Power in Employee Relation

Power in Employee Relation Introduction Kelly (1998, p. 88) notes that ‘power is perhaps the most widely used concept in the field of industrial relations, yet little research on the subject of power either theoretically or empirically has been done, â€Å"†¦.to the extent that it now represents a major theoretical lacuna (gap) within the discipline (Kirkbride 1985, p. 44).Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Power in Employee Relation specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Rose (2004, p. 6) defines power as â€Å"†¦ the extent to which one party to a relationship can compel the other to do something he otherwise would not do voluntarily†. Employment relationships, according to Rose (2004, p. 8) it refers to â€Å"†¦the study of the regulation of the employment relationship between employer and employee, both collectively and individually, and the determination of substantive and procedural issues at organizational and work place levels.† The paper critically examines the importance and implications of power in employment relationships, its comparison to policy and the inherent conflicts. Literature Review The players in employee relations theory include employers and managers, employer representatives, employees and workers, employee representatives, the state, its agencies and other supra -national bodies. Faber Dunlop (1958, p. 28) pioneered the systems approach’. He defines it as a sub system within the industrial society. â€Å"†¦an analytical subsystem of society†. By this definition, power becomes a consequence of distribution of power in a bigger society. Kirkbride (1985, p. 47) criticizes this definition on three grounds: it ignores any critical investigation into the processes of power within industrial relations. The systems approach rejects the importance of behavioral processes in favor of structural processes (102). Furthermore, the systems approach creates a po ssibility of conflict within the industrial relations because it does not recognize opposition (Poole 1981, p. 75).Advertising Looking for essay on business economics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Unitary theory assumes that there is no possibility of opposition because the organization body is viewed as one integrated family, bound together by the values of the organization. Power as a concept is neglected by the unitary approach (Kirkbride 1985, p. 46). Action theory gives recognition to the theory of power in industrial relations â€Å"†¦it focuses on the relative power of the parties in the exchange relationship† Kirkbride (1985, p. 45). Though it lacks a definite form, two branches of analysis are clear, analysis of decision making of the various players in the industrial relations framework and of the interaction between the players. However, it fails to elaborate how an agreement is reached dur ing the bargaining process. It has restricted focus on the negotiating table. The major strong point of the action theory is that it focuses on behavioral theory. Because of the inherent weakness on the negotiation table, it does neglect the possibility of conflict within the different organizations in the industrial relations frame work (Clarke 1977b, p. 109). Pluralist theory assumes distinct sectional groups within an organization, each with competing interests. Through joint regulation or collective bargaining, Flanders (1970, p. 19) argues that the diverse and competing interests can be regulated. Hyman (1975, p. 69), argues that pluralist focus on regulation conceals the firmness of power in the process of industrial relations. He asserts that employment relationship â€Å"†¦can never be frozen in a single rule.† However, it is rather dynamic and changing. The Marxist Perspective emphasizes the issue of power (Glaser Strauss 1967, p. 71). According to the Marxist, since the capital owners own the means of production, they have more wealth and therefore have advantage over the suppliers of labor. When there is a larger pool of labor, capital is at an advantage because the labor supply exceeds its demand, the labor price is low. Hyman (1975, p. 72) observes, â€Å"It is true that the possession of scarce skills, or the existence of a tight labor market may help lessen the imbalance. Hyman (1975, p. 75) observes â€Å"for a while the powers of the employer are enormous he is at the same time dependent on his labor force.†Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Power in Employee Relation specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Capital may be dependent upon labour in a number of ways; the Marxist position points that the relationship between capital and labor may continuously fluctuate. The Marxist perspective offers a useful perspective into the analysis of power and employee relation s. However, his view of power as a zero-sum game phenomenon and failure to develop power at micro level attract criticism (Kirkbride 1985, p. 47). Discussion Employment relations is the contemporary term for industrial relations, the theoretical perspectives and the way their points of view can has been discussed in the literature reviews. Modern management approaches today strike a balance between unitary and pluralism. The approach chosen depends on the employee relations climate. When trade union power is low, management makes the decision, when union power is high, then negotiation and consultation are adopted (Purcell Sisson 1983, p. 210). The bargaining power of the unions can be estimated based on membership density, strike frequency statistics, bargaining outcomes, structural factors and leadership. The 21 century has witnessed a decline in both union strength and influence due to the shift from manufacturing to services in the developed world. The smaller workspace in the service sector has hindered union organization and recruitment. Even though, employees still have a voice- â€Å"a whole variety of processes and structures which enable and at a times empower, employees, directly and indirectly to contribute to decision making in the firm† (Boxall Purcell 2003, p. 162). The employees can air their voice formally and informally, directly or through representation, collectively or individually depending on the intention. Some forms of employee voices are bottom-up arising from a desire among the employees to be listened to. In most cases however, management often initiates the modalities for employee voice either out of pressure from employees or as a strategy to be more inclusive. Dundon Rollinson (2007, p. 121) call the difference between how much influence employees report have over management decisions and how much influence they would like to have, the â€Å"representative gap†.Advertising Looking for essay on business economics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Wilkinson et al. (2004, p. 306) acknowledged four categories of employee involvement and participation that give employees varying levels of power in their work places; downward communication, upward problem solving, representative participation, and financial participation. Downward communication is a top- down strategy communication from management to employees, for example, through newsletters, notice boards among others. It does not give the employees much power. Upward problem solving empowers the employees to improve work processes. They suggest solutions to specific problems and this gives them great possession over decisions. Under representative participation, the employees interest are represented by their leaders (elected workers representatives) (McBride 2004, p. 82). It provides employees with some degree of influence over a number of issues such as work councils and advisory councils. Trade union representation often has a greater power over decisions because failure t o respect employees views can result in industrial action. Collective bargaining, refer to joint regulation of specific aspects of the employment relationship between employers and recognized trade union representatives (Faber Dunlop 1958, p. 56). Workers capitalize on their solidarity that gives them a stronger bargaining position against management. They focus on substantive issues like payment and conditions of work. Finally, according to Marchington et al. (1992, p. 63), financial participation, allows the employees to have financial share in the firm. Strauss (2006) asserts that financial participation compliments voice initiatives. It seeks to develop long term relationships between the employees and their employer by linking the overall firms success with an individual reward. They include employee share ownership, sharing of profits and payment of bonuses. In conclusion, it is clear that the concept of power in employee relation has evolved over time. List of References Cla rke, J., 1977b. Workers in the Tyneside Shipyards in McCord, N. (Ed) (1977) Essays in Tyneside Labour. History. Newcastle: Department of Humanities. Dundon, T., and Rollinson D. 2007. Understanding Employment Relations. McGraw Hill: Maidenhead. Faber, F., and Dunlop J., 1958. Industrial Relations Systems. New York: Holt. Flanders, A 1970, Management and Unions: The Theory and Reform of Industrial Relations. Glaser, B., and Strauss A. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine. Hyman, R. 1975. Industrial relations: A Marxist introduction. London: Macmillan. Kelly, J., 1998. Rethinking Industrial Relations: Mobilization, Collectivism and Long Waves. London: Routledge. Kirkbride, P. 1985. Power in industrial relations research. Industrial Relations Journal, vol.16, pp. 44-56. McBride, J. 2004. Renewal or resilience? the persistence of shop steward organization in the Tyneside maritime construction industry. London: Capital Class. Poole, M., 1981. Theories of Trade Unionis m: A Sociology of Industrial Relations. Routledge Kegan Paul. Rose, E. 1994. The Disorganized Paradigm British Industrial Relations in the 1990s. Employee Relations, vol. 16, no.1, pp. 27-40. Wilkinson, A et al. 2004. Changing patterns of employee voice: Case studies from the UK and Republic of Ireland. The Journal of Industrial Relations, vol.46 no.3 pp. 298–322.