As the manager of a multinational car manufacturer, one’s task would be to ensure maximum efficiency of those below them in the assigned departments under one’s jurisdiction. In order to do this, it is necessary to ensure that all employees under the manager’s care are utilizing their skills, making use of their knowledge and training their fullest potential. A corporation is only as strong as its workers, like cogs in a machine, and it is the manager’s job to keep the proverbial machine running efficiently. The issue one runs into more often than not is what can a manager do to motivate and discipline their workers? The advantage to working with multiple individuals is that everyone can bring their own experience to the table and offer a unique perspective. The disadvantage to this is that some unique perspectives come into conflict with one another and one ends up with a disruption; a wrench between the cogs in the machine, if you will. Because each worker has his or her own perspective, it is inevitable that two or more people under the manager’s jurisdiction will have such disputes from time to time. The question then becomes “how does one resolve conflicts effectively and therefore encourage an ideal atmosphere of cooperation?”.
One can basically surmise that workers may be more inclined to contribute if they feel the support of the management, as well as the CEO him/herself. Receiving an adequate sense of recognition from their supervisors can help provide the worker with the sense that they do, indeed, have a voice. Proper and genuine motivation is also a basic component of inspiration. This is what is known as “dangling a carrot, not a stick” (Borges, 2011), which basically means that, as a manager, one must follow through on their promises rather than create a sense of false hope. In an industry such as car manufacturing, it is absolutely imperative that all employees understand the larger picture; that the manufacturing business is a step-by-step process, and that with each “step” comes a transfer of duties from one department to another. Each of the various branches of the business has its own unique purpose and its own team of specialists, each with their own areas of expertise. Even though each department has such a specific focus, it is vital that all departments gain an adequate level of understanding of their fellow coworker’s tasks as well. Without mutual understanding, there can be frustration in the workplace if each team does not understand what their counterpart’s occupations entail (therefore lacking an understanding of the length of time required for other departments to finish their own tasks). Mutual understanding between all departments is key in running a large manufacturing plant.
This is only a basic principle, however, and in order to understand how to gain employee participation is to look at the larger picture and explore each of the seven key methods as presented by the Management Study Guide (MSG, 2013). The first of which is commonly referred to as “Industrial Democracy”, but is generally understood as board-level participation. In other words, this method proposes that the corporate branch of the company should provide workers of all ranks and branches to participate (through key representatives) in decisive board meetings. While workers do not necessarily have to be physically present at such meetings, it can be advantageous to consider the needs of the workers by presenting their questions and concerns directly to the management. The advantage to this method is that it increases the chances that workers will see their needs met and that the company has a chance to provide further benefits to workers, especially if the parameters of their jobs become more demanding as the industry changes with the times. This method can have a positive influence on employee morale. The disadvantage here is that it can be more costly to the company. However, when the well-being of the workers is at stake, it can be a necessary expense and a worthwhile investment.
Another way to motivate the workforce is to offer employees a share in the company’s stock. This is known as “participation through ownership”, and can be another motivating and positive drive to have the rare opportunity to be a partial owner in one’s employer corporation as well as a contributor to its success. By receiving shares of a healthy company’s stock that you continue to help build can be a rewarding experience. However, this only remains a positive experience if the corporation is stable and continues to develop, thus increasing its stock. Only then is it cost-efficient to employ this particular method.
The next method has to do with “Collective Bargaining”, and concerns itself with holding regular, routine meetings between all departments where everyone has the opportunity to present their own questions and concerns. It is during such meetings that the workers themselves can collaborate as a team in creating new rules or modifications to preexisting regulations. This is the least costly method to the corporation as a whole, as well as the most basic. It is the most commonly applied method in virtually all industrial fields, therefore being a “field-tested” and proven strategy for encouraging participation. This particular approach only fails when workers decline to participate out of a lack of interest or belief that their needs will not be heard, therefore it is absolutely imperative that the managerial branch takes the concerns of its workers seriously and follows through on its assurances and promises. In other words, the strength of the workers is directly related to the strength of their management; attitude reflects leadership.
Another method that can, in a sense, be considered an extension of the collective bargaining is through what are known as “Suggestion Schemes”, where workers are routinely requested to provide suggestions to the corporate staff. This could be understood as a “survey” style approach, where instead of meetings per se, workers are provided with the opportunity to submit ideas remotely, either by name or anonymously, with the aim of improving company safety and overall morale. This can also be considered a “tried and true” method of gaining participation as it is commonly used by many a corporation.
The Union approach is one where workers are given control over institutional changes through their union representatives. The representatives meet with the management and express the concerns of their subjects in order to instigate the necessary changes where needs of workers are sufficiently met. This resembles the “Institutional Democracy” approach in practice, but differs in that these representatives are a part of a union, independent of the corporation in most cases and are therefore considered a third party, whereas the representatives that are present in board meetings in the Institutional Democracy strategy are essentially a part of the management team within the company itself. The union method can also provide more desirable changes for the workers but can create conflicts when unions clash with corporations (as history can teach us).
The “Job Enrichment” strategy also directly relates to past examples in that it vaguely involves the motivation of company employees through frequent “perks” and rewards. Although owning company shares can be considered one such “perk”, it differs from this method in that enrichment implies frequency as opposed to a provision of employment. This can come in the form of, again, giving partial control and freedom to the workers, or it can be as simple as providing gyms or gym memberships, game rooms, and cafés. The term “enrichment” implies the energizing of one’s intellect and consciousness, so all rewards provided should have this factor in mind when being instituted. It is also important to note that these would be changes provided due to popular demand by the workers themselves, not just unsolicited additions.
The seventh method of gaining participation concerns applying changes and regulations through “Qualtiy Circles”. This refers to narrower, more focused groups of people who are specially qualified in their areas of expertise in order to adequately represent the rest of their fellow department members. Each of these representatives would be a part of a larder “council”, if you will, of specialists who can effectively represent the needs of each department, not just the desires. This approach focuses almost solely on necessary changes and the application of new rules, sometimes in response to the application of new technology and not just institutional changes. The advantage to this method is that, with a more centralized and knowledgeable committee, issues can be addressed more quickly and efficiently, whereas giving all workers a platform, while sounding ideal, can be unnecessarily time-consuming and can lead to focusing on the wrong set of priorities as some workers may lack the knowledge necessary to understand how to bring about the change they desire. The disadvantage is that this method can indeed, take away the voice of the lower-ranked workers, which can create a sense of stratification and therefore division amongst workers of various ranks.
When weighing one’s options as a manager, it is useful to keep in mind that each of these methods can serve as pieces to the puzzle that is the greater picture. In other words, one does not merely have to employ but one of these methods, but rather if it suits the company, why not make use of more than one if it is still cost-efficient? If handing out provisions such as stock options is too daunting a task for a budding corporation, then why not make use of employee participation and provide them with opportunities to get involved in key decision-making? That is the most basic approach and the cost required is practically nil in comparison to costly rewards. It is widely believed that every company should start with the most basic of provisions and only then can the company grow to the point where it can provide such provisions as frequent rewards and stock options. Since, for the sake of this analogy, this hypothetical company is a multinational corporation, it would seem sufficient to provide such rewards in order to motive its workers and encourage further cooperation.
Another issue that must be addressed in having such a discussion is the impact Human Resource Management can have on the employees that are subjected to its influences. In theory, HR is a necessary and valid extension of any corporation, but in practice, being those in charge of measuring the efficiency of its staff, making the so called “hiring and firing” decisions, can lead to a negative image of HR being the “dirty” end of the business world. This is why morale must be considered a priority in maintaining a healthy company, no matter how widespread it is. When an employee is fired or laid off, he or she does not simply cease to exist as far as the company is concerned. On the contrary; in fact, how the firing is handled can be just as important and delicate a task as the CEO’s position is. For example, when proper care is not applied to a firing situation, the image of the company is at stake to a certain degree. Fired employees are bound to be disgruntled and although that may seem to be an inevitability, one should still take great care in executing the action. The employee can either walk away from the experience with a certain degree of disappointment, or they can feel completely devalued and hopeless. This type of interaction between HR staff and an employee is not an opportunity to dominate and belittle the worker, nor is an opportunity to display one’s power over others. A firing is just as much a test of the initiator’s character as it is a verdict for those on the receiving end. One should offer an image of one who takes great care in their actions and who feels sympathy for the other, who regretfully reads the verdict, rather than taking pleasure in it. Although this sympathetic approach may seem worse in that it can potentially create a sense of false sincerity towards the person being fired, it still leaves them with a greater sense of self-worth than if they had just been tossed aside and dehumanised. If the employee in question has done a great wrong and is therefore being let go in response to a terrible indiscretion, then no emotion should be displayed by the HR representative initiating the meeting, as neither positive nor negative emotion would be of any use in this situation. Sincerity in a tense, reprimand-firing would send mixed messages to the employee, and might imply that the HR representative sympathises with what may be unacceptable behavior in the workplace (or whatever the situation may be), while harsh, negative treatment would only amplify the tension, possibly leading to escalation.
Human Resource Management differs in its methods to what is referred to as “Personnel Management”, which adopts a different set of methods in and of itself. In order to understand the differences between them, it would be useful to understand the methodology at their roots. In the case of Human Resources, the thought process employed by which is determined by a unitarist approach, which essentially means that everyone is given a task and assigned to a team which serves as one of many cogs in a grand machine. For the sake of analogy, if we were to look at a beehive as a corporation, then this honey-producing corporation adopts a unitarist ideology in that everyone is assigned to a specific task that serves to benefit the hive as a whole and the actions of each drone and worker serves a vital purpose in the grand scheme of the organisation. Everyone is working to support the greater good as a member of a whole united corporate mechanism. You can see examples of unitarism in the way Human Resources Management operates; HR serves as the director and regulator of employee relations and exists to ensure that the machine continues to operate efficiently or to improve upon the existing design and ensure that it operates more efficiently.
Personnel Management, however, follows the principles of pluralism, meaning the workforce is divided into sections and subgroups represented by unions who accomplish objectives through consultation and cooperation. If the structure of the beehive can be used as a physical representation of unitarism, then the interior cross-section of an ant-hill is a good analogy for how pluralism is organised. A pluralist corporation, though seemingly divided, makes use of these divisions through collaboration between groups. The difference between pluralism and unitarism here is that the pluralist system must gain this cooperation through bargaining and negotiation between branches, very much like a democratic government. Personnel Management is largely focused on dealings between these unions and interest groups who represent each branch of the company’s workforce. The impact of Personnel Management as opposed to Human Resource Management on the workers is varied. Personnel Management may seem beneficial to the interests of employees since it operates under a system that ensures their voices will be heard, whereas with HR, one must simply trust in their HR branch to do their job with employee’s best interests at heart. However, much like in systems of government, what a pluralist system like Personnel Management can potentially run into is a stalemate, where each branch wants the company to make decisions based on their own interests, independent from one another, thus creating a gridlock where no major decisions can be made. This is where a more centralised system like the unitarist approach which Human Resources Management provides is more efficient and applicable in the business world where it runs into difficulties outside of the corporate field (such as in systems of government). There are clear advantages to either approach. However, it should be noted that the most successful corporations in the world typically look to HR to definitively get things done. Does it make either approach right or wrong? No, but depending on the industry one is working in, some systems work better for some tasks than others.
Sources:
Borges, B. (2011). SEO Plan Participation: 5 Ways to Engage Employees. Optimize This. Retrieved from: http://www.findandconvert.com/2011/06/5-ways-to-get-employee-participation-in-seo/
Management Study Guide (MSG). (2013). Methods/Ways of Participation of Employees in Decision-Making. The Management Study Guide: learn, connect & share. Retrieved from: http://www.managementstudyguide.com/methods-of-employee-participation.htm
Long, C.S., Perumal, P., Ajagbe, M.A. (2012). The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Employee’s Turnover Intention: A Conceptual Model. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, Vol.4, No.2. Retrieved from: http://journal-archieves19.webs.com/629-641.pdf
Schuller, R.S. (1989). Strategic Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations. Sage Journals, Human Relations. Retrieved from: http://hum.sagepub.com/content/42/2/157
