Another important approach to management much more prevalent in today’s business environment is the pluralist approach. The major characteristic that differentiates this model from the unitary perspective is the acknowledgement that enterprises “contain people with a variety of different interests, aims and aspirations. Power is shared so there is no single dominant party” (Bray et al. 2005 p. 13). In addition to these assumptions, there is a distinct separation of ownership of resources and the management.
Pluralists consider conflict as both rational and an inevitable consequence of the different roles of managers and employees. Therefore it is the role of the manager to recognise conflict in the workplace and to resolve it through consulting the parties involved. Unlike the unitary approach, coercion is not an acceptable method of eliminating conflict (Rose 2004 p. 27).
The final approach to management is the radical approach, which grounds itself on the philosophy that there is an inherent conflict between employers and employees as a result of unequal distribution of income and wealth (Bray et al. 2005 p.7). The radical approach is the most broad of the three approaches. In this model the two opposing parties are those who own capital, and those who sell their labour. The owners maintain their authoritative position through instruments such as selective recruitment. The inequality of this relationship thus creates conflict (Rose 2004 p. 29).
Analysing the three approaches to management presents one common idea. The central theme in all three is that conflict is inevitable. The radical approach postulates that conflict will arise in any organisation in which power is not distributed equally. From experience, inequality is a characteristic of all organisations; it is simply human nature. The pluralists also regard conflict as inevitable and prioritise the resolution of conflict rather than trying to eliminate it altogether. The unitary approach hypothesises that a conflict free workplace is possible, if the objectives of the workers coincide with those of managers. However in practise this is rarely ever the case. An example is that of team working organisations. Although they are based on the unitary idea of common goals, team working continues to be characterised by resistance, conflict, accommodation and contradiction (McCabe et al. 1997). The difference in the three approaches therefore, is not of the existence of conflict, but rather the appropriate manager response to conflict. Unitarists believe that coercion is necessary to suppress conflict. On the other hand, pluralists prefer to resolve conflict through consultation and compromise. Radicalists see conflict as an inherent characteristic of a capitalist society, which cannot be eradicated.
Having accepted that conflict is inevitable the relevant question is which management strategies are most likely to reduce conflict, and which strategies are conflict-prone. Given the often expensive nature of conflict, managers will be extremely meticulous in strategy implementation to try and keep conflict to an acceptable minimum.
There are four main strategies that managers can adopt when managing an organisation: the traditionalist strategy, the sophisticated paternalist strategy, the sophisticated modern strategy, and finally the standard modern strategy. These various policies, each draw elements from the three approaches to management. As a result of that, the treatment and ultimate manifestation of conflict is very different in companies utilising these strategies.
The traditional strategy draws heavily from the unitary approach to management. It is characterised by hostile and negative stances to trade unions and a highly exploitative approach to the workforce. In addition, there is a strong belief of management prerogative, and the legitimacy of these rights (Rose 2004 p. 64). In the early 19th century when this strategy had extensive influence in organisations, this strategy was fairly effective in controlling conflict. The reason was the lack of a legal framework that enforced workers rights. Workers were thus forced to work under the “dictatorship” of management in order to survive. Conversely, this strategy would be significantly less effective in organisations of today, as a result of both government intervention, and social norms. Exploitation of workers will generate enormous pressure from the workers themselves, and from the government.
The sophisticated paternalist (SP) strategy is similar to the traditionalist approach in that it too is based on the unitary approach to management. However, paternalist organisations are generally more concerned with employee welfare and development. This strategy doesn’t recognise trade unions, but doesn’t use coercive power to suppress them (Rose 2004 p. 64). A SP strategy is less likely to create conflict, because of the nurturing attitude to employees. An organisation adopting this strategy encourages employees to avoid unions through benefits and good working conditions. Therefore employees tend to feel less dissatisfaction, and conflict is reduced.
The pluralist approach is the basis of the Sophisticated modern (SM) strategy of management. Managers utilising this strategy firstly accept the presence of unions. This is despite the fact that unions may limit the manager prerogative. The reason for this differing attitude is that a union presence and voice is believed to positively contribute to facilitating communication and change in the employee relationship (Rose 2004 p. 64). Breakdown of communication is one of the major causes of conflict (Gilberg 1993). Thus this strategy works not to abolish the existence of conflict, but to encourage methods of resolving conflict soon after it arises. Unions are just one of the instruments in this resolution.
A practical manifestation of the SM management strategy are employee participation programs. These programs are diverse and range from anything as small as simple consultation of employees about their ideas, to implementing work councils where employees have direct input into decisions that directly affect their workplace. Through programs such as these, the interests of employees are expressed and taken seriously. The end result is increased work satisfaction and workplace harmony (Stern 1988 p. 396). Examples such as this seem to conclude that the SM strategy of management is quite effective and minimizing conflict within the workplace.
The final strategy that managers may consider is the Standard modern strategy. This strategy draws from the radical approach of management, and is pragmatic in nature. One main characteristic is the recognition of the union presence. In addition, it is conceded that there is no single method that’s applicable to all organisations, and that different policies are suitable for different organisations (Rose 2004 p. 29). Therefore it is difficult to predict the effect that this strategy will have towards conflict. Perhaps the outcome depends on the experience of the manager to choose the appropriate methods in the situation that is presented, on whether conflict is likely to become a problem.
In addition to the strategy selection in affecting the conflict symptom in the workplace, it is also important to consider the roles that the different parties relevant to the employment relationship have, in regards to conflict control. Parties with particularly important roles which have not yet bee discussed are unions and the state.
Unions are a facet of the employment relationship that exist regardless of the approach to management. They are formal organisations that represent individuals employed in an organisation, throughout an industry or organisation (Stone 2005 p. 558). Their role in conflict minimisation however, does depend on the management approach. The unitarists believe that unions are no more than one of the major causes of conflict. They compete with management for the commitment of employees. Under this approach, unions have no role in conflict minimisation, other than to disturb management as little as possible. (Bray 2005 p. 21) On the other hand, a pluralist approach sees unions as legitimate representatives of employees and their interests. It is their responsibility to negotiate compromises with management over employment issues. Therefore the role of unions in resolving conflict under the pluralist approach is important. Under the radicalist approach, the role of the union is similar to that of the pluralist, in trying to improve the wage and working conditions of employees. Provided unions are reasonable in negotiation with management, this should also reduce industrial conflict in organisations.
The government also plays an integral role in the minimisation and resolution of industrial disputes (Stone 2005 p. 556). Government involvement in industrial relations usually occurs through regulation and legislation, and also in administrative bodies established to implement labour policies (Hill & Lansbury 1988 p. 21). An indirect method of minimising certain causes of workplace conflict is through legislation concerning working hours, safety and minimum wages. The conflict in the workplace regarding these issues is thus reduced to an extent. In addition to this, the government plays an important role in conflict resolution through services like arbitration tribunals.
Given its sources it seems that conflict is an inherent characteristic that is derived from human nature. It will always be an element of industrial relations (Hill & Lansbury 1988 p. 36). Good management, in any of its forms, will never be able to completely rid industries from conflict. Therefore it is the obligation of management to try and keep conflict to a minimum. This can be achieved through the implementation of appropriate strategies. It is also important not to forget the important roles that the states and unions play in conflict minimisation as well.
Industrial conflict may often impose a considerable cost on the participants and on their communities. However, conflict is an important force for progress in an industrial society (Hill & Lansbury p. 36). Therefore, the question that managers should consider is not how to eradicate conflict, but instead how to learn and develop through conflict resolution.
