Theoretical Approaches to Employment and Industrial Relations: A Comparison of Subsisting Orthodoxies Essay

1. Introduction
Theory could be viewed as a coherent group of premises or propositions put Forth to explicate a phenomenon. A theory is an abstraction of world and is synonymous with perceptual experience. point of view. premise. frame of mention or a position. The relevancy of theory in any field of enterprises can non be over emphatic. Theory efforts to detect. understand. explain. predict and control events or phenomena. “It helps in our apprehension of events and jobs in the practical world” ( Fajana. 2000. p. 21 ) . Without theory. there is no pattern. therefore. harmonizing to Luthans “it has frequently been said ( normally by theorists ) that there is nil every bit practical as a good theory” ( Luthans. 1998. p. 13 ) . Hyman ( 1975. p. 12 ) argues that the whole point of an expressed theoretical position is to supply a model within which the complex item of the existent universe can be organised.

Hyman ( 1975. p. 2 ) further asserts that “those who glorification in their pragmatism and insist that they are immune from theory are merely incognizant of their ain prepossessions and presuppositions” . Without theory work forces can non move. for a theory is a manner of seeing. of understanding and of planning. Phoenix ( 1964 ) as cited in Asika ( 1995. p. 53 ) opines that “a theory or theoretical account provides an abstract form whose construction in relevant respects is congruous with the construction of the physical ( and societal ) universe. as demonstrated by understanding between observations and anticipations made from the theory or model” . We view theory as the infrastructure upon which pattern or action which can be likened to the superstructure is based. A Theory is different from a theoretical account. Thus. a theoretical account or paradigm refers to the representation of world. Models are simplified descriptions of existent state of affairss ( Waters. 1998 ) . Harmonizing to Cooper and Schindler ( 2001 ) . there is a differentiation between a theoretical account and a theory. Therefore. theoretical accounts differ from theories in that a theory’s function is explanation whereas a model’s function is representation and simulation. Model is a representation of a system that is constructed to analyze some facets of the system or the system as a whole ( Cooper & A ; Schindler. 2001 ) . There are assorted typologies of theoretical accounts. Models could be iconic. parallel. statistical. mathematical. descriptive. graphical. every bit good as verbal. Theories and theoretical accounts abound in the field of industrial dealingss. There are many-sided theories of


Theoretical and Methodological Approaches to Social Sciences and Knowledge Management

industrial dealingss as a consequence of its multidisciplinary nature ; looking for a cosmopolitan definition of industrial dealingss may be every bit nerve-racking as looking for an ocean in the desert. This is so because. over the old ages. the construct has been subjected to different conceptual intervention ( Ogunbameru. 2004 ) . Harmonizing to Farnham and Pimlott ( 1995 ) . there are five theories by which industrial dealingss establishments. constructions and procedures are analysed. They opine that the theories which persons develop about industrial dealingss are efforts to build logically consistent ways of apprehension and explicating societal behavior and real–life activities in this complex field of human involvement.

These are the unitary. systems. struggle. Marxist and societal action theories. Salamon ( 2000 ) posits that industrial dealingss theories are unitary. pluralist or pluralistic. Marxist. systems and societal action. Green ( 1994 ) classifies industrial dealingss theory as follows: Unitary position and a more recent discrepancy. the neo-unitarist position ; struggle theory. including the Marxist and pluralist positions ; systems attack and the contrasting societal action position. No one position gives a perfect position but each illuminates our apprehension of the topic. There are a figure of fluctuations on all these subjects. Green asserts that by and large. a point of view. position or theory is put frontward and this is so modified in the visible radiation of experience. unfavorable judgment and altering fortunes.

Harmonizing to Otobo ( 2000. p. 42 ) . “theorising is a uninterrupted exercising and no 1 theoretical account has satisfied everyone in footings of taking into history all variables at drama ; efforts to supply more comprehensive theoretical expoundings on the industrial dealingss system have non stopped” . There are dearth of surveies or researches on theoretical attacks to employment and industrial dealingss in the Nigerian context. This survey is an effort to turn to this spread. In add-on. it will add to the limited theoretical cognition in this exciting country of survey in a underdeveloped state like Nigeria. The aim of this paper is to try a comparing of the five most influential theoretical models of employment and industrial dealingss and to convey to the bow similarities and differences in the theoretical preparations. The paper besides examines a critical reappraisal of the theories and besides highlights the major subjects built-in in the theories. To accomplish this aim. the paper adopts a theoretical attack.

2. Theoretical and conceptual model
Employment dealingss is the survey of the ordinance of the employment relationship between employer and employee. both jointly and separately. and the finding of substantial and procedural issues at industrial. organizational and workplace degrees ( Rose. 2008 ) . Harmonizing to Kaufman ( 2010 ) . industrial dealingss is viewed as the procedure of regulation doing for the workplace ( Dunlop. 1958 ) ; occupation ordinance ( Flanders. 1965 ) ; societal ordinance of production ( Cox. 1971 ) ; the employment relationship as structured hostility ( Edwards. 2005 ) ; societal ordinance of market forces ( Hyman. 1995 ) ; procedure of capitalist production and accretion and the derived political and societal category dealingss ( Caire. 1996 as cited in Kaufman. 2010 ) ; struggle of involvements and pluralist signifiers of workplace administration ( Kochan. 1998 ) ; category mobilisation and societal justness ( Kelly. 1998 ) ; the promotion of efficiency. equity. and voice in the employment relationship ( Budd. 2004 ) ; corporate representation and societal duologue ( European Industrial Relations Observatory. 2002 ) . Harmonizing to Bain and Clegg ( 1974 ) . a traditional attack to employment and industrial

Theoretical Approaches to Employment and Industrial Relations: A Comparison of Subsisting Orthodoxies


dealingss has been to see it as the survey of the regulations regulating employment. and the ways in which the regulations are changed. interpreted and administered. We now turn to discoursing the theoretical subjects get downing with the unitary theory. 2. 1 Unitary theory The unitary frame of mention is credited to Alan Fox ( 1966 ) . The unitary position positions the administration as indicating towards a individual or incorporate authorization and trueness construction. Emphasis under the unitary position is placed on common values. involvement and aims. Those subscribing to this position see all organizational participants as a squad or household thereby implicitly emphasing shared values. shared ends and common fate. Unitarism in kernel implies the absence of factionalism within the endeavor ( Fajana. 2000 ) . Conflict is viewed as irrational and the bagging of striking workers is preferred to audience or dialogue. Conflict is regarded as pathological or evil or bad. Trade unionism is outlawed and suppressed as it is viewed as an illicit invasion or invasion on management’s right to pull off. Harmonizing to Rose ( 2008 ) . under the unitary position. trade brotherhoods are regarded as an invasion into the administration from outside. viing with direction for the trueness of employees.

The unitary theory tends towards dictatorship and paternalism. It is pro- direction biased and accents consensus and industrial peace. The implicit in premise of this position is that the administration exists in perfect harmoniousness and all struggle is unneeded ( Rose. 2008 ) . 2. 2 Conflict theory Conflict theory is synonymous with the pluralist or the pluralistic frame of mention which is besides credited to Alan Fox ( 1966 ) . Conflict theory views the administration as coalescency of sectional groups with different values. involvements and aims. Therefore. employees have different values and aspirations from those of direction. and these values and aspirations are ever in struggle with those of direction. Conflict theorists argue that struggle is inevitable. rational. functional and normal state of affairs in administrations. which is resolved through via media and understanding or corporate bargaining. Conflict theorists position trade brotherhoods as legitimate challenges to managerial regulation or privileges and underscore competition and coaction.

This position recognises trade brotherhoods as legitimate representative administrations which enable groups of employees to act upon direction determinations ( Rose. 2008 ) . Rise farther provinces that the pluralist position would look to be much more relevant than the unitary position in the analysis of industrial dealingss in many big nonionized administrations and congruent with developments in modern-day society 2. 3 Systems theory The construct of system derives from the structural/functionalist positions of societal system ( society ) . This besides connotes the macro-sociological. order or societal system position of society. There are several senses or significances of the word ‘function’ . These are ( one ) teleological. where one asks about the ends or ends something serves ( two ) mathematical. where one refers to the co-variation of a set of variables e. g. y=f ( x ) ; ( three ) configurational. where one speaks of the mutuality of a set of elements within a system. and asks


Theoretical and Methodological Approaches to Social Sciences and Knowledge Management

what part each makes to the whole. The systems attack to industrial dealingss is configurational. Therefore. Dunlop developed his theoretical attack of industrial dealingss on the footing of a systems construct and was to a great extent influenced by the anterior work of Parsons ( Fajana. 2000 ) . Harmonizing to Ogunbameru ( 2004 ) . the American system attacks to the survey of industrial dealingss were strongly influenced by structural/functionalist sociology. Dunlop based his theoretical account explicitly on Parsons societal system. which assumed an built-in prejudice towards order and stableness. Otobo ( 2000. p. 17 ) postulates that Dunlop began his explanatory theoretical account with a series of inquiries. “What intending. so. is to be given to an industrial dealingss system” ? ( Otobo. 2000. p. 17 ) . “In what sense is a ‘system’ involved? Can the term be given strict and analytical definition. or shall it stay a perceptive phrase matching to the penetrations of practical experience? Are there features common to all industrial dealingss system? What factors distinguish one industrial dealingss state of affairs from another?

Can the same construct be used to ease analysis among sectors within a state and besides among states? ” ( Otobo. 2000. p. 17 ) . These inquiries posed by Dunlop ( 1958 ) were so followed by six general propositions. ? “An industrial- dealingss system is to be viewed as an analytical sub-system of an industrial society on the same logical plane as an economic system. regarded as another analytical sub-system. The industrial dealingss system is non coextensive with the economic system ; in some respects the two convergence and in other respects both have different Scopess. The procurance of a work force and the scene of compensation for labor services are common centres of involvement. A systematic account of production. nevertheless. is within economic sciences but outside the range of industrial dealingss. The full scope of rule-making regulating the work topographic point is outside the range of an economic system but cardinal to an industrial dealingss system. An industrial dealingss system is non a subordinate portion of an economic system but is instead a separate and typical subsystem of the society. on the same plane as an economic system. Therefore. the theoretical tools designed to explicate the economic system are non likely to be wholly suited to another different analytical subsystem of society. Merely as there are relationships and boundary lines between a society and an economic system. so besides are at that place between a society and an industrial dealingss system. All analysis of the economic system makes some premises. explicitly or implicitly. about the balance of the societal system. so besides must an analysis of an industrial dealingss system make some premises about the remainder of the societal system. An industrial dealingss system is logically an abstraction merely as an economic system is an abstraction.

Neither is concerned with behavior as a whole. There are no histrions whose whole activity is confined entirely to the industrial dealingss or economic domains. although some may near this bound. Neither an economic system nor an industrial dealingss system is designed merely to depict in factual footings the existent universe of clip and infinite. Both are abstractions designed to foreground relationship and to concentrate attending upon critical variables and to explicate propositions for historical enquiry and statistical testing. This position of an industrial dealingss system permits a typical analytical and theoretical capable affair. To day of the month the survey of industrial dealingss had small theoretical content. At its beginning and often at its best. it has been mostly historical and Theoretical Approaches to Employment and Industrial Relations: A Comparison of Subsisting Orthodoxies descriptive. A figure of surveies have used the analysis of economic sciences peculiarly in handling rewards and related inquiries and other surveies. peculiarly of mill sections ; have borrowed the setup of anthropology and sociology.

Although. industrial dealingss aspires to be a subject. and even though there exists separate professional societies. industrial dealingss has lacked any cardinal analytical content. It has been a hamlets where a figure of subjects have met. history. economic sciences. authorities. sociology. psychological science and jurisprudence. Industrial dealingss requires a theoretical nucleus in order to associate stray facts. to indicate to new types of enquiries and to do research more linear. The survey of industrial dealingss systems provides a echt subject. Three separate analytical job are to be distinguished in this model ( a ) the relation of the industrial dealingss to the society as a whole ( B ) the relation of the industrial dealingss system to the subsystem known as the economic system and ( degree Celsius ) the interior construction and features of the industrial dealingss subsystem itself. ” ( Otobo. p. 17-19 )

Otobo ( 2000. p. 19 ) mentioning Dunlop ( 1958 ) argues that “An industrial-relations system at any one clip in its development is regarded as comprised of certain histrions. certain contexts. an political orientation which binds the industrial-relations system together and a organic structure of regulations created to regulate histrions at the workplace and work community” . Harmonizing to Dunlop. systems theory provides the analytical tools and the theoretical footing to do industrial dealingss an academic subject in its ain right. 2. 3. 1 Certain histrions The histrions that make up the industrial dealingss system are ? ? ? A hierarchy of directors and their representatives in supervising A hierarchy of workers ( non-managerial ) and their spokesmen Specialised governmental bureaus and specialized private bureaus created by the first two histrions. concerned with workers. endeavors and their relationships.

2. 3. 2 Contexts This refers to the scene which these histrions operate. that is the larger environment which shapes the behavior of. and the regulations established by workers. employers and the province. Dunlop high spots three facets of the environment. ? Technological features of the work topographic point and work community: These act upon the signifier of direction and employee administration and the jobs posed for supervisors. Therefore. the adoptive engineering will greatly find the size and accomplishments of work force every bit good as handiness of labor. It besides affects the wellness and safety at the workplace. The adoptive engineering has far-reaching effects in finding IRs regulation devising. Market/budgetary restraints: The merchandises market or budget is a decisive factor in determining the regulations established by an industrial dealingss system. More so. the market or budgetary restraints besides indirectly influences the engineering and other features of the work topographic point. including the graduated table and size of operations. In all. an industrial



Theoretical and Methodological Approaches to Social Sciences and Knowledge Management


dealingss system created and administered by its histrions is adaptative to its market and budgetary restraints ( Otobo. 2000 ) . More so. the profitableness of the endeavor depends on its merchandise market. The venue and distribution of power in the larger society: The comparative distribution of power among the histrions in the larger society tends to a grade to be reflected within the industrial dealingss system. Therefore. the distribution of power within the industrial dealingss system is affected by the distribution of power in the wider society. Dunlop is non concerned about the distribution of power within the industrial dealingss system. nor with the comparative bargaining powers among the histrions. nor their controls over the procedures of interaction or regulation puting. instead the mention to the distribution of power outside the industrial dealingss system. Therefore. the wider society is seen as supplying certain external influences and restraints but non as wholly ruling industrial dealingss system.

2. 3. 3 A organic structure of regulations The histrions in given contexts set up regulations for the workplace and work community. Actors set up regulations that govern their ain interactions. Dunlop referred to this as the “web of rules” that governs the parties. There is no premise by Dunlop that these regulations are jointly made by the histrions. These regulations he referred to as the substantive and procedural regulations. Therefore. the creative activity of regulations is seen to be the cardinal purpose of the industrial dealingss system. The substantial regulations pertain to issues affecting wages/salaries. hours of work and other footings and conditions of employment. On the other manus. the procedural regulations relate to the regulations regulating subject. redundancy. colony of differences. cyclicity of meetings. reclamation of corporate understandings and the similar. The regulations of the industrial dealingss systems may be expressed in a assortment of signifiers such as the ordinances and policies of the direction hierarchy. the Torahs of any worker hierarchy. the ordinances. edicts. determinations. awards or orders of governmental bureaus. corporate bargaining understandings and the imposts and traditions of the work topographic point and work community.

The regulations may be written. an unwritten tradition or customary pattern. Therefore. the constitution and disposal of these regulations is the major concern or end product of the industrial dealingss sub-system of industrial society. 2. 3. 4 Ideology Ideology connotes a set of thoughts and beliefs normally held by the histrions that helps to adhere or incorporate the system together as an entity. Harmonizing to Otobo ( 2000. p. 28 ) mentioning Dunlop “each of the histrions in an industrial dealingss system may be said to hold its ain political orientation. Dunlop insists instead strongly that all these political orientations must be sufficiently compatible or consistent to allow a common set of thoughts which recognise an acceptable function for each actor” . Dunlop assumes that the political orientation of IRs system must be one or the same among the histrions. As could be deduced from the above theoretical account. there are three sets of independent variables in an industrial dealingss systems. the histrions. the contexts and the political orientation of the system. while the regulations represent the dependant variable or the end product of the industrial dealingss system. The dynamic theoretical account of the systemic paradigm. unfastened system analysis and the oxford school are farther amplification of the Dunlopian theoretical account.

Theoretical Approaches to Employment and Industrial Relations: A Comparison of Subsisting Orthodoxies


Beginning: Farnham. D. & A ; Pimlott. J. ( 1995 ) . Understanding Industrial Relations. ( 5thed ) . London: Cassell

Fig. 1. A Simple Model of an Industrial Relations System 2. 4 The dynamic theoretical account of the systemic paradigm The dynamic theoretical account of the systemic paradigm of industrial dealingss is a polish to Dunlop’s analytical model. This dynamic theoretical account is credited to Blain and Gennard ( 1970 ) . The couple adopted Dunlop’s proposition of an industrial dealingss system being on the same logical plane as the economic subsystem. Their work centred on sorting the variables in an industrial dealingss system into dependent and independent variables. a undertaking the Dunlopian theoretical account made hard to accomplish. They expressed the industrial dealingss system algebraically as shown below: R = degree Fahrenheit ( a. t. e. s. I ) Where. r = the regulations of the industrial dealingss system a = the histrions t = the proficient context of the work topographic point. vitamin E = economic or the market/budgetary restraint


Theoretical and Methodological Approaches to Social Sciences and Knowledge Management

s = the power context and the position of the parties i = the political orientation of the system. From the above equation. the regulations can be viewed as the dependant variables being determined by the interaction of the five independent variables. Therefore. the map of the industrial dealingss system is to set up a set of regulations for the workplace and work community. In dynamic society the regulations will often change as a consequence of alterations in the contexts or environment. Therefore. the dynamic theoretical account emanated as a response to the unfavorable judgments levelled against the Dunlopian system theoretical account. It has been criticised as holding a inactive position of industrial dealingss. 2. 5 The unfastened system analysis Dunlop’s systems theory uses the term ‘system’ in a excessively loose and vague mode. The unfastened system analysis is concerned with looking at industrial dealingss system in footings of inputs and end products and the interaction with the environment. Harmonizing to Koontz. O’ Donnel and Weihrich ( 1980. p. 19 ) “almost all life is a system. Our organic structures surely are. Our places and universities are. as are our authorities bureaus and our concerns. ” Systems have inter-related parts which work together to organize a complex integrity or whole. The characteristics of a system are as follows: ? ?

Whole: a system is more than the amount of its parts. It must be viewed as a whole. Closed or unfastened: A system is regarded as unfastened if it exchanges information. energy or stuff with its environment. A closed system is one that does non hold interactions with its environment. All societal systems are by nature unfastened systems. Boundary: Every system has boundaries which separate it from its environment. Input and end product: All systems which interact with the environment are conformable to having inputs from other systems and giving end product to other systems. Feedback: An informational input that tells whether the system is so at least accomplishing a steady province and is non in danger of devastation. Homeostatic: This is referred to as dynamic homeostatic ( steady province ) . Hence an administration will non be able to last if its inputs do non at least equal its end products. Subsystems: With the exclusion of the Universe. all systems are subsystems. That is every system is a constituent of other larger systems. Equifinality: All unfastened systems have common terminals or aims as everyone performs in a mode that will heighten the attainment of the wide aims of the system Differentiation and Elaboration: As the system grows. it tends to go more specialized in its elements and to lucubrate its construction. This is exemplified by the enlargement of merchandise lines or creative activity of new gross revenues offices by an administration.

? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Having stated some of the features of a system. one would be disposed to province that the Dunlopian theoretical account of an industrial dealingss system ought to hold followed the unfastened system construct in explicating an industrial dealingss system alternatively of seeing it as a system of regulations. which appears excessively parochial. The systemic paradigm by Dunlop has attracted an avalanche of unfavorable judgments. some of which are as follows: ? The heroic premise taken by Dunlop that an industrial dealingss system will needfully be homeostatic has been criticised. This is because industrial struggles are

Theoretical Approaches to Employment and Industrial Relations: A Comparison of Existing Orthodoxies ne’er genuinely resolved and one job arises after another. So. the system is non wholly stable as claimed by Dunlop The theoretical account provides no account of the causes of industrial action but laid more accent on struggle declaration. Dunlop’s preparation of an industrial dealingss system mostly omits such behavioral variables as human motive. perceptual experience and attitudes. personality and little group interaction. He laid more accent on establishments ( trade brotherhoods. employers associations ) . Dunlop identified three chief histrions in the industrial dealingss system but failed to do mention to the proprietors of industrial belongings. It has been argued. that this skip stems from the fact that determinations in the industrial dealingss system are made by directors and non proprietors. Some have argued that the figure of histrions has to be increased. Another defect is that Dunlop’s thought of a system is a deterministic mechanism. Dunlop’s histrions are non individuals. The theoretical account suffers from hypostatization.

No proviso for the function of single personalities was advanced. Limited prognostic value associated with the systems theoretical account makes it hard to calculate whether the system will see more or less struggles as a consequence of a given alteration in one or more of the environmental contexts. It suffers a disability in that it does non take into history the procedures by which the regulations of the system are determined or made. One of the unfavorable judgments of the system attack is the trouble in specifying a system. There was no clear definition of what was meant by the construct of a system itself. This failure may hold caused some authors to belie the theory of industrial dealingss system.

What is the substance of a system of industrial dealingss? This was the inquiry raised by Flanders. Not until late has it been stated that a system of industrial dealingss is a system of regulations. However. a system of industrial dealingss as propounded by Dunlop is non a system of regulations but a conceptual model in which one constituent component is the regulations. The systems attack has been misrepresented by a Sociologist. Eldridge who conceptualised the theoretical account as being comprised of merely three elements ( the histrions. regulations and political orientation ) . The claim by Dunlop that the industrial dealingss system is on the same logical plane as the economic system is non right. as Wood. Wagner. Armstrong. Goodman and

Davis ( 1975 ) have pointed out. one time Dunlop accepted the Parsonian societal system that the societal system is comprised of four functional sub-systems ( the economic. political. integrative and pattern- care ) the industrial dealingss system could non hence be on the same logical plane as the economic system. but it should be construed as on a lower logical plane than the economic system. It is criticised that the model is inactive. non dynamic in clip as procedures are ignored. The systems theory dressed ores on formal regulations as against informal regulations and procedures. The systems theoretical account does non imply an history of the ways in which inputs are converted into end products. Power could non justly be a belongings of the external context of industrial dealingss system merely. alternatively. power is considered cardinal internally to the behavior of the parties themselves for the constitution and defense mechanism of regulations and their application. It is a fact


Theoretical and Methodological Approaches to Social Sciences and Knowledge Management


that workers/union and direction are involved in a power relationship within the endeavor and industry. Dunlop did non pay sufficient attending to all aspects of struggle in the industrial dealingss system. his accent being on struggle declaration and non its coevals. Why and how struggles occur are likely to uncover more about industrial dealingss procedures and establishments than how their manifestations are sorted out ( Otobo. 2000 ) . The overall statement is that Dunlop misunderstood the Parsonian system analysis.

2. 6 Oxford school Since the oxford school does non needfully hold to represent a self- contained attack. and has the elements of the systems theory. it should likely be viewed simply as a discrepancy of the systems attack ( Fajana. 2000 ) . The oxford school emerged from the systems attack as both focal point on establishments of industrial dealingss. although the point of difference is simply on accent. This attack is credited to Allan Flanders a British faculty member. Harmonizing to Flanders as cited in Hyman ( 1975. p. 11 ) . “industrial dealingss is the survey of the establishments of occupation regulation” . He opines that the regulations of any industrial dealingss system are seen as procedural and substantial. The procedural regulations regulate the behavior of parties to the corporate agreements- trade brotherhoods and employers or their associations. whereas. the substantial regulations regulate the behavior of employees and employers as parties to single contracts of employment. In fact. it is the substantial regulations of corporate bargaining that regulate occupations.

Therefore. the corporate understanding is made up of both the procedural and substantial clauses. Some of the establishments of occupation ordinance are internal every bit good as external. Internally. we have joint audience. the grudge process. a codification of disciplinary works’ regulations. a mill pay construction. and a host of others. Externally. there are other establishments which limit the freedom of the endeavor and its members in their rule-making activities. such as a protective labor statute law. the regulations of trade brotherhoods and employers’ association. The regulations of the industrial dealingss system are viewed as being determined through the regulation doing procedure of corporate bargaining which is regarded as a political establishment affecting a power relationship between employers and employees. The oxford attack can be expressed algebraically in the signifier of an equation. R = degree Fahrenheit ( degree Celsius ) Where. r = the regulations regulating industrial dealingss system. c = corporate bargaining When the equation is compared with the equation of the dynamic systems theoretical account which states that R = degree Fahrenheit ( a. t. e. s. i ) . it can be seen that the differentiation between the dynamic systems theoretical account and the Oxford attack lies in the right manus side of the equation. But both have the same end product but different inputs.

The Oxford attack has stressed the procedure of regulation doing through corporate bargaining while the dynamic system theoretical account emphasises the function of wider influence on regulation finding. For the Oxford attack. political variables are seen as of paramount importance but for the dynamic system theoretical account. economic. sociological and ideological variables are thought to be important. The unfavorable judgment of the Oxford attack are as follows: ( a ) It is excessively narrow to supply a comprehensive model for analyzing industrial dealingss jobs ( B ) It over-

Theoretical Approaches to Employment and Industrial Relations: A Comparison of Subsisting Orthodoxies


emphasised the importance of the political procedure of corporate bargaining and gives deficient weight to the function of the deeper influences in the finding of regulations. 2. 7 Marxist theory Marxism is. more or less. a general theory of society and of societal alteration with deductions for the analysis of industrial dealingss within capitalist societies and does non purely explain the theory of industrial dealingss. The application of Marxian theory as it relates to industrial dealingss today derives from ulterior Marxist bookmans instead than straight from the plants of Karl Marx himself ( Ogunbameru. 2004 ) . Harmonizing to Hyman ( 1975 ) the part of both Dunlop and Flanders are elephantine paces in the preparation of industrial dealingss theory. but argues instead strongly that to specify industrial dealingss entirely in footings of regulations and establishments for occupation ordinance is far excessively limited or restrictive.

What this implies is that industrial dealingss is all about the care of stableness and regularity in industry. He argues that the issue of struggle was non given proper analysis by the couple. as they focused on how any struggle is contained and controlled. instead than on the procedure through which dissensions and differences are generated. Hyman asserts that the positions of the couple nevertheless influential. is onesided and unequal. Hyman ( 1975. p. 12 ) defines industrial relations” as the survey of the procedures of control over work dealingss and among these procedures. those affecting corporate worker administration and action are of peculiar concern” . Hyman farther argues that unceasing power battle for control is a cardinal characteristic of industrial dealingss.

To him. this battle for control emanates from the nature and features of capitalist society. He summarised the major features of capitalist economy as ( I ) the ownership and or control of the agencies of production by a little minority ( two ) the domination of net income as the cardinal determiner of economic activities ( three ) the duty on most of society to sell their productive abilities on the market as a trade good. Against this background. two major categories are located within capitalist industrial dealingss which are besides a contemplation of what obtains in society. Therefore. capitalist industrialism bifurcate society into two categories. These are the proprietors of agencies of production which is the capitalist or middle class and the proprietors of labor. which are the workers or labor. This being so. the involvements of employers and employees are diametrically opposed and conflictual.

The capitalist enterprise to buy labor at the lowest possible monetary value whilst labour on the other manus attempts to sell his lone plus at the highest possible monetary value in order to guarantee his being. The capitalists tend to maximize net income whilst the workers tend to maximize wages/salaries. Therefore. in capitalist industrial society. the involvements and aspirations of both labour and employers are divergent and in struggle. The Marxist positions typify workplace dealingss as a contemplation of the incidence of social inequalities and the inevitable look of this at the work topographic point. To sum it up. Hyman farther provinces that industrial dealingss is all about power. involvements and struggle and that the economic. technological and political kineticss of the broader society necessarily shape the character of dealingss among industrial dealingss histrions which he described as the political economic system of industrial dealingss. Conflict is viewed as a upset precursor to alter and to decide struggle agencies to alter the instability and inequalities in society in footings of power and wealth. Trade brotherhoods are viewed as


Theoretical and Methodological Approaches to Social Sciences and Knowledge Management

employee response to capitalist economy. Marxist theory emphasises development and disaffection. This position is critical of capitalist society and its system of production. distribution and exchange and emphasises the importance of corporate action including work stoppage action and action short of work stoppages ( Rose. 2008 ) . Hyman ( 1975 ) argues that given the nature of capitalist society. industrial dealingss can be analysed from a more extremist position. This theory is besides known as the extremist position. 2. 8 Social action theory Harmonizing to Green ( 1994. p. 4 ) . “the societal action theory positions industrial dealingss from the individual’s point of view and motivation” . Harmonizing to Rose ( 2008 ) . the societal action attack considers the administration from the place of the single members or histrions who will each hold their ain ends. This perspective respects struggles of involvements as normal behavior and portion of organizational life ( Rose. 2008 ) . It is credited to Max Weber ( 18641920 ) ; a German Sociologist. Social action theory represents a part from sociologists to the survey of administrations. It attempts to see the administration from the point of view of single members or histrions of industrial dealingss.

The theory seeks to analyze why the histrions take certain lines of action. This contrasts with the systems attack which states that behavior is a consequence of the construction and procedures of the system. Social action arises out of the outlooks. norms. attitudes. values. experiences. state of affairs and ends of the persons working in the system. Therefore. harmonizing to Green while the system attack is up-down. the societal action theory is a bottom-up attack. Salamon ( 2000 ) opines that the importance of the societal action theory of industrial dealingss is that it weakens the fatalism of structural determinism and stresses that the single retains at least some freedom of action and ability to act upon events in the way that he/she believes to be right or desirable. Social action theoreticians emphasise the usage of interview. study and participant observation in finding the world of both society and of administrations.

3. Comparison of existing orthodoxies
The cardinal focal point of comparative analysis of these theoretical preparations of employment and industrial dealingss is to analyze the grade of differences and commonalties or similarities between and among them. The epic premise by Dunlop that the political orientation of the industrial dealingss system must be one. or compatible in malice of the fact that each histrion has its ain political orientation has been challenged by Hyman. Harmonizing to Hyman ( 1975. p. 12 ) . “if the system of industrial dealingss is so good incorporate. and if the ends and values of the histrions are so much in understanding. how is it that industrial struggle occurs at all? ” Thus. while this may be true for the unitary attack. it is non true for the societal action theory. struggle and Marxist theory.

This is so because. the unitary theory accents common values while the others emphasise differing values. involvements and aims among histrions. Therefore. this premise is specious in world even within the unitary position. The systems theory positions industrial dealingss system as being stable regulated and in a steady province or homeostatis ; once more. this place is favoured by the unitary attack which emphasises consensus and industrial peace and positions struggle as irrational. Marxist and other struggle theoreticians do non subscribe to this thought. Hyman maintains that the definition by the systems and the oxford school should be broadened to suit the beginnings every bit good

Theoretical Approaches to Employment and Industrial Relations: A Comparison of Subsisting Orthodoxies


as the effects or wakes of industrial struggle on the societal spouses. He views struggle as inevitable and rational in the industrial dealingss system. Conflict and upset can non be excluded from industrial dealingss system. All five theories differ at the degree of conceptualization of an industrial dealingss theory. the Dunlopian theoretical account and its discrepancies see the merchandise or end product of an industrial dealingss system as a web or web of regulations ( both substantive and procedural regulations ) . To the system theorists. the cardinal nucleus or focal point of an industrial dealingss system is the rule-making procedure to regulate the histrions and work community. Hyman and other Marxists see it as the survey of the procedures of control over work dealingss and among these procedures ; those affecting corporate worker administration and action are of peculiar concern.

Hyman’s position is applicable to the unitary and conflict theoreticians. The unitary theory accents unified authorization and trueness construction whilst the struggle theory emphasises competitory authorization and trueness constructions. The societal action theory contrasts with the systems attack. Whilst the systems approach opines that behavior of histrions is a map of the construction and procedures of the system. societal action arises out of the outlooks and other properties of the persons working in the system. Salamon ( 2000 ) argues that the importance of the societal action theory of industrial dealingss is that it weakens the fatalism of structural determinism and stresses that the single retains at least some freedom of action and ability to act upon events in the way that he/she believes to be right or desirable. In world. the histrions in the system are influenced by the system and in bend they influence the system. Dunlop’s histrions are establishments non individuals. The systems theoretical preparation suffers from hypostatization. This means that persons involved at the workplace and whose activities are industrial dealingss have been relegated to the background. while establishments like trade brotherhoods. corporate bargaining. employers’ collectivities and assorted province variety meats have been employed in his analysis. This Hyman finds unnatural as it creates the inclination to gestate industrial dealingss entirely in footings of relationships between bureaus and administrations. instead than between people.

To Hyman. this is a “mechanical and depersonalized attack to societal analysis. In other words. handling abstract corporate entities which are the creative activity of human activity. as the active bureaus in societal dealingss and in effect devaluating the portion played by human actors” ( Hyman. 1975. p. 13 ) . Hyman argues that the analysis of industrial dealingss should non merely concentrate on trade brotherhoods as administrations. but besides on workers and their grudges and aspirations. Hyman’s position is shared by societal action theoreticians who stress that the single retains at least some freedom of action and ability to act upon events based on their aspirations. values and ends. Hyman states that the fact that labor is treated as a trade good is one of the causes of struggles in industry. Therefore. the subjection. development. and disaffection of workers are the beginnings of workers grudges. To this consequence. workers aspire to command their ain work. instead than being capable to changeless instructions and supervising. Hyman notes that the impression of ordinance conceals the centrality of power. struggle and instability in the procedures of industrial dealingss. With regard to the declarations of struggle in work dealingss. the unitary. systems. struggle and Marxist attacks favour different methods. While the unitary favor coercion. the systems theory adopts the rule-making procedure. struggle theory favors via media and


Theoretical and Methodological Approaches to Social Sciences and Knowledge Management

understanding and Marxists favours altering the instability and inequalities in society in footings of wealth and power. Trade unionism is accepted by the systems theory. struggle theory. Marxist theory every bit good as the societal action theory. However. the unitary theory positions trade unionism as illicit invasion or invasion on direction privileges and is outlawed and suppressed. The theories have the undermentioned commonalties: All five theories recognise the importance of context. Industrial dealingss does non and can non be in a vacuity. It exists at the micro. macro and planetary degrees. The important facets of context are economic. technological. political. societal and legal kineticss of the broader society. Despite the flood of unfavorable judgments levelled against these theoretical preparations. they have been referred to as monumental parts to scholarship ( Onabanjo. 2001 ) . The five theories have sociological etymology. proposing that they derive their fountain from sociology.

All five theories recognise that three histrions or participants or societal spouses are involved in industrial dealingss in line with the construct of tripartism in industrial dealingss as proposed by the International Labour Organisation ( ILO ) . However. with the emergent multinational administrations and the influence of host communities accent is now switching to the construct of “tripartism-plus. ” None of the theories can tout of holding a comprehensive coverage of the capable country of industrial dealingss. However. we take consolation in Hyman’s remark that “in specifying the range of industrial dealingss. it is necessary to specify the topic more narrowly than the entire web of societal relationships in industry” ( Hyman. 1975. p. 31 ) .

4. Decision
The pattern of employment/industrial dealingss has benefited vastly from theoretical models of taking theoreticians in the field of industrial dealingss. It has been observed that despite the unfavorable judgments levelled against some of these theories they have stood the trial of clip and have contributed vastly to scholarship and pattern. Among these theories. there are countries of commonalties and differences as could be deduced from the comparative analysis.

Although. Dunlop in the foreword to his Industrial Relations System gave his aim as the promotion of a general theory for the scrutiny of industrial dealingss ( Fajana. 2000 ) ; this aim is yet to be achieved. Fajana ( 2000. p. 21 ) argues that “a big figure of industrial dealingss theories have been accepted into the organic structure of cognition of industrial dealingss. although each valid theory emphasises merely small facets of the field. There is yet to emerge a general theory of industrial relations” . While giving praises to Dunlop for his pioneering attempts. one may inquire ; can there be a general/ incorporate theory of industrial dealingss? This is nutrient for idea for industrial dealingss faculty members and practicians likewise.

5. Mentions
Asika. N. M. ( 1995 ) . “Theoretical Positions on the Issue of Administration” . UNILAG. Journal of Business. Vol. 1 N0. 1 pp 50-70. Bain. G. S. & A ; Clegg. H. A. ( 1974 ) . “Strategy for Industrial Relations Research in Great Britain” . British Journal of Industrial Relations. Vol. 12 N0. 1. pp. 91-113

Theoretical Approaches to Employment and Industrial Relations: A Comparison of Subsisting Orthodoxies


Blain. N. & A ; Gennard. J. ( 1970 ) . “Industrial Relations Theory: A Critical Review” British Journal of Industrial Relations Vol. Viii N0. 3 pp. 389-392. Budd. J. ( 2004 ) . Employment with a Human Face: Balancing Efficiency. Equity. and Voice. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Cooper. . D. R. & A ; Schindler. S. P. ( 2001 ) . Business Research Methods ( 7th erectile dysfunction ) . New York: McGraw- Hill Companies. Cox. R. ( 1971 ) . “Approaches to the Futurology of Industrial Relations. ” Bulletin of the Institute of Labour Studies. Vol. 8. N0. 8. pp. 139–64. Dunlop. J. T. ( 1958 ) . Industrial Relations Systems. New York: Holt ( title now owned by Cengage Learning ) Edwards. P. ( 2005 ) . ‘The Employment Relationship and the Field of Industrial Relations. ” In. Edwards. P. ( ed. ) Industrial Relations: Theory & A ; Practice. ( 2nd ed. ) . ( pp. 1–36 ) . . London: Blackwell. European Industrial Relations Observatory. ( 2002 ) . Towards a Qualitative Dialogue in Industrial Relations. Dublin: EIRO. Fajana. S. ( 2000 ) . Industrial Relations in Nigeria: Theory and Features ( 2nd ed. ) . Lagos: Labofin and Company. Farnham. D. and Pimlott. J. ( 1995 ) . Understanding Industrial Relations ( 5th ed. ) . London: Cassell Educational Ltd. Flanders. A. ( 1965 ) . Industrial Relations: What is Incorrect with the System? An Essay on Its Theory and Future. London: Farber & A ; Farber. Fox. A. ( 1966 ) . Industrial Sociology and Industrial Relations. Royal Commission Research Paper N0. 3. London: HMSO Green. G. D. ( 1994 ) . Industrial Relations Text and Case Studies ( 4th erectile dysfunction ) U. K: Pitman Publishing. Hyman. R. ( 1995 ) . “Industrial Relations in Theory and Practice. ” European Journal of Industrial Relations. Vol. 1. No. 1. pp. 17–46. Hyman. R. ( 1975 ) . Industrial Relations: A Marxist Introduction. London: Macmillan. Kaufman. B. E. ( 2010 ) . “The Theoretical Foundation of Industrial Relations and its Implications. ” Industrial and Labour Relations Review. Vol. 64. Issue1. pp. 73-108. Kelly. J. ( 1998 ) . Rethinking Industrial Relations: Mobilization. Collectivism. and Long Waves. London: Routledge. Kochan. T. ( 1998 ) . “What is Distinctive about Industrial Relations Research? ” In Whitfield. K. & A ; Strauss. G. ( explosive detection systems. ) . Researching the World of Work. ( pp. 31–50 ) . Ithaca: Cornell University Press Koontz. H ; O’ Donnell. C. & A ; Weihrich. H. ( 1980 ) . Management ( 7th erectile dysfunction ) . Japan: McGraw-Hill Luthans. F. ( 1998 ) . Organizational Behaviour ( 8thed. ) . New York: Irwin/McGraw-Hill. Ogunbameru. A. O. ( 2004 ) . Organizational Dynamics. Ibadan: Spectrum Books Ltd. Onabanjo. I. ( 2001 ) . “Globalization: Deductions for Industrial Relations” . Knowledge Review Vol. N0 1 pp. 7-13 Otobo. D. ( 2000 ) . Industrial Relations: Theory and Controversies. Lagos: Malthouse Press Ltd Rose. E. D. ( 2008 ) . Employment Relations. ( 3rd erectile dysfunction ) . London: Pearson Education Ltd. Salamon. M. ( 2000 ) . Industrial Relations Theory and Practice. ( 4th erectile dysfunction ) . London: Pearson Education Ltd.


Theoretical and Methodological Approaches to Social Sciences and Knowledge Management

Waters. D. ( 1998 ) . Essential Quantitative Methods: A Guide for Business. New York: Addison Wesley Longman Ltd. Wood. S. . Wagner. A. . Armstrong. E. .
Goodman & A ; Davis. E. ( 1975 ) . “Industrial Relations Systems as a Basis for Theory in Industrial Relations” . British Journal of Industrial Relations Vol. 13 N0 3. pp 291-308