DR S.

MIRZA
SUB-HC-02

Approaches to Industrial Relations

Everything you need to know about the approaches to industrial relations.
The concept of industrial relations has been extended to denote the relations
of the state with employers, workers and their organizations.
The subject, therefore, includes individual relations and joint consultations
between employers and work people at their workplace, collective relations
between employers and their organizations and trade unions and the part
played by the state in regulating these relations.
The scenario of industrial relations is perceived differently by different
people. For some, industrial relations are related to class conflict, others
perceive it in terms of mutual co-operation, and still others understand it in
terms of competing interests of various groups.

The three popular approaches to industrial relations are the unitary

approach, pluralistic approach and marxist approach. These approaches to
industrial relations at a primary level are analytical categorizations and not
theories having predictive values.
Some of the important approaches to industrial relations are:-

1. Unitary Approach

2. Pluralistic Approach

3. Marxist Approach

4. Systems Approach

5. Oxford Approach

6. Industrial Sociology Approach

 7. Action Theory Approach

8. Social Action Approach

9. Human Relations Approach

10. Gandhian Approach

11. Human Resource Management Approach.

The scenario of industrial relations is perceived differently by different

people. For some, industrial relations are related to class conflict, others
perceive it in terms of mutual co-operation, and still others understand it in
terms of competing interests of various groups. HR managers are expected to
understand these varying approaches because they provide the theoretical
underpinnings for much of the role of HRM.
The three popular approaches to industrial relations are the unitary approach,
Pluralistic approach, and Marxist approach. These approaches to industrial
relations at a primary level are analytical categorizations and not theories
having predictive values.
Also, authors are of the opinion that there is no one right approach, rather
these approaches, individually or collectively, provide an opportunity for
creating a paradigm for understanding the complexity and diversity among
the various actors and players in Industrial Relations.

Approach # 1. Unitary:
The unitary approach is based on the strong argument that there is only one
source of authority i.e., the management, which owns and controls the
dynamics of decision making in issues relating to negotiation and bargaining.
Under unitary approach, industrial relations are grounded in mutual co-
operation, individual treatment, team-work, and shared goals.
Work place conflict is seen as a temporary aberration, resulting from poor
management, from employees who do not mix well with the organizational
culture. Unions co-operate with the management and the management’s right
to manage is accepted because there is no ‘we-they’ feeling.
The underlying assumption is that everyone benefits when the focus is on
common interest and promotion of harmony. Conflict in the form of strikes is
not only regarded as necessary but destructive.
Advocates of the unitary approach emphasize on a reactive industrial
relations strategy. They seek direct negotiations with employees.
Participation of government, tribunals and unions is not sought or is seen as
being necessary for achieving harmonious employee relations.
The unitary approach is being criticized as a tool for seducing employees
away from unionism and socialism. It is also criticized as manipulative and
exploitative.

Approach # 2. Pluralistic:
The pluralistic approach totally departs from the unitary approach and
assumes that the organization is composed of individuals who form distinct
groups with their own set of aims, objectives, leadership styles, and value
propositions.
The organization is multi structured and there will be continued tension due
to conflicts within and between the various sectional groups. In contrast to
the unitary approach, the pluralistic approach considers conflict between
management and employees as rational and inevitable.
The pluralistic approach perceives:
i. Organizations as coalitions of competing interests, where the role of the
management is to mediate amongst the different interest groups.
ii. Trade unions as legitimate representatives of employee interests.
iii. Stability in industrial relations as the product of concessions and
compromises between management and unions.
Legitimacy of the management’s authority is not automatically accepted.
Conflict between the management and workers is understood as inevitable
and, in fact, is viewed as conducive for innovation and growth. Employees
join unions to protect their interests and influence decision-making by the
management.
Unions, thus, balance the power between the management and employees. In
the pluralistic approach, therefore, a strong union is not only desirable but
necessary. Similarly, society’s interests are protected by state intervention
through legislation and industrial tribunals which provide orderly process for
regulation and resolution of conflict.
The theories on pluralism were evolved in the mid-sixties and early seventies
when England witnessed a resurgence of industrial conflicts. However, the
recent theories of pluralism emanate from British scholars, and in particular,
from Flanders and Fox.
According to pluralists, industrial conflict is inevitable and it needs to be
contained within the social mechanism of collective bargaining, conciliation,
and arbitration.

Approach # 3. Marxist:
Also known as the ‘Radical Perspective’, the Marxist approach is based on
the proposition that the economic activities of production, manufacturing, and
distribution are majorly governed by the objective of profit. Marxists, like the
pluralists, regard conflict between employers and employees as inevitable.
However, pluralists believe that the conflict is inevitable in all organizations.
Marxists see it as a product of the capitalist society. Adversarial relations in
the workplace are simple one aspect of class conflict. The Marxist approach,
thus, focuses on the type of society in which an organization functions.
Conflict arises not only because of competing interests within the
organization, but because of the division within society between those who
won or manage the means of production and those who have only their labour
to offer. Industrial conflict is, thus, seen as being synonymous with political
and social unrest.
The Marxist approach argues that for social change to take place, class
conflict is required. Social change initiates strong reactions from the worker
class and bridges the gap between the economically settled owners of factors
of production and the economically dependent worker class. This approach
views pluralism as unreal and considers industrial disputes and class conflicts
as inevitable for the circular functioning of an industry.
Trade unions are seen both as labour reaction to exploitation by capital, as
well as a weapon to bring about a revolutionary social change. Concerns with
wage-related disputes are secondary. Trade unions focus on improving the
position of workers within the capitalist system and not to overthrow. For the
Marxists, all strikes are political.
Besides, Marxists regard state intervention via legislation and the creation of
industrial tribunals as supporting management’s interest rather than ensuring
a balance between the competing groups. This view is in contrast to the belief
of the pluralists who argue that state intervention is necessary to protect the
overall interest of society.
To Marxists, the pluralist approach is supportive of capitalism, the unitary
approach anathema. Consequently, enterprise bargaining, employee
participation, cooperative work culture, and the like which help usher in
cordial industrial relations are not acceptable to Marxists.
Such initiatives are regarded as nothing more than sophisticated management
techniques designed to reinforce management control and the continuation of
the capitalist system.

Approaches to Industrial Relations – Given by Eminent

Management Thinkers: A. Prof. John T. Dunlop, Flanders,
Margerison, Henry Sanders and a Few Others

1. A. Prof. John T. Dunlop – Systems Approach in “Industrial Relations

Systems” 1958:
Among the contributions, the most outstanding has been that of Harvard
University. His systems treatment deserves special mention in view of its
wider applicability. His book Industrial Relations Systems (1958) was a
pioneering volume in which he presented an analytical framework of
industrial relations.
Dunlop defines an industrial relations system in the following way – An
industrial relations system at any one time in its development is regarded as
comprised of certain actors, certain contexts, an ideology, which binds the
industrial relations system together, and a body of rules created to govern the
actors at the workplace and work community. There are three sets of
independent variables – the ‘actors’, the ‘contexts’ and the ‘ideology’ of the
system.
The actors are – (a) hierarchy of managers and their representatives in
supervision, (b) a hierarchy of workers (non-managerial) and any spokesmen,
and (c) specialised governmental agencies (and specialised private agencies
created by the first two actors) concerned with workers, enterprises, and their
relationships. The contexts are the environment in which the actors are
interacting with each other at various levels and the ideology is their
philosophy of industrial relations.
2. Flanders – the Oxford Approach:
According to this approach, the industrial relations system is a study of
institutions of job regulations and the stress is on the substantive and
procedural rules as in Dunlop’s model.
Flanders, the exponent of this approach, considers every business enterprise a
social system of production and distribution, which has a structured pattern of
relationships. The “institution of job regulation” is categorised by him as
internal and external – the former being an internal part of the industrial
relations system such as code of work rules, wage structure, internal
procedure of joint consultation, and grievance procedure.
He views trade unions as an external organisation and excludes collective
agreements from the sphere of internal regulation. According to him,
collective bargaining is central to the industrial relations system.
The “Oxford Approach” can be expressed in the form of an equation – r = f
(b) or r = f (c) where, r = the rules governing industrial relations
b = collective bargaining
c = conflict resolved through collective bargaining.
The “Oxford Approach” can be criticised on the ground that it is too narrow
to provide a comprehensive framework for analysing industrial relations
problems.
It over emphasises the significance of the political process of collective
bargaining in and gives insufficient weight to the role of the deeper
influences in the determination of rules. Institutional and power factors are
viewed as of paramount importance, while variables such as technology,
market, status of the parties, and ideology, are not given any prominence.

3. Margerison – the Industrial Sociology Approach:

G. Margerison, an industrial sociologist, holds the view that the core of
industrial relations is the nature and development of the conflict itself.
Margerison argued that conflict is the basic concept that should form the
basis of the study of industrial relations. The author criticised the prevalent
approach to industrial relations, which was more concerned with studying the
resolution of industrial conflict than its generation; with the consequences of
industrial disputes than on their causes.
According to this school of thought, there are two major conceptual levels of
industrial relations. One is the intra plant level where situational factors, such
as job content, work task and technology, and interaction factors produce
three types of conflict – distributive, structural, and human relations. These
conflicts are being resolved through collective bargaining, structural analysis
of the socio-technical systems and man-management analysis respectively.
The second level is outside the firm and, in the main, concerns with the
conflict not resolved at the intra-organisational level. However, this approach
rejects the special emphasis given to rule determination by the “Systems and
Oxford models”. In its place, it suggests a method of inquiry, which attempts
to develop sociological models of conflicts.

4. Henry Sanders – the Action Theory Approach:

Like the systems model, the action theory approach takes the collective
regulation of industrial labour as its focal point. The actors operate within a
framework, which can at best be described as a coalition relationship. The
actors, it is claimed, agree in principle to cooperate in the resolution of the
conflict, their cooperation taking the form of bargaining. Thus, the action
theory analysis of industrial relations focuses primarily on bargaining as a
mechanism for the resolution of conflicts.
Whereas, the systems model of industrial relations constitutes a more or less
comprehensive approach, it is hardly possible to speak of one uniform action
theory concept.

5. Karl Marx – the Marxist Approach:

The class conflict analysis of industrial relations derives its impetus from
Marxist social thinking and interpretation. Marxism is essentially a method of
social enquiry into the power relationships of society and a way of
interpreting social reality. The application of Marxian theory as it relates to
industrial relations derives indirectly from later Marxist scholars rather than
directly from the works of Marx himself. Industrial relations, according to
Marxists, are in the first instance, market-relations.
To Marxists, industrial relations are essentially politicised and part of the
class struggle. For Marxists industrial and employee relations can only be
understood as part of a broader analysis of capitalist society in particular the
social relations of production and the dynamics of capital accumulation. As
Marx himself put it, “the mode of production in material life determines the
general character of the social, political and spiritual process of life.”
The Marxist approach is primarily oriented towards the historical
development of the power relationship between capital and labour. It is also
characterised by the struggle of these classes to consolidate and strengthen
their respective positions with a view to exerting greater influence on each
other. In this approach, industrial relations is equated with a power-struggle.
The price payable for labour is determined by a confrontation between
conflicting interests.
The capitalist ownership of the enterprise endeavour to purchase labour at the
lowest possible price in order to maximise their profits. The lower the price
paid by the owner of the means of production for the labour he employs, the
greater is his profit.
The Marxist analysis of industrial relations, however, is not a comprehensive
approach as it only takes into account the relations between capital and
labour. It is rather, a general theory of society and of social change, which
has implications for the analysis- of industrial relations within what Marxists
would describe as capitalist societies.

6. Kerr – the Pluralist Approach:

Pluralism is a major theory in labour-management relations, which has many
powerful advocates. The focus is on the resolution of conflict rather than its
generation, or, in the words of the pluralist, on ‘the institutions of job
regulation.’
Kerr is one of the important exponents of pluralism. According to him, the
social environment is an important factor in industrial conflicts. The isolated
masses of workers are more strike-prone as compared to dispersed groups.
When industrial jobs become more pleasant and employees’ get more
integrated into the wider society, strikes will become less frequent.
Ross and Hartman’s cross national comparison of strikes postulates the
declining incidents of strikes as societies industrialise and develop
appropriate institutional framework. They claim that there has been a decline
in strike activity all over the world in spite of an increase in union
membership. The theories on pluralism were evolved in the mid-sixties and
early seventies when England witnessed a dramatic resurgence of industrial
conflicts.
However, the recent theories of pluralism emanate from British scholars, and
in particular from Flanders and Fox. According to Flanders, conflict is
inherent in the industrial system. He highlighted the need for a formal system
of collective bargaining as a method of conflict resolution.
Fox distinguishes between two distinct aspects of relationship between
workers and management. The first is the market relationship, which
concerns with the terms and conditions on which labour is hired. This
relationship is essentially economic in character and based on contracts
executed between the parties.
The second aspect relates to the management’s dealing with labour, the
nature of their interaction, negotiations between the union and management,
distribution of power in the organisation, and participation of the union in
joint decision-making.
The major critics of the pluralist approach are the Marxists according to
whom exploitation and slavery will continue unabated in the institutional
structure of pluralism. The only difference is that in such a social structure,
the worker will be deemed to be a better-paid wage slave.

7. Max Weber – the Social Action Approach:

The social action approach of Weber has laid considerable importance to the
question of control in the context of increasing rationalisation and
bureaucratization.
Closely related to Weber’s concern related to control in organisations was his
concern with “power of control and dispersal”. Thus, a trade union in the
Weber’s scheme of things has both economic purposes as well as the goal of
involvement in political and power struggles.
Some of the major orientations in the Weberian approach have been to
analyse the impact of techno-economic and politico-organisational changes
on trade union structure and processes, to analyse the subjective
interpretation of workers’ approaches to trade unionism and finally to analyse
the power of various components of the industrial relations environment –
government, employers, trade unions and political parties.
Thus, the Weberian approach gives the theoretical and operational
importance to “control” as well as to the power struggle to control work
organisations – a power struggle in which all the actors in the industrial
relations drama are caught up.
8. Elton Mayo with Roethlisberger, Whitehead, W. F. Whyte and Homans –
the Human Relations Approach:
In the words of Keith Davies, human relations are “the integration of people
into a work situation that motivates them to work together productively,
cooperatively and with economic, psychological and social satisfactions.”
According to him, the goals of human relations are – (a) to get people to
produce, (b) to cooperate through mutuality of interest, and (c) to gain
satisfaction from their relationships. The human relations school founded by
Elton Mayo and later propagated by Roethlisberger, Whitehead, W. F. Whyte
and Homans offers a coherent view of the nature of industrial conflict and
harmony.
The human relations approach highlights certain policies and techniques to
improve employee morale, efficiency and job satisfaction. It encourages the
small work group to exercise considerable control over its environment and
in the process helps to remove a major irritant in labour-management
relations. But there was reaction against the excessive claims of this school of
thought in the sixties.
Some of its views were criticised by Marxists, pluralists, and others on the
ground that it encouraged dependency and discouraged individual
development, and ignored the importance of technology and culture in
industry.
Taking a balanced view, however, it must be admitted that the human
relations school has thrown a lot of light on certain aspects such as
communication, management development, and acceptance of work place as
a social system, group dynamics, and participation in management.

9. M K Gandhi – The Gandhian Approach:

Gandhiji can be called one of the greatest labour leaders of modern India. His
approach to labour problems was completely new and refreshingly human.
He held definite views regarding fixation and regulation of wages,
organisation and functions of trade unions, necessity and desirability of
collective bargaining, use and abuse of strikes, labour indiscipline, and
workers participation in management, conditions of work and living, and
duties of workers.
The Ahmedabad Textile Labour Association, a unique and successful
experiment in Gandhian trade unionism, implemented many of his ideas.
Gandhiji had immense faith in the goodness of man and he believed that
many of the evils of the modern world have been brought about by wrong
systems and not by wrong individuals. He insisted on recognising each
individual worker as a human being. He believed in nonviolent communism,
going so far as to say that “if communism comes without any violence, it
would be welcome.”
Gandhiji laid down certain conditions for a successful strike. These are – (a)
the cause of the strike must be just and there should be no strike without a
grievance; (b) there should be no violence; and (c) non-strikers or “blacklegs”
should never be molested.
He was not against strikes but pleaded that they should be the last weapon in
the armoury of industrial workers and hence, should not be resorted to unless
all peaceful and constitutional methods of negotiations, conciliation and
arbitration are exhausted. His concept of trusteeship is a significant
contribution in the sphere of industrial relations.
According to him, employers should not regard themselves as sole owners of
mills and factories of which they may be the legal owners. They should
regard themselves only as trustees, or co-owners. He also appealed to the
workers to behave as trustees, not to regard the mill and machinery as
belonging to the exploiting agents but to regard them as their own, protect
them and put to the best use they can.
In short, the theory of trusteeship is based on the view that all forms of
property and human accomplishments are gifts of nature and as such, they
belong not to any one individual but to society. Thus, the trusteeship system
is totally different from other contemporary labour relations systems. It aimed
at achieving economic equality and the material advancement of the “have-
nots” in a capitalist society by non-violent means.
Gandhiji realised that relations between labour and management can either be
a powerful stimulus to economic and social progress or an important factor in
economic and social stagnation. According to him, industrial peace was an
essential condition not only for the growth and development of the industry
itself, but also in a great measure, for the improvement in the conditions of
work and wages.
At the same time, he not only endorsed the workers’ right to adopt the
method of collective bargaining but also actively supported it. He advocated
voluntary arbitration and mutual settlement of disputes.
He also pleaded for perfect understanding between capital and labour, mutual
respect, recognition of equality, and strong labour organisation as the
essential factors for happy and constructive industrial relations. For him,
means and ends are equally important.

10. Human Resource Management Approach:

The term, human resource management (HRM) has become increasingly
used in the literature of personnel/industrial relations. The term has been
applied to a diverse range of management strategies and, indeed, sometimes
used simply as a more modern, and therefore more acceptable, term for
personnel or industrial relations management.
Some of the components of human resource management are – (a) human
resource organisation; (b) human resource planning; (c) human resource
systems; (d) human resource development; (e) human resource relationships;
(f) human resource utilisation; (g) human resource accounting; and (h) human
resource audit. This approach emphasises individualism and the direct
relationship between management and its employees. Therefore, it questions
the collective regulation basis of traditional industrial relations.