The industrial relations scenario has been perceived differently by different practitioners and theorists. Some have viewed it in terns of class conflict; some have viewed it in terms of mutuality of interest of different groups; some have viewed it as a consequence of interaction of various factors both within an organization and outside it. Based on these orientations, several approaches to industrial relations have been developed.
One researcher has stated industrial relations in his research report as, “An economist tries to interpret industrial conflict in terms of impersonal markets forces and laws of supply demand. To a politician, industrial conflict is a war of different ideologies — perhaps a class-war. To a psychologist, industrial conflict means the conflicting interests, aspirations, goals, motives and perceptions of different groups of individuals, operating within and reacting to a given socio-economic and political environment”.
Most important approaches to industrial relations are discussed as follows:
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 politicized 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 labor. It is also characterized 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 labor is determined by a confrontation between conflicting interests. The capitalist ownership of the enterprise endeavors to purchase labor at the lowest possible price in order to maximize their profits. The lower the price paid by the owner of the means of production for the labor 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 labor. 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.
The Pluralist Approach
Pluralism is a major theory in labor-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 industrialize 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 labor 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 labor, 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.
Weber’s Social Action Approach
The social action approach of Max Weber has laid considerable importance to the question of control in the context of increasing rationalization 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.
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 labor-management relations. But there was reaction against the excessive claims of this school of thought in the sixties. Some of its views were criticized 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, acceptance of workplace as a social system, group dynamics, and participation in management.
The Gandhian Approach
Gandhiji can be called one of the greatest labor leaders of modern India. His approach to labor 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, labor indiscipline, workers participation in management, conditions of work and living, and duties of workers. The Ahmedabad Textile Labor 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 recognizing each individual worker as a human being. He believed in non-violent 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 armory 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 labor 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 realized that relations between labor 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 labor, 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.
According to psychologists, problems of industrial relations have their origin in the perceptions of the management, unions and rank and file workers. These perceptions may be the perceptions of persons, of situations or of issues involved in the conflict. The perceptions of situations and issues differ because the same position may appear entirely different to different parties. The perceptions of unions and of the management of the same issues may be widely different and, hence, clashes and may arise between the two parties. Other factors also influence perception and may bring about clashes. The reasons of strained industrial relations between the employers and the employees can be understood by studying differences in the perception of issues, situations and persons between the management groups and labor groups. The organizational behavior of inter-groups of management and workers is of crucial importance in the pattern of industrial relations. The group-dynamics between the two conflicting groups in industrial relations tend to shape the behavioral pattern.
Industry is a social world in miniature. The management goals, workers’ attitudes, perception of change in industry, are all, in turn, decided by broad social factors like the culture of the institutions, customs, structural changes, status-symbols, rationality, acceptance or resistance to change, tolerance etc. Industry is, thus inseparable from the society in which it functions. Through the main function of an industry is economic, its social consequences are also important such as urbanization, social mobility, housing and transport problem in industrial areas, disintegration of family structure, stress and strain, etc. As industries develop, a new industrial-cum-social pattern emerges, which provides general new relationships, institutions and behavioral pattern and new techniques of handling human resources. These do influence the development of industrial relations.
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 HRM are: (i) human resource organisation; (ii) human resource planning; (iii) human resource systems; (iv) human resource development; (v) human resource relationships; (vi) human resource utilization; (vii) human resource accounting; and (viii) human resource audit. This approach emphasizes individualism and the direct relationship between management and its employees. Quite clearly, therefore, it questions the collective regulation basis of traditional industrial relations.