Sociology debates have evolved over two political theories namely: pluralism and elitism. The power elite theory however, seems to be true compared to the pluralist view which holds that participation in politics is democratic where people participate in politics through group membership by creating public policies on competitive and compromising basis.
On the other hand, elitism maintains that political and decision making positions are held by elites who are unified for their personal gains and hence are not representative. This is very true as a great number of political leaders do participate in politics only for selfish gains rather than to serve their people. Additionally, power is only set aside for particular elite members and institutional positions are not open to other non elite members.
This is evidenced in many political positions in many countries where the key positions in governments are held only by superior and intellectual members. This particular group takes control of the country’s economy where decisions are made based on personal interests rather than from a consensual basis.
This domination by the elite groups results to conflicts between the leaders and the ruled. A good example of this rule is where a county’s political leaders raise tax payments from the citizens with the aim of raising their salaries at the expense of the tax payer while they themselves do not pay taxes despite the huge salaries and other benefits they get from the government. Since the elite groups are the decision makers, the members are left powerless as they have to obey and play by the decisions of their leaders.
In this context, the top leadership positions have authority to run all the activities and programs in many fields such as legal issues, economic, scientific and civil institutions among others. The leaders and holders of these top positions are basically in charge of a country’s activities either directly or indirectly.
Indirect programs such as banking, transportation and communication are also affected by the decisions made by the elite groups. This is a clear indication that the power of any country lies within only a single elite group rather than several groups which may have different perception of leadership.
Therefore, the common citizens have no authority over matters concerning their lives and this leaves their lives at risk as the elite groups do not have their interests at hand. However, this does not mean that the elite groups operate under dictatorship. Rather, they operate in respect to constitutional laws and carry out their activities in an open manner and peacefully.
These characteristics are drawn from inheritance where leaders follow the footsteps of the previous leaders. All these rules by the power elite theory are true especially in today’s economy which has deteriorated greatly and increased the greed in elite leaders. They are gaining personal benefits at the expense of civilians who are suffering not only economically, but also politically and socially.
This is because they do not have take in their lives as every activity concerning civilians is on the hands of the elite leaders who are the sole decision makers. Therefore, the elite theory is true opposed to the pluralist theory which maintains that political participation includes everyone and no single group is dominant over the others. In addition, the pluralist theory entails the agreement of groups with one goal of societal interests.
Democracy is a result of democratic ideology and theory as well as political practice.
Accordingly, the politics of democracy is defined by theories of democracy as well as the changes in the manners and practice of democracy which also alter the ideology and the theory.
This paper tries to describe the basic differences between the pluralistic and elitist forms of community power. (Ellis 100)
Pluralism refers to the confirmation and greater recognition of diversity. Pluralism is used in several ways in different circumstances. For instant in politics, it may refer to the recognition of diversity in the needs or the interest of the people of a country which to an extent is a major pillar of today’s democratic ideals. In the field of science, it is used to show that different theories or methods are acceptable. The concept is also used in different ways in both religion and philosophy. (Ellis 102)
Politics is always about the interests of the citizens who severally exhibit diversity in their values attitudes and opinions and to some extent, these differences must live together. To extent, democracy is a very hard way or form of political leadership since it must give justifiable results out of the plurality of interests. This is also a fundamental significance of pluralism because pluralism “signals a theorized preference for multiplicity over unicity and for diversity over uniformity”. (McLennan 25).
This theory has been advocated in several ways but one of the central issues has been the relationship between the interest of the people and those of the larger community in democracy and how such relationship affects the functioning of the political system. This difficulty is also evident today in the debate about libertarianism against communitarianism and it is also an important part of the discussions about multiculturism. (Ellis 105)
According to McLennan, tolerance is one of the chief bases of pluralism. He indeed identified pluralism as dispersed power, as group power as well as dispersed preferences. The initial two forms often coincide with one another whereas the third one is partially independent. Thus pluralism as dispersed power is the study of political power and the acceptance of various, but unequal, elites. On the other hand pluralism as a group, power refers to the pragmatic study of political groups whereas dispersed preferences deal with the relevance of the diverse political attitudes to the stability of the democratic government. (McLennan 33)
Elitist on the other hand is the assumption that the people who are seen to be elite, that is, “a chosen group of individuals with outstanding personal capabilities, wealth, specialized training or other unique attributes”, are the ones whose ideas or views on any subject are taken the most seriously. In other words, their views are felt to have the most weight and thus they are the most qualified to lead since their views are the most constructive. Moreover, the term can also be used to “illustrate circumstances where power is concentrated in the hands of the elite, whether rightly or not”. (Schumpeter 45)
Work cited
Ellis, Ellen. “The Pluralistic State”. The American Political Science. 1920.
McLennan, Gregor. “Pluralism”. Buckingham: The Open University Press.1995.
Schumpeter, Joseph. “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy”. London: Unwin. 1987.
Pluralism is the idea that political systems are made up of divergent and powerful sub-groups that have their distinctive loyalties and interests as well as their leaders and objectives. In the contemporary world, fragmentation has become a common complaint. As a result, functional specialization has advanced, ushering in a new era where no ruling faction holds absolute power. However, according to Stone, such a change does not mean that people have become pluralists (131). In his article Looking Back to Look Forward: Reflections on Urban Regime Analysis, Stone critiques arguments presented by two of the most renowned pluralism theorists; David Truman and Robert Dahl. Particularly, he is strongly opposed to the pluralist view that universal suffrage turns politics into a penetrable and open process, yielding to individuals who are always active around specific interests relevant to them.
Stone argues that although pluralism encompasses some characteristics of political reality, the theory is primarily flawed. The author uses regime theory to debunk the pluralist idea that the ballot box makes politics penetrable and open (Stone 132). He claims that “urban regime analysis looks in a different direction to explain why politics is mainly accessible to those who can meet substantial thresholds and tests” (Stone 132). Stone believes that even in the existence of ideal conditions, suffrage serves as a limited tool of popular control. According to him, public policies are impactful, thus dependent upon actions from sources outside the government. As a result, electoral responsibility does not cover the whole process of making public policy, making it to be practically far from being considered a robust process.
Stone also opposes the pluralist argument that individuals are mainly concerned with issues that are of interest to them. The author contends that coalitions are “unstable and realign as issues shift with changing times and conditions” (Stone 132). Conversely, in typical pluralism, every issue occurs on the same plane, where a concern’s immediacy is an unavoidable situation with centrifugal forces taking the center stage. Nonetheless, Stone emphasizes that the capacity to modify, reinforce, or build governing arrangements needs skills and resources that are naturally scarce (132). As a result, economic, social, and political inequality becomes persistent, substantial, and systematic. Characteristically, such qualities do not reflect classic pluralism’s view of a penetrable and open system. The author further insists that for factions with a history of social, economic, and political marginality, possessing a political influence requires more than being active around specific matters of immediate concern (Stone 133). While politics can be described as a process that is not permanently closed to any party, meaning political impact depends on the capacity to meet significant threshold tests.
In regime theory, the major role of inequality is that it is a deterrent to the ideals of the model. Stone claims that histories of past frustration and neglect as well as lack of confidence that opportunities can be realized may serve as great barriers to concerted efforts of winning the target population’s hearts (133). As a result, it becomes increasingly difficult to achieve grassroots engagement in matters pertaining to such issues as workforce development, reducing crime, countering youth violence, and maintenance of neighborhoods (Stone 133). Thus, in regime theory, inequality is a limiting factor to problem-solving efforts.
In summary, Stone strongly rejects the pluralism’s view that the vote makes politics a penetrable and open process. The author argues that suffrage does not fulfill the ideals of the pluralism model. For instance, the policy-making process cannot be completed successfully without the involvement of non-governmental sources, raising concerns over the robustness of electoral accountability. Moreover, a worthwhile political influence requires the ability to meet crucial threshold tests. Furthermore, in regime theory, the key role of such disparity is that it serves as a barrier to the ideals of the concept such as the establishment of fruitful grassroots engagements.
Work Cited
Stone, Clarence N. “Looking back to Look Forward.” Urban Affairs Review, vol. 40, 2005, pp. 130–140.
Making of Public policies can be theorised in a number of way among them rational theory, Marxists theory and pluralist theory. With regard to Cope and Goodship, the drafting of a public policy is not just a task of the government.
Instead, it should be viewed as a complicated process that requires the input of political leaders and the diverse society (1999, p.9). These forces have the capacity to impact and affect the outputs of policies.
Hills defines public policy as “the product of political influence, determining, and setting limits to what a state does” (1993, p.47). The definition broadly sets the guidelines for realising certain state-driven goals coupled with aspirations in the future (Toke & Marsh 2003, p.229).
Despite the presence of the many differing theories for explaining the process of making public policies, all of them use a similar definition of a policy. Public administrations scholars have both theorised and broadly described the process of making public policies.
For instance, Edward (1992) claims that public policy can be understood better by taking it as a set of interlinked process (p.39). The claim follows since policymaking requires the contributions of all sections of an organisation and not just one section or level that is mostly the top staff members (Gilliat 1984, p.345). Other public administration scholars see it as a single process that is defined by differing phases.
The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast contributions of the rational theory, Marxists theory, and pluralist theory to the study of public policy. The paper is organised into two sections. The definition of theories is considered first under the description section followed by comparison and contrasting of the theories.
The question of how they contribute to the public policy study follows later in the analysis section. In conclusion, from the paradigms of rational theory, public policies are guided by mythological individualism and self-interested maximisation behaviours of people.
Description
Defining Rational Theory
Rational theory has its roots anchored in the work of Adams Smith, Wealth of Nations, which was first published in 1776. This work also forms the foundation of theory of neoclassical economics. As revealed by Smith, individuals who work to fulfil their personal desires can yield some collective gains to the community following some concealed forces (Frederickson et al. 2012, p.193).
For people to fully meet their egocentric interests, there must be a continuous state of competition, which often leads to production of goods of better quality, which would benefit everybody besides being sold at low prices in the end. In making of public policy, rational theory forms the basis of decision making in the sense that the most appropriate policies are the ones, which deliver more and higher quality public good.
Such a scenario cannot exist in an unregulated market. Frederickson et al. (2012) note that factors such as the egocentric party, rivalry witnessed in producers, and the unorganised markets are all indicative of neoclassical economics (p.183).
Since rational theory rests on the platforms of neoclassical economics, these elements are also definitive of rational choice theory. From this context, rational choice theory entangles a theoretical construct for modelling and understating various economic and social behaviours. In theory, the term rational is applied to refer to the behaviour of people to constantly want more as opposed to less of any public good.
Defining Marxism Theory
Marxism sees the process of making public policies as the interplay of political power and economic class. Marxist theory is composed of a number of doctrines. Marxist theory has been strongly upheld by many people based on the wide range of sentiments within an analytical model that undermines the ‘capitalist’ society (Burnham 1994, p.73).
From the paradigms of Marxist theory, policies are made to fulfil the function of the state. One function of the state is to make improvement of various conditions that foster accumulation of capital.
This means that the state makes policies that will ensure that industries are able to make optimal profits. The second function of the state encompasses legitimisation of the resulting capitalistic system. This is accomplished through the introduction of myriads of policies such as welfare policies, health services, and pension policies among others.
These policies are formulated such that people will not reject them and hence embrace the capitalist system (Hill 2005, p.23). Even if Marxist theory is supported by some public administration scholars as one of the mechanisms of effective allocation of limited public resources, it faces some drawbacks that are akin to the description of the concept of capitalism.
For instance, based on Bonefield’s (1996) findings, Marxist theory approach in making of public policies faces an objection since it depicts societal authority as one that has divisions with no specific ownership (p.115). It says that nations that uphold the wellbeing of their people do so out of their heart and will rather than mere pretence or forces of circumstances.
Another challenge is that the need to reflect the concepts of legitimisation and accumulation of capital in the public policies are contradictory. Often, the costs associated with the legitimisation process have the repercussion of creating a legitimisation crisis.
Defining Pluralism Theory
Classical pluralism theory for making public policies sees decision making in the formulation of public policies as being centrally located in the government’s frameworks although numerous nongovernmental groups utilise their resources to influence the process of making public policies. The main interrogative that is addressed by pluralism theory is how power is distributed across a political process of making public policies.
From the contexts of this theory, in making public polices, “lines of conflict are multiple and shifting as power is a continuous bargaining process between competing groups” (Ackers 2002, p.8). While formulating public policies, inequalities are often created in terms of participation in the policy ideation process.
However, the inequalities are distributed and evened out through adoption of various mechanisms of resource distribution within the unequal population. The theory puts an emphasis that the power to make public policies does not amount to a physical entity, which people have or do not have. The power spreads from varying sources.
Analysis: Comparing and Contrasting the Three Theories
The development of differing theoretical paradigms that provide insights to the process of making public policies is owned to the contribution made by various theories among them being Marxist, Pluralist, and rational choice theory.
In this section, these theories are compared and contrasted in terms of the contribution they have made in guiding the manner in which public policymakers view the purpose and function of the polices they formulate and then later to be implemented by a bureaucratic system either from an approach of ‘top’ or ‘bottom’ or top-bottom
Marxist theory sees public polices as serving the purpose of creating conflicts between the economic classes in a society. These policies favour the Bourgeoisie, who is a composed person who owns all the production means (Konings 2010, p.175). In fact, the policies led to exploitation of the Proletariat, which is composed of the working class.
In particular, the Marxist analysis of the wellbeing of people focuses much on its connection with the people’s exercise of authority (Jessop 2002, p.105). From the paradigms of Marxist theory, this means that the state is an instrument of ruling people belonging to the capitalist class (Bourgeoisie) through formulation and implementation of appropriate public policies.
Alternatively, a state is a complicated combination of systems that reveal the many differences that the larger society has of which the state itself is a subset (Duncan & Goodwin 1982, p.158). Marxism theory contributes to the study of public policy by introduction a theoretical paradigm for interpreting the process of making public policies by maintaining that policies that develop welfare to the society are the ones advocating for strengthening of the Proletariat via making them resist exploitation.
Opposed to Marxism theory, public policies under pluralism theory are not made to satisfy the quests of one principle group of people within a society.
Instead, it sees public policy making process as being well comprehended based on the extrapolation that authority is relatively wide and unevenly shared among the various more or less coordinated groups in the society that rival each other in an effort to get hold of public policy (Dowding 1995, p.143).
Some specific groups dominate in some arena or areas of public policy struggles while others are concerned with some different public policy areas.
The Marxism theory maintains that the capitalistic group is favoured by the policies so that it can continue to support the economy through increased productivity and hence profitability. Through such policies, the Bourgeoisie is able to influence the Proletariat.
Comparatively, the pluralism theory differs from this view by revealing how there is an insignificant intersection between the leaders who take part in a certain section of policy and the ones who take part in other sections of the same policy making process (Grillo1998, p.45).
The two theories are similar in that they present the process of making public policies as entangling friction between various parties. Some parties are composed of the policy makers while others are composed of those people to whom the policies will apply.
Somewhat different from the concerns of the both the above two theories in the making of public policies, rational theory holds that self interest among policy making stakeholders acts as the drive for determining the manner in which policies are formulated.
It upholds the notion that the key conduct hypothesis of the neoclassical economic image is cosmopolitan. It points out people’s decisions and conducts, for instance, buying a house, making elections decisions, and or deciding on what and when to budget for are controlled by their ego (Frederickson et al. 2012, p.194).
This means that public policies need to be made in a manner that fits the demands of the people to whom they should apply.
The producers of the public goods are required to competitively respond to the needs of consumers in a manner that is consistent with their self-interest. Hence, policies should be made in a manner that makes it possible for the organisations, which are guided by self-interest, to deliver services and public goods that satisfy the utility of the consumers.
For instance, in the healthcare setting, accessibility of quality healthcare is public good. From the paradigms of rational theory, organisations that are charged with the noble roles of ensuring the public has access to quality healthcare, for instance, a health insurance organisation must be favoured by the policies in the health care sector such that they will be able to deliver quality healthcare.
From the context of this example, rational theory differs from Marxist theory in the formulation of public policies because Marxism theory would call for a free operation of market forces to determine the delivery of quality healthcare.
It will not impose regulations to control the organisations such as the insurance companies in facilitation of delivery of quality healthcare as public good.
From the approach of pluralism theory, there will be people of diverse settings, scopes, and their mode or way of input to the larger community who are fighting for authority (Howlett 2002, p.237) to determine the appropriate mechanism of formulating a policy that will ensure accessibility of quality healthcare.
The government or the state would play only the roles of mediation by shifting and balancing the interests of various interest groups as opposed to playing active roles in imposition and active innovation of various policies that would ensure accessibility of quality healthcare.
Marxist theory suggests that persons whose voices are likely to be heard and taken into consideration in the formulation of public policies are those who are economically endowed, being also the people who control the factors of production.
This means that Marxism theory contributes to the study of public policy in that economic power has the potential to translate into political power because policy formulation and implementation are inseparable from political influences (Toke & Marsh 2003, p.234).
Therefore, the political power, which plays active roles in the process of making public policies, is a function of the economic power. Hence, the economic class is the one that makes policies indirectly. This argument forms the point of departure between the proponents of classical Marxism and neo Marxism.
Classical Marxism sees the government as serving the roles of ruling the economic class while neo-Marxism contends that the government has a proportional liberty from capital (McLellan 1999, p.83). It does not then principally serves as an economic class-ruling agent.
Pluralism approach to making of public policies sees power as not being centralised to the state. It views people as the carriers of power because they are in charge of most of the public resources (Ackers 2002, p.9). The resources are the tools that are used by people to compel others to do what they want them to.
Politicians are then able to push through the process of making public policies since they have the capacity of commanding various resources, which people feared, want, or even respect. There are two main important approaches to public policy from the paradigms of pluralism theory.
Firstly, one needs to view resources as being everywhere in the society (Ackers 2002, p.12). Secondly, all the resources are almost available to almost every person.
Since the degree to which people have accessibility of resources determines the extent to which people possess the power to influence the process of making public policies, making of public policies from the contexts of pluralism is a function of many actors.
This implies that power is also distributed across many actors with the state only taking passive roles in the making of the policies.
Policymaking is thus a procedure that is free and competitive (Dowding 1995, p.142). From the perspective of neo-pluralism, rather than power being distributed across all people, it is seen as only distributed in significant magnitudes across the key actors in the process of making public policies.
Such actors include professionals who evaluate the policies and the businesspersons who are often impacted by the policies in terms of performance of their business activities. Since these key actors are incorporated in policymaking process, policymaking with regard to the neo-pluralism theory is a negotiated and an interdependent process (Ackers 2002, p.17).
Pluralism is then a reflection of liberal thinking and contextualisation of democratic societal ideals for legitimisation of inequalities and power structures coupled with the contribution of the democratic society in influencing the process of formulation and implementation of public policies.
The pluralism theory reinforces societal collectivism with regard to public policies. This contrasts the concern of rational theory, which reinforces self-centred maximisation conduct (Frederickson et al. 2012, p.195) and methodological individualism.
A decision maker guided by rational theoretical paradigms while making policy encounters several chances and possibilities in the course of happenings (Ostrom & Ostrom 1971, p.205). However, a similar decision maker guided by pluralism will pursue possibility and opportunities that deliver societal good.
The difference between the two approaches is that the pluralism approach will not give rise to bureaucratic self-maximising individual in charge of making policies. Theorists who subscribe to rational theory as the best mechanism of making public policies consider the collective action advocated for by pluralism as problematic.
Often, they deploy game theory to illustrate these problems. They employ simplistic models to make sense of deployment of rational theory in making of policies. Some critics of this theory see it as inappropriate for making public policies that would influence well all the stakeholders.
However, in case a government utilises rational choices theory as the model for making public policies, the assumption made particularly with regard to human behaviours end up as being self-fulfilling.
Conclusion
Decisions taken by governments to resolve certain challenges that constitute social problems through deployment of specific strategies designed for planning and implementation of a proposed action make up a public policy.
Depending on the theory deployed in explaining the making of public policies, different scholars provide differing contribution to the advisement of the discipline of public policy administration.
From this perspective, the paper compared and contrasted rational choice, Marxist, and pluralism theories’ contributions in the study of public policy.
Marxist theory presents the process of making public policies as the interplay of the economic power and political power. The economic class is the owner of the factors of production. Policies made tend to favour this group of people as opposed to the working class.
From a different angle, rational theory sees the making of public policies as being guided by self-interested maximisation behaviour of people and methodological individualism. This often leads to bureaucratic systems for the formulation and implementation of public policies.
Lastly, the pluralism theory sees the procedure of making public policies as a process that is competitive and open to a variety of actors. The government or the state acts as the moderator that only plays passive roles.
References
Ackers, P 2002, ‘Reframing Employment Relations: The case for Neo-Pluralism’, Industrial Relations Journal, vol.33 no.1, pp. 2-19.
Bonefield, W 1996, ‘Reformulation of State Theory’, Capital and Class, vol.11 no. 3, pp. 96-127.
Burnham, P 1994, ‘The Organisational View of State’, Politics, vol. 154, no.4, pp. 59-86.
Cope, S & Goodship, J 1999, ‘Regulating Collaborative Government: Towards Joined-Up Government?’, Public Policy and Administration, vol. 14 no.2, pp. 3-16.
Dowding, K 1995, ‘Model or Metaphor? A Critical Review of the Policy Network Approach’, Political Studies, vol. 45 no.1, pp. 136-158.
Duncan, S & Goodwin, M 1982, ‘The local state and restructuring social relations’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 6 no.3, pp. 157-186.
Edward, C 1992, Political Authority and Bureaucratic Power, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, NJ. Frederickson, G et al. 2012, Public Administration Theory Primer, Westview Press, Boulder, Col.
Gilliat, S 1984, ‘Public Policy Analysis and Conceptual Conservatism’, Policy and Politics, vol.12 no.4, pp. 345-367.
Grillo, D 1998, Pluralism and the Politics of Difference, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Hill, M 2005, The Public Policy Process, Policy Press, New York.
Hill, M 1993, The Policy Process: A Reader, Harvester Wheatsheaf, London.
Howlett, M 2002, ‘Do networks matter? Linking policy network structure to policy outcomes: evidence from four Canadian policy sectors 1990-2000’, Canadian Journal of Political Science, vol. 35 no.2, pp. 235-267.
Jessop, B 2002, The Future of the Capitalist State: Jessop State Theory 1990, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, NJ.
Konings, M 2010, ‘Renewing state theory’, Politics, vol. 30 no.3, pp. 174-182.
McLellan D 1999, Marx and Marxism Political Studies, SAGE, Beverly Hills, Calif.
Ostrom, V & Ostrom, E 1971, ‘Public choice: a different approach to the study of public administration’, Public Administration Review, vol. 31 no.2, pp. 203-216.
Toke, D & Marsh, D 2003, ‘Policy Networks and the GM Crop Issue: Assessing the Utility of Dialectical Model of Policy Networks’, Public Administration, vol. 81 no.2, pp. 229-251.
Media has always been a very important mediator of the political, social, and cultural events of the community and country. However, the news’ role has been changing with the period and nowadays it presents a diverse structure of multiple functions to complement all spheres and facets of life. Media largely resonates but does not depend on the political structures and the industrial ones. The geographic and cultural diversities make the media form into system structures. It has to be noticed that media is a very flexible structure that reacts to any changes from outside by reorganizing the self-substantial domestic policies for a better outcome in the future. It is hard not to mention that media depends on the culture it is created in largely (Klimkiewicz 908). The historical conditions and cultural traditions make it authentic which is good and dependent and sometimes biased which is not very good.
One of the first receivers of the media messages is the kids and teenagers nowadays. The kids get involved in the conversations created on the web. One of the extensive online forums is the Australian forum regarded in the article called Multicultural Sociability, Imperfect Forums, and Online Participation. It is said that, unlike those receivers who used to participate in telecommunications back in the days, the forums online allow talking and expressing the opinions on the most debatable topics, like race, for example. This is, of course, a very good experience for the kids and they will start getting used to another through direct debate and talking the issue over without any editing mediators (McClean 1652). However, the only disadvantage found here is the scuffles emerging during conversations.
Media is likely to announce about any occasion and any event occurring in the world. Mass media is also likely to report some interesting and sometimes weird discoveries made by a man. However, firstly it has to be mentioned that several centuries ago the Earth’s shape was deemed flat and people saying it was round were considered weird. So, the 1976’s publications about travels in time were also added but we never know what will happen in the next era. So, the author of The Paradoxes of Time Travel David Lewis presented opportunities for time travels with different branches as if traveling by different buses. It was explained that it is possible to travel to different dimensions and it is not that much impossible rather than odd. People of other societies would deem it weird rather than completely impossible (Lewis 1).
Another source the mass media conveys the objectives through is digital media. It is one of the most important sources nowadays as per the technical progress and overall mass use of the Internet and other digital media. There has been made very prolific research on the means of communication nowadays and it is said that people are mostly reading digital sources and watching Internet videos to get information and news (Castells 789). The multidimensionality of networks is greatly underestimated today and there are practically no theories to make them structured well. The role of the Internet has been much underestimated. It was thought that it has emerged for the past two decades, though it has not as it is claimed by Wendy Hall. It has been emerging before 1990 and entered its peak of development in the 1990s.
Works Cited
Castells, Manuel. “Prologue to the Special Section: Network Multidimensionality in the Digital Age.” International Journal of Communication 5 (2011): 788–793.
Klimkiewicz, Beata. “Introduction. Structural Media Pluralism.” International Journal of Communication 4 (2010): 906–913.
Lewis, David. “The Paradoxes of Time Travel.” American Philosophical Quarterly 86 (1976): 1-7.
McClean, Georgie. “Multicultural Sociability, Imperfect Forums and Online Participation.” International Journal of Communication 5 (2011): 1649–1668.
The history of Australia and its architecture are closely interconnected, showing a similarity in events and tendencies exhibited by the majority of movements. The colonial past of the country presupposed the influence that the United Kingdom had on the state’s early construction projects. At the beginning of the twentieth century, Australia’s economy was beginning to stabilise, giving the country a reason for improving its cities. However, the British architectural firms that had their offices in Australia were reluctant to supply the developing country with similar attention to quality and detail that was expected of them in the UK.1 The resources were delivered to Australia rather than produced there, further delaying its speed of innovation.2 With the beginning of World War I, the country’s prospects of building a new capital were changed and stalled, leaving the country’s architecture in a suspended state for several years.3
The urban nature of Australia, however, quickly returned the interest for city planning to creators. The architecture of Melbourne, one of the most populous cities in the state, also saw many architects and movements throughout the years, combining both old and new styles and mainstream and rebellious tendencies. While the modernist movement brought many skyscrapers into the city, Melbourne managed to preserve buildings distinctly different from the constructions made primarily from metal and glass. In the comparison of international modernism, represented by many mainstream tendencies and the pluralism of cultures and visions seen in a variety of styles from Victorian architecture to art deco, multiple architects can be mentioned.
First of all, the contribution of Walter Burley and Marion Mahony Griffin, first, to the design of Canberra, then, to the architecture of Melbourne, cannot be overlooked. The duo of American architects created a number of buildings that remain a part of the city to this day, including the Newman College and the Capitol Theatre. Second, the works of Kevin Borland who moved from the International Modernist style to Brutalism also need to be mentioned. Finally, the contribution of the architectural firm Edmond and Corrigan and its originators to the city’s national identity is also significant to the appearance of Melbourne. These creators, while designing buildings and plans in different styles and adhering to a variety of movements, have one characteristic in common. Their approach to the national and regional identity and the search for a more organic alliance between Melbourne’s culture, history, nature, and urban life separate their buildings from the mainstream architecture of the city.
The Griffins
At the beginning of the twentieth century, Walter Burley and Marion Mahony Griffin came to Australia from the United States to work on the future capital of the country, Canberra.4 Their winning contribution to the competition for the best plan presented a vision of a future for Australia to which the architects were determined to stick. However, multiple constraints, both political and economic, did not allow the couple to bring their initial plans to completion and left the architects disenchanted to working in Canberra.5 The Griffins, however, remained popular in Australia due to their groundbreaking and unique suggestion, which allowed them to continue designing for the country. A number of their most notable projects are represented in the architecture of Melbourne where they have created the Newman College and the Capitol Theatre. However, some of the buildings did not survive and were destroyed by fire or demolished.
In 1915, Walter Burley Griffin was asked to redesign Vienna Cafe located in Melbourne. In 1916, the place was reopened as Cafe Australia.6 The design of the new version was different from the original with its completely remodelled façade and interior. The magazine observing the cafe after its opening described it as ‘ultra modernistic’ and ‘bizarre’, noting its ‘old-fashioned’ and ‘sombre’ furnishings. The combination of styles, namely European Art Noveau and the Chicago School, used by the architect combined modernistic aspects and informal details, presenting a cafe with a vaulted ceiling, hidden cove lighting, and lace ornaments (Figure 1).7
Figure 1. Cafe Australia.
The cafe’s further remodels tried to capture Griffin’s initial ideas and left his ceiling and balcony designs unchanged. The combination of multiple styles in one design revealed Griffin’s lack of desire to follow a specific set of rules developed for one movement. The use of rough black granite and blue tiles for the façade and white ornamented details for the interior differed from the guidelines for both a more classical and contemporary looking design. The interior was also not made in one style, using both decorated columns and a modernistic balcony with glazed doors.
The next project of the architects still stands as one of his main accomplishments. The buildings of the Newman College were designed by the Griffins during the same period as the cafe discussed earlier. The University of Melbourne delegated a large area for the college to be built, allowing the architect to reserve a large space for recreation as the property resembled a meadow more than an urban piece of land. The final version of the design included two large buildings designated for a library and a dining hall, both in the form of rotundas (Figure 2).8 These structures were situated on the opposite sides of the area’s edge. The buildings were connected to long wings of student rooms, one for women and one for men. The chapel of the college was placed in-between, closing the way to the open area.
Figure 2. Newman College – Dining from Courtyard.
The rotundas were made to be spacious with their triangular-shaped ribs and high domed ceilings. The corridors and rooms of the other buildings were almost medieval in nature – tight spaces, low ceilings and narrow paths. The contrast of these two concepts resulted in a unique work representing the Griffins’ style. The buildings did not, however, follow all rules of an older design, implementing less standardised structures and giving less attention to the academic idea of stylisation. The combination of columns adorned similarly to the ornaments in the cafe and rough stone used for decoration presented a view that varied considerably from other buildings in the city.
As can be seen in the previous paragraphs, the Griffins’ contribution to the architecture of Melbourne did not adhere to the guidelines of a particular style which could sometimes be expected by the movements’ followers. The architects combined multiple techniques and created designs that included characteristics from both traditional and modern schools. Thus, the couple attempted to incorporate multiple ideas and create projects that were distinctly different from the tendencies seen in the time period. The movement towards using materials such as metal and glass, while coming later to Australia than to the UK and the US, still found its place in the country. However, the Griffins explored other elements and forms, uniting more modern forms with rough stone and intricate ornaments. It can be assumed that the architects’ approach was a way of defying the cultural norm of using only one set of rules for creating a design – a standard for following one style. Instead, the Griffins mixed and matched the old and the new, creating different and easily distinguishable projects.
Kevin Borland
The works of Kevin Borland, an Australian architect who had been working from the 1950s to the end of the twentieth century, also show the difference between mainstream architecture and a unique vision. Borland started working after World War II, expressing interest in the global modernist movement.9 This can be seen in the architect’s early works, including the Olympic Swimming Stadium built before the Olympics in Melbourne (Figure 3).10 This project was completed in collaboration with multiple architects: Bill Irwin, Peter McIntyre and John and Phyllis Murphy. However, this group fell apart later as most architects found themselves interested in different styles. While working with these people, Borland followed the common rules of contemporary modernism.
Figure 3. Lexus Centre.
Although Borland was interested in experimentation, the architect did not engage in a very distinct stylisation that would set him apart from other modernists. It can be observed in his early works for private property and houses. These examples show only a small part of his later tendencies as the residences have some details that set them apart from the conventional design. For example, coloured glass window parts and informal design of interiors can be taken into accounts as early signs of Borland developing a different style. Later, Borland continued to focus on residences but started to change some aspects of his designs. Although the architect’s next projects still were developed with many similarities to the accepted mainstream tendencies, Borland began adding innovative details to them. In the following years, the creator’s style has started to change even more as his political interests also shifted towards socialist ideas.
For example, in 1962, Borland was asked to design the Preshil school hall – an institution that was attended by his close friends.11 The space created by Borland differed from his earlier projects as it was less conventional and more experimental in nature. Interestingly, the halls’ symmetrical design was a result of collaborative work with the students who were allowed and encouraged to voice their opinions about the future construction. In the end, the architect built a symmetrical hexagonal space with a trussed roof that did not need columns, thus, giving the students more space and light from clerestory windows (Figure 4).12 The use of a different structure and light materials made the area appear less constrained and contributed to the communal views of the architect and the school’s attendants.
Figure 4. Preshil Hall Four.
Starting from this project, Borland began to incorporate more robust and rough detailing into his other creations. Although the architect continued working on residences, his designs were significantly different from his previous commissions. However, some of his most interesting works were also connected to educational organisations which could be explained by his political interests and connections. Here, one can investigate the development of the Clyde Cameron College which is now occupied by the Murray Valley Private Hospital.13 This project was initiated and finished in the span of two years from 1976 to 1977 and was intended to be a space for the Trade Union Training Authority (TUTA) meetings and training. The organisation closed in 1996, but the building remained one of the significant projects of Borland and his design team. In this example, the developed vision of the architect can be seen fully. The structure was created in the Brutalist style characterised by the use of rough materials, especially concrete, exposed details of the construction and lack of visible comfortability (Figure 5).14 This style has descended from modernism.
Figure 5. Clyde Cameron College.
Following the rules of Brutalism, the Clyde Cameron College was designed with the exposed steel frame and concrete details, block formations, open-air handling, and painted service ducts. However, while the conventional view of brutalism was defined by modular elements and block structures, the design of the College guided by Borland had a few unique details that still fit in with the late Brutalist style. For instance, the building was full of spacious passages that resembled concrete pipes. These corridors connected some parts of the structure, breaking up its block design. The use of these forms added more memorable details to the building and made it one of the staples of late brutalism. In his career, Borland’s style progressively shifted from conventional modernism to brutalism with his use of materials and structural experiments. Thus, his decisions significantly affected the state of Australian architecture of the twentieth century, bringing more diversity to the designs of both private residences and political and educational entities.
Edmond and Corrigan
The Australian firm ‘Edmond and Corrigan’ was founded by Maggie Edmond and Peter Corrigan in the 1970s. These architects were interested in examining the cultural identity of the country and the lives of suburban areas. As Australia is an urbanised country, the architects’ interest was always directed at inner-urban constructions and styles. Edmond and Corrigan, on the other hand, explored the different influences of suburban life and culture on buildings, combining colours and textures removed from the everyday city life. As a contrast to other architects, Edmond and Corrigan explicitly stated that their firm is interested in finding Australia’s unique architectural style and voice that differs from conventional techniques influenced by the West. Moreover, Peter Corrigan’s experience in working with theatre sets and costumes could also possibly be considered a source of influence on the group’s projects.
While the architects created a number of highly distinctive and unique works, one of the most notable projects is the part of the RMIT University, the RMIT Building 8.15 This project was completed in 1993.16 It is one of the examples of postmodernism, although, according to the architects, it was also heavily influenced by the local culture. The building’s facade was created from brightly coloured stones; it features exposed pipes and construction details as well as items of various shapes (Figure 6).17 It also has polychromatic windows that decorate both front and back facades.
Figure 6. RMIT Building 8.
The interior is less structured as well, having a more complex layout. Multiple rooms have higher ceilings than others, some of them spanning several floors. The overall interior structure is rather chaotic which is consistent with the postmodern style and the firm’s other projects. Notably, the interior and exterior are both vibrant and full of details and shapes. The lighting in the lobby, for example, repeats the hexagonal shape used in the layout (Figure 7).18
Figure 7. RMIT Building 8 Lift Lobby.
The facade’s design choices made by the architects were not accidental. The building represents elements from Melbourne’s history and depicts its cultural heritage. Thus, it is often called the ‘city in a building’ noting its description of the city’s life.19 For instance, the golden frames of the windows are reminiscent of older campuses and their gothic style. This search for identity is displayed in the architects’ own words. According to Corrigan, the political influence is always visible in architecture.20 Thus, the decisions made by the designers are an explicit representation of their political and ideological rebellion against the accepted norms of architecture – the rules and guidelines expressed by styles and schools. The architect also notes that expression in projects may be more important than refinement.
This example of architectural change influenced by local culture reveals the interest of the architectures in Melbourne’s cultural identity. It also can be interpreted as the answer to the rising trend of building skyscrapers that came with the introduction of modern office buildings to the cities of Australia. While their construction was not stopped, the city gained many designs that vary significantly both in their exterior and interior. The use of glass, metal and monochromatic colours was replaced by colourful stones and gold-rimmed windows. The range of bright colours incorporated into the architects’ designs also sets their buildings apart from others. These choices express emotions and personal attitude towards existing architecture of the city, creating a contrast necessary to show the pluralism of Australia as a whole.
Conclusion
The examples of buildings and designs described above are all examples of architects choosing to pursue their own ideology as opposed to following general trends and movements. The works of the Griffins were characterised by the desire to complement nature and create projects that combine old and new rules, resulting in works that defied the guidelines of one set style. Their contribution to the city’s architecture is still present in a number of projects, although many of the buildings were destroyed. Nevertheless, some buildings continue to show their mix of contemporary ideas and classic movements.
The works of Borland reveal a progression from the conventional to the Brutish, changing the alignment from following a particular school of thought to incorporating knowledge and experience into creating more powerful pieces. While Borland’s work may be seen as an example of Brutalism that follows guidelines of the style, the architect was able to introduce materials and forms unique to his personal vision. As a result, the combination of rough natural materials and exposed concrete brought a new accent to the city’s architecture and revolted against clear and safe modernism popular at that time.
Finally, the designs of Edmond and Corrigan are a clear representation of the author’s fatigue with the conventional modernism full of inexpressive and mainstream ideas. Instead, the architects attempt to include colours and textures that differ significantly from the most used ones, presenting a vision of a new and improved design that incorporates the city’s history at the same time. The expressionism of their models is visible in the political message that these projects send – the value of monochromatic buildings with a simple layout has no emotional and cultural importance to Australia and Melbourne. Thus, such constructions have no benefit and cannot represent the voice of the city or its history. On the other hand, the buildings that are less conventional and more expressive possess unique national traits and express the cultural pluralism of Melbourne and Australia as a whole.
van Schaik, Leon. “Differentiation in Vital Practice: An Analysis Using RMIT University of Technology and Design Interfaces With Architects.” Architectural Design 83, no. 1 (2013): 106-113.
Vernon, Christopher. “Canberra: Where Landscape is Pre-eminent.” In Planning Twentieth Century Capital Cities, edited by David L. A. Gordon, 130-150. New York: Routledge, 2006.
Watson, Anne, ed. Beyond Architecture: Marion Mahony and Walter Burley Griffin: America, Australia, India. Haymarket: Powerhouse Publishing, 1998.
Christopher Vernon, “Canberra: Where Landscape is Pre-eminent,” in Planning Twentieth Century Capital Cities, ed. David L. A. Gordon (New York: Routledge, 2006), 133.
Anne Watson, ed., Beyond Architecture: Marion Mahony and Walter Burley Griffin: America, Australia, India (Haymarket: Powerhouse Publishing, 1998), 77.
Donald Leslie. Johnson, Australian Architecture 1901-51: Sources of Modernism (Sydney: Sydney University Press, 2002), 35.
Ibid., 36.
Ibid. 41.
Cafe Australia, digital image, Walter Burley Griffin Society, Web.
Newman College – Dining from Courtyard, digital image, Wikimedia Commons, Web.
Doug Evans, Huan Chen Borland, and Conrad Hamann, eds.. Kevin Borland: Architecture from the Heart (Melbourne: RMIT University Press, 2006), 11.
Lexus Centre, digital image, Wikimedia Commons, Web.
Evans, et al., Kevin Borland, 44.
Preshill Hall Four, digital image, Wikimedia Commons, Web.
Clyde Cameron College, digital Image, The Grapevine, Web.
Leon van Schaik, “Differentiation in Vital Practice: An Analysis Using RMIT University of Technology and Design Interfaces With Architects,” Architectural Design 83, no. 1 (2013): 107.
“Building 8,” RMIT University, Web.
RMIT Building 8, digital image, Wikimedia Commons, Web.
RMIT Building 8 Lift Lobby, digital image, Wikimedia Commons, Web.
Rory Hyde, “The Oeuvre of Edmond and Corrigan,” ArticetrureAU, Web.
Peter Corrigan, “Sunshine on the Valiant” (lecture, Storey Hall, RMIT, Melbourne, 2003).
I hail from an underdeveloped country. So, there are not many openings (profession wise) for educated and ambitious people. As such, after completing my studies, I applied for jobs in various countries and was lucky enough to get a job in an American company. But I had to live and work in the United States and as such I was a little hesitant due to the difference in our cultures. But since I was badly in need of a good job, I could not afford to lose the opportunity. It was after settling down in America when I realized that all my fears about difference in cultures and ethnicity were baseless. Actually today, youngsters all over America are promoted and persuaded to work as a team with all people, not considering the ethnicity, caste & creed, culture, gender, financial & social status, and even individual attitude.
It has been observed that normally, people form opinion about a person or a thing according to their own experiences. These experiences may be good or bad, correct or incorrect. But I was surprised to note that in America, the current situation was not at all similar to this. People, especially Americans were very polite and had no feelings of indifference or hatred. They had the patience to put aside their own feelings and/or beliefs and listen to what others had to say and respect their opinions.
Viewing such harmonious behavior reminded me of R. D. Butcher who has talked a lot about assimilation and pluralism. I could relate my personal experiences to the writings of Butcher. Various figures of speech (metaphors) have been used to depict the assimilation and pluralism prevalent in America. Some examples of such metaphors are; melting point, salad bowl, rainbow, quilt, and kaleidoscope (Butcher, 2004). In the following paragraphs, I shall explain my experience in relation to each metaphor.
What happens in a melting pot? Different ingredients are mixed together and heated until the mixture boils. By the time the mixture boils, all the ingredients have assimilated to form a single compound. Similarly, I could visualize how people from different ethnicities, cultures, countries, ages, and religions mixed with each other to form a uniform society. A society that could not be separated due to the strong bond created between the people (ingredients). In fact there was a play titled ‘melting point’ which portrayed America as a country where groups of different cultures disbanded to form a single hoard (Schaefer, 2005).
What does a salad bowl consist of? Different kinds of vegetables and fruits constitute to form a uniform purpose. But each ingredient has its own identity. I have noted that in America, people from different parts of the world contribute towards a better society in their own manner while maintaining their cultures and beliefs. No one is required to compromise on their ethnicity, caste and creed.
Just like a rainbow that has its identity by different colors put together, American society of today cannot be called a society if all the people from all over the world are not put together.
A quilt is sewn by a single thread using cloth pieces of different colors. Similarly, during my stay in America I have witnessed people from different walks of life coming together for a single cause of building a society that one can be proud of.
A kaleidoscope shows different colors and images when it is turned. Similarly, in American society, there are different groups but it is encouraging to note that they all come together to form the American society.
During my stay in America, I have witnessed people teaching their children to be overt in their behavior. The atmosphere at homes is also kept secular because children talk in their schools and with friends whatever they learn at home. This is a very good sign of keeping the society free from any unwanted incidents pertaining to difference in cultures.
I have learnt a lot from my experiences and interactions with people during my stay in America. I have learnt to be truthful while talking about people from different cultures, without any bias. Americans do the same thing. They appreciate the contributions of people whether they are from their culture or not. The children also form the same mindset. I have learnt that we should not degrade or humiliate anyone and positive and correct information should be passed across through various mediums such as internet, books, periodicals, newspapers, etc. even while conversing with people, the same dignity should be maintained.
I have seen that people are very keen to learn about different cultures. It’s not that they mean to demean or change their own culture. It’s only because they want to incorporate the good things from different cultures. People also attend cultural events of other cultures and also invite people from other cultures to join them during festivals in order to mix up.
It was very gladdening to note that people of different cultures in America were so keen to come forward and help each other despite them being from different cultures. I have returned back to my home country after successful completion of my tenure in America but I still cherish the beautiful memories.
References
Buscher, R. D. (2004). Diversity consciousness. Opening our minds to people, cultures, and opportunities (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Schaefer, R. T. (2005). Race and ethnicity in the United States (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
The following essay will look into the two main perspectives of industrial relations that is the unitary and pluralism. The essay will also delve into the recent adaptations of these approaches which are the human resource adaptation and the neo institutionalism, and what these approaches advocate.
The final aspect of this essay will look into the conflict and cooperation situations that arise because of these perspectives. Industrial relation refers to the payment and the working conditions set by the employer or the employee. It is how the labour and the industry interact based on two traditional approaches namely the Unitarian approach and the Pluralist approach.
Unitary approach
The Unitary perspective is based on the view that the organization is a harmonious place, which exists for the achievement of common objectives. It assumes that the employees and the organizations have similar objectives, which are congruent.
The perspective also reinforces the fact that management’s contribution to the organization is critical. This is because the management need to provide strong leadership and show the direction where the organization should follow (Davenport, 1998).
This approach is based on the premise that employee loyalty to the management and organization objectives is very important. Therefore, employee loyalty is critical to the performance of the organization. In addition, this approach assumes that the employer employee conflicts need to be minimal as the objectives are clear.
Everyone in the organization is working towards those objectives, and therefore conflict can only be a consequence of poor communication especially on the employee side. The communication failure is because the employee has not understood instructions. This perspective also views the labour unions as competing entities, which compete for employees’ loyalty and commitment (Ehrenberg, 1994).
The approach was viewed as industry oriented and tended to favour the employer more than the employee. This caused misunderstanding between labour and the industry due to these conflicts. It also led to low level of trust between the employee and the employer especially due to their unexpressed conflicting interests, which were not in line with the mutual objectives (Ehrenberg, 1994).
This view received criticism for its inability to solve industrial conflicts that arise due to its narrow approach to conflict. It tends to deny and ignore conflict that reduces the organizations effectiveness. It does not explain the reasons why there is unequal dissemination of powers between the employers and the employee. This makes the approach to fail in many modern organizations (Eldridge, 1974).
The Human Resource approach is a modification or an adaptability of the unitary approach towards industrial relations as it focuses on the management of industrial relations from the employers’ perspective rather than from the employees’ perspective. It focuses on the chief activities of the management in human resource management.
It describes the activities of management as those of planning and predicting the needed workforce by the organization. This is important as it enables the managers to formulate job descriptions based on job analysis, the kind of skills they need as well as quality of workers and their responsibility in the organization. The work of the employer or the management in an industry involves recruiting and selection of the workers.
Training and managing workers is the responsibility of management as per the human resource perspective. Rewarding and dismissing employees is another role of the managers as part of human resource management (Ehrenberg, 1994).
The human resource management approach
The human resource management approach has two approaches. The first approach is the Soft HRM approach. This approach holds the perspective that there is need for employees motivation and that the employees function as individuals. This means that the approach looks for different ways of meeting the employees’ demands and goals.
It also accepts the need for employee motivation, which is very important due to its effect on employee performance. Poor motivation leads to poor performance of employees leading to low productivity. It also looks for ways of increasing employee commitment and loyalty as it recognises the need to have committed employees for the long-term benefit of the organization.
Employee satisfaction also features in these approaches because there is a close relationship between employee satisfaction and employee commitment to the organization. Fostering employee satisfaction automatically leads to employee loyalty and commitment.
The hard HRM perspective on the other hand is a perspective, which views the employee as a separate business resource whose role is to assist in the achievement of the organizational goals and objectives.
This approach does not factor in issues of employee loyalty or commitment. The decisions on HR strategy base themselves on the cost and benefit analysis where the job or work rewards as per its ability to meet certain needs or eliminate unnecessary cost.
Pluralist approach
The other perspective is that of Pluralist approach. This approach has the view that people within an organization are different with different goals and pursuits. It is based on the assumption that power is evenly distributed between the employer and the employees to the extent that no part of the organization dominates the other (Deal, 1982).
This perspective also incorporates the view that the state is the arbitrator of the two parties when conflicts arise. The state is the guardian of the interests of the public or the workers and that it should work to ensure that, the strong do not exploit the weak in the society.
The weak in this case are the vulnerable employees who depend on their employers for their sustenance. This perspective also advocated that the employers should not expect blind obedience from the employees as the employees had their own ideas, goals, and pursuits which are different from those of the employers.
This meant that conflicts could arise as these ideas and interests would be in conflict many times. To avoid these conflicts the employers as well as the management role are to ensure that they reconcile the conflicting ideas and perception for the attainment of harmonious industrial relations (Deal, 1982).
This pluralist approach also views the labour unions as the one with the right and the capability to represent the employee because it is a union with collective support of all employees. It therefore has more bargaining power than what a single employee can bargain. These views give the labour unions the right to challenge the managing aspect of the organization (Deal, 1982).
Pluralism has also received criticism especially on its view that power is evenly distributed. The actual sense or the reality in most organizations is that power is not evenly distributed but the management have more power than the employees. This enables them to make arbitrary decisions that may not be in employees favour.
The emphasis on rational approach towards conflict resolution has also received criticism, as it is a part of managerial aspect to contain employees through rational reasoning as to why the conditions may not improve due to increased costs of production or low profitability.
Neo institutionalism approach
Neo institutionalism is the other modern approach to industrial relations. This approach seeks to ensure that the organization has rules and procedures that enhance the organizations operations. These rules and regulations divide into two parts.
There are the formal rules or written rules that describe what ought to happen in the organization, the role, and the responsibility of every employee. Then there is the procedural rule that describe the procedure or the mechanisms that ought to be followed in particular activity within the organization (Deal, 1982).
Explanation on conflict and cooperation from the above perspectives
These perspectives are critical in ensuring that there is a proper balance in the operations of organization. The perspective that has generated many conflicts is the unitary approach with employees dissatisfied due to assumption of their opinions and ideas by the organization. There was expectation that the employer need to be loyal and committed to the organization goals at the expense of the employees’ personal pursuits.
The employer who wielded much power than the employee sacked those who opposed this perspective. However, with the emergence of the service sector in Australia most of the employees in such manufacturing setting opted out of such employment. The employers thereby adapted to the Human Resource management approach as it helped them to deal with the employees individually rather than collectively (Delaney, 2006).
The pluralist system on the other hand sought to empower the employee by ensuring that they use their collective power to improve their working conditions. This approach advocated for the labour unions that negotiated for the employees.
When disputes arose, the government acted as the arbitrator by reconciling the conflicting parties and looking for a solution. This conflict resolution mechanism enabled both the employer and the employee to have cordial relationships (Deal, 1982).
However, this made the labour unions to be powerful for both the government and private organizations. The government in an attempt to contain the labour unions and their immense influence in the labour market has accepted that an individual employee can negotiate for his or her own employment terms without the need for belonging to the union.
The employers on the other hand are opting for casual labourers or other flexible source of labour that matches the demand of their products. This has led to increase in casual employment as compared to the permanent employment. Contractual form of employment has also gained popularity in Australia (Davenport, 1998).
The government has evolved from being an arbitrator. Realizing the power of the trade unions in negotiations, it has ensured the curtailing of their influence by segmenting the unions through allowing as many unions as possible within an industry or a company. Due to this waning influence, many employees prefer to stay out of the unions and handle the disputes personally.
Conclusion
Industrial relations are an important aspect of management. The perspective that a specific organization adopts in its industrial relations has a lot of effect on the labour as well as the efficiency and profitability of the organization.
References
Davenport, T. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Deal, K. (1982). Corporate cultures. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
Delaney, J. (2006). The impact of human resource management practices on perceptions of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 949–69.
Ehrenberg, S. (1994). Modern labour economics. New York: Harper Collins.
Eldridge, J. (1974). The sociology of organizations. London: Allen & Unpin.
What do you know about the unitarist perspective regarding labor? Or about the pluralist approach toward industrial relations? In this paper, see the writer will explore the advantages and disadvantages of both concepts, explaining their meaning, similarities and differences.
Introduction
People have different ways of interpreting the events they come across in their daily life. School and family circumstances, encounters at the workplaces, clubs, religions, friends, society, and occupations influence most of the understandings. Employment is one of the elements that influence people’s life.
Hence, management and the nature of employment are some of the issues that trigger heated debates. Generally, people have two different perspectives of interpreting managerial practices that take place at workplaces. These are known as unitarism and pluralism.
The unitarist approach holds that workplace conflicts are avoidable. According to this approach, managers may detour them by bringing all the stakeholders together. They can and should make sure that an organization is managed from a single source of power.
Meanwhile, pluralists hold that workplace conflicts are inevitable. Managers ought to convert them into profitable initiatives rather than criticize them.
This paper aims to analyze the unitarist vs. pluralist managerial perspectives. Besides, the writer will decide on the best approach based on the findings.
Unitarist Perspective
Unitarists base their arguments on postulations that workplace conflict is an avoidable feature of relationships between employees and their managers. They claim that as long as managers continue interacting with employees, they are likely to quarrel.
According to unitarists, both managers and employees share a common interest of making sure that their organisation grows steadily, and thus when a crisis occurs within the organisation, it would not lead to insolvency of the organisation (Ross & Bamber 2009).
Hence, the conflict that emerges between the parties is a result of personality muddle, poor communication, poor promotion practices, or inappropriate recruitment. Unitarists hold that to avoid such conflicts, the management team ought to identify the actions that might lead to conflicts and avoid implementing them.
The management has the duty to conduct a free and fair promotion and recruitment exercise, come up with quality communication systems that are capable of showing the employees where their interests fall, and deal with people susceptible to personality disorders (Bacon & Blyton 2007).
Unitarists position on employee management draws from a number of theories. One of the theories is the theory of scientific management devised by Taylor (Ross & Bamber 2009).
The theory holds that for managers to come up with productive employee management strategies, they have to start by assuming that the employees are likely to avoid work whenever they get a chance, they have limited knowledge about the work, and are prone to pursuing personal interests.
Therefore, to address these problems, the managers ought to come up with rigid and direct mechanisms that would help to control all the activities the employees undertake. The management has the duty to portray rational leadership during the recruitment process and when instructing employees.
According to the unitarists, organisations ought to have a single source of authority. All instructions ought to come from the management team (Ross & Bamber 2009). Managers are supposed to treat employees in a manner that tries to suppress internal conflict over power by ensuring that it does not allocate powers to individual employees.
Another theory from which unitarists draw their position regarding employee management is the human relations theory. They believe that for an organisation to curb organisational tension, it has to make sure that it establishes a working environment that promotes self-fulfilment.
Workers are qualitatively different from all other elements of production (Ross & Bamber 2009). Therefore, whenever workers are deprived the opportunity to make decisions in the organisation, the unitarists believe that they will definitely look for ways to resist the management system that enforces these conditions.
Organisations need to handle their employees with great care since they are the most critical resource in production. The management has the duty to design workplace relations in ways that promote self-satisfaction within the employees.
The managers need to understand that the employees have the right to present their opinions on how they would like to be governed (Bacon & Blyton 2007). Moreover, they are required to work on employee development as a way to show that they are committed to improving the wellbeing of all employees.
In whichever way, the ultimate goal of this managerial approach is to curb internal conflicts by promoting self-satisfaction through involving the employees in running the organisation.
Unitarists do not believe in the role of trade unions in the organisations (Dzimbiri 2008). According to them, trade unions are illegal interruptions to management objectives. Trade unions tend to neutralise the power of organisational leaders in making all the crucial decisions in an organisation.
They champion for the employees’ interests and makes sure that leaders address the interests. In a way, there appears to be a second source of authority within an organisation.
Unitarists believe that this second source of authority, which is the trade union, is to blame for tension that arises between employees and managers. They make it hard for an organisation to solve internal differences harmoniously.
Apart from the scientific management and the human relations theories, the Unitarists draw their inspirations from the human resource management theory. The management theory holds that, for an organisation to surmount tension it has to foster a psychological contract rooted on cooperation.
Unitarists believe that the forces that bring together the managers and the employees are much stronger than the forces that draw them apart (Ross & Bamber 2009). Hence, the management ought to work on the forces that unite it with the employees by establishing a working environment that promotes autonomy.
The management needs to treat the issue of workplace relations as a hole. In a bid to encourage cooperation between the management and employees, the management needs to create a corporate culture that brings parties together, use an insidious and strong leadership style, and have a clear revelation of the organisational goals.
Workplace social classes are a major hindrance to organisational success. They lead to the breakdown of communication across the different departments. Besides, the social classes lead to regular conflicts due to contradicting interests (Bacon & Blyton 2007).
Unitarists maintain that for an organisation to succeed, it has to have a management system that discourages establishment of social classes, establishes open communication, and champions for the interests of all parties to the organisation. Such a system is achievable by encouraging teamwork within the organisation.
Teamwork promotes cooperation between employees, therefore, avoiding chances of conflict of interest. Besides teamwork, conducting employee performance appraisal would go a long way to encourage cooperation between employees.
Pluralist Perspective
Pluralists hold that conflicts at workplaces are inevitable, which contradicts the unitarists’ position who believes that it is possible for institutions to circumvent conflict at workplaces. Pluralists perceive business organisations as intricate social constructions that comprise of groups of people with conflicting interests.
Employees and the management form part of these groups (Giles 1998). Based on the nature of the organisation’s system, employees and management are seen to pledge to different objectives and values. Based on this perspective, pluralists believe that it is hard to do away with different sources of power within a business institution.
For this reason, organisations cannot overcome conflicts. By acknowledging that organisations are incapable of overcoming conflicts, the pluralists consider conflict to be of significant benefit to an organisation (Giles 1998). It acts as the conduit through which employees present their problems.
Moreover, they posit that whenever the management senses that conflict might erupt in an organisation, they work towards coming up with innovative methods that would turn the conflict into a productive initiative.
Pluralists assert that learning that trade unions and shop stewards are likely to cause trouble in an organisation leaves the management at a better position to address the issues of employee relations in a holistic manner.
Incidentally, workplace conflict does not only help the management to come up with strategies for institutionalising employment regulations but to also promote a level ground for all parties since employees are able to stand their ground when negotiating on contract terms (Bacon & Storey 2000).
This assertion underlines the reason why pluralists advocate for trade unions to act on behalf of the employees when bargaining for stable working conditions.
Pluralists draw their inspirations from the systems theory devised by Dunlop in 1958. The theory treats industrial relations as constituents of a wider social system (Kessler & Purcell 2003).
They believe that for an organisation to succeed there has to be numerous leaders or lines of command to make sure that one leader does not pursue personal interests at the expense of others.
Unlike the unitarists who do not see the role of trade unions in organisations, pluralists believe that trade unions play a significant role in bringing sanity into an organisation. According to pluralists, organisations are more susceptible to conflicts than harmony.
Hence, it is illogical to claim that trade unions are the root cause of conflict witnessed in organisations (Kessler & Purcell 2003).
The pluralist theory holds that the workplaces are made up of different sets of attitudes, values, behaviours, and beliefs. Hence, it is hard for any organisation to bring all the stakeholders together and share common interests and values (Kessler & Purcell 2003).
For the management to bring the employees together, it requires to go through the heavy task of convincing them on the need for coming together. Since the different employees have different interests, the management ought not to run away from conflicts.
Instead, it needs to embrace workplace conflicts and look for ways to turn the conflicts into productive undertakings. Pluralists call upon the management to institute industrial relations and select skilled personnel to advice it on how to address industrial matters, rather than intimidating the trade union’s personnel.
Pluralists maintain that the management has the duty to promote pluralism and give all parties in the organisation an opportunity to participate in making decisions on matters affecting the organisation (Ackers 2002).
In a bid to achieve this goal, managers ought to understand that employees are not the cause of conflict witnessed in organisations, but they show the diversity in industrial relations.
Therefore, to harness this diversity and use it productively, managers need to embrace conflicting opinions. The opinions might be rich in novel operation methods, therefore, helping the organisation to grow its performance.
A pluralistic managerial perspective occasionally embraces a balancing archetype. Pluralists view business organisations as plural societies that hold numerous related but separate goals and interests, which the managers ought to establish some form of equilibrium to maintain them.
In case one of the interests dominates the others, an organisation is likely to face a crisis (Ackers 2002). Pluralists emphasise on the need for striking an even-handed balance between the different interests in a business organisation to circumvent negative results.
Overlooking some interests and addressing others might lead to the demoralisation of employees whose interests are overlooked. Such employees would stop being productive subjecting the organisation to retarded growth (Ackers 2002).
In a bid to ensure that all employees commit themselves to organisational goal, pluralists claim that management and employees need to compromise on some of their interests to reach a common ground where they would be able to work on the interests that are feasible and within the organisation’s budget.
According to the pluralist managerial perspective, the management can and should play a central role in coming up with minimum standards and designing other policies to rectify the imbalance in the bargaining power and foster equity. Employment is not enough (Singh & Loncar 2010).
Managers ought to ensure that employees enjoy quality working conditions and employment security. Besides, pluralists maintain that the management needs to address both work and non-work related needs of their employees.
It needs to give employees the power to make decisions at their workplaces, which would facilitate in avoiding conflicts, as employees would agree with their colleagues on policies to adopt. The pluralistic approach does not view the role of managers as to implement organisational policies.
Instead, it views managers as the link between the organisation and the employees (Singh & Loncar 2010). Rather than imposing policies on employees, managers are supposed to help in reconciling the competing parties within an organisation. Besides, they are supposed to help in aligning the employee interests with the organisational goals.
The best perspective”>Unitarist vs. Pluralist: What Is Best Perspective?
The assumption that workplace conflict is avoidable, as the unitarists believe is not true. Unitarists teach that organisations need to have a common interest and a single focus of loyalty. Nevertheless, this scenario is not the reality in many organisations.
Different employees and organisational leaders hold different opinions and have competing interests (Gennard & Judge 2002).
Consequently, it is hard for any organisation to circumvent workplace conflicts. Since it is hard for organisational leaders to do away with competition within the organisation, they need to look for ways of exploiting the competition in a profitable way.
The pluralist managerial perspective offers the best solution for dealing with contemporary organisations. In the modern organisations, the workforce comprises of people with different cultural backgrounds. This diversity makes it hard for employees to share common interests.
In a bid to achieve organisational growth, the management has to have knowledge on how to motivate the diverse workforce. Besides, it has to have clear knowledge of the diverse interests held by the workforce and work on modalities to harmonise them.
Unitarists claim that trade unions are the main cause of conflict in organisations and that to avoid conflicts; organisations need to eliminate trade unions. However, trade unions are not accountable for workplace conflicts. Actually, conflict is endemic within the workplaces.
Most of the modern organisations do not have trade unions (Abbott 2006). Nonetheless, the organisations still witness workplace conflicts between the different groups of employees or within the management team. The managers ought to go by the saying “if you cannot beat them, join them”.
Rather than trying to curb workplace conflict, which is hard to do away with, organisational leaders ought to bring back sanity by sharing the control of the organisation. Unitarists believe that using a single source of power might help to curb conflict, which may apply for small institutions (Abbott 2006).
However, for bigger organisations, it is hard for the management team to use a single source of power, which underlines why organisations are working to remove the hierarchy that exists in their administration structure. The hierarchy not only leads to conflict, but also delays in the implementation of organisational policies.
Therefore, pluralists offer the best solution to workplace conflicts, which is to share control of organisation between several leaders who would work on the various interests to reach at a common agreement with all the stakeholders.
A single leader cannot manage to address all the employee demands and might end up enforcing his or her ideas, therefore, amplifying the conflict (Abbott 2006).
The employer-employee relations can be said to have two crucial but different features. These features are the managerial relations and the market relations. The market relations entail the terms and conditions of employee recruitment and are economic in nature.
The managerial relations are the most crucial in an organisation as they determine its success. One of the aspects of managerial relations is the collective bargaining (Bacon & Blyton 2007). This aspect relates with the argument about the importance of trade unions in organisations.
Organisations do not have time to get the opinion of every employee. Hence, trade unions would facilitate to gather the opinion of the employees and bring them on the table for the organisation to make decisive decisions.
The pluralist managerial perspective advocates for collective bargaining, which is a valuable approach in organisation management. Collective bargaining offers a platform where all parties participate in a democratic decision-making process. In return, it motivates employees since they feel empowered (Bacon & Blyton 2007).
Contemporarily, employee empowerment is one of the strategies used in unleashing the employees’ potential. In an environment where employees have to wait for commands from their leaders (like the one unitarists advocate for), they get demoralised and fail to commit themselves (Schmidt 2009).
In such an instance, employees only work because they need money and they leave the organisation upon getting the first chance. The pluralist managerial perspective promotes a working environment that empowers employees giving them a chance to make decisions on matters affecting their organisation.
This aspect arouses the feeling of co-ownership of the organisation in employees, and thus they commit to enhancing its growth. An organisation that use pluralist managerial approach is likely to cut down on operations cost with respect to employee turnover (Schmidt 2009).
Since the approach empowers the employees, they feel comfortable and they commit themselves to organisational goals.
Workplace conflict, if managed effectively, would promote innovativeness in an organisation, which underlines the reason why pluralists advocate for the management to manage the conflict but not rebuke and criticise it.
In case of workplace conflict, bringing together all the stakeholders would help an organisation identify the underlying challenges and tensions. In return, the management would be able to come up with measures to mitigate their potential effects or address them before they happen (Bacon & Blyton 2007).
In a unitarist managerial approach, the management would be caught unprepared by challenges posed by workplace conflict. The approach believes that it is possible to do away with workplace conflicts. However, the strategies it gives appear more intimidating to employees.
Therefore, instead of solving the conflicts, the strategies postpone them only to erupt at a time when the organisation is not prepared. On the other hand, the pluralist perspective employs conflict management strategies to address the challenges a conflict poses.
It brings together all the parties involved in the conflict and helps them to come up with a consensus (Kessler & Purcell 2003).
For the modern organisations to prosper, they need to exploit the skills their diverse workforce possesses. Currently, organisations employ people with diverse cultural backgrounds.
If these diverse cultures are brought together, they might help an organisation to come up with quality managerial practices, which can be achieved if an organisation accepts to accommodate a wide range of employee relations policies (Gennard & Judge 2002).
A Unitarist managerial perspective would not accommodate a range of policies since the system advocate for a single source of power. Embracing numerous policies would imply having numerous sources of power or a wide range of options to select from, which might lead to conflicts.
Conversely, the pluralist managerial approach would accommodate for a range of employee relations policies. The approach acknowledges the potential benefits of workplace conflicts. Therefore, it would not mind to embrace the numerous policies even though they might lead to conflict within the diverse workforce.
By bringing together the diverse experiences, an organisation would have a better chance of incorporating novel functions in its management practice thus improving its performance.
Integrating the sentiments of every employee into the organisational goals would go a long way to curb workplace conflicts. This aspect underlines why the unitarist managerial perspective calls for common interests among the employees.
Nevertheless, the perspective does not advice on how managers can come up with mutual interests or how to share mutual interests across the business institution. Storey (2000) posits, “Unitarism does not provide any guidelines for human resource, so that it can pursue unitarism effectively” (p.12).
Individuals supporting unitarism perspective assume that employees are mature enough to reach conclusive decisions on how to integrate organisational and personal interests.
This assumption makes the perspective weak, since it is hard for individuals with differing opinions to come up with an agreement without following a particular guideline.
The pluralist perspective understands this aspect and that is why it advocates for collective bargaining as the alternative method to help in bringing the personal and organisational interests together.
Unitarist managerial perspective holds that workplace conflicts are avoidable. Nevertheless, the unitarists fail to understand that employers are the root cause of the conflict. The unitarists advocate for employers to have absolute powers in running the organisation.
They do not realise that by granting the employers absolute powers, they exert unnecessary pressure on employees, which triggers the conflict. Instead of employees participating in the decision-making process, the employers force them to embrace the decisions made by the management even if they affect their rights and interests.
In the end, the employees end up resisting the decisions leading to conflicts. For the organisation to curb conflicts, it has to ensure that all stakeholders take part in the decision-making process. Hence, only the pluralist managerial perspective can address workplace conflict, which is an inevitable phenomenon.
Conclusion
Managers follow different reference points when executing their management exercises. Two of such reference points are the unitarist and the pluralist managerial perspectives. The two perspectives have different opinions regarding organisational management. Unitarist holds that workplace conflict is avoidable.
Therefore, the unitarist perspective calls for the establishment of a single source of power and integration of organisational and employee interests.
They believe that workplace conflicts come because of different employee interests. Moreover, unitarists believe that employees do not need having trade unions, as the unions add to workplace conflicts. On the other hand, pluralist managerial perspective holds that workplace conflicts are inevitable.
According to pluralists, it is hard for organisations to curb workplace conflicts. Therefore, the organisational management team needs to look for the opportunities that might help it to use the emerging conflicts to boost organisational growth. Pluralists view workplace conflicts in a positive dimension.
They believe that the conflicts help the management to unravel the underlying tensions, therefore, helping them to come up with measures to mitigate them. Between the two perspectives, pluralist managerial perspective is the better.
The perspective acknowledges that it is hard for an organisation to overcome workplace conflicts and it gives a method of embracing the conflict in a productive way.
Reference List
Abbott, K 2006, ‘A review of employment relations theories and their application’, Problems and Perspectives in Management, vol. 1 no.1, pp. 187-198.
Ackers, P 2002, ‘Reframing Employment Relations: The case for neo-pluralism’, Industrial Relations Journal, vol. 33 no. 1, pp. 2–19.
Bacon, N & Blyton, P 2007, ‘Conflict for Mutual Gains?’ Journal of Management Studies, vol. 44 no. 5, pp. 814-834.
Bacon, N & Storey, J 2000, ‘New employee relations strategies in Britain: Towards individualism or partnership?’ British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 38 no. 3, pp. 407-428.
Dzimbiri, L 2008, Industrial relations in a developing society: The case of colonial, independent one-party and multiparty Malawi, Cuvillier Verlag, Germany.
Gennard, J & Judge, G 2002, Employee Relations, 3rd edn, Institute of Personnel and Development, Wimbledon.
Giles, A 1998, Theories and concepts in comparative industrial relations, University of South Carolina Press, South Carolina.
Kessler, I & Purcell, J 2003, Industrial Relations: Theory And Practice, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
Ross, P & Bamber, G 2009, ‘Strategic choices in pluralist and unitarist employment relations regimes: A study of Australian telecommunications’, Industrial & Labour Relations Review, vol. 63 no. 1, pp. 24-41.
Schmidt, S 2009, ‘Employee demographics and job training satisfaction: The relationship between dimensions of diversity and satisfaction with job training’, Human Resource Development International, vol. 12 no. 3, pp. 297-312.
Singh, P & Loncar, N 2010, ‘Pay satisfaction, job satisfaction, and turnover intent’, Industrial Relations, vol. 65 no. 3, pp. 470-490.
Storey, J 2000, The Realities of Human Resource Management: Managing The Employment Relationship, Open University Press, Buckingham.
The following essay will look into the two main perspectives of industrial relations that is the unitary and pluralism. The essay will also delve into the recent adaptations of these approaches which are the human resource adaptation and the neo institutionalism, and what these approaches advocate.
The final aspect of this essay will look into the conflict and cooperation situations that arise because of these perspectives. Industrial relation refers to the payment and the working conditions set by the employer or the employee. It is how the labour and the industry interact based on two traditional approaches namely the Unitarian approach and the Pluralist approach.
Unitary approach
The Unitary perspective is based on the view that the organization is a harmonious place, which exists for the achievement of common objectives. It assumes that the employees and the organizations have similar objectives, which are congruent.
The perspective also reinforces the fact that management’s contribution to the organization is critical. This is because the management need to provide strong leadership and show the direction where the organization should follow (Davenport, 1998).
This approach is based on the premise that employee loyalty to the management and organization objectives is very important. Therefore, employee loyalty is critical to the performance of the organization. In addition, this approach assumes that the employer employee conflicts need to be minimal as the objectives are clear.
Everyone in the organization is working towards those objectives, and therefore conflict can only be a consequence of poor communication especially on the employee side. The communication failure is because the employee has not understood instructions. This perspective also views the labour unions as competing entities, which compete for employees’ loyalty and commitment (Ehrenberg, 1994).
The approach was viewed as industry oriented and tended to favour the employer more than the employee. This caused misunderstanding between labour and the industry due to these conflicts. It also led to low level of trust between the employee and the employer especially due to their unexpressed conflicting interests, which were not in line with the mutual objectives (Ehrenberg, 1994).
This view received criticism for its inability to solve industrial conflicts that arise due to its narrow approach to conflict. It tends to deny and ignore conflict that reduces the organizations effectiveness. It does not explain the reasons why there is unequal dissemination of powers between the employers and the employee. This makes the approach to fail in many modern organizations (Eldridge, 1974).
The Human Resource approach is a modification or an adaptability of the unitary approach towards industrial relations as it focuses on the management of industrial relations from the employers’ perspective rather than from the employees’ perspective. It focuses on the chief activities of the management in human resource management.
It describes the activities of management as those of planning and predicting the needed workforce by the organization. This is important as it enables the managers to formulate job descriptions based on job analysis, the kind of skills they need as well as quality of workers and their responsibility in the organization. The work of the employer or the management in an industry involves recruiting and selection of the workers.
Training and managing workers is the responsibility of management as per the human resource perspective. Rewarding and dismissing employees is another role of the managers as part of human resource management (Ehrenberg, 1994).
The human resource management approach
The human resource management approach has two approaches. The first approach is the Soft HRM approach. This approach holds the perspective that there is need for employees motivation and that the employees function as individuals. This means that the approach looks for different ways of meeting the employees’ demands and goals.
It also accepts the need for employee motivation, which is very important due to its effect on employee performance. Poor motivation leads to poor performance of employees leading to low productivity. It also looks for ways of increasing employee commitment and loyalty as it recognises the need to have committed employees for the long-term benefit of the organization.
Employee satisfaction also features in these approaches because there is a close relationship between employee satisfaction and employee commitment to the organization. Fostering employee satisfaction automatically leads to employee loyalty and commitment.
The hard HRM perspective on the other hand is a perspective, which views the employee as a separate business resource whose role is to assist in the achievement of the organizational goals and objectives.
This approach does not factor in issues of employee loyalty or commitment. The decisions on HR strategy base themselves on the cost and benefit analysis where the job or work rewards as per its ability to meet certain needs or eliminate unnecessary cost.
Pluralist approach
The other perspective is that of Pluralist approach. This approach has the view that people within an organization are different with different goals and pursuits. It is based on the assumption that power is evenly distributed between the employer and the employees to the extent that no part of the organization dominates the other (Deal, 1982).
This perspective also incorporates the view that the state is the arbitrator of the two parties when conflicts arise. The state is the guardian of the interests of the public or the workers and that it should work to ensure that, the strong do not exploit the weak in the society.
The weak in this case are the vulnerable employees who depend on their employers for their sustenance. This perspective also advocated that the employers should not expect blind obedience from the employees as the employees had their own ideas, goals, and pursuits which are different from those of the employers.
This meant that conflicts could arise as these ideas and interests would be in conflict many times. To avoid these conflicts the employers as well as the management role are to ensure that they reconcile the conflicting ideas and perception for the attainment of harmonious industrial relations (Deal, 1982).
This pluralist approach also views the labour unions as the one with the right and the capability to represent the employee because it is a union with collective support of all employees. It therefore has more bargaining power than what a single employee can bargain. These views give the labour unions the right to challenge the managing aspect of the organization (Deal, 1982).
Pluralism has also received criticism especially on its view that power is evenly distributed. The actual sense or the reality in most organizations is that power is not evenly distributed but the management have more power than the employees. This enables them to make arbitrary decisions that may not be in employees favour.
The emphasis on rational approach towards conflict resolution has also received criticism, as it is a part of managerial aspect to contain employees through rational reasoning as to why the conditions may not improve due to increased costs of production or low profitability.
Neo institutionalism approach
Neo institutionalism is the other modern approach to industrial relations. This approach seeks to ensure that the organization has rules and procedures that enhance the organizations operations. These rules and regulations divide into two parts.
There are the formal rules or written rules that describe what ought to happen in the organization, the role, and the responsibility of every employee. Then there is the procedural rule that describe the procedure or the mechanisms that ought to be followed in particular activity within the organization (Deal, 1982).
Explanation on conflict and cooperation from the above perspectives
These perspectives are critical in ensuring that there is a proper balance in the operations of organization. The perspective that has generated many conflicts is the unitary approach with employees dissatisfied due to assumption of their opinions and ideas by the organization. There was expectation that the employer need to be loyal and committed to the organization goals at the expense of the employees’ personal pursuits.
The employer who wielded much power than the employee sacked those who opposed this perspective. However, with the emergence of the service sector in Australia most of the employees in such manufacturing setting opted out of such employment. The employers thereby adapted to the Human Resource management approach as it helped them to deal with the employees individually rather than collectively (Delaney, 2006).
The pluralist system on the other hand sought to empower the employee by ensuring that they use their collective power to improve their working conditions. This approach advocated for the labour unions that negotiated for the employees.
When disputes arose, the government acted as the arbitrator by reconciling the conflicting parties and looking for a solution. This conflict resolution mechanism enabled both the employer and the employee to have cordial relationships (Deal, 1982).
However, this made the labour unions to be powerful for both the government and private organizations. The government in an attempt to contain the labour unions and their immense influence in the labour market has accepted that an individual employee can negotiate for his or her own employment terms without the need for belonging to the union.
The employers on the other hand are opting for casual labourers or other flexible source of labour that matches the demand of their products. This has led to increase in casual employment as compared to the permanent employment. Contractual form of employment has also gained popularity in Australia (Davenport, 1998).
The government has evolved from being an arbitrator. Realizing the power of the trade unions in negotiations, it has ensured the curtailing of their influence by segmenting the unions through allowing as many unions as possible within an industry or a company. Due to this waning influence, many employees prefer to stay out of the unions and handle the disputes personally.
Conclusion
Industrial relations are an important aspect of management. The perspective that a specific organization adopts in its industrial relations has a lot of effect on the labour as well as the efficiency and profitability of the organization.
References
Davenport, T. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Deal, K. (1982). Corporate cultures. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
Delaney, J. (2006). The impact of human resource management practices on perceptions of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 949–69.
Ehrenberg, S. (1994). Modern labour economics. New York: Harper Collins.
Eldridge, J. (1974). The sociology of organizations. London: Allen & Unpin.