscience meets individuality. This is evidenced by the fact that though we are such believers in the individual, the trade unions or the representative members of the collective bargaining process have not altogether dissipated. They remain intact, though more in an advisory capacity nowadays. Arbitration and mediation are done on a volunteer basis. The state may intervene on occasion to help provide opportunities for growth, but the line of demarcation is drawn when the state undermines individual responsibility, which includes a person’s ability to thrive and make conscientious and moral decisions on his or her own. The movement into individuality of conscience is said to have begun with a ‘hand full of German exiles’ that were displaced in London. Brief Overview of Trade Unions and Pay Systems Pay systems are a foundation for financial reward whereby the basic rate means that a worker will receive a fixed pay rate (hourly, weekly, monthly) with no additional payment or incentive. It relates to individual performance. Additional payments, perks and incentives depend on the worker gaining and using additional skills, making additional contributions and enhancing their job performance. Trade unions were viewed as a hindrance because oftentimes they would negotiate for higher pay in annual increases with no additional responsibilities or motivations to work harder. The negotiations resulted in management/labor mistrust and employer/employee mistrust, and often in stalemates and strikes. *** The move from collectivism to individualism and its impact on pay scales? In the philosophical notion of collectivism, pay scales lean toward equalising the forces of compensation between labour and management or business owners and employees. Labour or trade unions are at the heart of collectivism when it comes to employment and pay scales. The duty of the state with regard to protecting individual workers has at its own heart the collective good of all concerned. In collective wage bargaining, monetary compensation and consideration weights more heavily on the side of the conditions of the employer’s market over the individual’s contribution. However, under the guiding force of individualism, the individuals contribution and performance, as well as the adding on of skills and academics is at the heart of impending negotiations for the future. A pay scale is then debated over what the employee considers reasonable to live within their own pre-determined means and to what the employer is willing to support that in return for services rendered. The employer and employee, in the individualistic state, without state or trade union interference, are then able to outline expectations, core competencies, contributions and the outlook of the company as well as the outlook of the individual worker’s future. Of note, these scenarios consist not only of the tangible reward of pay, but of any additional pay or potential rewards and/or any and all other motivational incentives. In the individualist scenario, the bargaining process is strictly between employer and employee. Individualism is at the root of dramatic variances in pay scales between different sectors of the same and/or similar markets and industries. Wires can get crossed when what would be considered unfair liberties and advantages are taken over the working class people, or labour. This, in turn, causes the state [the social collective conscience] to involve itself in determining a place of balance between the two sides. Management typically understands the delicate balancing job of attracting, recruiting and retaining human capital for ‘equitable’ wages without state interference. They usually know within good range how far they can go without dipping into the profitability buckets or causing the company to go belly up when the measures are always taken against profitability and worker production or output. Another overlapping factor is that within the individualistic model is another “group” or subset collectivist model, whereby employers rely on internal group factors temperament, rather than the overall market and industry conditions, to monitor and determine pay scales. In other words, the insider group of a business determines what, if any, additional monies and incentives the individual will get at any set time (during annual performance reviews, or with regard to merit raises or increases and/or bonuses, as well as benefits and other what is called “perks” of having the job at that particular company). How far they will go, however, depends on the type of job, the availability of labour, its sources and what it will take to bring in others in case the one falters. [1] Pay Scales: A 30-year Outlook Collective bargaining is defined as “a formal voluntary process by which employers and trade unions representing certain employees negotiate the terms, conditions and pay rates of employment in accordance with national, workplace and organisational laws and the specific guidelines therein.” Prior to the 1980s, a great deal of pay rates and scales were largely influenced by collective bargaining or trade unions. As this process shifted toward more individualized bargaining and a more direct connection between employers and employees, it is highly probable that employees decided to move away from the group and to have more singular control over their own careers and financial outlook instead of being ‘spoken for’ by the group; something known as “private enterprise” bargaining. Private enterprise bargaining began to replace collective bargaining and the shift of power moved from trade unions to management. This move impacted many factors, such as employability, job descriptions, hours, disciplinary standards and maintaining effort levels began to be controlled, once again, by management.[2] By the time the late 1990s came along, trade union member representatives had little, if any, formal negotiating power over pay scales or rates, except for a privileged few departments or job types.[3] The negotiation of pay rates with individuals rather than the collective group resulted in more rhetoric than anything else. In the private sector, less than five percent of employer-employee negotiations actually took place. If collective bargaining was handicapped or diminished, simultaneously so was the marginal ability of the individual to determine what raise or additional pay, if any, he or she would get in the long term. Once management regained control, internal controls came under the direction of overall corporate budget guidelines. As a result, there were more inter-industry discussions and dialogue and internal influence over pay rates between managers of different companies even in the same industrial sectors. Then there also is the international influence. These factors begin to emerge within the companies whose market product consists of the import and export of goods to or from other nations. The global economy influences and impacts the cost of goods and services, which ultimately determines pay scales.[4] But even this layer met with opposition in the UK, mainly because trade unions, still in some vast, though weakening, influence in the global economy would still impact pay scale comparisons across the board. When this happened, the control went right back out of management’s hands. According to Brown/Marginson/Walsh, the diminishing influence of trade unions with the sword of collective bargaining being wielded for leverage had the end result of the growth of wage inequalities.[5] The spread or gap, they say, becomes wider as those in the lower quadrants receive low to moderate increases and those in the upper, or higher, quadrants receive exponentially higher increases. The margin of increase in those numbers varies from as low to 20-percent in the lower quadrants to as high as 66-percent in the upper quadrants. This seems to suggest, even in the area of unearned additional income, that if there is money to disburse, the lion’s share of it goes to the upper quadrants, with the employees in the lower quadrants being given what is “left,” what some might refer to as the leftovers. In American society, it is what the Republican (conservative) crowd refers to as a “trickle down” type of economy with regard to pay scales and other incentives. Most of the time, these economic trickles instead of gushes fall beneath (often well below) the comparable cost of living for those who are on the sprinkled end as opposed to the ones doing the sprinkling. The British Household Panel Survey (1991) determined that the comparable wage inequalities, due to the transient loss of unionization, showed the wealth gaps spreading faster in non-union than in union organizations. Individualism, though hotly paraded as the way to go, was not without its categorical limitations. The question now becomes: Is the collapse of collective (class-based) loyalties a good thing? In the macro sense, this ideology relates to industrial relations across a wide spectrum of society. In the micro sense, it relates to individualists within the realm and scope of an organization in which a collective conscience remains of a necessity. We are, in fact, simultaneous social and anti-social animals (‘we’ versus ‘them’) in spite of the repetitive strains of the importance of individuality. The decline of collectivism cannot be explained away as a “lack” of communication, or even as a simple failure to communicate between management and employees. The blame is more to be placed on eroding sources of foundational social solidarity, or some may see it, the divided have been conquered or the conquered have been divided. Much of it is based on the isolationism that began to take place in society in droves toward the more digitized and less industrialized late 20th century. The trend toward individualism in the secular community is the footstool of modernist ideas. The dwindle from the “us” and “we” that was a former post-war British standard in society gave way and the group collective conscience, once based on class culture and identities, is what eroded over time.[6] Social classes remained intact, but the foundation of collectivism was substantially diminished over time. In that respect, the cause or causes of wage inequality is easy to pinpoint. It has to do with the decline in unified organization. That which once gave workers a sense of common purpose or at least a ‘commonality of mind’ in the intrinsic individualistic setting of goals was no longer the primary focus. While this note is not the primary focus of this paper, it is also important to note as an aside that the market itself and client and consumer needs and desires drives a heavy weight of influence over pay scales. In other words, the fact that customers decide what they do and don’t want and how much they will and will not pay for it is a very large determining factor in pay scales and rates. Higher levels of customer demand means higher levels of customer service and customer satisfaction, matters which should not undermined while thinking in terms of collectivism. Mass movements in or out of a market and market share on the part of consumers, on the various levels of profitability; have bankrupted companies that were once giants in their fields. That said, the overall force and effect on the shift from the collective conscience to individualism has resulted in overall work inequalities and particularly in inequalities in pay scales and additional pay based on merit, performance and longevity. This means, in short, that individualism which leads to isolationism is also shifting the tide, as more and more calls are made for tele-working, or home-based working, from employees. The individual human capital and his capital contribution (in terms of motivation, skills, education level, and abilities) then becomes an “enterprise of one” (enterprise bargaining, as mentioned before). By the late 1980s, a new hybridized form of unionism began to emerge. It was a modified scale model of the former traditional unions in which member representatives began to act only in an advisory (“hands off”) capacity. They would still provide back up and foundational services, for a membership fee. They would oversee volunteer mediations and arbitrations, but not necessarily become directly involved in hard negotiations involving pay scales. Some also still maintain a bit of control over picketing and limited involvement in strike negotiations.[7] There is a penalizing lack of balance in rates of pay with regard to on-the-job performance. Employees are never or almost never involved in the bargaining process in the collective model. In the non-union and restrictive union models (individualist), the schema is not usually one that is satisfactory to employees, either; typically because it almost non-negotiable, a sort of “take it or leave it” proposition, depending on corporate, management and how well they will fare with quickly finding and replacing the employee in case he or she decides to leave it. With full trade unionism or collective bargaining, however, the negotiations were taken up with more of a bend toward fairness and equity in pay rates and scales. Though market prospects, allocations and forecasts fueled the debates, what works and what doesn’t work also serves as a guideline upon which to build future negotiations.[8] What is the most powerful incentive for individuals to de-unionize and keep their negotiations private and self-contained? The incentive is said to be mainly economic. Trade unions have a tendency to monopolise certain areas of industry, making it harder to attain and maintain a balanced economic leveraging tool in matters of pay and other benefits; as well as, for all practical purposes, closing the doors to management ability to fire and re-hire once the deal is in place. Power Plays In pendulum motion, it is not an easy call to determine if collectivism is better than individualism. The worst fallout of the movement or shift was the obvious resulting factor of wage inequality (or wage discrimination in cases of gender) and the widening pay raise gaps or spreads between upper and lower quadrant workers. Either way, in collectivism, there was always a definite play of power between the two sides instead of a cooperative sharing of key decisions. Some key “newer” models of refined collectivism are starting to emerge from the ashes of the former models, which didn’t allow room for much compromise. The newer models seem to be a hybrid of what is good for the group and what is good for the individual and it also has a higher mode of flexibility and compromise. The trade union has shifted to more of a ‘silent’ advisory partner in collaboration with employees who are in charge of their own individual and final or semi-final decisions during negotiations. There are three major ways to look at collective bargaining principles under the newer models, which are really nothing more than the older processes being applied in different ways:[9] These fall into the categories of the market, governmental, and decision-making processes or functions of handling business and employee leveraging. The market process is like cooperative economics where employers and employees share in the function of negotiating a price at which to buy and sell labour. In the governmental process, the collective bargaining function is political—leaning toward a “constitutional” means of governing shared negotiations with executive authority vested in management. The decision-making function is described as a way for employees to participate in the decisions that will make up their working lives and careers. It serves as a unilateral semi-democratic constraint on management; but these processes do not operate in a vacuum. So far, the focus of this paper has been labour-intensive with veritably no focus on the advantages management gets out of the collective bargaining process as trade unions act only in an advisory and mentoring capacity. Management, amongst other things, gets the benefit of joint regulation directly with those it impacts instead of having to talk to only a hand full of “representatives” who speak for the whole. A collective bargaining agreement may consist of an overall scope of the purpose of the agreement, a general statement containing the objectives of the agreement and how and who will govern it. It may speak to how negotiations, picketing and strikes will be handled and should contain an enforceable confidentiality agreement. Many times the trade unionists want only to discuss higher pay and better working conditions and (more costly) benefits, while they seldom want to discuss higher and more quality work product which impacts sales. Trade unions are based on the belief that longevity should pay off more so than should increased work product. With pay scales climbing while previous work production levels stay the same, any business owner or manager would soon be out of business. Management also gets the added benefit of being able to emphasize that more pay and more rewards not only comes with longevity, but also with a higher short and long-term yield, or output from those who benefit the most. Bound up in these matters are the legal implications of recognizing a trade union. These matters are covered in general under The Employment Relations Act (ERA) of 1999, which received Royal Assent on Jul 27 of that year. According to this Act, a trade union or a group of trade unions may apply to the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) for legal recognition to negotiate pay, hours and holidays for certain employees who may be covered under the Act. The CAC is an independent body with statutory powers and deals with claims and complaints and grievances that are filed. It can also volunteer its services in the event of industrial group or individual disputes. There are many different aspects of the negotiation process, including preparations, actual negotiations, and final conclusions. The variables in these discussions and exchanges are within the realm of finding a balance between what is desirable (idealistic) and what is realistic (a ‘settling’ point) and what can be adjusted (what is known as the ‘fallback line’). The fallback line determines what options are available if all else fails. Notably, there is also what is referred to as a “cool-off” period. This time out may be forced into negotiations by a matter that has to be put to a membership vote. If a vote is taken, particularly one that is by secret ballot only (and most are secret ballots), an independent neutral outside party with no interest or stake in the company must do the counting. The pendulum-swinging activity during negotiations relies on shifting the balance of power between the two ends of ownership to management and management to employee. As always, everyone on all sides is looking out for their own best interests. Management must find ways to cut and control the cost of labour and employees are looking for ways to enhance their worth and value on the job and increase their pay and benefits, which sometimes increases workplace motivations to do ‘better’ work, but is not guaranteed. The defining moment of ‘better’ work is more reliant upon performance-related pay (or ‘PRP’). It is understood that money can be a huge motivational factor in determining how an employee works on a job; however, the opposite side of that story is that how they work also determines whether or not they will get any PRP and to what extent if it is available. The theory of how it all works together is chicken-egg hatching in an on-going debate over which came or comes first. The idea of performance-related pay was the brainchild of 1980s employers. Pay was inextricably linked to the outcome of company-based corporate objectives and goals and profits. Theoretically, how long a person has worked for the company and in what capacity is not as big a motivating influence as the making, meeting, reaching and over-extension of goals set by the corporation and management. The overall impact led to a dual-purpose effort and another incentive that was added in nearly by osmosis was performance-based management. Performance-based management means to take care to communicate the vision properly to employees, to set departmental and individualistic performance targets, the use of review systems to identify training and development needs, and to evaluate the processes and systems to make certain that all, or nearly all, objectives and goals are met. Timed intervals between goal marks are set to keep a quantitative measure (or pulse) on the goals at hand. At the end, or some time in the middle, if objectives need to be changed or adjusted up or down, the evaluation process would be set up to reveal it and there would be a set of criteria in place to manage it. Over time, managerial changes from the overseeing and dissonant authoritarian model to the more customised consumer and employee-based performance-based style produces dissolution of the chain of command. The resulting “flat-layered” firms (firms that intentionally de-layer the upward flow of the former hierarchy and therefore cause all employees to function as individual entities with little or no supervising up-line to report to) are said to develop the self-enterprising model employee. This move generates levels of “little CEOs” who direct, manage and control their own procedures, workflow and work styles They also set their own deadlines and goals without being micro-managed by their bosses or supervisors. This in turn determines their own pay scales and rates, perks and bonuses and other capital incentives. The control and responsibility of managing the individual work area is an intangible incentive that can be overlooked, but shouldn’t because it improves employee morale and motivation almost as much as the tangible reward of money itself. Do not make the mistake of the ignorant who think that an individualist is a man who says: “I’ll do as I please at everybody else’s expense.” An individualist is a man who recognizes the inalienable individual rights of man—his own and those of others. An individualist is a man who says: “I will not run anyone’s life—nor let anyone run mine. I will not rule nor be ruled. I will not be a master nor a slave. I will not sacrifice myself to anyone—nor sacrifice anyone to myself.” -- The Ayn Rand Column “Textbook of Americanism,” 84. In summary, the impact of the changeover from social collectivism to individualism, including pay systems, was a magnanimous one with two major give-backs, more individual flexibility and more singular responsibility for teaching others to do the job in case one employee has to or decides to move on. The movement itself cast a long arm and a large shadow over change in the way businesses do business and in what are the more intrinsic or internal employee/employer expectations from jobs and careers. In a sense, it made employers and employees partners rather than two ends of a polar opposite trying to see who wields the most power, or who can pull the most rope in a psychological tug of war. Many factors influenced the move from group-think to self-enterprise-think. What is outstanding, however, is the way, though individualism is thought of as a better way to motivate, that the government never really rids the individual of the right to form a trade union. It would appear that the body politic conscientiously doesn’t care to wipe them out all together. Within that message is an underlying theme: There should always be a ‘safety net’ in place just in case something changes. Though the majority of the working class seems to lean in favor of individualism, the collective conscience carries on. There is still the “us” and the “we” that smiles and winks from time to time just to let the others amongst “us” know that “we” have some leverage; that “we” have a way out if need be. The trade union in and of itself is adjustable and can always be given a more prominent role, though management often tends to think of the trade union as the “enemy” and a deterrent to being able to conduct a financially healthy and fiscally responsible business. Another way of keeping collectivism intact to some extent is through profit-sharing. Profit-sharing, though not directly related to performance, is still a part of the collective bargaining process and thoughts of the body politic. Profit-sharing is an incentive-based compensation program which awards employees a percentage of the companys profits. Shared profits depend on group employee performance (which is linked to profits) just as raises and bonuses depend on individual work quality. The individualism of the employment relationship can also be linked to strategies for changing the role of the union in the workplace particularly with reference to pay bargaining.[10] Nevertheless, individualism is, on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, the ability to attain the actualization of the self, or ‘self-actualization’—the topmost, most lofty, and yet the hardest place to reach when the individual is striving and making their way through to a fulfilling life. Unfortunately, as it is well known today, Thoreau’s words “the masses of men lead lives of quiet desperation” is still a fact. Many more will have lived their lives not ever having achieving this highest goal than those who will actually get there. Yet again, when it comes to pay scales, is the answer always money, money and more money? Studies have shown this not to be true. Money is the major factor in job motivation for groups and individuals, but not the only one. There are incidences in which there is never any such thing as “enough” money if one is dissatisfied with their station in the job or with where they are in life in general. Pay rates and scales have no impact on whether or not a person is happy doing what they do. Collectivism is, in a civil society, when the people submit their natural freedoms to the common laws of the society in return for the protection of the government. By this an executive power is created to enforce laws and to punish unlawfulness. John Lockes Second Treatise was written to explain the conditions under which a people have the right to replace one government with another. The Second Treatise of Government (1690) is a cornerstone of political philosophy in Western tradition and also a basis for thought in deciding whether or not to rid oneself of trade unions or collective bargaining treatises. The original Treatise was based on the sovereignty of the people as individuals. The premise behind it was that all persons should be free and equal and retain possession of all of their natural rights. Since those rights involve protecting themselves and their property, they must, in turn, agree to many standards of ethical, moral and codified behavior in all areas that rule and govern society at-large. Those rules that govern all end up in the relinquishment of some natural rights for the individual who sometimes voluntarily, but not always in all cases, submits him or herself to those rules. In the future, it appears that the hybrid model of socialist-inspired individualism and the plurality of collectivism will be the preferred model across the board, not just in the UK, but probably around the world. Works Cited [1]Edwards, Paul (ed.). (2003). Industrial Relations. pp. 189-213. Bleckwell. [2]Edwards, Paul (ed.). (2003). Industrial Relations. pp. 189-213. Bleckwell. [3]Edwards, Paul (ed.). (2003). Industrial Relations. pp. 189-213. Bleckwell. [4]Edwards, Paul (ed.). (2003). Industrial Relations. pp. 189-213. Bleckwell. [5]Edwards, Paul (ed.). (2003). Industrial Relations. pp. 189-213. Bleckwell. [6]Edwards, Paul (ed.). (2003). Industrial Relations. pp. 368-391. Bleckwell. [7]Edwards, Paul (ed.). (2003). Industrial Relations. pp. 313-337. Bleckwell. [8]Thorpe, Richard and Itoman, Gill. (2000). Strategic Reward Systems. London. Prentice Hall. [9]Lewis, Phillip; Thornhill, Aaron; Saunders, Mark. (2003). Employee Relations. pp. 211-241. Prentice Hall. [10]Lewis, Phillip; Thornhill, Aaron; Saunders, Mark. (2003). Employee Relations. p. 302. Prentice Hall. Read More