Relations in small and medium enterprises Essay Example
Relations in small and medium enterprises Essay Example

Relations in small and medium enterprises Essay Example

Available Only on StudyHippo
  • Pages: 11 (2752 words)
  • Published: October 9, 2017
  • Type: Case Study
View Entire Sample
Text preview

A Non-union Approach


The term SME or little and medium concern endeavor is frequently used to depict a concern endeavor that has anyplace between 10 to 15 employees for a little concern whereas anything under 250 would be a medium endeavor. However, the figure of employees is non the lone categorization that is used, and can be every bit diverse as turnover, industry, or concern construction. Harmonizing to a study carried out by the Department for Business, Innovation & A ; Skills ( BIS ) in 2004, the UK `` had 1.16 million private sector houses with fewer than 250 employees, stand foring 94 per cent of all employers in the UK economy.1 These SMEs employed a sum 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 evident importance of these endeavors.

The other of import facet of SMEs is their ability to be advanced, and adaptative to the invariably altering market environment, making employment chances in the economic system, and lending to the Gross Domestic Product ( GDP ) . SMEs vary in size depending on the industry, and accomplishments. A biotechnology house is likely to hold fewer extremely skilled employees where as a cleansing services house will hold more unskilled workers. However, the fact that a important fraction of the working population is employed by an SME, it is necessary to understand how these endeavors are managed, and how human resources policies sing enlisting, preparation, public presentation rating, and twenty-four hours to twenty-four hours employee dealingss are adopted and practiced.

Management and employment

View entire sample
Join StudyHippo to see entire essay

dealingss in an SME

A typical construction of an SME is mostly concern, merchandise or procedure orientated, with small specialist engagement in countries outside the remit of the concern, human resources for case. Directors have small expertness or makings to carry on forces direction undertaking, most directors tend to trust on their past experience in pull offing relationships. This is interesting because it provides a alone chance to analyze direction issues and schemes that can be anyplace from non-existent in a little house to informal and semiformal in a medium house. Tradition direction manners that have been identified in Fox ( 1974 ) and Purcell and Sisson ( 1983 ) , associate to direction positions with respects to employee dealingss in an industrial apparatus. The categorizations were based on the type of positions held by both direction and employees, where both could be either unitary or pluralist. Marchington and Parker ( 1990 ) point out that these differences were in relation to how direction viewed brotherhoods and their engagement on issues like employee engagement and struggle declaration. These averments are applicable in a big complex administration but may non needfully be true in a little apparatus where human resources and employee dealingss may be absent wholly.

Goss ( 1991 ) found that direction manners at little houses were likely to be characterised by how the owner-manager experience comparative temperament of power, and identified four types of direction control -

Fraternalism, Paternalism, Benevolent Autocracy, and Sweating

The differentiation was based on how much independency employees enjoyed for every grade of dependance the employer possessed. A host of surveies conducted in the UK ( WERS, 2004 ) , Europe ( EIRO,

2006 ) , and Canada ( CFIB, 2004 ) give an thought of what direction patterns are adopted in the SME sector by and large and how on the job hours, preparation, wage, and employee representation are handled. A cardinal observation found synonymous in all the surveies was that employee representation, although important, was conducted in informal scenes through single contracts and constructs of corporate bargaining and unionization were mostly absent in smaller houses but rose with steadfast size. And where a non-union employee construction is prevailing, it is hard to compare or notice on the effectivity of such a construction, as all old surveies go merely every bit far as finding the type of employee engagement practiced but do non measure their quality of impact.

Non-union employee engagement

Harmonizing to Guest ( 2001 ) , a non-union workplace lacks formal human resources or industrial dealingss sections which interface between direction and employees. Dundonet Al. , ( 2005 ) depict a non-union workplace where the importance of brotherhood is non recognised in finding employee issues such as wage and work conditions, as opposed to whether or non employees are members of any brotherhood. They besides point out the grounds, inducements, and motive for directors for taking a non-unionised interaction with the work force. Guest and Hoque ( 1994 ) went on to sort the assorted non-union employer types, distinguishing them on the footing of a scope of human resources properties. They banded employers as either good, bad, or ugly depending on these properties. Although some antagonistic statements to this categorization were on the evidences of methodological analysis selected and if it collected information on employee positions on

their employers, and the deficiency of motive and inducement, if any, from the employees in preferring to be non-union ( Dundon,et Al. , 2005 ) .

Although type of employee engagement and representation is seen as an of import portion of the relationship between direction and employees, it is interesting to understand how these go portion of the civilization. Freeman and Medoff ( 1984 ) describe employee representation, or employee voice, as holding both consensual and conflictual intension, and showed how engagement could impact quality and productiveness, whilst on the other it could assist decide differences. Directors in a comparatively little workplace are likely to see non-union engagement more favorably because they may non hold experience of covering with brotherhoods and may experience more comfy covering with issues locally and informally. As the work force becomes larger and larger, the advantages of a non-union representation diminish and houses tend to seek a formal attack to interaction as seen in larger houses.

Ackerset Al. , ( 2004 ) suggest that direct communicating with the employees is besides one of the most important construct of a non-union employee representation, adding that directors would be more willing to portion information associating to the concern, work agreements, staffing and occupation chances straight with employees.

Corporate bargaining, wage, and workplace dealingss

The construct of corporate bargaining is more or less relevant to a brotherhood based employee representation, where the propositions are deemed to be in the best involvement of the full work force as opposed to a individual employee or groups. Since the relationships between direction ( proprietors, directors ) and employees are less formal, such treatments can take topographic point separately and would

reflect the house 's place vis-a-vis a peculiar employee. On the other manus, directors responsible for forces affairs may be involved in other undertakings and is likely to pass more clip on such undertakings than those in similar places in larger houses. Wage findings and wage treatments are likewise done, and could be either put one-sidedly by the direction or negotiated on an single footing. Therefore it would be common to presume a variable wage construction either by virtue or public presentation, and the likeliness to profit-sharing. Pay reappraisals could be less regular in such a apparatus and may frequently necessitate to be initiated by employees.

Recruitment, preparation, and personal development

The enlisting procedure at little house may be less formal or strict compared to big administrations because of the degree of expertness and edification available within the house. A drawn-out enlisting procedure can be dearly-won, and can be counter productive to the immediate demands of the concern ; hence employers may be willing to do speedy determinations on the footing of the officeholder 's accomplishments entirely. WERS ( 2004 ) suggest that preparation and development chances were dependent on house size, the larger the house the more likely they were to offer on or off-the-job preparation. This can be true for two grounds, foremost cost deductions, and 2nd, the option to engage an already trained worker. In a non-union workplace this can be both good and disadvantageous at the same clip, since over-simplification could acquire the occupation done but may non needfully stand for the best involvements of employees.

Conflict declaration

Irrespective of the size of the house, grudges can originate and depending on the relationship an employee

involved has with their director, it could be dealt with informally in the first case, and little and average houses would follow such a procedure non because they may non hold a formal grudges and struggle declaration processs as seen in big houses. Majority of employers have such processs for regulative intents, but how efficaciously these are used varies from house to tauten. Since SMEs are non labour intensive collective differences are improbable to emerge necessitating corporate declaration through agencies of a brotherhood representation. This can be viewed as an inducement for directors to hold a non-unionised employee representation to avoid the fusss of covering with the brotherhood when a difference arises ( Dundon,et Al. ,2005 ) .

Employee attitudes

The WERS ( 2004 ) study reveals that directors in SMEs were more likely to affect employees in workplace related determination devising procedures and employee influence was greater in little houses than larger 1s. 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 deter a nonionized work force which would be given to cut down their influence on direction determinations. The employees ' perceptual experience of workplace and direction being the same, alterations as house size additions. This is important plenty inducement for directors to cultivate a non-unionised workplace. To this extent there is a large difference between employees ' outlooks for corporate representation and employers ' willingness to subscribe to one. On the whole, the direction is in a place to make up one's mind what type of representation they would wish, and

what mechanisms to use.


Small and moderate-sized houses are critical for the growing of the economic system, and play a important function in supplying employment to the population. The size and nature of merchandises and services offered by these houses varies clearly, and so does their direction and employment patterns. Size of the work force does act upon the type of direction manner that will be adopted, but it besides depends on directors ( proprietors ) past experience and their perceptual experience of how work should be managed based on a set of beliefs. Small concerns have been seen to be less formal and tend to follow a close contact with their employees, and do non conform to hierarchal constructions of direction that are prevailing in big organisations. These constructions of relationships tend to acquire more formal as the house size additions. Employees, on the other manus, happen small or no difference between their workplace and direction, an of import differentiation observed in larger houses which clearly distinguish between the `` house '' and the `` direction '' . Although employee dealingss in little and average sized houses tend to be more informal they can be inflexible to alterations in the workplace. Directors may miss the necessary experience and expertness in issues like public presentation assessments and dispute declaration ; they tend to trust on their experience and prefer to prosecute the employees straight. Issues of wage findings and other signifiers of compensation are set out by directors but it allows employees to prosecute with direction over treatments, without the necessary engagement of corporate employee representations like brotherhoods.

The duologue is less formal and gives the direction

chance to see personal fortunes of employees. Similarly conflict declaration and grudges are accorded an informal procedure, whereas any disciplinary action ensuing from such treatments may be formal and follow a traditional attack. And because directors prefer to hold a less formal engagement of employees the construct of non-unionized representation is favoured as direction sees more flexibleness in running the concern and happen to hold less control when a corporate representation is sought. Formality in relationships additions with house size when direction wants to hold more distance between proprietors and employees in order to keep a consistent degree of control through decentalisation. The grade of formality exercised may change within the house itself, for case direction may follow a more formal attack to employee preparation and development, but at the same clip behavior public presentation assessments informally.

In respects to SMEs the nature of employment dealingss is non ever straightforward and direction patterns, which may look simple and unworldly, are influenced by a assortment of factors and have evolved as a response to a peculiar demand as the industry and concern demands, or ordinances, evolved over clip.


  1. Ackers, P. , Marchington, M. , Wilkinson, A. and Dundon, T. ( 2004 ) , `` The direction of voice in non-union administrations: directors ' positions '' , Employee Relations Vol. 27 No. 3, 2005 pp. 307-319
  2. Atkinson, J. and Meager, N. ( 1994 ) 'Running to stand still: the little house in the labor market '' , in J. Atkinson and D. Storey ( explosive detection systems. ) Employment, the Small Firm and the Labour Market, London: Routledge.
  3. Bacon, N. and Hoque, K. ( 2005 ) 'HRM in

the SME sector: valuable employees and coercive webs ' , International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16, 11: 1679-99.

  • Benson, J. ( 2000 ) , `` Employee voice in brotherhood and non-union Australian workplaces '' , British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 453-9.
  • Beresford, R. ( 2003 ) 'Trade brotherhoods and little houses ' , Federation News, 53, 2.
  • Blackburn, R. ( 2005 ) 'Researching the employment relationship in little houses: what are the parts from the employment dealingss and little concern 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 engagement on little houses ' fiscal public presentation ' , 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 little houses: Procedures, methods and jobs ' , 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 unionise 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 ( explosive detection systems. ) Enterprise Challenged: Policy and Performance in the British SME Sector 1999- 2002, Cambridge: Cambridge University Centre for Business Research
  • Cox, A. ( 2005 ) 'Managing variable wage systems in smaller workplaces ' , in S. Marlow, D. Patton and M. Ram ( explosive detection systems. ) Pull offing Labour in Small Firms, London: Routledge.
  • Cully, M. , Woodland, S. , O'Reilly, A. and Dix, G. ( 1999 ) Britain at Work: As Depicted by the 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey, London: Routledge.
  • Dundon, T. ( 2002 ) , `` Employer resistance and brotherhood turning away 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 dealingss in an SME ' , Employee Relations, 21, 3: 251-66.
  • Dundon, T. , Wilkinson, A. , Marchington, M. and Ackers, P. ( 2004 ) , `` The significances and intent 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 - Findingss from the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey '' , Routledge, London
  • Freeman, R. and Medoff, J. ( 1984 ) , What Do Unions Make? , Basic Books,
  • New York, NY. Gall, G. ( 2004 ) , `` British employer opposition to merchandise brotherhood acknowledgment '' , Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 36-53.

  • Goss, D. ( 1991 ) , Small Business and Society, Routledge, UK
  • Guest, D. ( 2001 ) , `` Industrial dealingss and human resource direction '' , 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 dealingss 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 positions '' , California Management Review, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 95-111.
  • Marchington, M. ( 2005 ) , `` Employee engagement: forms and accounts '' , in Harley, B. , Hyman, J. and Thompson, P. ( Eds ) , Participation and Democracy at Work: Essaies 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 ' engagement in
  • sociological and historical position '' , 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.
  • Get an explanation on any task
    Get unstuck with the help of our AI assistant in seconds