Industrial Relations- Seminar 1: A synopsis on the unitarist, pluralist and critical approaches as

to how the employment relationship is characterized thereby. Show which approach is

most persuasive and why.

 Budd writes what is known is that the employment relationship had been labelled
industrial relations (IR) and presently known as industrial relations and human resources.
With this, Klerck (2022) explains what is meant by the employment relationship stating
that the way it is regulated is seen in how the surplus of the company is divided between
the wages of the employees and the profits of the employers.
 Importantly, this is a field which is multidisciplinary in its nature as it seeks to study all
aspects of the work and the employment relationship.
 The above then alludes to competing values and assumptions in the workplace underlying
the analyses and practices of employment. This is why I believe it is important to dissect
and discuss the various approaches to IR namely the unitarist, pluralist and critical
approaches. Although some scholars write on a fourth approach known as the egoist
approach, for purposes of this synopsis, the first three will only be focused on.
 Noteworthy that Budd states there are three parties (and their various interests) to the
employment relationship namely the Employee Interests, Employer Interests and
finally, the State’s interests.
 To categorize and theorize, some Employee Interests include: survival and income;
equity and voice; fulfillment and social identity; and power and control.
 Survival: The satisfaction of the individuals’ physiological needs is believed to be
attained before others when it comes to Maslow’s (1943) model of work motivation.
Scholars such as Wheeler (1985) echoes this as he writes that conflict in the workplace
stems from the worker being deprived of necessary material resources (such as a decent
standard of wages). This is evident in many modern-day workplace contexts; an example
can be seen in South Africa in 2018 where workers had lost an estimated R266-million in
wages in 2018 due to strike activities, and during the period work stoppages also reached
a highest recording over the past five years, according to the Department of Employment
and Labour's strike monitoring report.
 “The rise in the number of strike in 2018 came at a time when the country was hit by a
technical recession and the country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) had negatively
performed in the second quarter of 2018," said the Industrial Action Report.

In 2018, more than one million (1 158 945) of working days were lost due to 165
industrial disputes, an increase of 20.7% compared to 960 489 working days lost from
132 strikes in 2017, said the IAR.
 Notably, the report shows that the community industry in the public sector had recorded
the most strikes over the last five-year periods. In 2018, the community industry recorded
(77 strikes and 303 119 working days lost) the highest number of industrial disputes
which resulted mainly from the health and social services and municipality workers who
downed tools over grievances that were lodged against the employers for unpleasant
working conditions in the sectors. (This can be linked back to the point on physiological
needs not being satisfied in the workplace as the survival of the worker can be
jeopardized if having to work in unpleasant conditions. (The other point is that of poor
wages extended to the workers. The reaction taken by workers was to strike against what
was offered to them as it was believed the wages would not sustain them.
 Equity and voice- alternative conceptualization of employee interests is that employees
not only want income, but also seek fairness. Adams’ (1965) equity theory is most
applicable here as it speaks to the worker reducing their efforts if they are of the view
their colleagues are getting paid as much as they do but doing less. I stand with Budd
(2008) that this could ensure organizational justice but achieving the above is easier said
than done.
 Fulfilment and social identity- based on the premise that individuals use work to
provide psychological fulfillment and social identity. Clearly reflected in the large
literature in psychology on work motivation that emphasizes intrinsic work rewards over
pay and other extrinsic rewards (Donovan, 2001; Latham and Pinder, 2005). Perhaps
most famously, Maslow (1943) theorized that workers seek love, esteem, and self-
actualization after their physiological and security needs are met. Thus, work (if fair and
 enhances human dignity, in my opinion) provides employees with a basic outlet to
channel their intrinsic motivation for achievement of desired objectives and personal
fulfillment—or more simply, joy in work.
 Power and Control- fourth perspective on employee interests is the belief that workers
seek power and control in the workplace. Power and control can be pursued in various
ways. Around the turn of the 20th century in the United States, craft unions developed
work rules pertaining to apprenticeship standards, ownership over specific job duties,
exclusion of undesirable or unskilled job duties, work allocation procedures, and other
standards. This was done to at least attempt the capitalist nature in that under capitalism
alienation of the worker had occurred as the product produced had not belonged to them,
only their labor belonged to them and too for the fact that they had no control of how the
product was produced had craft unions in the United States developed the work rules
mentioned above. This was done in attempt to make work more meaningful as to give the
person (employee) some sense of ownership of what was being produced. Confucius had
once mentioned that a higher sense of esteem and well-being is prevalent in the person
who can claim ownership of something- in this case it could perhaps be applied to the
product the worker produces in the workplace.
 Note the difference in IR approaches from the USA and UK (this specifically applied to
Human Resource Management (HRM)

 It is important to understand the tug-of-war within the employment relationship- some

scholars such as Kochan and Katz (1998:6) cited in Budd, (2008:1) write on. Theirs
could be argued is written from the pluralist perspective (the classic pluralist perspective
when drawing on Heery, (2016:37) where it is stated that in IR, labor is viewed as more
than a commodity, more than a set of human resources and that inherent conflict of
interests arises between the employer and employee arising from a clash of economic
interests.
 Echoing this belief, pluralists are of the view that conflict between the employers and
employees cannot be prevented and is irremovable (this is known as structured
antagonism, because even though the worker has common interests with the employer,
 the conflict is always present (this is a commonality amongst both the classical and
contemporary pluralists)
 In the same breath, both classical and contemporary pluralists believe a balance can be
achieved to help quell the abovementioned point through a negotiation process or by
creating regulations requiring employers to take in to account the interests of workers in
the management process.
 Klerck (2022) (seminar 1) stated that the unitarist approach does not question conflict in
the workplace but rather the legitimacy of conflict within the employment relationship. (I
will discuss this point more intensely later in the synopsis when explaining unitarism and
its two strands namely: soft unitarism and hard unitarism.
 The critical perspective (recently) has focused on revitalizing trade unions or the
renewing thereof (on this point, a link can be drawn to the pluralist perspective and
drifting away from the unitarist perspective.) I will now expand on each perspective and
what it represents.

Unitarist perspective
 Budd- This perspective believes that the right employment policies and practices will
align the interests of employers and employees and furthermore that labor and
management have a unity of interests and that any conflict in practice stems from poor
employment practices.
 Importantly, this perspective focuses on contemporary human resource management
which in turn focuses on creating policies that simultaneously benefit employers (through
their interest in profit maximization) and employees (through their interest in fulfillment)
 Heery- Broad definition of IR that considers Human Resource Management (HRM) has
especially had massive impact on employment relations.
 Today Unitarist thought challenges what was seen as the most prominent schools of
thought (this being the pluralist and critical traditions)
 Unitarism divides in two parts: Soft unitarism and hard unitarism.
 Soft unitarism focuses theoretically much more on psychology (see for example the
literature on high performance work systems.)
 Applying HRM is seen as critical within soft unitarism as one of its outputs can lead to
increased commitment from the worker which could spark positive behavioural outcomes
and leading to higher levels of employee presence (physically, as Guest (1987) would
argue and I would like to suggest mentally as well. (see more on this point when
discussing positive behavioral changes when applying HRM throughout this synopsis)
 Hard unitarism focuses more on economics laying claim on the role of immediate
incentives- examples here include tournament theory (see also Mondragon Spain work)
 Main commonality between soft and hard unitarism is that there is a conviction that the
interests of workers and employers coincide which allows for cooperation at work (this
then as Heery (2016:14) writes is the defining feature of unitarism.
 Other commonalities between soft and hard unitarism: focuses immensely on worker
performance plus a methodological individualism
 Soft unitarists believe workers possess intrinsic interests that is realized in the workplace.
 Examples include: Working satisfaction resulting in autonomy of the worker as the
worker would be allowed to exercise their skills and achieve their objectives and too
build their self-esteem as they will receive recognition for their work. (Link back to the
notion of meaningful work as discussed earlier.)
 Hard unitarists seen as rational maximizer. Their motivation= obtain extrinsic benefit
through their employment.
 Although soft and hard unitarism differs on many fronts, they are united when it comes to
the identification of management action.
 For unitary writers, workers secure their intrinsic or extrinsic interests because employers
apply management strategies, techniques, and practices that enable them to do so.
 The above point then contrasts sharply with the pluralist and critical traditions, which
tend to emphasize the agency of other actors, such as government, trade unions, or
workers themselves, in ensuring workers realize their interests.
 Hard unitarists key management intervention= Designing incentive structures- including
payment systems linking workers payment to their performance.
 Management intervention/techniques for soft unitarists focus on a more wholesome
approach in my opinion as here attitudinal change is generated and focused on.
 The above attitudinal changes if implanted correctly in workplace, could lead to positive
behavioural change (Heery, 2016:15)
 Hard unitarism takes a cruder approach, not really concerned with the psyche of the
employee, I dare to say that it even discards the employee’s emotional well-being. Little
attention is paid to attitudinal changes or techniques to perhaps facilitate this, rather, the
homo economicus orientation is advocated for.
 I argue this is dangerous and can cause extreme levels of alienation for amongst
employees as within hard unitarism, the incentive structures mentioned earlier on and
stronger payment packages and added benefits quite literally keep the employee quiet
when it comes to perhaps unfair treatment in the workplace or if conditions just are not
conducive. Heery terms this a “happy coincidence” (Heery, 2016:15)

 Unitary writers have identified several features of employing organizations themselves

that promote common interests. (Heery, 2016:21) The most intriguing form of this
argument, according to Heery (2016) is one that emphasizes the importance of ownership
and corporate governance in encouraging workplace collaboration. Konzelmann et al.
(2006) suggest, in a major elaboration of this argument, give concrete evidence that when
external stakeholders maintain a dominating role in the enterprise's corporate governance
then employee relations will be less cooperative, and human resource management will
be less effective.
 This is due to their dominant position, which lets them to dominate the firm's
management, while their external orientation lessens their reliance on the workers and
therefore the need to establish shared interests.
 Konzelmann et al. distinguish two sorts of external stakeholders, shareholders and
government, and forecast less cooperative forms of employee interactions in publicly
traded enterprises and the public sector. In contrast, in owner-managed firms, where there
are no dominating external stakeholders, they say that there is a mutual reliance between
workers and employers that offers a foundation for more successful HRM.
 Bradley and his collaborators developed a more radical version of this argument in a
series of publications that argued for the superiority of worker cooperatives such as the
Mondragón cooperatives in Spain, partnerships such as the John Lewis Partnership, and
other forms of enterprise that provide workers with a significant stake in ownership
(Bradley and Gelb 1983a, 1983b, 1986; Bradley and Taylor 1992). Bradley and his co-
authors' objective is expressly unitary: to discover the conditions under which worker–
employer interests are most completely matched, with the notion that performance will be
maximized in such a scenario. Their key claim, supported by extensive data, is that these
conditions are most completely fulfilled when workers have a stake in the company.

 Between soft and hard unitarism, I believe soft unitarism combined with the correct
application of HRM, could be most conducive in the employment relationship but this is
easier said than done as the literature shows that very few managers as Pfeffer (1998) in
his book The Human Equation writes that the ‘one-eighth rule’, occurs (this a claim that
only a minority of managers (a half of a half of a half) adopt effective systems of HRM
despite the abundant evidence that such systems generate profits for companies.)
Ignorance of research, dilettante experiment with particular, fashionable management
techniques, and a failure to see through reform to the stage when benefits are visible—
management failures—are identified as the main reasons why only one-eighth of
employers get things right (see also Pfeffer and Sutton 2000).
Pluarlism (Abott, Chidi)

 Abbott (2006) writes that pluralists differ from unitarists in that they start from a set of
assumptions and values that workplace conflict is inevitable.
 Those who share this viewpoint believe that commercial organizations are complicated
social structures made up of several interest groups. Management and labor are two such
groups that, due to the structure of the manufacturing system, are perceived as necessarily
adhering to opposing beliefs and purposes are considered as inevitably adhering to
distinct beliefs and goals. (Abbott, 2006)
 Believes conflict is necessary for the overall health of the enterprise.
 Two schools of thought: Pluarlism and neo-pluralism.
 Ackers (2002) contrasts the classical pluralism (1970s) against the modern, neo-
pluralism. Below this is demonstrated.

Interests Interests and values

Workplace conflict and economic order Social breakdown and social cohesion

Trade unions and collective-bargaining Moral communities and social institutions

The forward march of labour Civil society and democratic rights

The frontier of control Relationship capitalism and stakeholding

Joint regulation Ethical employment regulation

 Pluralism can divide in to two theories, namely: Systems theory and Strategic Choice
Theory.
 Systems theory- Chidi & Okpala (2012:265) write that the concept of system derives
from the structural/functionalist perspectives of social system (society) and that this also
connotes the macro-sociological, order or social system view of society.
 The configurational approach to industrial relations is used in the systems approach to
industrial relations. As a result, Dunlop created his theoretical approach to industrial
relations based on a systems idea, highly influenced by Parsons' past work (Fajana, 2000)
 According to Ogunbameru (2004), structural/functionalist sociology had a considerable
effect on American system approaches to the study of industrial relations.
 Dunlop openly based his model on Parsons' social system, which postulated an innate
predisposition toward order and stability. According to Otobo (2000, p.17), Dunlop
began his explanatory model with a series of inquiries: (see the six statements thereafter
this is postulated (forthcoming))
 "What, therefore, is the significance of an industrial relations system?" Tobo (2000). "In
what sense does a ‘system' come into play?" Can the term be rigorously and analytically
defined, or will it remain a perceptive phrase conforming to practical experience's
insights? Is there anything that all industrial relations systems have in common? What
variables separate one labor-management arrangement from another? Can the same
notion be applied to enable analysis between sectors inside a country as well as between
countries?" Tobo (2000), p.17. Dunlop's (1958) queries were then followed by six broad
statements.
 "An industrial-relations system is to be treated as an analytical subsystem of an
industrial society on the same logical plane as an economic system, which is regarded
as another analytical subsystem." The industrial relations system and the economic
system are not coterminous; in some ways, they overlap, while in others, they have
separate scopes.
- An industrial relations system is not a subsystem of an economic system, but rather a
discrete subsystem of society on the same level as an economic system. As a result,
theoretical techniques created to describe the economic system are unlikely to be
completely applicable to another analytical subsystem of society.
- Relationships and boundary lines exist between a society and an economy, just as
they do between a society and an industrial relations system.
- An industrial relations system, like an economic system, is logically an abstraction.
Neither is concerned with overall behavior. There are no players whose whole work is
 limited to industrial relations or economic sectors, although some may approach or
attempt to approach this limit
- This perspective on an industrial relations system allows for a separate analytical and
theoretical topic matter. Until recently, there was little theoretical content in the study
of industrial relations (note that this was at the time Dunlop wrote this. Since then, a
great amount of theoretical content on pluralism has been published.)
- In this framework, three distinct analytical problems must be distinguished: (a) the
relationship of industrial relations to society as a whole; (b) the relationship of the
industrial relations system to the subsystem known as the economic system; and (c)
the inner structure and characteristics of the industrial relations subsystem itself."
Tobo (pp.17-19)
 Dunlop believed that every actor in the IR relationship had their own ideology.
 Ideology connotes a set of ideas and beliefs commonly held by the actors that helps to
bind or integrate the system together as an entity. Chidi & Okpala (2012:267)
 Further, according to this theory, there are three sets of independent variables in IR
systems, this including: actors, context and the ideology of the system. (Context
referring to technological advances of a specific economy, globalization and inflation
or the environmental state of a specific country/city (these macro-scale influencers
will have an effect on how the IR is characterized in the pluralist theoretical
framework, this is one of the theories’ central assumptions.))
 The rules made then stemming from the three independent variables mentioned will
serve as the output of the IR system.

Linking to the above is a visual demonstration of a basic IR system according to pluralism

 Heery- Classic IR pluralism quintessentially was an intellectual response to the rise of
the industrial working class and was concerned with the development of institutions that
could integrate workers into stable, developed societies
 Importantly, In the political sphere these institutions comprised liberal democracy, the
welfare state, and social democratic political parties, while in the industrial sphere they
consisted of trade unions and systems of collective bargaining
 assumes that there will be different sources of authority within an organisation, and that
the potential for conflict between them will always exist over the organisation of work
tasks and the allocation of rewards.
 Contemporary pluralist writing continues to be preoccupied with the problem of order
and continues also to debate sharply with the critical perspective.
 There is a greater propensity for conflict rather than harmony for pluralist scholars. For
pluralist perspective, the trade unions are legitimate representative organisations which
enable employees groups to influence management decisions. Pluralist perspective also
accepts that employees have loyalties to organisations other than their own management
and that trade unions are a legitimate source of these loyalties.


 Critical Perspective/Radical/Marxism

 Abbott- based on vastly different assumptions about the nature and cause of workplace
conflict

 draw principally from the work of Karl Marx (1950, 1967, 1978), who argued that
capitalist societies were characterised by perpetual class struggle.

 Capitalism causes the exploitation of the worker- one primary reason for this is because
of the ruthless competition amongst capitalists.
 Kelly (1998) While sharing the view that labor is more than just a commodity, unlike the
pluralist view in which employer-employee conflict is confined to the employment
relationship, the critical perspective is that employment relations conflict is part of a
broader societal clash between competing groups. (Thus can be argued the critical
perspective views conflict in workplace on more macroeconomic scale.)

 Assumes that employer-employee conflict is one element of unequal power relations

between the capitalist and working classes.

 Marxist perspective according to Abbott (2006) can be divided in to three subcategories

namely: Labour Process Theory, Feminist Theories and Postmodernist Theories.

 Labour Process Theory= Braverman (1974) theory argues that the primary role of
management is to convert raw materials into products through the use of labour and
machinery; that the only way management is able to do this is through the establishment
of structures of power and control that convert the capacity of employees to perform
work (i.e., labour power) into actual work effort (i.e., labour); and that it is only through
this conversion that profitable production and capital accumulation can take place.

 Noteworthy, arguments from the Marxist perspective can stem from economic
assumptions (as the above Labour Process Theory does) and too from sociological
assumptions as the feminist theories do.

 Feminist theories: Analysis conducted by looking at the role of patriarchy in the capitalist
modes of economic organization.

 Common characteristic = seeks to highlight how men act in ways that confine women to
inferior positions.

 Thus it is not a class-based value system that serves to legitimize the dominant position
of capitalist interests, as Marx once argued, so much as a gender based value system that
 serves to legitimise the dominant position of men’s interests – one of which just happens
to be the ownership and operation of the means of production.

 Although I agree with most of the above, I feel inclined to alert the scholar arguing for
feminism to note that the men who own the means of production (of major corporations
and companies today) are a select few- a hyper strata of wealth is generated but this
wealth generation certainly does not trickle down to the general worker (now zoning in
on males) on the floor. My point is that the feminist must consider other social
phenomena and question perhaps amongst male and female, which gender has the higher
suicide rate, which gender has been more inclined to be imprisoned, suffers from drug
abuse, shorter life expectancy, etc. These are phenomena that occur to men now, I argue
because of poor wages and having been required to work more abnormal hours. Again, I
am not downplaying the patriarchal effect on woman- but I think the feminist should
inspect more thoroughly as to what may contribute to this and focus on attacking those
owning the means of production as the liberal feminist would tend to as they fight for
equal rights for men and women when in actuality, those with the means of production
(which happen to be men for the most part) equally have successfully oppressed both
men and women. (come back to examples on this, from the 1900’s and present day)
 Abbott writes “To the extent that the dominance of patriarchy has pervaded history and
seen the arrangement of society and its institutions to best reflect the interests of men, it
has also propagated notions that link appropriate forms of behaviour to biological sex –
notions that have served to socialise women into accepting their subjugation in a manner
akin to Marx’s concept of ‘false consciousness’” I fail to understand the notions spoken
of here as it is no elaborated on.
 Reform policies could combat the above, Abbott argues, as it will do away with sex
stereotypes. Radical feminists would argue this will not assist at all argues in favour of a
new set of arrangements, one where women would function separately and establish
organisations that practiced inclusive forms of decision making communal leadership,
flexible and interactive job designs, and equitable distributions of income.
Overall, I found soft unitarism most persuasive combined with classical pluralism (drawing
different elements from both, respectively. HRM could work wonders in the employment
relationship as it is a legitimate way (I believe) of negating and finding solutions between
employer and employee. The classical pluralism part comes in as I was drawn to the idea that
actors outside of the workplace should advocate for the workers’ rights (specializing in just and
responsible representation of the worker) if matters cannot be dissolved internally when HRM is
applied. Dunlops’ work on the systems choice theory is beneficial in my opinion as a macro-
scale approach is taken to decision making processes in the workplace (it acknowledges that
there are other dimensions of society influencing the ER and works toward coming up with
better ways to approach this. My only shortcoming with the unitarist approach would be to the
point made above: it should perhaps orientate slightly toward recognizing that macro-scale
occurrences logically do influence the workplace and from there come up with its own ways
(using its theoretical roots to come up with a solution toward these challenges posed.)