Pluralistic Perspectives and Management

Pluralism and Management

This approach sees conflicts of interest and disagreements between managers and workers over the distribution of profits as normal and inescapable. Realistic managers should

• accept conflict will occur. There is a greater propensity for conflict rather than harmony (unitary perspective).
• anticipate and resolve this by securing agreed procedures for settling disputes.

Pluralism assumes that achievement of consensus and long-term stability in management/worker relations is the best way to balance the demands of competing groups. mechanisms and channels must be designed and introduced so that the frustration and anger assoicated with conflict can be vented and given relief rather than harmfully repressed. Management should thus adopt policies and agree to procedures and codes which recognise that conflicting interests exist. They should be willing to negotiate compromises. In the mid-1960s the recommended procedures to channel conflict and reduce its harmful potential included e.g.

• union recognition agreements
• joint-consultation and negotiation committees
• collective agreements reached at the most appropriate level for workers interests - this is likely to be a "shop" level
• discipline and grievance procedures
• arrangements for arbitration, mediation and settlement etc.

In 1968 - the majority report of the Donovan investigation concluded that

Management and labour can resolve differences in an orderly way by collective bargaining. Through legitimatised bargaining arrangements between employers and unions, workers can better share in the the profits of business.

Thus TUs as the representatives of workers have a key role in income distribution.

Implications of pluralism

• The firm should have industrial relations and personnel specialists who advise managers and provide specialist services in respect of staffing and matters relating to union consultation and negotiation.
• independent external arbitrators should be used to assist in the resolution of disputes.
• union recognition should be encouraged and unin representatives given scope to carry out their representative duties
• comprehensive collective agreements should be negotiated with unions. These should cover
  1. the substance of the wage-work bargain (pay and terms and conditions) and
  2. procedures for the sound management of relations with between management and unions
  3. procedures which will assist in the resolution of various types of dispute situation.

Benefits of the pluralist solutions
recommended by Donovan

It reflects the concepts and feasible solutions that were available at the time (mid 1960s in the UK. Trade union organisation in large industrial sectors was dominant. Managers in many instances had their backs to the wall in trying to run the businesses. In the UK the problems of world competitiveness were beginning to be understood but problems of inflation and industrial restructuring awithin a world recession where yet to be fully experienced by the entire population. Even governments were not powerful enough to influence the direction of union power.

Pluralism reflects a stakeholder model of power sharing and distribution of influence. We must however note the power possessed by any particular coalition of interests. In general however the application of a pluralistic policy to industrial relations encourages:-

• planning, orderiliness and consistency in the management of relations with a unionised workforce. Steps, roles and proecedures for conflict resolution e.g. a pay claims are understood.
• issues can be legitimately raised by worker representatives. Management in recognising the union, has agreed to listen. When a challenge to managetial action is raised the status quo of the business operation will, more than likely, be maintained until consultations have been concluded. Alternative points of view can be explored.
• arguably formalised consultation and communication procedures improve the flow of feedback from staff
• stability is sought through compromises that are acceptable to all the parties to a dispute.
• it balances the interests of the various stakeholders (owners, management, workers, etc. involved in the creation of the firm's wealth.

  Critique of Donovan pluralism

  From the perspective of business competitiveness:-

• compromise between all the parties in a dispute may stabilise the local situation - but company performance is evaluated in a global international way. The compromise may be a lowest common denominator, too safe and incremental, insufficiently radical. Stakeholder theory does not adequately deal with fast moving situations in which radical change is often needed.
• with the 1980s and 1990s imperatives of
  • the quality movement
  • efforts by company managements to improve team working methods and their own skills and abilities as managers

  - it appears that there has been a greater propensity for unitarism to flourish in companies than pluralistically oriented policies. This is particularly so where HRM minded companies today see less need to give so much managerial attention to the institutionalisation of conflict via negotiating and bargaining stances (old trade unionism). Businesses are urged to become Investors in People.

• Donovan style pluralism emphasises collective bargaining which focuses on pay and basic terms and conditions. Under thiis form of pluralism the economically motivated employee has had to fight tooth and nail for good rewards and working conditions.
• the solutions of Donovan were right for the 1960s but such approaches institutionalise "anti-organisational" and adversarial attitudes. The very procedures for conflict resolution themselves promote "them and us". Bargaining becomes a necessary ritual for everything.
• It is superficial to suggest that feedback from and to employees improves via the conduit of representative participation. Such participation is too separated. Modern team, project and group methods at work involve the worker far more at the point of doing their job - where their ability to influence decions that are meaningful to them is greater. These workplace improvements reflect the job enrichment recommendations of Herzberg.
• bureaucratic procedures for formal consultations and meetings with elected representatives stifle the scope for local initiatives. Stakeholder meetings can reflect resistant rather than willingness to change. The committees, roles and channels become a self-maintaining system used to legitimise existing employee relations practices. These may be outmoded given the turbulent situation in the business environment
• the approach offers too little in situations where there is moment-by-moment face-to-face contact between managers and staff e.g. in small businesses.
• employee loyalty to the firm, self-interest as an individual and loyalty as a union member involve dilemmas. Goals associated with errach may not be reconcilable
• Pluralism assumes a balance of power between interest groups. The reality is that in many employee relations situations a dominant participant possesses the power to impose its will on the other side. This was the case largely in the mid-1960s. Managers were on the defensive and trade unions in traditional (and some new) inustrial sectors were powerful. Businesses desperate to continue production tended to give way in bargaining and pass increased costs onto customers (the wage push argument)(.
• it is naive to suggest that managers - as agents of the owners of the business - will not exercise to the fullest extent their ability to make decisions and act in the business's best interests. if this means mergers, take-overs, closures, staff reductions, cost cutting exercises and so on - so be it.

Where are we today?

Managers too seemingly learnt a lesson, getting their own house in order and investing in policies to unify (unitary) the whole organisation. This team endeavour coming, togetherness and individual performance in the firm also came at a time when corporate down-sizing was being pushed to the limit. Harmony with joblosses - it seems to be a massive contradiction. This reflects the weakness of the individual's position in a recessionary situation.

In parallel, worker rights have been steadily protected by government reducing the scope for employees to act as a collective. Individuals are now protected far more than previously.