EMPLOYEE RELATIONS — A FUTURE‐ORIENTED, PROGRESSIVE APPROACH
| Published date | 01 April 1988 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb055129 |
| Pages | 27-29 |
| Date | 01 April 1988 |
| Author | Brian Wilson |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
EMPLOYEE RELATIONS - A FUTURE-
ORIENTED, PROGRESSIVE APPROACH
by Brian Wilson
Traqson
Limited, UK
Introduction
One of the major criticisms of much employee relations thinking is the dominance of the shorter term. It pays
to stand back from the immediate issues and to ask, "What is Employee Relations really about?"
It is suggested that, certainly for
a
private sector company, there can only be one answer, to develop working
relations with employees and their representatives, such that the organisation can compete with maximum
effectiveness in the marketplace. For the public sector organisation, where the profit motive does not apply,
this needs to be modified to something like, to develop working relations with employees and their
representatives, such that the organisation is able to produce a cost-effective and efficient service.
Both aims require a clear understanding of where the
organisation is heading, that is, of its corporate strategy
This will be affected by external factors, such as
competitors' strategies and developments, evolving
technology, government legislation, changing social
norms, and expectations and a host of other influences.
The corporate strategy, taking account of such factors,
will address issues such as the future nature and
mission of the organisation, diversification/divestment,
expansion/contraction, new products or services, new
technology, more appropriate organisational structures,
essential increases in productivity, etc.
Every one of these has people implications, in terms
of numbers, skills location, changes in working practices
and so on, and, most importantly, the kinds of
behaviours and working relationships that will be
necessary if the company is to succeed This is the
heartland of manpower planning and establishes the
"demand side" of the equation — the future people-
related requirements over a period of years ahead.
The other half of the equation — the "supply side" —
is concerned with ensuring that "the right people are
in the right place, at the right times, in the right
numbers, with the right skills, at the right cost."
The factor which is often overlooked is that people are
not pieces on a chess board; they have aspirations and
feelings; they often see change as threatening and, if
so,
can subvert, or sabotage the very changes that are
necessary, both for the organisation's future success
and for the employees' future security
Employee relations is, or perhaps, to be more accurate,
should be, concerned to gain people's commitment to,
and support of, the changes which will be necessary
to the organisation's and individuals' long-term benefit.
It should not be a fire-fighting exercise, tackling one
unforeseen crisis after another
There is, of course, the nuts and bolts side of employee
relations; ensuring that people are paid properly, both
in relation to the outside world and to each other, for
contributions made, that people's potentials are
developed and used, both within their current jobs and
towards future advancement; that working conditions,
sickness benefit, pensions, etc, are perceived to be
good in relation to those of other employers in the
vicinity Much has already been written on such
matters. The focus of this article is rather on how to
go about establishing the kind of employee relations
climate which will allow the changes in organisation
structures, working methods and relationships, skills,
productivity, or whatever, which, in
turn,
will allow the
organisation to compete effectively.
The Larger Picture
It is hardly surprising that employees resist changes that
are arbitrarily introduced It is rank bad management
to have reached the point at which it is necessary to
confront employees, without any warning, of the need
for major surgery or organisational changes, to restore
competitiveness. Many are the managers who, having
been asked why employees have not been told about
the problems beforehand, have replied, "If we had told
them about the problems earlier, they could well have
taken industrial action and made our situation worse!"
What a negative view of people is reflected in such a
statement.
One of the catastrophes of traditional industrial relations
is the way in which shop-floor workers have been seen
to be untrustworthy The whole history of industrial
relations shows how this view of people conditions
managers' behaviour and actions. As they attempt to
control shop-floor behaviour, through pay and other
systems "because they are untrustworthy and
irresponsible", so the shop floor is forced to behave in
Article prepared for a Chartered Building Societies Institute
Seminar
ER 10,4
1988
27
To continue reading
Request your trial