Synopsis
The article approaches employee management relationships with a new dimension. It introduces to the audience essential factors that determine the employee-management relationships. The article falls short of addressing pivotal employee concerns. It navigates through the employee complains that usually conspire to facilitate resistance in the workplace. Indeed, the article brings out the fact that employee resistance could be both legitimate and illegitimate. It mentions a number of issues. Most of the complaints resonate around the attitude generally pursued by employers to their employees and that often end up in conflict. The article takes a special bias on the call centre employees and dwells on the call centre primarily because the studies are taken on the call centre employees.
This section will give a brief summary of the issues concerning employees that the article brings out. The authors begin by bringing out the concept of formal workplace collective attitudes. Indeed, the author rightly observe that ordinarily management and employers place colossal responsibility and functions on the workers. However, the rewards or remuneration often do not correspond to the functions, such that the workers develop a general resistance against the employees. This resistance and dislike often comes out collectively. What follows would work to the detriment of the employer. This is because the employees gang up against general employee standards and requirements. The employee is left at a loss as the colluding nature of employees makes it hard to identify and isolate any violator of the norms.
Discussion
Secondly, the workers have taken to work avoidance. This betrays their hatred for work. They only perform the work for the monetary rewards. In other words, the workers are not appreciative and adoring of their work. They would rather avoid work altogether, or do the least that can earn them a living. In the call centre work avoidance has become prevalent and a commonality. The third observation is the resignation with which the workers approach their work. They seem to have the unconcerned approach and do not really care about being retained in future. These three behaviours though unjustified, remain real issues that call for the attention of the management. As the author suggests, cooperation between the two groups, management and employees, is essential for forward progress. It, therefore, passes that the management must listen to the grievances of the employees in the hope that addressing them would occasion a change in attitude of the latter and eradicate the three poor mannerisms.
Relation to the body of knowledge
This work, however, introduces new elements concerning management and employee-employer relationships. It introduces a new approach to management. It calls for the consideration of worker misdoings such as cheating, work avoidance and resignation. It calls for the application of noble managerial principles. In fact, the nature of employees discussed necessitate the application of concepts such as management by objective, management by agreement, among others. The need for the dialogue and agreement is necessitated by the stubborn nature of employees. The employees in this discussion seem to have discovered another rebellion style and they are poised to entirely employ it to the detriment of the management and employer. The employer hence needs to cushion himself against the adverse results that would likely occur. In this vein, the managers are compelled to negotiate with the employees and address their issues with honesty.
This work also introduced new concepts as to the application of the collective worker theory. It goes to show the role of collectivism of a people. The worker resistance arises from working conditions. However, it is imperative to note that the resistance is facilitated by collectivism. An employer may, therefore, reduce worker resistance and rebellion through application of strategic management principles. He may isolate workers effectively denying them the chance to engage each other and hence deal a blow to collective worker theory. On the other hand, an employer may agree on the way forward together with the employee. This is through the management by objective or management by agreement concept. In general, the discussion presents the challenges that face the modern manager and the employees in business. It calls for a radical design of the system so as to ascertain the best and right way of management.
Strengths and weaknesses of the paper
The paper draws its strength from its originality. It brings out issues in the workplace that have never received sufficient coverage. It looks at the problems confronting workers with a unique eye that previous literature has failed to do. Through this, it presents a unique and strong case for the workers. In addition, it interprets the collective worker theory in ways that have not been previously considered. This goes deep in articulating the plight of workers in a new fashion catching the attention of the audience. It also reminds the audience the essential message that workers’ deplorable conditions and exploitative terms of employment could be detrimental to the employer as well. The case study in the call centre overtly sends the message home to the management that it is not always the workers only who would be disadvantaged by unfair terms of employment.
The weaknesses of the paper draws from its simplistic approach to the work environment. It makes the assumption that often, it is the employees who are mistreated and expected to deliver. It portends that such employees would resist and eventually rebel. This may not necessarily be the position. Indeed, cases do exist where workers have been given all the requisite support and working conditions but they have continued to exhibit rebellion and fare poorly at the workplace. This has been conveniently isolated and evaded by the paper’s author. One gets the feeling that bringing out such a fact would reduce the strength of the paper’s mission and hence give it a diminished effect. However, the silence serves to back up assertions that the paper is biased in favour of the worker. It attempts to portray the employer in bad light and the worker as the victim. Papers on management should cover both aspects of the divine so as to come out fairly.
In conclusion, the paper lays new ground concerning workplace and especially working conditions and environment. It advocates for the consideration of the workers’ rights for the benefit of both parties in the long run.
References
Amsterdam, A. G., & Bruner, J. S. (2009). Minding the Law. New York: Harvard University Press.
Archibugi, D., & Juma , C. (2012). Economy, international trade and competitiveness. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 2-5.
Banks, E. (2010). Finance: The Basics. New York: Routledge.
Bloom , N., & Reenen, J. V. (2010). Why Do Management Practices Differ across Firms and Countries? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 203-224.
Brux, J. M. (2010). Economic Issues and Policy. New York: Cengage Learning.
Davenport, T. H. (2006, January). Competing on Analytics. Havard Business Review, 84(1), 98-107.
Emerson, R. W. (2009). Business Law. New York: Barron's Educational Series.
Eunson, B. (2012). Conflict Management. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Garrett, G. (2007). The Causes of Globalization. International Encyclopedia of Politcal Science, 1(2), 941-991.
Griffin, R. W. (2012). Management. New York: Cengage Learning.
Jennings, M. M. (2010). Business:Its Legal, Ethical, and Global Environment. New York: Cengage Learning.
Tosi, H., Rizzo, J., & Mero, N. P. (2000). Managing Organizational Behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
