State Involvement in Employee Relations: IR vs. HRM

Introduction to Employee Relations and Theoretical Frameworks

Employee relations encompass a wide scope of workplace environment aspects so that employees are protected and provided for. Essentially, employee relations involve all aspects of dealing with people within the workplace. This can include job regulation, hiring, and discipline, but also managing employee relations so that the organization functions smoothly with competent employees (Bray et al., 2005). Industrial relations (IR), stemming from a pluralist approach, holds that state involvement only restricts the natural power struggle in employee relations that allows the changing needs of employees to be best represented. On the other hand, a unitarist approach can help secure protection from exploitation for developing nations or countries trying to recover from economic hardships. Thus, it is ultimately appropriate to take a blended approach regarding state involvement — one flexible enough to work with both approaches when necessary as it adapts to the economic environment.

The discipline makes the clear assumption that there are inherent conflicts within the work environment and that power struggles are present in the workplace. The true nature and impact of conflict varies depending on the theoretical approach used to understand industrial relations. First, there is the pluralist approach, which forms the basis for an IR perspective on whether the state should be involved in employee relations. From this perspective, conflict is seen as inescapable and helps shape how conflicting parties gain and lose power within the work environment (Bray et al., 2005).

The Pluralist Approach and Industrial Relations

From a pluralist perspective, power is not held by one group but is rather contested and distributed among several bargaining groups as they navigate constant conflict in the work environment (Cradden, 2011). As a result, "an organization has more than one legitimate source of authority, notably the trade unions which represent staff interests in many organizations" (McCourt, 2003, p. 8). There are ongoing shifts in power that continually redistribute strength among the various parties involved. Employees are therefore represented through "collective bargaining institutions and trade unions" that continually adjust to the needs of the employees in their representation of them (Ackers & Wilkinson, 2005, p. 445). This creates a flexible system that is constantly adapting and changing to meet the needs of employees, though there remains the potential for management to gain the upper hand in many of these power struggles.

Within this approach, state involvement is minimized as much as possible, as "the state is regarded as an impartial entity, whose primary function is to protect the public interest" (Bray et al., 2005). From a pluralist perspective, the state should stay out of the natural power conflicts that occur between parties in the workplace and allow them to resolve disputes themselves. The state therefore remains of minimal influence on employee relations, in favor of trade unions using their own bargaining power to represent employees. This IR approach is particularly well-suited to a world of globalization, where research suggests that "governments are increasingly less able to control the flow of capital, information and technology across the border" (de Silva, 2013, p. 2). Ultimately, the state may not be powerful enough to make meaningful management decisions in employee relations at an international level.

The Unitarist Approach and Human Resource Management

Unitarism offers a markedly different perspective and forms the foundation for Human Resource Management (HRM). From this perspective, there is a mutual benefit among all parties in the workplace, who share a common purpose. This view holds that conflict arises only when there is a deficient system — that is, a lack of proper communication or ineffective management (Bray et al., 2005). At its core, unitarism constructs the HRM model of business organization (McCourt, 2003). Strong management is therefore considered essential to lead all parties toward a common good. The HRM perspective "emphasizes strategy and planning rather than problem-solving and mediation, so that employee cooperation is delivered by programmes of corporate culture, remuneration packaging, team building and management development for core employees, while peripheral employees are kept at arm's length" (Torrington et al., 2005, p. 61). There is a higher demand for a more centralized method of management and control.

Conclusion

A blended approach allows the two main benefits of each of these structures to shine. It can use the flexibility of IR and the protection of HRM in order to see the state working in the field of employee relations in cooperation with the bargaining organizations that compete to best represent employee needs. Taking the most appropriate elements from both frameworks ensures a more adaptable perspective that can evolve alongside the ever-changing global economy and business environment.