Boook 1
13
Theoretical Approaches to Employment and Industrial Relations: A Comparison of Subsisting Orthodoxies
1Department
of Industrial Relations & Personnel Management, University of Lagos, 2Department of Accounting, University of Lagos, Nigeria
Christopher Odogwu Chidi1 and Okwy Peter Okpala2
1. Introduction
Theory could be viewed as a coherent group of assumptions or propositions put forth to explain a phenomenon. A theory is an abstraction of reality and is synonymous with perception, viewpoint, assumption, frame of reference or a perspective. The relevance of theory in any field of endeavour cannot be over emphasised. Theory attempts to observe, understand, explain, predict and control events or phenomena. “It helps in our understanding of events and problems in the practical world” (Fajana, 2000, p.21). Without theory, there is no practice, thus, according to Luthans “it has often been said (usually by theoreticians) that there is nothing as practical as a good theory” (Luthans, 1998, p.13). Hyman (1975, p.12) argues that the whole point of an explicit theoretical perspective is to provide a framework within which the complex detail of the real world can be organised. Hyman (1975, p.2) further asserts that “those who glory in their pragmatism and insist that they are immune from theory are simply unaware of their own preconceptions and presuppositions”. Without theory men cannot act, for a theory is a way of seeing, of understanding and of planning. Phoenix (1964) as cited in Asika (1995, p.53) opines that “a theory or model provides an abstract pattern whose structure in relevant respects is congruent with the structure of the physical (and social) world, as demonstrated by agreement between observations and predictions made from the theory or model”. We view theory as the substructure upon which practice or action which can be likened to the superstructure is based. A Theory is different from a model. Thus, a model or paradigm refers to the
Theoretical Approaches to Employment and Industrial Relations: A Comparison of Subsisting Orthodoxies
1Department
of Industrial Relations & Personnel Management, University of Lagos, 2Department of Accounting, University of Lagos, Nigeria
Christopher Odogwu Chidi1 and Okwy Peter Okpala2
1. Introduction
Theory could be viewed as a coherent group of assumptions or propositions put forth to explain a phenomenon. A theory is an abstraction of reality and is synonymous with perception, viewpoint, assumption, frame of reference or a perspective. The relevance of theory in any field of endeavour cannot be over emphasised. Theory attempts to observe, understand, explain, predict and control events or phenomena. “It helps in our understanding of events and problems in the practical world” (Fajana, 2000, p.21). Without theory, there is no practice, thus, according to Luthans “it has often been said (usually by theoreticians) that there is nothing as practical as a good theory” (Luthans, 1998, p.13). Hyman (1975, p.12) argues that the whole point of an explicit theoretical perspective is to provide a framework within which the complex detail of the real world can be organised. Hyman (1975, p.2) further asserts that “those who glory in their pragmatism and insist that they are immune from theory are simply unaware of their own preconceptions and presuppositions”. Without theory men cannot act, for a theory is a way of seeing, of understanding and of planning. Phoenix (1964) as cited in Asika (1995, p.53) opines that “a theory or model provides an abstract pattern whose structure in relevant respects is congruent with the structure of the physical (and social) world, as demonstrated by agreement between observations and predictions made from the theory or model”. We view theory as the substructure upon which practice or action which can be likened to the superstructure is based. A Theory is different from a model. Thus, a model or paradigm refers to the
References: Asika, N.M. (1995). “Theoretical Perspectives on the Issue of Administration”.UNILAG. Journal of Business. Vol. 1 N0. 1 pp 50-70. Bain, G.S. & Clegg, H.A.(1974). “Strategy for Industrial Relations Research in Great Britain”. British Journal of Industrial Relations. Vol.12 N0.1, pp.91-113 Theoretical Approaches to Employment and Industrial Relations: A Comparison of Subsisting Orthodoxies 277 Blain, N. & Gennard, J. (1970). “Industrial Relations Theory: A Critical Review” British Journal of Industrial Relations Vol. Viii N0. 3 pp. 389-392. Budd, J. (2004). Employment with a Human Face: Balancing Efficiency, Equity, and Voice. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Cooper,. D. R. & Schindler, S.P.(2001). Business Research Methods (7th ed).New York: McGraw- Hill Companies. Cox, R. (1971). “Approaches to the Futurology of Industrial Relations.” Bulletin of the Institute of Labour Studies, Vol. 8, N0. 8, pp. 139–64. Dunlop, J.T. (1958). Industrial Relations Systems. New York: Holt (title now owned by Cengage Learning) Edwards, P. (2005). ‘The Employment Relationship and the Field of Industrial Relations.” In. Edwards, P. (ed.) Industrial Relations: Theory & Practice, (2nd ed.). (pp. 1–36).. London: Blackwell. European Industrial Relations Observatory. (2002). Towards a Qualitative Dialogue in Industrial Relations. Dublin: EIRO. Fajana, S. (2000). Industrial Relations in Nigeria: Theory and Features (2nd ed.). Lagos: Labofin and Company. Farnham, D. and Pimlott, J. (1995). Understanding Industrial Relations (5th ed.).London: Cassell Educational Ltd. Flanders, A. (1965). Industrial Relations: What is Wrong with the System? An Essay on Its Theory and Future. London: Farber & Farber. Fox, A. (1966). Industrial Sociology and Industrial Relations. Royal Commission Research Paper N0. 3. London: HMSO Green, G.D. (1994). Industrial Relations Text and Case Studies (4th ed) U.K: Pitman Publishing. Hyman, R. (1995). “Industrial Relations in Theory and Practice.” European Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 17–46. Hyman, R. (1975). Industrial Relations: A Marxist Introduction. London: Macmillan. Kaufman, B.E. (2010). “The Theoretical Foundation of Industrial Relations and its Implications.” Industrial and Labour Relations Review.Vol.64, Issue1, pp.73-108. Kelly, J. (1998). Rethinking Industrial Relations: Mobilization, Collectivism, and Long Waves. London: Routledge. Kochan, T. (1998). “What is Distinctive about Industrial Relations Research?” In Whitfield, K. & Strauss, G. (eds.). Researching the World of Work.(pp.31–50).Ithaca: Cornell University Press Koontz, H; O’ Donnell, C. & Weihrich, H. (1980). Management (7th ed).Japan: McGraw-Hill Luthans, F. (1998). Organisational Behaviour (8thed.). New York: Irwin/McGraw-Hill. Ogunbameru, A. O. (2004). Organisational Dynamics. Ibadan: Spectrum Books Ltd, Onabanjo, I. (2001). “Globalization: Implications for Industrial Relations”. Knowledge Review Vol. N0 1 pp. 7-13 Otobo, D. (2000). Industrial Relations: Theory and Controversies. Lagos: Malthouse Press Ltd Rose, E.D. (2008). Employment Relations. (3rd ed).London: Pearson Education Ltd. Salamon, M. (2000). Industrial Relations Theory and Practice. (4th ed). London: Pearson Education Ltd. 278 Theoretical and Methodological Approaches to Social Sciences and Knowledge Management Waters, D. (1998). Essential Quantitative Methods: A Guide for Business. New York: Addison Wesley Longman Ltd. Wood, S., Wagner, A., Armstrong, E., Goodman & Davis, E. (1975). “Industrial Relations Systems as a Basis for Theory in Industrial Relations”. British Journal of Industrial Relations Vol. 13 N0 3, pp 291-308