Introduction
This paper will be focused on the development of a beneficial employee relationship (ER) strategy that can be used by Boeing, an extended organisation that is located in the US but cooperates with foreign companies. The necessity of its creation occurred because the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) approached the National Labour Relations Board (NLRB) with the request to unionise the firm’s workers. It targeted at almost 2500 employees who are working at the South Carolina plant, which deals with the production of the design parts for the new airliner.
This plant has a history of labour unrest, which is a problem for the organisation because such complications can affect its performance adversely. In this situation, Boeing will not be able to prepare 1095 high-quality items of 787 Dreamliner. As a result, it can lose the loyalty of 60 customers and face a substantial loss of profit. Fortunately, in the current situation, IAM refused to vote for the unionisation. However, there is a high possibility that the petition will be repeated and this time it will be accepted. To prevent the appearance of further complications and organise the factory, unitarist and pluralist ER strategies for the South Carolina plant should be developed in advance. Then, they can be assessed decently and implemented with no delays to avoid possible issues.
Alternative ER Strategies
Relations with employees and unions are critical for all organisations because they provide an opportunity to maintain operations effectively and efficiently and to determine what alterations are needed for improvement. Preparing ER strategies, Boeing can receive a guideline for its South Carolina plan that defines the peculiarities of employee cooperation and aligns with the business strategy (Leat, 2001).
In the framework of unitarist perspective, the organisation should include in its strategy several vital elements that would form it. Thus, Boeing’s South Carolina plant should have only one source of authority. It should be separate management with no other possible leaders. All decisions should be made by the management should promote loyalty and commitment among the employees.
The plant should be seen as an entity, which unites not separate individuals but teams of workers who cooperate to reach common aims. In this way, the management must have no conflicts of interest with the personnel, which can prevent the plant from achieving mutual goals. Thus, the leader and one’s followers are to cooperate to achieve common objectives. Here, strong leadership is critical, as it determines the way people work and affects the outcomes.
Thus, ER strategy in the unitarist perspective should be focused on turning Boeing’s South Carolina plant into one entity that consists of working teams that cooperate efficiently and effectively, being controlled by a single leader who promotes employee loyalty and commitment, to meet mutual organisational goals.
The pluralist ideas differ greatly from the unitarist ones, which makes these two approaches opposite to each other. According to them, an organisation is a place, which gathers people with different beliefs and values. They are always diverse regardless of the similarities (Schmidt, 2009). The power in the organisation does not belong to one particular person, and several leaders can exist. Pluralism allows coexistence of competing interests, which often leads to conflicts that are still not treated as something critical and extremely adverse. On the contrary, they are perceived as a helpful tool that can be used to guide the company and its responses.
The management is treated not as an only leader but as a mediate that helps to find a compromise when some issues occur. Moreover, in the framework of pluralist perspective, employees’ decision-making power is underlined, which defines them as individuals capable to affect the organisation. The public interest is also promoted. Thus, the management considers the opinion of the staff when deciding to implement some change.
Finally, it should be stated that negotiations play a critical role in the establishment of a stable environment in the organisation and stable positive performance. Managers and employees interact much and share their ideas, which provides an opportunity to balance all procedures and make them appropriate for everyone.
Thus, ER strategy in the pluralist perspective should be focused on turning Boeing’s South Carolina plant into a unity, which gathers the diverse population of workers who have their own beliefs and ideas but cooperate to reach the mutual goal, being led by managers but also having personal decision-making power and emphasizing negotiations as the source of understanding, stability and development.
Relationships with Employees and Unions
For now, Boeing needs to consider both relations with employees and unions, as its South Carolina plant is still represented by the members of the staff while the majority of other facilities deal with AIM. The main difference is in power. While ordinary employees are not able to affect the peculiarities of the job, those who are a part of the union sign a contract where everything is mentioned.
Thus, the organisation is free to decide whether it is willing to control its employees and their actions or to encourage them to be committed to the organisational objectives and goals. At the same time, it should decide whether to “avoid, accommodate, or partner” with the unions (Bamber, Gittell, Kochan, & Nordenflycht, 2009, p. 11).
If nothing changes for Boeing, may try utilising control approach. The managers of its South Carolina plant can make all detections themselves and then just let the employees know what they should do, demanding obedience. Here, the hierarchy of job positions is stable and tough. The personnel are responsible only for coming to the plant on time and maintaining their duties on a high level. Such an approach may be beneficial for Boeing, as it will be sure that the workers do those things that are expected from them. However, the labour unrest may be faced again, if they turn out to be dissatisfied with the situation. In such a case, strikes seem to be the most common way out.
When referring to the commitment approach, the managers will not give the orders but try to explain why particular actions are required and encourage the workers to undertake them. It looks much like an agreement, according to which the company promises to take care of the workers, while they are committed to it and its ideas. In this way, Boeing can refer to cross-functional teams and may make the range of duties more flexible, as well as scheduling, etc. The employees tend to appreciate such an approach, as it involves them more and does not focus on the demands.
Considering unions, the organisation can try to prevent their creation when suppressing their creation through the revealed resistance and aggressive actions or when substituting them by such improvements as increased wages so that there will be no need to gather. However, such prevention of union creation is considered to be a great deterrent to the company caused by its management (Kleiner, 2001). The act of substitution may appeal to the workers, but it is not likely to be undertaken, as it opposes Boeing’s business strategy.
Currently, Boeing operates based on the low-cost carrier (LCC) business model. In its framework, the organisation is willing to reduce airline costs with the help of cost-saving practices (Boeing, 2016b). Thus, it has low labour costs, which can cause employee dissatisfaction. Even though under the influence of the current alterations in the industry, some exceptions to the strategy may be found, Boeing tends to follow it. Thus, it would be better if a new ER strategy does not entail any changes regarding these aspects and will not try to unite the personnel, approaching them with compensation packages, etc.
The company can accept the existence of unions, which means to accommodate the unionisation of the South Carolina plant and its entrance to IAM. In this way, routine actions will be maintained, but Boeing will not be likely to support negotiations and give the workers more power. Such an approach is decent, as it does not trigger the development of new issues. Still, it also fails to provide many benefits. It is just an artificially created atmosphere of efficient cooperation.
Finally, an organisation can be a partner with the union. Being involved in continuous communication, Boeing will allow the members of the IAM to be involved in the decision-making, and they will resolve issues through negotiation. They will follow a contract, which allows IAM to be a consultant for the plant. In this way, the workers will have more power and the hierarchy will not be so oppressive. The union will be satisfied and will not be likely to trigger labour unrest. Moreover, “the employer who is willing to give employees what they want and need are far more likely to have success, but more importantly, the organisations will be doing the right thing” (Karnes, 2009, p. 189).
Recommendation
Today, many professionals tend to mention that the organisations in the US and all over the world prefer to work with separate employees but not with the unions, such as IAM (Logan, 2006). They consider that the workers are not efficient enough to make vital decisions that can affect the performance of the organisation. Still, collective bargaining and efficient negotiation are critical for the firms, as they ensure the possibility of successful development (Kochan, 2012). In this way, unions are likely to take the leading role, as cooperation between employers and employees is in its core.
As Boeing is willing to see its employees working together as one unit, it is likely to unionise the personnel of the South Carolina plant to become stronger. Moreover, the company encourages its workers to share basic values and take personal responsibility for the actions conducted, value people’s lives and their well-being and underlines both personal and collective characteristics (Boeing, 2016a). However, it is critical to remember that the union is not a compulsory thing that should be always present. Moreover, its presence does not ensure that the ER will improve, and no conflicts will occur. In this way, it is critical to select the appropriate ER strategy.
When trying to define what ER strategy should be utilised by Boeing when the workers from its South Carolina plant become a part of IAM, it should be taken into consideration that the US is a country that highly values individuality (Weaver, 2001). Even when emphasising the importance of the teamwork, Americans tend to perceive it as efficient cooperation of several employees who adjust to each other’s needs and share common values but still are separate individuals. Moreover, diversity at the workplace started to play an enormous role for the companies.
People are encouraged to be different, as in this way they can bring more benefit to the organisations, especially when considering innovations and problem-solving. Different background and opinions provide a basis for development, which is likely to improve performance. The thing is that diverse employees are to be able to interact while working without any misunderstandings and other issues (Chang, 2006).
Moreover, it is critical to make the ER strategy based on the vision of the organisation and values that are underlined by it. In this way, it seems that the company should refer to the pluralism ideas, as it is mentioned that the workers “are personally accountable for our safety and collectively responsible for each other’s safety” (Boeing, 2016a, para. 3). Moreover, the idea of worker’s power is discussed in the pluralist perspective: “openness and inclusion in which everyone is treated fairly and where everyone has an opportunity to contribute” (Boeing, 2016a, para. 3).
Ross & Bamber (2009) state that a lot of organisations start “shifting ER further toward direct individualised relations between employers and their employees” and find such approach to be rather beneficial for the company’s stability and enhanced performance (p. 28). Labour unrest has an adverse influence on the company’s performance that is why Boeing should do its best to encourage the workers to cooperate and share its views and ideas (Kleiner, Leonard, & Pilarski, 2002).
Even if Boeing does not provide its workers with additional benefits such as increased wages, it still has an opportunity to adapt organisational environment so that the employees become satisfied. Having more power and tightly cooperating with the management team, the members of the staff will work as one team regardless of them being representatives of the diverse population.
They can share their beliefs and ideas to solve organisational issues, reach mutual goals, and innovate. In this way, the implementation of the pluralist ER strategy and acting as partners with IAM will allow Boeing and its South Carolina plant to reach stability, prevent labour unrest and promote development.
Advantages and Disadvantages of the Options
ER strategy made based on the unitarist ideas can have a range of advantages to Boeing and its plant located in South Carolina. First of all, it should be mentioned that it presupposes the integration of employer and employee interests. In this way, the workers have more opportunities to develop shared values, which will help them to improve commitment and loyalty.
The members of the staff are likely to become important stakeholders of Boeing so that the company will pay more attention to their needs and will do its best to provide them with everything needed. The unitarist ER strategy underlines the value of the management also. It encourages going beyond one’s leadership styles and emphasises the necessity of being convincing and influential. Moreover, it is considered that all stakeholders, including the employees, will do their best to find shared values and common interests (Ross & Bamber, 2009). Such a step can help the company to implement a stable ER system.
Still, the unitarist ER strategy also has its negative sides. The most critical thing is that the leader and the workers are on different levels. Their powers are so diverse that different conflicts can be generated even in the framework of simple tasks and decisions (Guest, & Peccei, 2001). In this way, while the management has a right and a possibility to implement alterations in the organisation, schedule the work, etc.
At the same time, the workers are only able to accept the decision that was already made without their interference. As a result, the misbalance in powers can turn in a source of constantly occurring problems that will affect the performance of the plant and increase employee turnover. Except for that, unitarism has an extremely negative view of any conflicts. They all are considered to be a failure that cannot allow the organisation to reach adequate procedures while it can also be treated as a chance to find out what changes are required for improvement and how to reach the working harmony.
In the framework of the unitarist ER strategy, personal interests of every employee should be shared across the company. Even though such an event is likely to be beneficial because it cares about each worker, such alteration can be hardly reached. Generally, people have different views and interests. When working together, they try to focus on the organisational values and to believe in them. However, the range of organisational values is rather limited, and it is not focused on personal attributes while the unitary perspective tends to make one person absorb all characteristics of others (Edwards, 2003).
The unitarist perspective opposes any conflicts. On the one hand, it may be considered to be an advantage because teamwork requires efficient cooperation and harmony. Still, some conflicts may be helpful and their prohibition turns out to be an issue for the company. For example, when the conflict occurs when dividing the tasks, it can have a positive influence on the overall performance.
The members of the team will make sure that they are prepared to cope with the obtained tasks and can accomplish them decently. Moreover, according to the unitarist ideas the workers will be treated as significant stakeholders of Boeing. Of course, they are likely to consider such alteration as an advantage. However, it fails to align with the business strategy of the organisation, in the framework of which, the members of the staff are valued but perceived as a source of the opportunity to reduce expenditures. Thus, Boeing is not likely to undertake this ER strategy.
Except for the positive treatment of conflicts as an alternative decision-making process, pluralist theory presupposes a wider range of ER policies and motivate organisations to cooperate with the unions (Bacon & Blyton, 2007).
It allows the employees to realise that they are the vital element of the organisation, which encourages them to align personal interests with the company’s goals. Pluralism spreads diversity to the workforce and makes the employees more innovative and creative. It encourages teamwork and interaction with the management, which assists in the creation of a positive working environment, which has no labour issues (Badigannavar & Kelly, 2005).
Still, pluralism cannot be adapted to the different workplace conditions and pay little attention to commercial interests, which is not likely to appeal to Boeing (Gennard & Judge, 2002). Of course, worker interest is valuable but the organisation requires decent income to remain competitive. However, the focus on clients and possibility to find a common language between the workers and the management team is likely to ensure that the ER based on the pluralist theory can help to resolve the most critical current issues faced by Boeing and its plant.
Conclusion
Thus, it can be concluded that Boeing must consider main ER strategies for the South Carolina plant, including unitarist and pluralist ones. Still, when thinking of the most beneficial strategy that aligns with the company’s business strategy and its values, the pluralist theory seems to be more appropriate. It is likely to allow the person to feel valued and respected. As the relationship with the management improve and the workers receive more power, they tend to be more motivated to work and enhance performance so that labour unrest will not be faced.
The diverse staff population will work in teams to deal with the occurred issues referring to innovative ideas, which will appeal to the customers. People will be working as a unity, which encourages to share different beliefs and ideas. Being led by managers through negotiation and supported by them, the workers will understand why they are working in a particular way and what should be done further. As a result, the company will regain its stability and streamline development.
References
Bacon, N., & Blyton, P. (2007). Conflict for Mutual Gains? Journal of Management Studies, 44(5), 814-834.
Badigannavar, V., & Kelly, J. (2005). Labour-management partnership in the non-union retail sector. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(8), 1529-1544.
Bamber, G., Gittell, J., Kochan, T., & Nordenflycht, A. (2009). Up in the air: How airlines can improve their performance by engaging their employees. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
Boeing. (2016a). A foundation of innovation.
Boeing. (2016b). Airline strategies and business models.
Chang, L. (2006). Differences in business negotiations between different cultures. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, 1(1), 135-140.
Edwards, P. (2003). Industrial relations: theory and practice. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Gennard, J., & Judge, G. (2002). Employee relations. London, UK: Institute of Personnel and Development.
Guest, D.E., & Peccei, R. (2001). Partnership at work: Mutuality and the balance of advantage. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 39(2), 207-236.
Karnes, R. (2009). A change in business ethics: The impact on employer–employee relations. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(2), 189-197.
Kleiner, M. (2001). Intensity of management resistance: understanding the decline of unionization in the private sector. Journal of Labor Research, 3(22), 519-540.
Kleiner, M., Leonard, J., & Pilarski, A. (2002). How industrial relations affects plant performance: The case of commercial aircraft manufacturing. Industrial and Labor Relations Journal, 55(2), 195-218.
Kochan, T. (2012). Collective bargaining: crisis and its consequences for American society. Industrial Relations Journal, 43(4), 302-316.
Leat, M. (2001). Exploring employee relations. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Logan, J. (2006). The union avoidance industry in the United States. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 99(4), 651-675.
Ross, P., & Bamber, G. (2009). Strategic choices in pluralist and unitarist employment relations regimes: a study of Australian telecommunications. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 63(1), 24-41.
Schmidt, S.W. (2009). Employee demographics and job training satisfaction: the relationship between dimensions of diversity and satisfaction with job training. Human Resource Development International, 12(3), 297-312.
Weaver, G. (2001). American cultural values.