Underpinning employment relations philosophies

Relationships between employers and employees are founded on underpinning but seldom articulated philosophies (Armstrong, 2010). These are the unitary and pluralist views, the concept of social partnership and, on the part of employers, belief in a collective or individual approach (Armstrong, 2010).

The unitary view

The unitary view is one typically held by management, who sees its operation as that of directing and controlling the workforce to achieve economic and growth objectives (Armstrong, 2010). To this end, management believes that it is the rule-making authority (Armstrong, 2010). Management tends to view the enterprise as a unitary system with one source of authority itself and one focus of loyalty the organization (Armstrong, 2010). It extols the virtue of teamwork, where everyone strives jointly to a general objective, everyone pulls their weight to the best of their ability, and everyone accepts their place and function gladly, following the leadership of the appointed manager or supervisor (Armstrong, 2010). These are admirable sentiments, but they sometimes lead to what McClelland (1963) referred to as an orgy of ‘avuncular pontification’ on the part of the leaders of industry. The unitary view, which is essentially autocratic and authoritarian, has sometimes been expressed in agreements as ‘management’s right to manage’. The philosophy of HRM with its emphasis on commitment and mutuality owes much to the unitary perspective (Armstrong, 2010).

 

The pluralist view

The pluralist view, as described by Fox (1966), is that an industrial organization is a plural society, containing many related but separate interests and objectives which must be maintained in equilibrium (Armstrong, 2010). In place of a corporate unity reflected in a single focus of authority and loyalty, management must accept the existence of rival sources of leadership and attachment (Armstrong, 2010). It must face the fact that, in Drucker’s (1951) phrase, a business enterprise has a triple personality: it is at once an economic, a political and a social institution (Armstrong, 2010). In the first sense, it produces and distributes incomes. In the second, it embodies a system of government in which managers collectively exercise authority over the managed but, are also themselves involved in an intricate pattern of political relationships (Armstrong, 2010). Its third personality is revealed in the organization’s community which evolves from below out of face-to-face relations based on shared interests, sentiments, beliefs and values among various groups of employees. Pluralism conventionally regards the workforce as being represented by ‘an opposition that does not seek to govern’ (Clegg, 1976).

 

The concept of social partnership

Social partnership is the concept that the parties involved in employee relations should aim to work together to the greater good of all (Armstrong, 2010). It is based on the mutual gain theory of Kochan and Osterman (1994), which states that employers, employees and trade unions gain from cooperative forms of employment relationships (Armstrong, 2010). Social partnership has been defined by Ackers and Payne (1998) as ‘a stable, collaborative relationship between capital and labor, as represented by an independent trade union, providing for low social conflict and significant worker influence on business decision making through strong collective bargaining’ (Armstrong, 2010).

The concept of social partnership is rooted in stakeholder theory, originally formulated by Freeman (1984). Donaldson and Preston (1995) defined the theory as representing the corporation as a ‘constellation of cooperative and competitive interests. As Donaldson and Preston (1995) explained that ‘stakeholders are identified by their interest in the corporation, whether or not the corporation has any interests in them (Armstrong, 2010). Each group of stakeholder merits consideration because of its own sake and not merely because of its ability to further the interests of some other group, such as the shareholders’ (Armstrong, 2010). As Hampden-Turner (1996) commented, ‘Stakeholders include at least five parties: employees, shareholders, customers, community and government (Armstrong, 2010). Wealth is created when all work together’ (Armstrong, 2010).

 

References

Ackers, P & Payne, J, 1998, British trade unions and social partnership: rhetoric, reality and strategy, International Journal of Human Resource Management, pp 529–49

 

Armstrong, M, 2010, in Employee relations, Armstrong’s essential human resource management practice, Kogan Page, London UK, pp. 297-298

 

Clegg, H, 1976, The System of Industrial Relations in Great Britain, Blackwell, Oxford

 

Donaldson, T & Preston, LE, 1995, The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence and implications, Academy of Management Review, pp 65–91

 

Drucker, P, 1951, The New Society, Heinemann, London

 

Fox, A, 1966, Industrial Sociology and Industrial Relations, Royal Commission Research Paper No 3, HMSO, London

 

Hampden-Turner, C, 1996, The enterprising stakeholder, Independent, 5 February, p 8

 

Kochan, T and Osterman, P, 1994, The Mutual Gains Enterprise: Forging a winning partnership among labor, management and government, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA

 

McClelland, G, 1963, Editorial, British Journal of Industrial Relations, June, p 278