Ideologies of Management

Ideologies of focussingThe extent of complexity in the organisational guidance functi wholenesss requires m any(prenominal) an(prenominal) questions to be raised in the pursuit of effective strategy for management HRM and employees relation. For managers, what important is the know-how, what, why and how to take the declineeousness decisivenesss and how to release these lasts to employees. For them, the ch exclusivelyenge is how to spend the information ga in that respectd and to a fault know how to ignore it. Also, their challenge focuses on how to mix being competitors and being evolver, how to face this complex and non-linear dynamics of the business governance environment and stay lean and agile. The dilemma is to wield the relation to employees in a heartfelt put in much(prenominal)(prenominal) that motivation and satisfaction are the status quo, meanwhile the common good for the business is realised. This is why, tangible and nonphysical rush been mixed, and this is why galore(postnominal) call for human factor and advised to play a role. This is difficult, but non impossible, the evidence is produced by embrown and Eisenhardt (1998) quoting companies such as Nike, Microsoft, Virgin and others.Industrial dealing are rattling much connected to the trade and perishers unions history. At the beginning of the termination century there was a leaning towards mass labour and their unions. divvy up Unions travel from strength to strength until it started to collapse due to many unworthy play and unwelcome strikes which brought many industries to standstill situations. Governments, including the British government, started to attack militancy in trade unions. Industrial relation started to take new forms. Nowadays, many smorgasbords collapse occurred in industrial transaction. Silva (1998) tell changes in industrial traffic practices ( kind of than in institutions and systems) such as increased incorporated talk terms at enterp rise level, flexibility in relation to forms of economic consumption as well as in relation to working time and job functions yield occurred as a result of such factors as heightened competition, rapid changes in products and processes and the increasing importance of skills, quality and productivity. Management of todays organisations have the conviction that pickings nonreversible decision is in their own rights, and that it should non be challenged by employees, or even stakeholders. They consider that this is their duty to manage. The conviction follows the ideology of Unitarism. In this work, this notion of management get surface be discussed in the light of triad ideologies which are Unitarism, Pluralism, and Marxism. However, I leave start by looking at the invention of job regulation, which about discriminate as the core of industrial relation. Then, the other parts of the question will be discussed deep down this context.The concept of job regulations in some roots views represents the core of industrial dealings. Flanders (1965) stipulated that study of industrial transaction should be limited to the institutions of job regulation. In this ascend, (Oram, 1984) indicated that the human relations variable was given a relatively insignificant role in the explanation of behaviour in industrial relations. Although personal, or unstructured, relationships were acknowledged as being important, they were considered by Flanders to be outside the scope of industrial relations. Flanders (1965) make a distinction mingled with internal and external job regulations. home(a) job regulations are those regularisations and regulation that can be changed internally by management and subordinates without any outside authorisation. This internal regulation could be achieved one-sidedly by the management or bilaterally by negotiation with employees. On the other hand external job regulations are those being compel on the organisation from outside a gencies where they could be any third parties, state regulation or any outside stakeholders. Hence, it can be give tongue to that job regulations as such whitethorn forge the industrial relations and external job regulation whitethorn allow different forms of unions. As mentioned previously there are three statuss on employment relations and these are Unitarism, Pluralism, and Marxism.Unitarism by definition has a set of characteristics. In Unitarism, the organization is considered as one unit that is working towards a single goal. It represents the talented family picture. It too follows that all members of the family, i.e. the organisation, are loyal. Unitalirsts do not believe in conflicts or disputes and they do not expect or accept it. Trade unions have no role to play in unitarism, no negotiations and no collective negotiate. Any of these issues would be considered a disruptive influence to the course of study of the organisation towards its goal. Management in Unitarism considers making nonreversible decisions is the norm and any opposition to this is illogic and irrational. Unitarism has a paternalistic approach where it demands loyalty of all employees. Atkinson and Curtis (2004, p. 492) stated paternalistic approach to employee relations in many bittie companies was found to be largely still intact. The governments intention of developing partnerships in the employment relationship in order to promote great justness in the workplace has, to a significant extent, failed. Small companies may not be granting their employees all their statutory rights. The statement quoted indicates that in this approach there is a smack of unfairness in such ideology of unitarism, at least in the view of the author. Other authors such as Rodriguez and Rios (2007) watch out that paternalism is counterproductive to productivity. Rodriguez and Rios (2007, p. 356) stated Given this historical eyeshade, paternalism has been closely tie in to the tralatitious personalized social bond between a boss and his employees. The railroad tie also implies that paternalism and productivity are not compatible. In this paper we press that some of the new modern labour bonds that are being set up rise from the paternalistic womb. New fully modern bonds non paternalistic are present as well. Both are related to productivity chthonic the condition that organizations act consistently with the premises under which the contracts are made. By consistent we mean non hypocritical relationships that livingally and sincerely take into account those premises to decide upon gracious Resources management policies and practices. On the other hand, authors such as Lewis (1989) contrive that unitarism approach is what is required in the midst of recession. Lewis (1989) referred to Cressey and Mclnnes (1985) present that the effect of the recession has been to downgrade the role of consultation. In the companies in which they reviewed the process of consulta tion, it was trivial and bland. Any lifeboat democracy, as they term it, brought about by the disposition to improve co-operation in order to cope with the recession, is constitutionally fragile and will come to grief on the rocks of managerial prerogative. Moreover, some authors consider that unitarism is traffic pattern and required, for example Wilkinson, et al (1991) stated unitarism is an underlying theme which remains unquestioned. murder is seen as a matter of motivation, with the correct attitudes being instilled by unreserved training programmes. Black and Ackers (1998) termed the context of unitarism as looked upon in this investigation as macho management or direct control as a management style. The authors then referred to what they termed as new unitarism and indicated that there is now a transfer towards such ideology. Black and Ackers (1998) suggest that management is shifting its emphasis, within the strategy of responsible autonomy, away from the shop stewards organisation towards the shop-floor histrion. This involves a shift of issues from collective bargaining to consultation and an attempt to supplement or regenerate the workplace corporatism of the post-war period, with a greater stress on direct communications with and involvement of the shop floor. The new unitarism attempts to circumvent unions and restrict their scope rather than smashing them. In support of this Gunnigle (1992) views neo-unitarism as a unitarist perspective involving a range of HRM policies designed to eliminate employee deficiency for collective representation. In this sense neo-unitarism is a diluted version of the old unitarism that is investigated here.The second perspective that will be discussed within the context of unilateral managerial decisions is pluralism. Keenoy and Anthony (1992) indicated that the 1970s view about pluralism was centred on the appropriateness of pluralistic methods to the achievement of social arbitrator an ethical controver sy adhesioning how the business organizations should be managed. Chigara (1995) indicated that Pluralism holds that employers and employees arouses are diametrically argue to each other, and that they are held in the balance by the common gather up of keeping the enterprise alive. For pluralists, the trade union is a welcome fomite for communication. Oram (1984, p. 23) added to the above that Pluralists see trade unionism as merely one more example of a competitive pressure group which horse opera democratic society accommodates as a matter of course. Pluralists also see that within legal limits, trade union aspirations can be action sometimes by imposing their wishes in ways which management may see as arbitrary. Trade unions are seen as presenting legitimate challenges to managerial rule with one outcome being in the form of concur rules, regulating terms and conditions of employment. dobson (1982) indicated that in the pluralist approach, it is implicit to industrial relat ions a great belief in the virtues of collective bargaining since it is the method which is used to resolve conflicts. Dobson (1982) stated that other forms of job regulation-especially unilateral regulation by employer, trade union and workgroup-are usually condemned, since they over-ride the interests of other groups. The author then aired the views of the critics to pluralism as stipulating that the legitimacy of collective bargaining is ground on certain boldnesss, most notably the assumption that all interest groups possess approximate bear uponity of power, so that the eventual compromise reflects equal concessions by all the parties. Even the commonly used definition of collective bargaining of voice job regulation, looks to suggest equality between the parties. Dobson (1982) added that Critics of pluralism have argued that power is very rarely distributed equally, and since in the long come off the employer can move his production and investment elsewhere, power is pre dominantly knockout in the hands of the employer. For the very same reasons other researchers such as Gunnigle (1992) pointed out to the rise of Neo-pluralism. Gunnigle (1992) stated that Neo-pluralism presented a second type of HRM which involves moves towards greater consensualism and commitment in unionized companies. It is characterized by what might be termed a dualist approach, involving the use of HRM techniques such as direct communications with employees and performance related pay systems alongside established collective bargaining procedures. Pluralism then take care to think that organisation conflicts does exist and that employers and employees interests may be different, however, having accepted this they also accepted that these conflicts are resolvable and that trade unions and the process of collective bargaining are more than capable of attaining a resolution. This assumes that power is equally distributed between employers, employees and unions. Hence, collectiv e bargaining works efficiently. However, researchers also doubt this assumption. Dobson (1982) dispute this unrealistic balance of power and stated A more realistic view of collective bargaining, which takes account of the varying power balances between employers and workers, would see collective bargaining straddling the continuum between unilateral worker regulation on the one hand and unilateral employer regulation on the other. Such an approach would bring into question the pluralist assumption that collective bargaining is necessarily good per se, for at the extremes of the continuum the substantive content of a collective agreement may be identical to that of a unilateral decision. Dobson as such dismissed the application of collective bargaining as equal to unilateral decision within the imbalance of power that exists in reality. Ackers (1994) agrees with Dobsons view and stated Today, the narrow, institutional version of pluralism is unsustainable. Any view of industrial re lations as simply collective bargaining would confine it to a minority operation in a declining sector of the economy.The third perspective on employment relationship is that of Marxism. Hyman (1975) is considered as the authority on Marxism in relation to industrial relations, albeit that he was criticized for being too theoretical in his approach. Wood (1976) referred to Davis criticising the work of Hyman as so abstract and general as to be almost worthless, in either theoretical or practical terms. Still, Hyman explain that worker grievances could only be expressed through collective bargaining and industrial actions. Barbash (2005) indicated that the Marxist model assumes the existence of class conflicts and it is built on the assumption of coalition formation. Marxism stipulates that coalition formation is base on classes that form from out of groups that are in the same authority position in the organisation. Marxism also assumes that classes are able to regulate conflicts and can bring change through negotiations. Marxists acknowledge unions but see the faults in them when in the interest of workers they look economic improvement rather than embarking on a revolutionary change and they accuse some unions and their members are subject to false consciousness and that they need to work towards their Leninist destiny. Marxists believes that enceinteism creates and endorses monopolies and that capitalism has a powerful luring to the workers when they acquire some powers. Therefore the Marxism approach is to make a goal of overthrowing capitalism. It supports the notion that industrial relations are made by those that are involve in the production and gives the first importance to workers and their affair. It holds true that workers for capitalism are considered a burden on profit making. Marxists also held the view that workers contracts are compel upon them and they do not enter to it freely and that makes them weak as individual and their strength is therefore lies in their coalition. Marxism sees conflict of interest between capital and workers and employment relations are formed through this conflict. Marxism also conserve the view that trade unions presents optimal solution for such conflicts and ironically Marxists views that institutions of joint regulation would enhance rather than limit managements position as they dare the continuation of capitalism rather than challenge it.From the above a polish can be drawn regarding the conviction of management that they have the right to unilateral decision making over human resource issues and that this right is legitimate and rational. It is obvious to many that the trade unions power has been in the last two decades in a decline state. Also, the power of collective bargaining has been in decline, especially after the rise of capitalism in east Europe. The pluralistic approach was seen to be restrictive to the flair and individualistic behaviour of entrepreneurial organisa tions. Pluralism, whilst acknowledging the conflicts in employers and employees interests, it upholds the idea that survival of the organisation is the derived force to keep it going. Pluralists see trade unions are as presenting legitimate challenges to managerial rule and that it leads to a satisfactory outcome. In fact, each one of the two perspective unitarism and pluralism has its critics. For example, in unitarism there is no obvious reason as why managers have the only say, and whether this is sensible. It can be argued against unitarism that it gives organisation values to managers and not to groups. If it is a fact of life that conflicts exist in organisations, unitarism does not seem to appreciate this. The same also could be said about pluralism, where it is based on assuming a balance of power that seldom exists in organisations. It also assumes that all conflicts are resolvable and that all those involved have no hidden agendas apart from the common good. It also assume s the full religious belief in each party therefore it is unreal and impractical. In regard to Marxism, it was found, in my view, as a mere attack on capitalism and rejection of all of its principles based on naive attempt to show its drawbacks. Marxism hence, put across on giving power to unionists leaders and support the use of extreme measures to resolve conflicts. The concept of job regulations seems to be taken by many researchers as the centre for employment relations and that this relation is formed by both internal and external means. As such this concept may encapsulate all three perspectives in one as it return unilateral, bilateral and collective as well as state efforts in forming the employment relation.In regard to the subject in question which discusses the unilateral decisions by managements over human resource issues and whether it is legitimate or not. I am of the opinion that it is unrealistic to think that management would allow such decisions to be made colle ctively. Even if on the face of it, they pretend that it is so. I found myself entirely agree with Lewis (1989) who stated The industrial relations wall about the reasons why management promote employee battle in decision making has run for many years. Much of the literature emphasises the theory that participation in the U.K. is more imagined than real. It gives employees the illusion of a say in organisational decision making whereas the reality is that management use the illusion as a mechanism for control of employees. In fact, this illusion is carried out everywhere and seems infixed in any organisation.REFERENCES Ackers, P. (1994) Back to Basics? Industrial Relations and the initiative Culture. Employee Relations, 16(8), 32 47. Atkinson, C. And Curtis, S. (2004) The impact of Employment Regulation on The Employment race in SMEs. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 11(4), 486 494. Black, J. and Ackers, P. (1998)The Japanisation of British constancy? A Case Study of Quality Circles in the Carpet Industry. Employee Relations, 10(6), 9-16. Barbash, K. (2005) Theories and Concepts in Comparative Industrial Relations. Blackwell. Brown, S. and Eisenhardt, K. (1998) Competing on The Edge. Harvard Business School Pr ISBN 0875847544. Chigara, B. (1995) condition 2 of Convention No.87 Precepts And Their Application A Global Assessment. Managerial Law, 37(6), 1-20. Cressey, P. and McInnes, J. (1985) The niche and Industrial Relations. ESRC conference, University of Warwick, March 1985. Dobson, J. (1982) What is Good Industrial Relations? Employee Relations, 4(2), 5-10. Flanders, A. (1965) Industrial relations what is wrong with the system? London Faber. Gunnigle, P. (1992) Human Resource Management in Ireland. Employee Relations, 14(5), 5-22.1 Hyman, R. (1975) Industrial Relations, a Marxist Introduction. Macmillan, 220.2- Keenoy, T., Anthony, P. (1992) HRM Metaphor, Meaning and Morality, in Blyton, P., Turnbull, P. (Eds), Reassessing Hu man Resource Management, London Sage.3- Lewis, P. (1989) Employee Participation in a Japanese-Owned British Electronics pulverisation Reality or Symbolism? Employee Relations, 11(1), 3-9.4- Oram, S. (1984) Industrial Relations and Ideology-An Alternative Approach. Employee Relations, 6(2), 22 26.5- Rodriguez, D. And Rios, R. (2007) Latent premises of labor contracts paternalism and productivity Two cases from the banking industry in Chile. world(prenominal) Journal of Manpower, 28(5), 354 368.6- Silva, S. (1998) Human Resource Management, Industrial Relations and Achieving Management Objectives. International Labour Organisation, ACT/EMP Publications. Available from http//www.ilo.org. Accessed 24th October 2009.7- Wilkinson, A., Allen, P., and Snape, E. (1991) TQM and the Management of Labour. International Journal of Manpower, 12(6), 35-42.8- Wood , S. (1976) The Radicalisation of Industrial Relations Theor. Personnel Review, 5(3), 52 57.