theoretical perspectives

Unitarism 

• Unitarism/pluralism coined by Alan Fox (1966). – ideologies of management (Fox, 1966,p.10): beliefs held by managers about how ER should operate  

• Unitarism: emphasis on cooperative relations at work  

• Organizations and those within them have shared values, interests and objectives.  

• Organization is a team, with a ‘unified common purpose’ - harmony ,share the same goals, rejects the assumption that a basic antagonism exists between employees and employers  

• Members are loyal to the organization  

• Managerial prerogative is accepted - Single source of legitimate authority (management)  

• Opposition and conflict (where this does exist) is seen as harmful, irrational, abnormal and should be quashed - No need for TUs  

• Conflict is pathological based on misunderstandings or mischief  

• Legitimizes management authority as in everyone’s interests - even when it may not be.  

• Everyone in the organization, from managers to frontline employees, are all working for the same goal 

• We don’t need trade unions cause they're breaking the relations and harmony's we have  

• Walmart is the largest private organisation – typical example of a unitarist employer – working towards the idea that is it our organisations  

• Walmart cheer  

Applicability to the workplace  

• Influenced ‘Human Relations’ tradition  

• ‘The (Unitarist) view is still widely held by many British managers and underpins many of the recent developments encapsulated in the term ‘human resource management.’ (Blyton and Turnbull, 2004, 32.)  

• Allows management to legitimise their actions, e.g. anti-unionism (Wal-Mart)  

• Underpinned by managerial confidence and market individualism.  

• Passes the blame for conflict – troublemakers  

• Shared/common interests. 

Criticisms of unitarism  

• Fails to Recognise Conflict between Groups within Organisations  

• Denys the basic antagonism that characterizes the employment relationship  

• Overemphasis on securing employee commitment  

• Justifies Existing Inequalities in Society (doesn’t allow people to express their voice) 

• Can Provide a justification for bad Management Practices and Conduct  

• Assumes authority of management  

• Denies/Curtails Rights of Representation to Employees – anti unionism  

➢ Lucas (2004), Lichtenstein (2006) found that managers expressed hostility towards TU  

• Long since been abandoned by most social scientists as incongruent with reality and useful for the purpose of analysis’ (Fox, 1966: 4) 

Pluralism 

• Opposite of unitarist  

• One of the defining theories of IR by Fox building on the work of the ‘Oxford School’. • ‘Organisations comprise groups of individuals ...(that) have their own aims, interest and leadership’ (Rose p. 29).  

              – Organization is in a ‘constant state of dynamic tension’ (ibid).  

• Organizations are miniature democratic states with divergent interests  

• Recognizes the existence of a basic antagonism.. BUT…  

• …Many sources of loyalty and authority creating tensions that have to be managed.  

• Conflict is ‘rational and inevitable’ and can be managed through appropriate procedures (e.g. CB).  

➢ main concern for pluralists: conflict to be managed! – State as a referee through the development of policies 

Pluralism: conflict to be managed  

• State as a referee: Government regulation in ER (laws) to protect working people (example NMW) is justified by pluralists to rectify the imbalance of power  

• Development of procedures to resolve conflict (for example establishing bargain relationships with trade unions) – Tesco and Morrisons and partnership with USDAW relationship with union 

• Management accepts conflict with workforce and negotiates with trade unions- a give and take environment  

• Management’s role is a ‘balancing act’ which recognizes conflicting interests and requires the consent and cooperation of parties, groups involved in the revolution of conflicts.  

• Therefore managing ER through consent and cooperation rather through management control and the exercise of prerogative 

The influence of pluralism  

• Recognises Shop stewards (part of the induction) 

• Procedures and conflict resolution  

• Afforded key role to collective bargaining –bargaining is encouraged between managers and union reps  

• Shaped and continues to shape the study of Employment Relations – focus on institutions & Job regulation 

• Lots of debates on unions working hand in hand with employers  

• Tesco – partnership agreement  

Criticisms of the pluralist perspective 

• Pluralism fails to address the issue of power seriously enough in an environment where bargain relationships have been established  

• Pluralism appears to advance the interests of employees by recognizing union representation but the development of procedures and processes keeps it narrow  

• It also does not challenge the economic power of employers.  

• Is more concerned with joint regulation which contains conflict and resolves it in favour of the employer – partnership model  

• Focuses on the resolution of conflict rather than its generation  

• Therefore, offers no comprehensive explanation of conflict, beyond acknowledging that different interests prevail in the workplace 

• More realistic and useful approach to allow people have a voice in a organisation  

• More interested on how to resolve conflict rather than changing the core issue  

• Goes beyond pluralism but is of course a distinct philosophy in itself:  

• Incorporates a Marxist analysis of the employment relationship  

• Marxian analysis offers a different perspective to understand society. It is a theoretical approach which emphasizes change, contradiction and practice (Hyman, 1975) 

• Is used to develop an argument  

Radicalism vs unitarism and pluralism 

▪ Unitarism and Pluralism are views attributed to managers and employers  

▪ Unitarism and Pluralism accept and endorse capitalist economic and political system – not critical of it  

▪ Radical perspective is deeply critical of capitalist society and its system of production, distribution and exchange  

▪ Radicals are critical of the pluralists’ preoccupation with the regulation of conflict.  

▪ By concentrating on how conflict is contained and controlled, the pluralists divert attention from the more fundamental issue of why conflict is generated  

▪ Radicals believe that unnecessary emphasis is placed by pluralists, on how employers, trade unions and other institutions cope with such conflict, and on identifying processes that can be implemented to maintain industrial stability.  

▪ Marxists also do not share the pluralist view of the role of the state as a guardian of the ‘public interest’. For them, the state plays an integral role in protecting the interests of the power-holders – employers 

• Trying to explain why conflict is generated  

•  

Radicalism/Marxism 

Some of the main assumptions of radicalism:  

❑ Industrial conflict embedded in the ER (part of interactions from employees and employers) 

❑ A belief in the deep inequality of the employment relationship  

❑ Centrality of conflict’ (Roberts 2003). Class conflict arises from inequalities in the distribution of economic power in the society  

❑ Inevitability of conflict and the impossibility of resolving conflict and achieving equality without fundamental changes in the underlying social structure.  

❑ Control a central theoretical theme in the analysis (see Labour process theory) 

 radicalism/marxist

Radicalism and the notion of power  

▪ Radicals see the imbalance of power both within society and at the workplace as central to the nature of industrial relations:  

➢ At the workplace, those who own the means of production (employer) have power superiority over those who sell their labour for wages. Therefore substantial inequality in the distribution of rewards.  

➢ This inequality allows the greater capacity of the owners and managers of capital to control the labour process, control what they're doing in their work, etc