Relations in Small and Medium Enterprises

Relations in Small and Medium Enterprises Employee Relations in Small and Medium Enterprises A Non-union Approach Introduction The term SME or small and medium business enterprise is often used to describe a business enterprise that has anywhere between 10 to 15 employees for a small business whereas anything under 250 would be a medium enterprise. However, the number of employees is not the only classification that is used, and can be as diverse as turnover, industry, or business structure. According to a survey carried out by the Department for Business, Innovation Skills (BIS) in 2004, the UK had 1.16 million private sector firms with fewer than 250 employees, representing 94 per cent of all employers in the UK economy.1 These SMEs employed a total of 8.66 million employees (36 per cent of all employees in the UK) and they accounted for 47 per cent of private sector employers turnover. This suggests the apparent importance of these enterprises. The other important aspect of SMEs is their ability to be innovative, and adaptive to the constantly changing market environment, creating employment opportunities in the economy, and contributing to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). SMEs vary in size depending on the industry, and skills. A biotechnology firm is likely to have fewer highly skilled employees where as a cleaning services firm will have more unskilled workers. Nonetheless, the fact that a significant fraction of the working population is employed by an SME, it is necessary to understand how these enterprises are managed, and how human resources policies regarding recruitment, training, performance evaluation, and day to day employee relations are adopted and practiced. Management and employment relations in an SME A typical structure of an SME is largely business, product or process orientated, with little specialist involvement in areas outside the remit of the business, human resources for instance. Managers have little expertise or qualifications to conduct personnel management task, most managers tend to rely on their past experience in managing relationships. This is interesting because it provides a unique opportunity to study management issues and strategies that can be anywhere from non-existent in a small firm to informal and semi-formal in a medium firm. Tradition management styles that have been identified in Fox (1974) and Purcell and Sisson (1983), relate to management perspectives with regards to employee relations in an industrial setup. The classifications were based on the type of views held by both management and employees, where both could be either unitary or pluralist. Marchington and Parker (1990) point out that these differences were in relation to how management viewed unions and their involvement on issues like employee participation and conflict resolution. These assertions are applicable in a large complex organisation but may not necessarily be true in a small setup where human resources and employee relations may be absent altogether. Goss (1991) found that management styles at small firms were likely to be characterised by how the owner-manager experience relative disposition of power, and identified four types of management control Fraternalism, Paternalism, Benevolent Autocracy, and Sweating . The distinction was based on how much independence employees enjoyed for every degree of dependence the employer possessed. A host of studies conducted in the UK (WERS, 2004), Europe (EIRO, 2006), and Canada (CFIB, 2004) give an idea of what management practices are adopted in the SME sector generally and how working hours, training, remuneration, and employee representation are handled. A key observation found synonymous in all the studies was that employee representation, although significant, was conducted in informal settings through individual contracts and concepts of collective bargaining and unionisation were largely absent in smaller firms but rose with firm size. And where a non-union employee structure is prevalent, it is difficult to compare or comment on the effectiveness of such a structure, as all previous studies go only as far as determining the type of employee participation practiced but do not assess their quality of impact. Non-union employee participation According to Guest (2001), a non-union workplace lacks formal human resources or industrial relations departments which interface between management and employees. Dundon et al., (2005) describe a non-union workplace where the importance of union is not recognised in determining employee issues such as pay and work conditions, as opposed to whether or not employees are members of any union. They also point out the reasons, incentives, and motivation for managers for choosing a non-unionised interaction with the workforce. Guest and Hoque (1994) went on to classify the various non-union employer types, differentiating them on the basis of a range of human resources attributes. They banded employers as either good, bad, or ugly depending on these attributes. Although some counter arguments to this classification were on the grounds of methodology selected and if it collected information on employee views on their employers, and the lack of motivation and incentive, if any, from the emp loyees in preferring to be non-union (Dundon, et al., 2005). Although type of employee participation and representation is seen as an important part of the relationship between management and employees, it is interesting to understand how these become part of the culture. Freeman and Medoff (1984) describe employee representation, or employee voice, as having both consensual and conflictual connotation, and showed how participation could impact quality and productivity, whilst on the other it could help resolve disputes. Managers in a relatively small workplace are likely to view non-union participation more favourably because they may not have experience of dealing with unions and may feel more comfortable dealing with issues locally and informally. As the workforce becomes larger and larger, the advantages of a non-union representation diminish and firms tend to seek a formal approach to interaction as seen in larger firms. Ackers et al., (2004) suggest that direct communication with the employees is also one of the most significant concept of a non-union employee representation, adding that managers would be more willing to share information relating to the business, work arrangements, staffing and job prospects directly with employees. Collective bargaining, remuneration, and workplace relations The concept of collective bargaining is more or less relevant to a union based employee representation, where the propositions are deemed to be in the best interest of the entire workforce as opposed to a single employee or groups. Since the relationships between management (owners, managers) and employees are less formal, such discussions can take place individually and would reflect the firms position vis-Ã  -vis a particular employee. On the other hand, managers responsible for personnel matters may be involved in other tasks and is likely to spend more time on such tasks than those in similar positions in larger firms. Wage determinations and remuneration discussions are similarly done, and could be either set unilaterally by the management or negotiated on an individual basis. Therefore it would be common to assume a variable pay structure either by merit or performance, and the likelihood to profit-sharing. Pay reviews could be less regular in such a setup and may often requir e to be initiated by employees. Recruitment, training, and personal development The recruitment process at small firm may be less formal or rigorous compared to large organisations because of the level of expertise and sophistication available within the firm. A lengthy recruitment process can be costly, and can be counter productive to the immediate requirements of the business; hence employers may be willing to make quick decisions on the basis of the incumbents skills alone. WERS (2004) suggest that training and development opportunities were dependant on firm size, the larger the firm the more likely they were to offer on or off-the-job training. This can be true for two reasons, firstly cost implications, and second, the option to hire an already trained worker. In a non-union workplace this can be both beneficial and disadvantageous at the same time, since over-simplification could get the job done but may not necessarily represent the best interests of employees. Conflict resolution Irrespective of the size of the firm, grievances can arise and depending on the relationship an employee involved has with their manager, it could be dealt with informally in the first instance, and small and medium firms would adopt such a process not because they may not have a formal grievances and conflict resolution procedures as seen in large firms. Majority of employers have such procedures for regulatory purposes, but how effectively these are used varies from firm to firm. Since SMEs are not labour intensive collective disputes are unlikely to emerge requiring collective resolution through means of a union representation. This can be viewed as an incentive for managers to have a non-unionised employee representation to avoid the hassles of dealing with the union when a dispute arises (Dundon, et al., 2005). Employee attitudes The WERS (2004) survey reveals that managers in SMEs were more likely to involve employees in workplace related decision making processes and employee influence was greater in small firms than larger ones. Guest and Hoque (1994) suggest that employees that feel better appreciated were more likely so see their employer as good non-union employers and may be even motivated to discourage a unionised workforce which would tend to reduce their influence on management decisions. The employees perception of workplace and management being the same, changes as firm size increases. This is significant enough incentive for managers to cultivate a non-unionised workplace. To this extent there is a big difference between employees expectations for collective representation and employers willingness to subscribe to one. On the whole, the management is in a position to decide what type of representation they would like, and what mechanisms to utilize. Conclusion Small and medium-sized firms are vital for the growth of the economy, and play a significant role in providing employment to the population. The size and nature of products and services offered by these firms varies distinctly, and so does their management and employment practices. Size of the workforce does influence the type of management style that will be adopted, but it also depends on managers (owners) past experience and their perception of how work should be managed based on a set of beliefs. Small businesses have been seen to be less formal and tend to follow a close contact with their employees, and do not conform to hierarchal structures of management that are predominant in large organizations. These structures of relationships tend to get more formal as the firm size increases. Employees, on the other hand, find little or no difference between their workplace and management, an important distinction observed in larger firms which clearly distinguish between the firm and the management. Although employee relations in small and medium sized firms tend to be more informal they can be inflexible to changes in the workplace. Managers may lack the necessary experience and expertise in issues like performance appraisals and dispute resolution; they tend to rely on their experience and prefer to engage the employees directly. Issues of pay determinations and other forms of compensation are set out by managers but it allows employees to engage with management over discussions, without the necessary involvement of collective employee representations like unions. The dialogue is less formal and gives the management opportunity to consider personal circumstances of employees. Similarly conflict resolution and grievances are accorded an informal process, whereas any disciplinary action resulting from such discussions may be formal and follow a traditional approach. And because managers prefer to have a less formal involvement of employees the concept of non-uni onized representation is favoured as management sees more flexibility in running the business and find to have less control when a collective representation is sought. Formality in relationships increases with firm size when management wants to have more distance between owners and employees in order to maintain a consistent level of control through decentralization. The degree of formality exercised may vary within the firm itself, for instance management may adopt a more formal approach to employee training and development, but at the same time conduct performance appraisals informally. In regards to SMEs the nature of employment relations is not always straightforward and management practices, which may appear simple and unsophisticated, are influenced by a variety of factors and have evolved as a response to a particular need as the industry and business requirements, or regulations, evolved over time. References Ackers, P., Marchington, M., Wilkinson, A. and Dundon, T. (2004), The management of voice in non-union organisations: managers perspectives, Employee Relations Vol. 27 No. 3, 2005 pp. 307-319 Atkinson, J. and Meager, N. (1994) Running to stand still: the small firm in the labour market, in J. Atkinson and D. Storey (eds.) Employment, the Small Firm and the Labour Market, London: Routledge. Bacon, N. and Hoque, K. (2005) HRM in the SME sector: valuable employees and coercive networks, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16, 11: 1679-99. Benson, J. (2000), Employee voice in union and non-union Australian workplaces, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 453-9. Beresford, R. (2003) Trade unions and small firms, Federation News, 53, 2. Blackburn, R. (2005) Researching the employment relationship in small firms: what are the contributions from the employment relations and small business literatures?, in S. Blyton, P. and Turnbull, P. (2004), The Dynamics of Employee Relations, 3rd ed., Macmillan, London. Bolton Report (1971) Report of the Committee of Inquiry on Small Firms, Chaired by J. E. Bolton, Cmnd. 4811, London: HMSO. Bryson, A. (1999) The impact of employee involvement on small firms financial performance, National Institute Economic Review, 169: 78-95. Bryson, A. and Millward, N. (1997) Employee Involvement in Small Firms: A Review of the Literature, London: Policy Studies Institute. Carroll, M., Marchington, M., and Earnshaw, J. (1999) Recruitment in small firms: Processes, methods and problems, Employee Relations, 21, 3: 236-50. Chaplin, J., Mangla, J., Purdon, S., and Airey, C. (2005) The Workplace Employment Relations Survey 2004 (WERS 2004) Technical Report (Cross-Section and Panel Surveys), London: National Centre for Social Research. Charlwood, A. (2003), Willingness to unionize amongst non-union workers, in Gospel, H. and Wood, S. (Eds), Representing Workers, Trade Union Recognition and Membership in Britain, Routledge, London. Cosh, A. and Hughes, A. (2003a) The British SME sector 1991-2002, in A. Cosh and A. Hughes (eds.) Enterprise Challenged: Policy and Performance in the British SME Sector 1999- 2002, Cambridge: Cambridge University Centre for Business Research Cox, A. (2005) Managing variable pay systems in smaller workplaces, in S. Marlow, D. Patton and M. Ram (eds.) Managing Labour in Small Firms, London: Routledge. Cully, M., Woodland, S., OReilly, A. and Dix, G. (1999) Britain at Work: As Depicted by the 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey, London: Routledge. Dundon, T. (2002), Employer opposition and union avoidance in the UK, Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 234-45. Dundon, T. and Rollinson, D. (2004), Employment Relations in Non-union Firms, Routledge, London. Dundon, T., Grugulis, I. and Wilkinson, A. (1999) Looking out of the black hole: nonunion relations in an SME, Employee Relations, 21, 3: 251-66. Dundon, T., Wilkinson, A., Marchington, M. and Ackers, P. (2004), The meanings and purpose of employee voice, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 1150-71. Forth, J., Bewley, H., Bryson, A. (2004), Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Findings from the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey, Routledge, London Freeman, R. and Medoff, J. (1984), What Do Unions Do?, Basic Books, New York, NY. Gall, G. (2004), British employer resistance to trade union recognition, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 36-53. Goss, D. (1991), Small Business and Society, Routledge, UK Guest, D. (2001), Industrial relations and human resource management, in Storey, J. (Ed.), HRM: A Critical Text, Thompson Learning, London. Guest, D. and Hoque, K. (1994), The good, the bad and the ugly: employment relations in new non-union workplaces, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-14. Lavoie, A. (2004) Work-life balance and SMEs: Avoiding the one-size-fits-all trap, CFIB Research: 10-12 Lewin, D. and Mitchell, D. (1992), Systems of employee voice: theoretical and empirical perspectives, California Management Review, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 95-111. Marchington, M. (2005), Employee involvement: patterns and explanations, in Harley, B., Hyman, J. and Thompson, P. (Eds), Participation and Democracy at Work: Essays in Honour of Harvie Ramsay, Palgrave, London. Marchington, M., Goodman, J., Wilkinson, A. and Ackers, P. (1992), New Developments in Employee Involvement, Employment Department Research Series, Paper No. 2, HMSO, London. Marchington, M., Wilkinson, A., Ackers, P. and Dundon, T. (2001), Management Choice and Employee Voice, CIPD Publishing, London. Pfeffer, J. (1998), The Human Equation, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Ramsay, H. (1977), Cycles of control: workers participation in sociological and historical perspective, Sociology, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 481-506. Rose, E. (2008) Employment Relations, 3rd ed., Pearson Education Limited, UK: 58-95, 273-331, 334-420.

The Consensus Perspective Essay -- Crime

Criminologists have long tried to fight crime and they have developed many theories along the way as tools to help them understand criminals. In the process of doing so, criminologist have realized that in order to really understand why criminals are criminals, they had to first understand the interrelationship between the law and society. A clear and thorough understanding of how they relatively connect with criminal behavior is necessary. Therefore, they then created three analytical perspectives which would help them tie the dots between social order and law, the consensus, the pluralist and the conflict perspectives. Each provides a significantly different view of society as relative to the law. However, while they all aim to the same exact purpose which is to help us understand crimes from a social viewpoint, the consensus perspective is more effective as it presents a more radical and logical view of how society interacts with the law. For instance, the consensus view focuses m ore on norms, unification, and equality. At the same time, it questions individuals ‘self-control as causes of crime. As Michalowski described it, most members of a society believe in the existence of core values (Schmalleger, 2012). The consensus view is about nothing but values, the different that are commonly known as right and wrong. The teaching of those values start at a very early stage of one’s life and we tend to adapt to them quite effectively. Most importantly, they become part of our lives to a point where we do not very much need a piece of paper to demonstrate it, we just grow to know that, for example, the killing of another person is wrong and respect for others is right. Those are the things that we know and believe and what makes it ... ...at it really is. It presents society as a united force respecting and following the norms as to every member can be satisfied. It is equal and common as to what is what and what to expect. It also projects that there probably would not be laws if it were not for the norms, as we, as a society agree on what is unacceptable and considered a violation. Finally, the consensus perspective sees violators of the norms as weak people with very low self-control. Bibliography Agnew, R. (2011). Toward a Unified Criminology: Integrating Assumptions about Crime, People and Society (New Perspectives in Crime, Deviance, and Law Series). New York: NYU Press. Luckenbill, E. H. (1992). Principles of Criminology (The Reynolds Series in Sociology). New York: Altamira Press. Schmalleger, F. (2012). Criminology Today: An Integrative Introduction. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. The Consensus Perspective Essay -- Crime Criminologists have long tried to fight crime and they have developed many theories along the way as tools to help them understand criminals. In the process of doing so, criminologist have realized that in order to really understand why criminals are criminals, they had to first understand the interrelationship between the law and society. A clear and thorough understanding of how they relatively connect with criminal behavior is necessary. Therefore, they then created three analytical perspectives which would help them tie the dots between social order and law, the consensus, the pluralist and the conflict perspectives. Each provides a significantly different view of society as relative to the law. However, while they all aim to the same exact purpose which is to help us understand crimes from a social viewpoint, the consensus perspective is more effective as it presents a more radical and logical view of how society interacts with the law. For instance, the consensus view focuses m ore on norms, unification, and equality. At the same time, it questions individuals ‘self-control as causes of crime. As Michalowski described it, most members of a society believe in the existence of core values (Schmalleger, 2012). The consensus view is about nothing but values, the different that are commonly known as right and wrong. The teaching of those values start at a very early stage of one’s life and we tend to adapt to them quite effectively. Most importantly, they become part of our lives to a point where we do not very much need a piece of paper to demonstrate it, we just grow to know that, for example, the killing of another person is wrong and respect for others is right. Those are the things that we know and believe and what makes it ... ...at it really is. It presents society as a united force respecting and following the norms as to every member can be satisfied. It is equal and common as to what is what and what to expect. It also projects that there probably would not be laws if it were not for the norms, as we, as a society agree on what is unacceptable and considered a violation. Finally, the consensus perspective sees violators of the norms as weak people with very low self-control. Bibliography Agnew, R. (2011). Toward a Unified Criminology: Integrating Assumptions about Crime, People and Society (New Perspectives in Crime, Deviance, and Law Series). New York: NYU Press. Luckenbill, E. H. (1992). Principles of Criminology (The Reynolds Series in Sociology). New York: Altamira Press. Schmalleger, F. (2012). Criminology Today: An Integrative Introduction. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Frankenstein Media Coursework Essay

Frankenstein or The Modern Prometheus was Mary Shelley’s own Prodigy and one of the greatest novels known in literature; some claim it was the first science fiction novel of any type which blends gothic horror and romance and reveals the terrifying consequences of playing God. It all began in the summer of 1816 at the famed Villa Diodati on the shores of Lake Geneva where Lord Byron had challenged Mary Shelley to write a ghost story which would later become precursor of science fiction ‘Frankenstein’. She completed the novel in 1817 and the first edition was published in 1818. The novel was written in the ‘Romanticism Period’ which was an artistic intellectual movement which used strong emotion, imagination and freedom within. Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein’ is undoubtedly one of the most literary triumphs of this period. While a prisoner of war the director James Whale learned to write stage plays and that is how his talent first became known to him. This talent eventually led him to Hollywood in the 1930’s along with the play ‘Journeys End’. One of the best horror movies James Whale directed was ‘Frankenstein’ aspects of him being socially different (him being a homosexual) were detected in this film for example the rejection of the monster could reflect him being rejected in society. The 1920’s and 30’s saw ‘The Great Depression’ and ‘The Golden Age of Hollywood’. The Great Depression A. K. A The Wall Street Crash happened in October 1929. The debts of Hollywood tripled to $410 million dollars due to The Depression. The kind of movies that Hollywood produce during The Depression changed due to the public mood, more cynical characters were created to reflect a sense of despair e. g. gangsters and prostitutes. Public pressure disallowed pre-martial sex, immoral and criminal activity to be shown this was the reason why scenes from the Frankenstein film were cut due to public pressure and the risk of boycotting from the public. Kenneth Branagh was born on 10th December and is the best known Shakespeare interpreter of the 20th century and is an icon as he could direct and act, this led him to win 2 Baftas and 1 Emmy. Many ideas could have triggered the idea for Branagh’s ‘Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein’. One of these ideas was the science breakthrough cloning: In 1997 on 22nd February the first ever cell was created and claimed life. The fighting of other countries carried on and many innocent lives were lost, this could have encouraged Branagh making a film with the idea of bringing people back from the dead and being able to play god. ‘Media Products of their time’ are innovations which may adapt people’s lives, society, politics, culture, religion, moral and philosophical ideas within their time. For me to analyse whether or not the films are ‘Media Products of their time’ I will look at the techniques they use and whether or not they reflect the society, law, censorship, technology, morals and politics etc. of their time.

Exxon Oil And Gas Industry - 1807 Words

Company Description Exxon Mobile is based out of Irving Texas. Exxon Mobil is one of leaders in the Oil Gas industry. As a leader in the Oil and Gas with capitalization of 100 Billion or more, they are the world s largest publicly traded international oil and Gas Company (exxonmobile.com). â€Å"They are an integrated Oil Gas company. They are engaged in the exploration and production refining and marketing of Oil Gas. The company is also a major manufacturer and marketer of commodity petrochemicals. Including olefins, aromatics, polyethylene, and polypropylene plastics and a wide variety of specialty products. They conduct their business across the globe. As an integrated Oil and Gas company they operate through all three segments of†¦show more content†¦The US oil and gas exploration and production industry consists of about 5,000 companies with combined annual revenue of about $290 billion and is expected to have a high-growth rate over the next two years. Key growth drivers include rising demand for energy (Hoover’s Company Profiles).† The companies involved also deal with many different factors in production, manufacture and distribution; including weighing the different global economic, political and environmental factors that are tied to profit. The fortunes of oil and gas companies are tied to overall supply and demand issues that are reflected in oil and gas prices. Price changes affect industry sectors differently. High prices for oil and natural gas benefit the upstream (exploration and production) companies but hurt the downstream (refiners) in the form of raw material costs. This affects the overall strength and profit of these companies, but many Oil Gas companies are considered integrated, which means they are involved in all three sectors of the industry. The business diversification between the upstream and the downstream tends to mitigate the effects of oil and gas price fluctuations. Because they are usually more le veraged to the upstream, such companies general benefit from higher prices for oil and natural gas. Exxon Mobil Corporation engages in the exploration and production of crude oil and natural gas, and manufacture of petroleum products. The company