Unitary Perspective
As discussed in the first article of this series, when assessing employee relations and the goals of the employers and employees, two different perspectives or views are adapted. Namely; unitary perspective and the pluralist perspective (Armstrong, 2014). Here, we will look to understand the unitary perspective. In simple terms, it views an organization as a collective entity where all the involved parties share the same goals (Guest & Peccei, 2001). This view assumes that all parties involved in the organization share similar values, beliefs and interests. It also assumes that all the parties would contribute to the achievement of collectively agreed goals. This view focuses heavily on employee motivation, wellbeing and loyalty to the organization (Johnstone & Ackers, 2015).
Key features
- It integrates and aligns the interests of employers, employees and other stakeholders, too (Johnstone & Ackers, 2015).
- Policies and practices aim at motivating employees (Guest & Peccei, 2001).
- Wellbeing of employees is of great concern (Ackers & Payne, 1998)
- Loyalty is a fundamental building block (Seifery, Brockner, Bianchi & Moon o look, 2016).
Shortcomings
- It disregards the power imbalances that exist between various parties such as employers, employees and investors (Budd & Colvin, 2014).
- It views disagreements and dissent as negative influences that are undesirable. Trade unions, in this context, are often frowned upon (Kaufman, 2008).
Based on the above, we can infer that unitarism views an organization as a monolith where the concerned parties will come together to achieve a commonly shared goal. It holds that all the parties will be on board with the supposed goals (Guest & Peccei, 2001). Now this could appear naive and even somewhat authoritarian to some people. But even this worldview has its perks and real world applications. There are plenty of organizations that function in high pressure environments with very risky and problematic stakes where dissent of any sort could essentially leave the organization incapacitated.
Ex:
Organizations that belong to the public sector have very specific political and social agendas which are non-negotiable (Painter, 1988). so internal conflicts and disagreements are luxuries that they cannot afford. In many countries such essential services are legally barred from unionizing.
Head and Lucas (2004) argued that many managers who operate in the hospitality industry, especially in the smaller businesses, tend to hold a unitary view of management. This could be due to their emphasis on cost minimisation. This could also be due to the fact that they are in a high-pressure service industry where entry and exit can be somewhat easy when operating at a smaller scale (Lucas and Wood, 2000). One has to agree that, whilst this worldview does serve a purpose, it is rather incomplete and incompatible with the modern business practices. We will discuss further about other schools of thought in the upcoming posts.
References
Ackers, P. Payne, J. (1998). British trade unions and social partnership: rhetoric, reality and strategy, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 9:3, 529-550
Armstrong, M. (2014). Armstrong’s handbook of human resource management practice. 13th ed. London: Kogan Page, p.403.
Budd, J. W., & Colvin, A. J. S. (2014). The goals and assumptions of conflict management in organizations, The Oxford handbook of conflict management in, New York: Oxford University Press. (pp. 12-29).
Guest, D. And Peccei, R., 2001. Partnership at Work: Mutuality and the Balance of Advantage. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 39(2), pp.207-236.
Head, J. And Lucas, R. (2004), “Employee relations in the non‐union hotel industry: a case of “determined opportunism”?”, Personnel Review, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 693-710.
Johnstone, S. Ackers, P., (2015), Finding a Voice at Work?: New Perspectives on Employment Relations, 1st ed. New York City: Oxford University Publications, pp. 1-16
Kaufman, B, E., Managing the Human Factor: The Early Years of Human Resource Management in American Industry. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press/Cornell University Press (2008). pp. 1-33.
Lucas, R.E. and Wood, R.C. (2000), “Work patterns and employment practices”, in Brotherton, B. (Ed.), An Introduction to the UK Hospitality Industry: A Comparative Approach, Butterworth-Heinemann, London.
Painter, M., 1988. EDITORIAL PUBLIC MANAGEMENT: FAD OR FALLACY?. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 47(1), pp.1-3.
Seifert, M., Brockner, J., Bianchi, E. and Moon, H., 2016. How workplace fairness affects employee commitment. [Massachusetts]: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Hi divaker, agree with you, adding to your points, in unitary viewpoint that management and employees share the same concerns both parties shall cooperate. This was the principle of mutuality (Walton, 1985).
ReplyDeleteHi Dineth, agreed. Lowe and Oliver (1991) also point out the same and expand the idea further by pointing out that employee commitment is replacing other traditional forms of control.
DeleteYes, I agree with you Divakaran. The unitary perspective method assumes that management and staff, as well as all members of the organization, have the same objectives, interests, and purposes, and that they all work together, hand in hand, toward shared mutual goals, with conflict being viewed as disruptive. Pluralism also views workplace conflict as natural and unavoidable, seeing conflicts of interest and arguments between management and workers over profit sharing as regular and unavoidable (Naukrihub, 2007).
ReplyDeleteHi Isuru, agreed. However, when speaking of the varying interests of the parties involved, Budd (2004) says that despite the contradicting interests, these parties do share a common interest in the continuance of said relationship.
DeleteHi Divakar, agreed your points and adding to that according to Van Maanen and Barley (1985) argue that ‘unitary organizational cultures evolve when all members of an organization face roughly the same problems, when everyone communicates with almost everyone else, and when each member adopts a common set of understandings for endorsing proper.
ReplyDeleteHi Lakshan, agreed. Johnstone and Ackers (2015) also point out that collective goals of the parties can be achieved through shared values and beliefs.
DeleteHi Divakar.Visuo-spatial working memory was more strongly correlated with general fluid intelligence than with general crystallised intelligence, and vice versa for verbal–numerical working memory. Additionally, general fluid intelligence was more strongly correlated with visuo-spatial working memory than verbal–numerical working memory, and vice versa for general crystallised intelligence. These patterns of relationships supported the argument that working memory is not a simple unitary system but can be differentiated into domain-specific components: visuospatial working memory and verbal–numerical working memory (Dang et al., 2012).
ReplyDeleteHi Nirmika, afraid I'm not sure if I understand the relevance of this comment?
Delete
ReplyDeleteHi Divaker. Employers used to focus on health benefits when talking about employee wellbeing. Nowadays, we know that employee wellbeing is more than just the absence of illness among employees. Employee wellbeing is about optimizing the health of all employees. It is not only about physical wellbeing, but other components of wellbeing that cannot be ignored when talking about healthy and well-functioning individuals or employees (Armstrong,2014).
Hi Dileep, agreed. Kelly, Berkman, Kubzansky, and Lovejoy (2021) argue that employee well-being can be maximised by strategically resigning work.
DeleteYes Divakar, in terms of sharing the same aim between management and employees, the unitary theory was regarded as one happy family organization (Tirintetaake, 2017). The unitary theory's power distribution was concentrated, which meant that all decisions and authority came from the top (Chand, 2017).
ReplyDeleteHi Janakan, true. However. Kaufman (2008) points out that this view disregards or approaches with disdain any voice of disagreement that rises from the lower ranks.
DeleteHi Divakar. Nicely written article. Though the Unitary perspective influence the attitudes and behavior of employers towards employees, Huczynski and Buchanan, (2001) criticized the theory for being viewed in denial of the existing basic antagonism in the employment relationship.
ReplyDeleteHi Gihan, completely agree. Going further, Budd and Colvin (2014) also criticise the unitary view for disregarding the power imbalances in the relationship between employees and employers.
DeleteWell said Divakar. Unitary perspective of industrial relations views the industrial organization as an entity unified by one aim, and that is success (Tony Dun, 2020).
ReplyDeleteHi Upeksha. Though the above is partially true, Armstrong (2014) states that unitary view is somewhat naive for expecting all the involved parties to be unified in agreement of one goal.
DeleteUnder the unitary approach assume that management and employees have common interests; Conflicts were therefore treated as pathological, which should always be prevented. In pluralism, it was taken for granted that employers and employees sometimes had conflicting interests; As a result, the conflict between them was endemic, and its occasional manifestation should be considered normal.
ReplyDeleteSmelser, N.J. and Baltes, P.B. eds., 2001. International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (Vol. 11). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hi Divakar, Unitary Perspective is a single authority where it consist of loyalty structure, common values and objects in an organization (Tushnet, 2009), was positively impact on team working, innovation, creativity and problem solving that helps to improve the quality of work that indirectly impact on the organizational objective as well (Yoganathan, Jozsa and Strelchuk, 2019).
ReplyDeleteWell written article , when review further on unitary approach Mzangwa explained on his journal article , The unitary perspective in employment relations assumes that employers and workers operate in teamwork for attainment of common objective within an organization(Mzangwa,2015).
ReplyDeleteI agree with your points and further, unitary theory was considered as “one happy family” organization in terms of sharing a common goal between the management and employee
ReplyDelete( Tirintetaake,2017)
Hi Divakar. The unitary perspective is based on the assumption that the organization is an integrated group of people with single authority/ loyalty structure and a set of common values, interests and objectives shared by all members of the organization.Johnstone, S. Ackers, P., (2015)
ReplyDeleteHi Divakar, Like other behavioural subjects, both the scenario of IR and factors affecting it are perceived differently by different behavioural practitioners and theorists. For example, while some perceive IR in terms of class conflict, others view it in terms of mutual co-operation, yet others understand it related to competing interests of various groups and so. Armstrong, M. (2015).
ReplyDelete