In brief: A conciliatory approach to union engagement relies on collaboration, mutual respect and open communication, building trust, lowering turnover and preventing costly disputes. A combative approach uses firm positions, rigorous negotiation tactics or lock-outs to assert management authority, but can raise tension, polarise the workforce and reduce morale. The right stance depends on industry, culture, economics and union position, and a balanced approach drawing on both is likely to be most effective.
In the often intricate landscape of employee relations, the approach towards unions and the workforce holds significant sway over organisational climate and productivity.
The debate between adopting a conciliatory or combative stance is central to shaping these relationships.
A conciliatory approach, characterised by collaboration, mutual respect, and open communication, seeks to build trust and foster a positive working environment. By addressing grievances and negotiating in good faith, organisations can encourage dialogue and cooperation, leading to innovative solutions beneficial to both employer and employees (Kochan, Katz & McKersie, 1986). This method often results in lower turnover rates, increased job satisfaction, and enhanced productivity, while preventing costly disputes and strikes, thus ensuring business continuity (Budd, 2004).
Conversely, a combative approach, marked by rigorous negotiation tactics and a firm stance on organisational policies or even lock outs, can assert management's authority and maintain control over operational decisions. However, this method may also lead to increased tension and conflict, resulting in a polarised workforce where distrust and dissatisfaction prevail (Lewin, 2001). Such an environment can hinder communication, reduce morale, and ultimately impact organisational performance in the short or long term.
Determining the appropriate approach necessitates considering the specific context and dynamics of the organisation. Factors such as industry, organisational culture, being subject to improper claims or adverse actions, economics, the need to improve workplace flexibility or radically remove costs to compete or survive, an aggressive union stance, and workforce nature should guide this decision. While a conciliatory approach generally promotes a more sustainable and positive relationship, there may be situations where a firm stance is necessary to protect the organisation's interests (Sisson & Marginson, 2002).
Ultimately, a balanced approach incorporating elements of both strategies may prove most effective. By being flexible and adaptable, organisations can navigate the complexities of employee relations, ensuring a productive and harmonious workplace while safeguarding their strategic objectives. An effective HR function can professionally guide the company in the right approach knowing the views of leaders, unions, employees, legal frameworks and even public perception.
Linq HR provides fractional employee relations support to Australian employers and operates Workforce Directory, Australia’s HR services marketplace. Ph 1300 234 566.
Further reading:Supported Bargaining: What Employers Should Be Doing Now and Why Employers Should Negotiate Enterprise Agreements Early.
References
Budd, J. W. (2004). Employment with a Human Face: Balancing Efficiency, Equity, and Voice. Cornell University Press.
Kochan, T. A., Katz, H. C., & McKersie, R. B. (1986). The Transformation of American Industrial Relations. Basic Books.
Lewin, D. (2001). IR and HR Perspectives on Workplace Conflict: What Can Each Learn from the Other? Human Resource Management Review, 11(4), 453-485.
Sisson, K., & Marginson, P. (2002). Co-ordinated Bargaining: A Process for Our Times? British Journal of Industrial Relations, 40(2), 197-220.
