The unitarist and pluralist perspectives as frames of reference in understanding employee relationships
A unitarist or unitary modeling of organizations would view organizations as essentially co-operative. Within unitarist frameworks, work organizations are viewed as integrated and harmonious wholes. In the normal functioning of the organization, it is argued that there will be no conflict between members of the organization, regarding, either the overall aims of the organization or the means to achieve these aims. Within this frame of reference, then, it is assumed that all employees share a common interest, not only in the long-term survival of the organization, but also in its fortunes on a day-to-day basis. It should be of no surprise that ideas of teamwork and ideas of all within the organization 'pulling together' to achieve common ends, permeate the model (Dundon & Rollinson 2004). Those who deploy unitarist or unitary models in analyzing organizations do tend to be rather coy about outlining and explaining the nature of the theoretical model they are using to guide their analysis. According to unitarist thinkers organizations are populated by people who are basically good and are spontaneously co-operative. However, supporters of unitarism would also remind that, while people will be willing to work diligently for the common good, they are not simpletons and if they were to feel that management were cheating them or not managing appropriately, the co-operative ethos would begin to evaporate (Collins 1998).
Now, no sensible unitarist-oriented thinker would ever actually encourage a manager to cheat his/her workforce. However, advocates of unitarism do warn that managers might, quite unknowingly, give the impression of attempting to cheat or dupe their workers, where they have failed to communicate the need for, or the benefits of a particular change to the workforce. Thus a key source of conflict as far as unitarism is concerned would be caused by misunderstandings between management and the workforce. Obviously the remedy for this sort of problem lies in renewed attempts to communicate with the workforce so that misunderstandings can be cleared up. Unitarist thinking is, perhaps best thought of as a management view of the world. It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that in dealing with conflict, unitarism seems to have a feel for certain types of conflict within management. Thus a key source of conflict in organizations, as far as unitarists are concerned would be due to power struggles between different power bases within management (Kekes 1993). A pluralist view of organizations accords a more constructive role to conflict as a means of advance and development in societies and work organizations than does unitarism. Whereas conflict within a unitary modeling of organizations is a temporary transition which must be endured, with the conflict experience adding little if anything to organizational functioning, conflict within pluralist models is looked upon as a key dynamic of social development. Pluralism as applied to organizations is really a concept borrowed from political theory. In this sense pluralism is a reaction to what might be termed the doctrine of political sovereignty. The main idea behind pluralism, therefore, is that there is no final or absolute authority in society, which can impose its will on the other members of society (Kamoche 2001).
Applied to work organizations, the central idea within pluralism is that organizations are composed of various competing interest groups, whose consent and co-operation must be secured if the organization is to function. Unlike unitarist formulations where conflict is a simple distraction from the normal processes of management, conflict plays a key role within pluralist views of organizations and is looked upon as being unavoidable yet solvable. Indeed conflict is looked upon as the key process which facilitates change and development. Thanks to the mechanisms for expressing and solving conflict, disagreements and disputes are viewed as a motor for change and development. Thus organizations are said to be stable but not static. The idea here is that individuals and groups gain concessions through the process of bargaining which takes place to solve conflicts at work. Thus, because pluralist work organizations allow the various interested parties to come together and to have their say, the organization is regarded as being capable of incorporating the various competing interest groups to an overall consensus view (Brooks 2002). Unitarism and pluralism tend to have rather limited views of context. Indeed unitarist approaches are all but silent on the world outside work and tend to view managers as the sole architects of strategy and structure. Pluralist approaches on the other hand, do tend to acknowledge the existence of the wider society, although it is not at all clear that pluralist views of organization offer a full and dynamic account of the context of organizations (Cleckley, McClure & Welch 1997). Unitarist and Pluralist perspectives can provide a good reference in understanding employee relationships. Unitarist and Pluralist perspectives describes the characteristic and a mindset of a person. It gives an idea of the traits liked by an employee and what might be the kind of person he/she will relate to. Unitarist and Pluralist perspectives describe what attracts and annoys personnel. Unitarist and Pluralist perspectives gives a hint of what may cause the straining of relationships in the workplace.
References
Brooks, S (ed.) 2002, The challenge of cultural pluralism,
Praeger, Westport, CT.
Cleckley, B, McClure, M & Welch, L (eds.) 1997, Strategies for
promoting pluralism in education and the workplace, Praeger,
Westport, CT.
Collins, D 1998, Organizational change: Sociological
perspectives, Routledge, New York.
Dundon, T & Rollinson, D 2004, Employment relations in non-union
firms, Routledge, New York.
Kamoche, KN 2001, Understanding human resource management, Open University Press, Buckingham.
Kekes, J 1993, The morality of pluralism, Princeton University
Press, Princeton, NJ.
0 comments:
Post a Comment