Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management

Industrial dealing and kind mental imagery charge par and contrast the key features of the academic knowledge domains Industrial Relations and Human Resource centering (HRM) respectively.The areas of Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management put on been subjects of intense academic study since the time of their inception. Management literature is rich with varied definitions and diverse range of opinions that exist regarding the focalization and the scope of these deuce academic fields. Industrial relations focuses primarily on the regulation, control and governance of the participation relationship. (BUIRA, 2008). The field has to a greater extent of a pluralistic stance and focuses non just on the hunters and the attention but as well as on the claim and other institutions influencing the fight relationship. Human Resource Management is A distinctive approach to employment forethought which attempts to achieve warlike advantage through the strategic deplo yment of a highly structured and opened workforce using an array of cultural, structural and personnel techniques. (Storey 19955). Although origin in ally HRM was considered as one of the branches of IR, it is now recognized as a separate field of study.Many argue that HRM universe rooted just in psychology and organizational sociology has a much narrower focus in contrast to IR which is a multi-disciplinary field of study.HRM is seen as concerned with just one survey of industrial relations, that is regulation of employment relationship. It does non take into consideration the kinetics of this relationship nor does it account for the institutional and outside forces that have a find effect on this relationship. (Rubery and Grimshaw 2003, Blyton and Turnbull 2004, Rubery, Earnshaw and Marchington 2005).Rather its marriage with just the welf ar of the firm has uprise under severe criticism. The field of industrial relations is seen as be break dance em advocateed in address ing this problem.The primary objective of forgiving election focal point is to achieve viability and maximization of profits. The management seeks to establish a cost-efficient system of labour management. (Geare 1977, Osterman 1987, Godard 2001). It tries to attain competitive advantage and flexibility much(prenominal) that the management gains enough power to function autonomously. It thus seeks to promote better organizational cognitive process. Whereas the field of industrial relations is also concerned with enhancing the performance of the organization it also gives due weightage to maximizing the welfare of the employees, recognizing that labour is not a commodity but a valued asset of production. This only does not mean that HRM is not concerned with employee betterment. On the contrary it sees a direct link between organizational growth and employee welfare with the precedent leading to the latter. Hence it focuses on the former, thinking that the latter will automa tically be taken care of.Both the fields of HRM and Industrial Relations while recognizing the value of human potential to contribute to the energy of the organization, have different path managements of achieving their goal. With a single-minded goal of better organizational performance, HRM whitethorn at times neglect or may even act upon these resources. In contrast the industrial relations system recognizing the earthly concern of constituent(a) conflicts between the organizations goals and workers welfare is based upon trade union representation and corporate bargaining giving the employees a platform to voice their grievances. (BUIRA, 2008). HRM downplays these conflicts and instead focuses its prudence on recruitment, selection, training and other parameters vital to organizational success.The field of industrial relations relies heavily on the rules and procedures laid down by the state to address any issues associated with the employment relationship. HRM, on the oth er hand does not follow any said rules. Instead it focuses on the best way to use human resources through effective recruitment, selection, training, appraisal, motivation and cooperation. (Silva, ). For HRM, managing culture is more important than just modifying itself to rules and regulations. (Storey, 2001)The field of industrial relations says power is inherent in the employment relationship.(BUIRA 20083)Thus employees are usually at the receiving closedown in terms of wage differentials and inequalities prevalent in the workplace. For this reason a number of laws and regulations are in place in many countries to vitiate managerial authority. However the notion of power varies from organization to organization. HRM also recognizes the existence of this power relationship. However its suement of it is rather different. The management of work and deal in the firm involves strategic tensions including trade-offs between employer and employee interests. (Boxall and Purcell, 20 08). HRM tries to use this power in ways that enables the organization to function more effectively. The management shares knowledge which results in high level of trust and commitment among the employees. HRM has more of an individualistic preference and links rewards and pay to performance, a feature which is absent in industrial relations.HRM sees conflicts as an infrequent part of the employment relationship between the management and the workers and precisely so, because both the management and workers have the same interests. It is left to the management to provide a reasonable solution to these problems in case they rotate and this is done by providing higher wages or training which may result in employment security.HRM does not rely on mediation or any sort of third-party intervention. It is more concerned with employee commitment rather than compliance. (Marchington and Wilkinson,2008).On the other hand the field of industrial relations emphasizes on the post of collect ive bargaining and trade unions to address these conflicts. Management is not looked upon for solutions as they are seen to be biased and more concerned with curbing workers voice.HRM gives management the most dominating role, considering it to be the be all and end all of all decisions while governments and trade unions only play a curb role. It is the management that is solely seen as being responsible for organization efficiency or inefficiency. Whereas, industrial relations sees the management, government and trade unions as being equal partners in shaping the direction of the firm. Thus, it just does not restrict itself to workers and management but all those who are affected by the employment relationship.The academic field of industrial relations encourages students to think out of the knock and to engage in critical and reflective thinking. (BUIRA, 2008). The complexities involved in the employment relationship and the factors outside the workplace shaping this are looked at, to form an tidy and well-informed decision to tackle with irregularities in the workplace. The issues of ethnicity, gender inequality, power are all taken into account which are issues not generally include in the HRM domain. The field of industrial relations inculcates a sense of motion into the student to question and seek answers to those questions.Although the fields of industrial relations and human resource management have differing interests, there are many areas where their interests coincide. finally both the fields are concerned with achieving organizational efficiency and we should seek to attain a symbiotic relationship between the two with the two completing rather than competing with each other. The debate surrounding the field of industrial relations that it is now outdated and that the problems of human factor at work are better addressed by novel new approaches such as Human Resource Management is redundant. (Colling and Terry, 2010). The collectivistic natu re of the field of industrial relations should supplement the individualistic outlook of HRM. It is essential to treat the employment relationship as complex and study it within a particular social context. A thorough understanding of both would urge a better understanding of the theoretical and practical problems that underpin relationships at workplace. (Marchington and Wilkinson, 2008)