QUADRANT 1
Module 3: APPROACHES TO INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
1. LEARNING OBJECTIVEs
2. INTRODUCTION
3. THEORIES OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
I. Dunlop’s System Theory (1958)
II. The Pluralist Theory of Flanders (1970) / oxford model:
III. The Structural Contradictions Theory of Hyman, 1971
IV. Human Relations Theory
V. The Trusteeship Theory of Mahatma Gandhi
4. APPROACHES TO INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
I. Unitary Perspective
II. Pluralistic Perspective
III. Radical Perspective / Marxist Approach
IV. The Social Action Approach
V. Giri Approach
VI. Industrial Sociology Approach
5. SUMMARY
1. Learning Objectives
Upon Completion of the module the student should be able to understand:
The various theoretical frameworks expressing different perspectives of Industrial
Relations
Divergent approaches to Industrial Relations to have a clearer insight about the discipline
of IR.
2. INTRODUCTION
Theories are body of propositions from which uniformities can be derived. A theory should
attempt to explain why certain events happen and how and why the rules of the system change.
Significant points for theory are:
(a) it should deal with a set of variables to identify input-output relationships;
(b) it should establish inter-relationships between individualism and collectivism;
(c) it should testify hypothesis; and
(d) it should predict quality.
The first initiative refers to theorization of Dunlop’s concept of industrial relations.
Basically industrial relations have two main stands in theorizing. One group-externalist lays
emphasis on environmental factors like state of technology, methods of production, supply and
demand in the product market and in the labour market, legal-political relationships etc. The
other group-internalists stress on cause and effect relationship. A full-fledged theory of
industrial, relations requires an integration of both the approaches of externalists and internalists.
A general theory of industrial relations must incorporate both the conflictive and consensus
factors. The industrial relations theory must go further than merely codifying practice and cope
with the multi-dimensional character of industrial relations. One of the most difficult attempts in
industrial relations is to build up a theory and to generalize on its activity which is highly
dynamic.
Several systematic attempts have been made by Industrialists, Sociologists and Industrial
Relations theorists to develop the theoretical perspectives to analyse industrial relations and trade
unionism. It might be useful to examine some significant approaches to the analysis of industrial
relations in order to be able to develop an appreciation of alternative industrial relations
perspectives. Some of the theories are discussed below:
3. THEORIES OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
I. DUNLOP’S SYSTEM THEORY (1958)
The credit for applying the systems concept to industrial relations goes to Dunlop. It is
within this perspective that Dunlop analyses industrial relations systems as a sub-system
of society. “An industrial relations system at any one point of time in its development is
regarded as comprised of certain actors, certain contexts, an ideology which binds the
industrial relations system together and a body of rules created to govern the actors at the
workplace and work community.”
IR = f (a, t, m, P, I)
a = Actors – Labour, Employers Govt.
t = Technological Context
m = Market Context
P = Power Context
I = Ideological context that helps to bind them together
The Industrial Relations System is a web of rules formed by the
interaction of the government, business and labour, influenced by the
existing and emerging economic, sociopolitical and technological
factors.
‘a’ refers to the actors:
A hierarchy of managers and their representatives in supervision
A hierarchy of workers (non-managerial) and any spokesman, and
Specialized government agencies created by the first private agencies
The significant aspects of the environment in which the actors interact are 1. The
technological characteristics of the organization, the workplace and work community. 2.
The market or budgetary constraints which impinge on the actors, and 3. The locus and
distribution of powers in the larger society.
“The actors, in given contexts, establish
rules for the workplace and the work
community, including those governing the
contacts among the actors in an industrial
relations system. This network or web of rules
consists of procedures for establishing rules, the
substantive rules and the procedures for
deciding their application to particular
situations. The establishment of these
procedures and rule – the procedures are
themselves rules-is the centre of attention in an
industrial relations system. If further element is
required to complete the analytical system: an
ideology or a set of ideas and beliefs, commonly
held by the actors, that helps to bind or to
integrate the system together as an entity”
Dunlop (1958).
Dunlop’s formulation and application of
the concept of industrial relations system has
been criticized on the following grounds:
that it is essentially a non-dynamic model of industrial relations from which it is
difficult to explain industrial relations change;
that it concentrates on the structure of the system, ignoring the processes within
it;
that it tends to ignore the essential element of all industrial relations, that of the
nature and development of conflict itself;
that it focuses on formal rules, to the neglect of important informal rules and
informal processes;
that it may not be integrated, and it is problematic whether or not the actors share
a common ideology;
that it fails to give an account of how inputs into the system are converted into
outputs;
that it is environmentally biased and provides no articulation between the
“internal” plant level systems and the wider systems;
that it favours an analytical approach based on comparison rather than a
problem-solving approach built on description; and
that it makes no special provision for the role of individual personalities in
industrial relations as the actors are being viewed in a “structural” rather than a
“dynamic” sense.
II. THE PLURALIST THEORY OF FLANDERS (1970) / OXFORD MODEL:
This theory is also known as Oxford Model. According to Flanders, conflict is
inherent in an industrial system. Hence, collective bargaining is required as a formal
system to settle conflicts. According to him, collective bargaining is central to the
industrial relations system. The rules of the system are viewed as being determined
through the rule-making process of collective bargaining, which is regarded as a political
institution involving a power relationship between the employers and employees.
The “Oxford approach” can be
expressed in the form of an equation;
r = f (b) or r = f (c)
Where,
r = the rules governing industrial relations
b = collective bargaining
c = conflict resolved through collective
bargaining
The “Oxford Approach” can be criticized on the ground that it is
too narrow to provide a comprehensive framework for analyzing industrial
relations problems. It overemphasizes the significance of the political process of
collective bargaining and gives insufficient weight to the role of the deeper influences in
the determination of rules. Institutional and power factors are viewed as of paramount
importance, while variables such as technology, market, status of the parties and
ideology are not given any prominence. This narrowness of approach constitutes a severe
limitation.
III. THE STRUCTURAL CONTRADICTIONS THEORY OF HYMAN, 1971
Marxian analysis of industrial relations and trade unionism has also taken several
forms broadly categorisable into “pessimistic” and “optimistic” approaches. The
pessimistic approaches were represented by the writings of Lenin, Michels and Trotsky
while the optimistic line of thinking was represented by Marx and Engels. These two
approaches represent two variants of the Structural Contradictions approach to industrial
relations. The pessimistic school talks of limitations of trade union consciousness and
feels that unless the working-class joins hands with intellectuals, it is not possible, to
bring in a new social order.
Optimistic school, however, sees the role of working classes as not only
maintenance and enhancement of wage level, but also to carry class struggle against
capitalist class in thrust towards creating a classless society. It is in this “optimistic”
tradition that Hyman has enunciated his analysis of industrial relations and trade
unionism. Trade unions, in Hyman’s writings, “represent workers’ response to the
deprivations inherent in their role as employee within a capitalist economy – opposition
and conflict cannot be divorced from their existence and activity” (Hyman & Fryer,
1978). Thus, in Hyman’s analysis, the politico-economic structure within which, the
trade unions are in conflict with employers because of the inherent deprivations. Any
analysis of industrial relations and trade unionism should, therefore, be sensitive not only
to the structure of the political economy but also to the deprivations and socio-economic
inequalities which are inherent components of the capitalist mode of production. This
perspective immediately reveals the limitations of some of the approaches to industrial
relations discussed earlier, especially those oriented to the control and contaimetn of
dissension and difference. Dunlop has said that rule-making is central to the governance
of work relations. He has said explicitly that “the establishing of these procedures and
rules – procedures themselves are rules –is the centre of attention in an industrial
relations system”. The entire industrial relations system in this approach appears to be all
geared to bring every foreseeable event under a procedural or substantive rule, thus
reducing or eliminating any form of imbalance in the system. Thus, neither politico-
economic structures nor socio-economic inequalities are called into question. Hyman’s
approach is also at variance with the liberal-pluralist approach represented by Flanders.
“What is the substance of a system of industrial relation? Nothing could be more
revealing of the past neglect of organization of the subject’s theory than one simple fact.
Not until recently has it been explicitly stated that a system of industrial relations is a
system of rules” (Flanders, 1965 : 10). The formulation of rules and implementation of
rules appear to be the bread and butter of industrial relations. “These rules appear in
different guises: in legislation and in statutory order; in trade union regulations; in
collective agreements and arbitration awards, in social conventions, in managerial
decision and in accepted custom and practice”. Employers, government, employee
organizations and the judicial system interact with each other in the process of rule-
making. “The study of industrial relations may, therefore, be described as a study of the
institutions of job regulation” . Flanders emphasizes rules, job regulation, institutions of
job regulation as indicative of the ‘order’ orientation-organization of this approach to
industrial relations. Hyman’s analysis of industrial relations points to the inadequacy of
the above definitions of industrial relations. Hyman (1977) has reviewed the substance of
the systems approach and the pluralist approach in the context of the capitalist politico-
economic structures and the inbuilt socio-economic contradictions thus : “First, it diverts
attention from the structures of power and interests, and the economic, technological and
political dynamics of the broader society – factors which inevitably shape the character
of relations between workers, employers and their organizations. Second, the emphasis
on institutions carries with it a danger of rectification: it becomes easy to ignore the real
active men and women whose activities are industrial relations. Third, the notion of
regulation conceals the centrality of power, conflict and the instability in the processes of
industrial relations”.
IV. HUMAN RELATIONS THEORY
The main proponent of this theory is Keith
Davis. According to him, 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:
to get people to produce
to cooperate through mutuality of
interest and
to gain satisfaction from their relationships
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 the major irritant in labour-management relations.
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, participation in management, etc.
V. THE TRUSTEESHIP THEORY OF MAHATMA GANDHI
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.” He laid down certain conditions for
a successful strike. They were:
the cause of the strike must be just and there should be no strike without a
grievance;
there should be no violence; and non-strikers or ‘blacklegs’ should never be
molested.
He was not against strikes but
pleaded that those should be the last
weapons in the armoury 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 them 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 the entire
society. Thus, the trusteeship system is totally different from other contemporary labour
relations systems. It aims at achieving economic equality and the material advancement
of the “have-nots” in a capitalist society by non-violent means. He gave greater
importance to the change in their attitudes and to regard themselves as co-equals and co-
partners in a joint venture. As early as August 1927, Gandjhiji wrote in Young India, “In
my opinion, the millhands are as much the proprietors of the mills as the shareholders
and when the millowners realize that the millhands are as much millowners as they are,
there will be no quarrel between them”. He further emphasized that “workmen should be
regarded as equals with the shareholders, and they should have, therefore, every right to
possess an accurate knowledge of the transactions of the mill” (Harijan, 13-2-1937). He
recognized the need for higher productivity and pleaded that “the management should
share with the workers, the gains from higher productivity”. He also laid stress on the
important of job enrichment and observed: “A spinner may not dream of earning as
much as the manager now, but he refuses to be ignored. If his work and talents are
ignored and if his contributions to the industry are never to be measured by any other
yardstick except of selling price at the lowest or static level, he will never give his best”
(Harijan, 10-8-1947)”. Further, he realized that relations between the labour class and the
management can either be a powerful stimulus to economic and social progress or
important factor in economic and social stagnation. According to him, industrial peace is
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 actively supported it. He advocated voluntary arbitration and mutual
settlement of dispute. he also pleaded for perfect understanding between capital and
labour, mutual respect, recognition of equality and strong labour organization which are
the factory essentials for happy and constructive industrial relations.
The recent industrial relations trend in our country has added a greater meaning
and dimensions to the teachings of Gandhiji. We are painfully aware that, in recent
times, an atmosphere of violence is being let loose in settling labour-management
disputes. The solutions to labour-management problems of today, lie in properly
understanding the Gandhian approach to industrial relations. For Gandhiji, means and
ends are equally important. Gandhiji strongly believed in the concept of settling
industrial disputes through mutual negotiations and arbitration without any rancor
between the parties. The system of trusteeship, as viewed by the Gandhian theorists, is of
utmost relevance for resolving conflicts and for achieving cooperation in the
organizational setting. Understanding each other better with respect for mutual rights and
responsibilities is the surest way to settle all problems. The Gandhian philosophy of
Ahimsa (non-violence) and peaceful conduct of relations and positive cooperation will
lead us to the correct path of industrial relations.
4. APPROACHES TO INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
The term ‘Industrial Relations’ is used to denote a specialist area of
organizational management and study which is concerned with a particular set of
phenomena associated with regulating the human activity of employment. It is, however,
difficult to define the boundaries of this set of phenomena-and, therefore, the term itself
– in a precise and universally accepted way. Any more specific definition must, of
necessity, assume and emphasize a particular view of the nature and purpose of industrial
relations-consequently, there are as many definitions as there are writers on industrial
relations. For example, the two most frequently used terms of “industrial relations” and
‘employee relations’ are, in most practical sense, interchangeable; yet they have very
different connotation. The former, more traditional, term reflects the original historical
base of unionized manual workers within the manufacturing sector of the economy
whilst the latter has come into greater use with the development of less unionized white
collar employment and the service and commercial sectors of the economy (The term
‘industrial relations’ is used because it is the more commonly known and used term).
The terms may be used in a very restrictive sense to include only the formal
collective relationships between management and employees (through the medium of
trade unions) or in an all inclusive sense to encompass all relationships associated with
employment (those between individuals at the informal level as well as those of a formal
collective or organizational nature).
However, it is doubtful whether the two approaches can, or should, be separated
so easily – informal, interpersonal or group relationships are influenced by the formal
collective relationships which exist within the industrial relations system, and it may be
argued that the formal collective relationships are themselves, in part, determined by the
nature of individual relationships. Clearly, the borderline between formal and informal or
individual and collective relationships within organizations cannot provide a natural
boundary for the subject matter of industrial relations.
The way we perceive the overall nature of this area of organizational study
determines, to a very large extent, not only how we approach and analyse specific issues
and situations within industrial relations but also how we expect others to behave, how
we respond to their actual behavior and the means we adopt to influence or modify their
behavior. While examining the different approaches, it is useful to differentiate between
those approaches which are concerned with the general nature of employment
organizations and also those which specifically deal with the industrial relations system
itself.
However, it is important to keep in mind that:
They are primarily analytical categorizations rather than causative theories or
predictive models, and
There is no one ‘right’ approach; rather, each approach emphasizes a particular
aspect of industrial relations and taken together can provide a framework for
analyzing and understanding the diversity and complexity of industrial relations,
i.e. the complexity of the human aspects of work-organizations.
I. UNITARY PERSPECTIVE
The unitary perspective is based on the assumptions that the
organization is, or if it is not, then it should be, an integrated group of people with a
single authority/loyalty structure and a set of common values, interests and objectives
shared by all members of the organization. Managements’ prerogative (i.e., its right to
manage, make decisions) is regarded as legitimate, rational and accepted, and any
opposition to it (whether formal or informal, internal or external) is seen as irrational.
The organization is not, therefore, regarded as a ‘them and us’ situation – as Farnham
and Pimlott put it. There is “no conflict between the interests of those supplying capital
to the enterprises and their managerial representatives, and those contributing their
labour…the owners of capital and labour are but complementary partners to the common
aims of production, profits and pay in which everyone in the organization has a stake”.
The underlying assumption of this view, therefore, is that the organizational system is in
basic harmony and conflict is unnecessary and exceptional.
This has two important implications:
Conflict (i.e. the expression of employee dissatisfaction and differences with
management) is perceived as an irrational activity.
Trade Unions are regarded as intrusions into the organization from outside which
complete with management for the loyalty of employees.
The unitary perspective is found predominantly amongst managers – particularly line-
management-and, therefore, is often regarded as a management ideology. Fox has argued
that management clings to this view because:
It legitimizes its authority-role by projecting the interests of management and
employees as being the same and by emphasizing management’s role of
‘governing’ in the best interests of the organization, as a whole;
It reassures managers by confirming that conflict (dissatisfaction), where it
exists, is largely the fault of the government rather than the management;
It may be projected to the outside world as a means of persuading them that the
management’s decision and actions are right and the best in the circumstances
and that any challenge to them is, at best, misguided or, at worst, subversive.
II. PLURALISTIC PERSPECTIVE
Fox believes that this view of the organization “probably represents the received
orthodoxy in many Western Societies” and is often associated with a view of society as
being ‘post-capitalist’, i.e., there is a relatively widespread distribution of authority and
power within the society, a separation of ownership from management, a separation of
political and industrial conflict, and an acceptance and institutionalization of conflict in
both spheres. This perspective is based on the assumption that the organization is
composed of individuals who coalesce into a variety of distinct sectional groups, each
with its own interest, objectives and leadership (either formal or informal). The
organization is perceived as being multi-structured and competitive in terms of
groupings, leadership, authority and loyalty and this, fox argues, gives rise to ‘complex
of tensions and competing claims which have to be ‘managed’ in the interests of
maintaining a viable collaborative structure’. The underlying assumption of this
approach, therefore, is that the organization is in a permanent state of dynamic tension
resulting from the inherent conflict of interest between the various sectional groups and
requires to be managed through a variety of roles, institutions and processes. The
implications of this view for the nature of conflict and the role of the trade unions are
very different to those of the unitary approach.
III. RADICAL PERSPECTIVE / MARXIST APPROACH
The radical perspective, which is also often
referred to as the Marxist perspective, concentrates on the nature
of the society surrounding the organizations. It assumes and
emphasizes that the organization exists within a capitalist society
where, Hyman argues, “the production system is privately
owned…; profit… is the key influence on company policy…; and
control over production is enforced downwards by the owners’
managerial agents.” The Marxist general theory of society argues
that:
Class (group) conflict is the source of societal change-without such conflict the
society would stagnate;
Class conflict arises primarily from the disparity in the distribution of, and
access to, economic power within the society – the principal disparity being
between those who own capital and those who supply their labour;
The nature of the society’s social and political institutions is derived from this
economic disparity and reinforces the position of the dominant establishment
group, for example, through differential access to education, the media,
employment in government and other establishment bodies, etc.;
Social and political conflict in whatever form is merely an expression of the
underlying economic conflict within the society.
IV. THE SOCIAL ACTION APPROACH
The social action approach is a variant of the system approach. In the system
approach, society plays a dominant role while the actors such as employers, employees
and their representatives keep a low profile and play a passive role in the process. On the
contrary, the social action approach assigns an active role to the actors of the industrial
relations. The actors’ understanding of the work situation becomes more important than
the social factors and their independent views gain a greater weightage in deciding their
behavior towards industrial relations. The social action theory primarily considers
bargaining as an important tool for the resolution of a conflict. The actors, according to
this approach, are willing to cooperate with other actors in the resolution of conflicts, and
bargaining forms the basis for such cooperation.
V. GIRI APPROACH
Former President of India V.V. Giri’s deep
concern for the well-being of the working class
made him write two popular books on labour issues
entitled Industrial Relations and Labour Problems in
the Indian Industry. According to him, in the tree of
socialism, the root comprises human beings. Giri
observed that “it is an essential condition to
maintain mutual trust and confidence between the
employer and employee to obtain the goal of rapid
economic development and social justice.” The Giri
approach in industrial relations focuses on the
relevance and importance of voluntary negotiations
between employers and employees as a means of
settling disputes. This approach insists on the establishment of bipartite forums at
different levels of the industry to wipe out the dispute between the employers and the
employees represented by their unions. This approach also provides for the active
involvement and intervention of the state n dispute prevention and settlement. However,
this approach discourages compulsory adjudication and perceives it to be against the
spirit of industrial democracy and unity.
VI. INDUSTRIAL SOCIOLOGY APPROACH
The aim of the industrial sociology
approach is to investigate the underlying trends
and patterns in the cause and effect of industrial
disputes both intended and unintended. Unlike
most other approaches which focus only on the
resolution of conflict as a means of achieving
industrial relations, the industrial sociology
approach focuses on the prevention of industrial
conflict by tracing the cause of the disputes and
then avoiding it. This approach provides a
conceptual framework for investigating,
analyzing and specifying the structure and process within the organization that often
produce conflicts. As per this approach, the job context and content, the technological
characteristics and human interaction often result in the distributive, structural and
human relations conflicts in the internal environment. In case there conflicts are not
resolved within the organization, they may assume larger dimensions and become
External Conflicts. The removal of the causes of the disputes, according to this approach,
facilitates a more effective maintenance of industrial relations.
5. Summary
Basically, industrial relations have two main stands in theorizing. One group-EXTERNALIST lays
emphasis on environmental factors like state of technology, methods of production, supply and
demand in the product market and in the labour market, legal-political relationships etc. The other
group-INTERNALISTS stress on cause and effect relationship. A full-fledged theory of industrial,
relations requires an integration of both the approaches of externalists and internalists. A general
theory of industrial relations must incorporate both the conflictive and consensus factors. Major
theories of IR are : Dunlop’s System Theory (1958), The Pluralist Theory Of Flanders (1970) /
Oxford Model, The Structural Contradictions Theory Of Hyman, 1971, Human Relations Theory ,
The Trusteeship Theory Of Mahatma Gandhi.
The credit for applying the systems concept to industrial relations goes to Dunlop. It is within
this perspective that Dunlop analyses industrial relations systems as a sub-system of society. Dunlop
stated that “An industrial relations system at any one point of time in its development is regarded as
comprised of certain actors, certain contexts, an ideology which binds the industrial relations system
together and a body of rules created to govern the actors at the workplace and work community.”
Dunlop said “The Industrial Relations System is a web of rules formed by the interaction of the
government, business and labour, influenced by the existing and emerging economic, sociopolitical
and technological factors”. Dunlop (1958) further said “The actors, in given contexts, establish rules
for the workplace and the work community, including those govern and the procedures for deciding
their application to particular situations. The establishment of these procedures and rule – the
procedures are themselves rules - is the center of attention in an industrial relations system. If further
element is required to complete the analytical system: an ideology or a set of ideas and beliefs,
commonly held by the actors, that helps to bind or to integrate the system together as an entity”
In the Pluralist theory of Flanders (1970) / Oxford Model he suggested that conflict is inherent in
an industrial system. Hence, collective bargaining is required as a formal system to settle conflicts.
According to him, collective bargaining is central to the industrial relations system. The rules of the
system are viewed as being determined through the rule-making process of collective bargaining,
which is regarded as a political institution involving a power relationship between the employers and
employees.
In Structural Contradictions approach to industrial relations, Marxian analysis of industrial
relations and trade unionism has also taken several forms broadly categorisable into “pessimistic”
and “optimistic” approaches. The pessimistic approaches were represented by the writings of Lenin,
Michels and Trotsky while the optimistic line of thinking was represented by Marx and Engels.
These two approaches represent two variants of the Structural Contradictions approach to industrial
relations. It is in this “optimistic” tradition that Hyman has enunciated his analysis of industrial
relations and trade unionism.
Trade unions, in Hyman’s writings, “represent workers’ response to the deprivations inherent in
their role as employee within a capitalist economy – opposition and conflict cannot be divorced from
their existence and activity”. The main proponent of Human Relations Theory was Keith Davis.
According to him, 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.”. The human relations approach highlights certain policies and techniques
to improve employee morale, efficiency and job satisfaction.
Gandhiji had immense faith in the goodness of man. He insisted on recognizing each individual
worker as a human being. 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 the entire society. The trusteeship system is totally different from other contemporary labour
relations systems. It aims at achieving economic equality and the material advancement of the “have-
nots” in a capitalist society by non-violent means. Gandhiji emphasized that “workmen should be
regarded as equals with the shareholders, and they should have, therefore, every right to possess an
accurate knowledge of the transactions of the mill” (Harijan, 13-2-1937). Gandhiji recognized the
need for higher productivity and pleaded that “the management should share with the workers, the
gains from higher productivity”.
Among the Approaches/perspectives to industrial relations, the widely recognised ones were :
Unitary perspective, Pluralistic perspective, Radical perspective / Marxist approach, The social action
approach, Giri approach, Industrial sociology approach.
The unitary perspective is based on the assumptions that the organization is, or if it is not, then it
should be, an integrated group of people with a single authority/loyalty structure and a set of
common values, interests and objectives shared by all members of the organization. The underlying
assumption of this view, is that the organizational system is in basic harmony and conflict is
unnecessary and exceptional. There is “no conflict between the interests of those supplying capital to
the enterprises and their managerial representatives, and those contributing their labour…the owners
of capital and labour are but complementary partners to the common aims of production, profits and
pay in which everyone in the organization has a stake”.
The pluralistic perspective is based on the assumption that the organization is composed of
individuals who coalesce into a variety of distinct sectional groups, each with its own interest,
objectives and leadership (either formal or informal). The organization is perceived as being multi-
structured and competitive in terms of groupings, leadership, authority and loyalty and this, fox
argues, gives rise to ‘complex of tensions and competing claims which have to be ‘managed’ in the
interests of maintaining a viable collaborative structure’.
The radical perspective, which is also often referred to as the Marxist perspective, concentrates on
the nature of the society surrounding the organizations. It assumes and emphasizes that the
organization exists within a capitalist society where, Hyman argues, “the production system is
privately owned…; profit… is the key influence on company policy…; and control over production
is enforced downwards by the owners’ managerial agents.”. The social action approach is a variant of
the system approach. In the system approach, society plays a dominant role while the actors such as
employers, employees and their representatives keep a low profile and play a passive role in the
process. On the contrary, the social action approach assigns an active role to the actors of the
industrial relations.
According to V V Giri , in the tree of socialism, the root comprises human beings. Giri observed that
“it is an essential condition to maintain mutual trust and confidence between the employer and
employee to obtain the goal of rapid economic development and social justice.” The aim of the
industrial sociology approach is to investigate the underlying trends and patterns in the cause and
effect of industrial disputes both intended and unintended.
