Approaches Used To Achieve Good Industrial Relation

INTRODUCTION

Industrial relation system consists of the whole gamut of relationship between the employees and employee and the employer which are managed by the means of conflict and cooperation. A sound industrial relation system is one in which the relationship between management and employees are harmonious and cooperation than conflictual and create an environment conducive, economic efficiency, motivation, productivity and development of employee which will generate employee royalty and mutual trust.

 To achieve good industrial relation, there are many approaches identified to attain industrial harmony. 

THE ACTION THEORY APPROACH To Industrial Relation

The action theory approach takes the collective regulation of industrial labour as its focal point. The employer and employee operate within a framework, which can at best be described as a coalition relationship. The employer representative and employee representative, it is claimed, agree in principle to cooperate in the resolution of the conflict, their cooperation taking the form of bargaining. Thus, the action theory analysis of industrial relations focuses primarily on bargaining as a mechanism for the resolution of conflicts.

THEORETICAL APPROACHES To Industrial Relation

Industrial relations scholars have described three major theoretical approaches that contrast in their understanding and analysis of workplace relations which are generally known as unitary, pluralist and radical.

THE PLURALIST APPROACH To Industrial Relation

Pluralism is a major theory in labour-management relations, which has many powerful advocates. The focus is on the resolution of conflict rather than its generation, or, in the words of the pluralist, on ‘the institutions of job regulation.’ Kerr is one of the important exponents of pluralism. According to him, the social environment is an important factor in industrial conflicts. The isolated masses of workers are more strike-prone as compared to dispersed groups. When industrial jobs become more pleasant and employees’ get more integrated into the wider society, strikes will become less frequent.

Fox distinguishes between two distinct aspects of relationship between workers and management. The first is the market relationship, which concerns with the terms and conditions on which labour is hired. This relationship is essentially economic in character and based on contracts executed between the parties. The second aspect relates to the management’s dealing with labour, the nature of their interaction, negotiations between the union and management, distribution of power in the organisation, and participation of the union in joint decision-making.

MARXIST APPROACH To Industrial Relation

Marxism is, more or less, a general theory of society and of social change with

Implications for the analysis of industrial relations within capitalist societies and does not strictly explain the theory of industrial relations. According to Hyman (1975) He argues that the issue of conflict was not given proper analysis by the duo, as they focused on how any conflict is contained and controlled, rather than on the process through which disagreements and disputes are generated. Hyman asserts that the perspectives of the duo however influential, is one sided Hyman further argues that unceasing power struggle for control is a central feature of industrial relations.

To him, this struggle for control emanates from the nature and characteristics of capitalist society. He summarized the major characteristics of capitalism as

1. The ownership and or control of the means of production by a small minority
2. The domination of profit as the fundamental determinant of economic activities
3. The obligation on most of society to sell their productive abilities on the market as commodity. Against this background, two major classes are located within capitalist industrial relations which are also a reflection of what obtains in society. Thus, capitalist industrialism bifurcate society into two classes. These are the owners of means of production which is the capitalist or bourgeoisie and the owners of labour, which are the workers or proletariat.

This being so, the interests of employers and employees are diametrically opposed and conflictual. The capitalist endeavors to purchase labour at the lowest possible price whilst labour on the other hand tries to sell his only asset at the highest possible price in order to ensure his existence. The capitalists tend to maximize profit whilst the workers tend to maximize wages/salaries. Thus, in capitalist industrial society, the interests and aspirations of both labour and employers are divergent and in conflict.

The Marxist perspectives typify workplace relations as a reflection of the incidence of societal inequalities and the inevitable expression of this at the work place. To sum it up, Hyman further states that industrial relations is all about power, interests and conflict and that the economic, technological and political dynamics of the broader society inevitably shape the character of relations among industrial relations actors which he described as the political economy of industrial relations. Conflict is viewed as a disorder precursor to change and to resolve conflict means to change the imbalance and inequalities in society in terms of power and wealth. Trade unions are viewed as employee response to capitalism. Marxist theory emphasizes exploitation and alienation.

This perspective is critical of capitalist society and its system of production, distribution and exchange and emphasizes the importance of collective action including strike action and action short of strikes (Rose, 2008). Hyman (1975) argues that given the nature of capitalist society, industrial relations can be analyzed from a more radical perspective. This theory is also known as the radical perspective.

UNITARY APPROACH To Industrial Relation

The unitary perspective views the organisation as pointing towards a single or unified authority and loyalty structure. Emphasis under the unitary perspective is placed on common values, interest and objectives. Those subscribing to this view see all organizational participants as a team or family thereby implicitly emphazing shared values, shared goals and common destiny.Unitary in essence implies the absence of factionalism within the enterprise (Fajana, 2000).Conflict is viewed as irrational and the sacking of striking workers is preferred to consultation or negotiation. Conflict is regarded as pathological or evil or bad. Trade unionism is outlawed and suppressed as it is viewed as an illegitimate intrusion or encroachment on management’s right to manage. According to Rose (2008), under the unitary perspective, trade unions are regarded as an intrusion into the organisation from outside, competing with management for the loyalty of employees. The unitary theory tends towards authoritarianism and paternalism. It is pro- management biased and emphasizes consensus and industrial peace. The underlying assumption of this view is that the organisation exists in perfect harmony and all conflict is unnecessary (Rose, 2008).

 

Social action approach to Industrial Relation

 The social action approach considers the organisation from the position of the individual members or actors who will each have their own goals. This perspective regards conflicts of interests as normal behavior and part of organizational life (Rose, 2008). 

Social action the Social action theory represents a contribution from sociologists to the study of organizations. It attempts to view the organisation from the standpoint of individual members or actors of industrial relations. The theory seeks to analyze why the actors take certain lines of action.

Social action arises out of the expectations, norms, attitudes, values, experiences, situation and goals of the individuals working in the system. Thus, according to Green while the system approach is up-down, thesocial action theory is a bottom-up approach.

Salamon (2000) opines that the importance of the social action theory of industrial relations is that it weakens the fatalism of structural determinism and stresses that the individual retains at least some freedom of action and ability to influence events in the direction that he/she believes to be right or desirable. Social action theorists emphasis the use of interview, survey and participant observation in determining the reality of both society and of organizations.

THE HUMAN RELATIONS APPROACH

In the words of Keith Davies, human relations are “the integration of people into a work situation that motivates them to work together productively, cooperatively and with economic, psychological and social satisfactions.”

According to him, the goals of human relations are:

(a) to get people to produce,

(b) to cooperate through mutuality of interest, and

(c) to gain satisfaction from their relationships.

The human relations school founded by Elton Mayo and later propagated by Roethlisberger, Whitehead, W.F. Whyte, and Homans offers a coherent view of the nature of industrial conflict and harmony.

The human relations approach highlights certain policies and techniques to improve employee morale, efficiency and job satisfaction. It encourages the small work group to exercise considerable control over its environment and in the process helps to remove a major irritant in labour-management relations. But there was reaction against the excessive claims of this school of thought in the sixties. Some of its views were criticized by Marxists, pluralists, and others on the ground that it encouraged dependency and discouraged individual development, and ignored the importance of technology and culture in industry. Taking a balanced view, however, it must be admitted that the human relations school has thrown a lot of light on certain aspects such as communication, management development, and acceptance of workplace as a social system, group dynamics, and participation in management.

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT APPROACH

The term, human resource management (HRM) has become increasingly used in the literature of personnel/ industrial relation. The term has been applied to a diverse range of management strategies and, indeed, sometimes used simply as a more modern, and therefore more acceptable, term for personnel or industrial relations management. Some of the components of HRM are:

(i)          Human resource organisation;

(ii)       Human resource planning;

(iii)     Human resource systems;

(iv)     Human resource development;

(v)       Human resource relationships;

(vi)     Human resource utilization;

(vii)        Human resource accounting; and

(viii)      Human resource audit. This approach emphasizes individualism and the direct relationship between management and its employees. Quite clearly, therefore, it questions the collective regulation basis of traditional industrial relation

Conclusion

The practice of employment/ industrial relation has benefited immensely from theoretical frameworks of leading theorists in the field of industrial relations. It has been observed that despite the criticisms leveled against some of these theories they have stood the test of time and have contributed immensely to scholarship and practice. Among these theories, there are areas of commonalities and differences as could be deduced from the comparative analysis.

 

REFERENCES

Asika, N.M. (1995). “Theoretical Perspectives on the Issue of Administration” UNILAG.

Fajana, S. (2000). Industrial Relations in Nigeria: Theory and Features (2nd ed.). Lagos: Labofin and Company.

Hyman, R. (1995). “Industrial Relations in Theory and Practice.” European Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 17–46.

Hyman, R. (1975). Industrial Relations: A Marxist Introduction. London: Macmillan.