ALTERNATIVE

CONCEPTUALIZATION
OF THE DETERMINANTS OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS *
Dr.C.S.RANGARAJAN
C.S.Rangarajan, Senior Lecturer, Department of Sociology,
University of Madras, while scanning the literature on industrial
organization and conflict, finds that a large body of the material is
reliant upon human relations and leadership issues.
As many others who have done extensive research in this area, he
subscribes to the view that the systems approach is of immense
use in identifying, analyzing and synthesizing key variables in
industrial relations. A proper understanding of the social forces
that act upon the system is essential. The approach would also
help the industrial relations system to reciprocate the changes
happening around at a great pace.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The advancement of society is seen as in jeopardy without the
occurrence of such a phenomenon as over production (Comte
1980). While the answer to the question of advancement is
interlaced with industrialization, the experience of such a
phenomenon
has
partially
mitigated
the
question
of
advancement, but equally militated against the interests of
society in a myriad ways, and mutilated the socio-economic
relationships of employers and employees. While production is a
manifest function, collective resistance turned out to be a
latent function, which would not have arisen had not employers
brought employees under one roof.
Industrial relations system revolves around the vicious circle of
consent, constraint and conflict. While consent is manifest,
constraint is latent, and conflict is ubiquitous.
Though
bureaucracy is said to have come into being to resurrect the
social relationship that has suffered a breakdown (Gouldner

1955), the effectiveness of authority rests on acceptance.

Authority begets consent because it is felt to be legitimate rather
than being legitimate because it evoked consent. It is consensus
of ends and values, which engender consent (ibid). The whole
gamut
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* Courtesy: Loyola Journal of Social Sciences, 1994. Volume VIII,
No 2, July December, pp 83 93, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala,
India.
of the concept of consent brings employees and employers
within the fold of a contract of employment, which invariably
means, as held by Selznick (1974), the contract sets a ceiling on
commitment.
Since organization is entrapped in a series of constraints upon
action (Dunlop 1958), it can be seen as forging its compromise in
response to pressures of these constraints mechanisms with a
view to enlist further consent. Crozier (1969) holds that
bureaucratic structure is founded on the vicious circle of
dysfunctional elements. Dysfunctional elements, considered to be
social costs (Blau 1955) may result in the pattern being
abandoned or goals being succeeded. Dysfunctions arising within
organizations are in effect constraints upon action (Watson 1980).
Constraints may be seen as arising within the framework of
consent. The constraints are by consent and without consent
being given constraints cannot exist.
Though the cases of conflict can be as numerous as there are
variables (Allen 1971), much credence needs to be given to the
saying that there is time and place for everything (Gouldner
1955). This paper, without being exhaustive, makes an attempt to
organize the literature about industrial conflict engendered by
such variables as social scientists have identified.
As Parsons (1956) holds, any concern is faced with two major
problems. While the problem of external balance relates to goal
attainment and adaptation, integration and latency constitute the
problem of internal equilibrium.

Apart from endogenous factors, the role of exogenous factors in

regulating the institutional employment relationship needs no
emphasis. Contextual factors are hypothesized as determinants
of conflict in situations of industrial relations. Michael Crozier
(1964) considers power as one of the crucial elements in his
discussion of bureaucracy. Crozier sees an enterprise as based in
the social system framework. Assuming a distinctive culture-a
system of shared values- to be the crucial determinant of the
pattern of interaction in any part of the social system, he views
that the interactions in a large clerical agency in Paris and a
nationalized tobacco monopoly could be traced to the French
culture as one having a tremendous impact on such interactions.
The work-related behaviour has been found to be the outcome of
non-work structural factors. The sources of workers instrumental
orientation to work are traced to the class, community and family
background and certainly not the work-place. Subscribing to the
empirical trimming provided by Goldthorpe et al (1968) and
Beynon et al (1972) to the theoretical tapestry, Rosenberg (1957)
holds that the values which an individual brings with him from
non-work conditions condition the occupational choice open to
his/her milieu. The values, wants and preferences are a function
of the prior orientation of the individual.
It may be seen that the values determined outside do play some
part in determining values within the organization. The character
of the society finds expression in the system of industrial
relations, which is designated as cultural forces (Kornhauser et al
1954; Roberts 1959). Clark (1956) concedes that many conditions
of the social and cultural contexts determine the precariousness
or otherwise of values.
Bringing in the element of ideology as a key aspect of culture
whereby differentiating industrial societies could be identified
from one another, Bendix (1970) observes that culture of
organizational context within which organizations are embedded
becomes essential to have an understanding of organizations.
With a triple personality (Drucker 19551) a business enterprise
not only at once remains as an economic, political and a social

institution, but its third personality reveals itself in the plant

community, which springs forth from shared interests,
sentiments, beliefs, and
values among various groups of
employees. Since ideology is considered as a resource in the
struggle for power (Fox 1971), mobilization of power is contingent
upon the need to make the social organization fall in line with the
members aspirations or to forestall any attempt at change, which
might spell disaster to the interest of the collectivities. Seeing
organization as a vehicle of a system of beliefs and practices, and
treating it not as a closed system, Roethlisberger et al (1964)
subscribe to the view that the attitudes and the significance of
the employees work are to be defined by their relation to the
wider social reality. By the use of the term external systems
(Homans 1950), the susceptibility of activities, sentiments, and
interactions to environmental factors is recognized. The external
community ethos (Gouldner 1955) having been carried over into
the plant are demonstrated as determinants of both work and
social roles. Taking a cue from Homans, Whyte (1959)
unreservedly accepts the important role environmental factors
play in shaping work related behaviour.
Eldridge (1973) identifies the external factors as comprising
market situations, relations with competitors, location of industry
and trade union organization at the local and national level. By
using, the term coalition, Cyert et al (1959) highlight the fact
that management is left with no alternative other than to make its
decisions within a complex set of constraints which include
employees, consumers, suppliers, government, the law, the local
community and sources of finance.
The organizational characteristics seen as related to a series of
variables such as size, location, environment, forms of ownership
and control and general historic factors. (Harvey 1968). Since the
management is confronted with a situation in which it has to react
to a turbulent environment comprising product life cycle, market,
government regulations etc, the question of autonomy arises in
response to such a situation (Friedman 1977). The organization is
a natural product of social needs and pressures-a responsive

adaptive organism-and organizational behaviour could be

deciphered in terms of its responses to its needs dictated by the
environment (Selznick 1949). Thompson et al (1958) outline that
with a view to coping with the reactive environment, organization
adapts four strategies which include competition, bargaining,
cooperation and coalition. While proposing the concept of task
environment, it is suggested that for an enterprise, the
environments have four major sections such as suppliers,
customers, competitors and regulatory bodies (Dill 1958). The
principle of cumulation or vicious circle (Myrdal 1968) and the
concept of organizational-set (Evan 1966) which has taken its
roots from the concept of role-set (Merton 1957) unmistakably
recognize the role of factors falling outside the domain of the
organization in influencing organizational behaviour. Dunlops
(1958) pioneering work through the application of the system
theory to industrial relations demonstrates that the environment
is capable of influencing and limiting the activities of the actors in
the industrial relations system. Gouldner (1960) sharing Dunlops
point of view holds that the organizational structure is shaped by
the tension between centrifugal and centripetal pressures,
limiting as well as imposing control over parts, separating as well
as joining them. An organization seems to operate within the
precincts of four types of environment, namely, placid random
environment, placid-cluster environment, the disturbed reactive
environment and the clustered environment (Emery et al 1965).
The purposeful behaviour of individuals and groups is seen as
being conditioned by the properties of the environing social
system (Lewin 1936).Lewin expresses through his equation b = f
(p.e) that behaviour of individuals is a function of the person and
his environment. Burns et al (1961) in their study of the Scottish
Electronics Industry bring out the existence of two types of
systems mechanistic and organic which represent the polar
extremes. Their study underscores that environmental conditions
have consequences for the organization as a whole.
TECHNOLOGY BASED EXPLANATIONS
Following Taylorean principles (Taylor 1911), an increasing division
of labour has resulted in the breakdown of work tasks. With the

subordination of labour to the rhythms and the needs of the

machines which were introduced as substitute for labour with
in-built decisions, a crisis of disqualification coupled with a
feeling of trained incapacity , begins to envelop, which forbids
opportunities in the external labour market. The external labour
market, which forecloses labour turnover, is seen as a source of
precluding the diminishing returns of conflict (Hirschman 1970).
The pioneering work of Woodward (1965) shows that the kind of
technology employed determines various organizational and
structural characteristics. Though Blauners (1964) conclusions
may be seen as toeing Woodwards, Blauner has shown more
interest in the examination of the relationship between individuals
in the work organizations than on the relationship between
organizational characteristics. Blauners study, however, shows
that technology, essentially a non-social factor (Davies et al 1973)
has come to stay as a force and a key variable to reckon with,
whose influence emanating from the environment is capable of
affecting social relationship. He credits the new automated
technology with the capacity to halt or reverse the trend towards
alienation.
Other studies also have made attempts to relate the
organizational characteristics to a series of variables. Perrow
(1965) shows that when technology employed is simple, society
exerts control and the basic objective is one of alleviation of pain.
When technology becomes complex, the domination passes over
into the medical structure whose concern centres around
technical efficiency. The Aston researchers (Pugh et al 1976)
answer the crucial question as to why the structure of the
organization varies by picking out three main variables, namely,
size, dependence, and technology. Lawrence et al (1967) bring in
the element of market, research and development and technology
as constituting the environment. On a re-examination of the
findings of the Aston Group, Aldrich (1972) in line with Lawrence
and Lorsch (1967), Woodward (1965) and Blauner (1964) finds
technology as a contextual independent variable, despite other
contextual constraints Eldridge (1973) referring to persisting.
Technology in disguise plays an exploitative and alienating role

and proves to be a blessing in disguise for the organization to

increase the amount of control, which Dickson (1974) calls the
ideology of industrialization.
Technology reduces a luxury into a necessity and vice versa.
When technology becomes obsolete, modernization becomes a
luxury, on account of the product life cycle (Wells 1972) affecting
the organization, the skills of the personnel and also the industrial
relations. As products go through the life cycle of introduction,
maturity and decline, consumer preferences to new product
technology become crucial to success and persisting with an
obsolete technology may eventually push the organization into
bottomless perdition.
As the new technology ushers in all around, there is a potential for
labour conflict as the organization has to operate in a competitive
environment relegated from a monopolistic situation. When
technology is seen as essential to the success of an organization,
key decisions concerning new technology are admittedly strategic
decisions and may have important consequences for the labour.
Enforced obsolescence of skills reduce the alternatives for
employment outside and labour turnover, either due to executive
menopause(Saunders 1962), life cycle squeeze (Mann 1973) or
fear of the unknown (ibid) remains at its lowest ebb. The overall
impact of technology upon the social structure becomes nobodys
business through default (Merton 1959), since technocrats
busyness centres around their own limited tasks. Technology with
a human face (Schumacher 1977) is thought of as a possible
solution to bring to halt the saddening trend of men working in
factory remaining corrupt and degraded while their constant
endeavor to turn dead matter go out from there improved
continues (ibid).
CONCLUSION
Although sociological literature abound with several studies on
human behaviour in industrial context, the changing physiognomy
of labour relations, since the late fifties, has caught the prying
eyes of sociologists, resulting in systematic studies being

undertaken to unearth what is wrong with the system? A

substantial body of literature on organization has been found to
be reliant upon or oriented toward human relations and
leadership problems. Any investigation that is not cognizant of the
organizational structure, its goals and environment, which
significantly make or mar the fortunes of the organization, is lopsided. Organizational problems cannot be dealt with effectively
unless the structure is manipulated, the goals are analyzed, and
the variable, which occur both within, and wider social
environment are identified (Barrett et al 1979; Perrow 1976). An
adequate understanding of the forces, which promote or retard
change, requires a grasp of the underlying social, political and
economic dynamics. It looks as though that keeping this aspect in
view Craig (1979) is of the firm belief that the Systems Approach
offers a most comprehensive way of identifying, analyzing,
synthesizing, and evaluating the strategic variables of an
industrial relations system. The knowledge so gained will not only
help the industrial relations system to respond to the quickening
pace of social and economic change more adequately, but will
also help draw the curtain down on public debate on what is
wrong with the system?

REFERENCES
1. Aldrich, H.E (1972) Technology and Organizational Structure:
A Re-examination of the Findings of the Aston Group.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, pp 26-42
2. Allen, V.L (1971). The Sociology of Industrial Relations:
Studies in Methods., London, Longman.
3. Barrett,B., Rhodes, E.D., and Beishon, J (Eds) (1979).
Industrial Relations and Wider Society: Aspects of
Interaction, London, Collier Macmillan.
4. Bendix, R. (1970). The Impact of Ideas and Organizational
Structure in Grusky,O and Miller,A (Eds) The Sociology of
Organization:Basic Studies, New York, The Free Press

5. Beynon,H and Blackburn, R.M. (1972). Perception of Work,

Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
6. Blau, P.M. (1955), The Dynamics of Bureaucracy, Chicago,
Chicago University Press.
7. Blauner,R. (1964). Alienation and Freedom, Chicago, Chicago
University Press.
8. Burns,T. and Stalker,G.M.(1961).
Innovations, London, Tavistock

The

Management

of

9. Clark,B.R (1956). Organizational Adaptation and Precarious

Values., American Sociological Review, Volume 21, pp 327336.
10.
Comte, A. (1980). Quoted in S.Clegg and D.Dunkerley,
Organization, Class and Control, London, Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
11.
Craig,A.W.J.. A Framework for the Analysis of Industrial
Relations System in Barrett,B, et al (Eds), Industrial
Relations and Wider Society: Aspect of Interaction,London,
Collier Macmillan.
12.
Crozier,M. (1964).
The Bureaucratic Phenomenon,
Chicago, Chicago University Press.
13.
.
London, Penguin.

(1969) in Burns.T (Ed). Industrial Man,

14.
Cyert,R.M. and March,J.G. (1959). A Behavioural
Theory of Organizational Objectives in Haire.M (Ed). Modern
Organization Theory, New York, Wiley
15.
Davies,C.Dawsons,S and Francis,A. (1973).Technology
and Other Variable: Some Approaches in Organizational
Theory in Warner,M. (ed). The Sociology of Workplace,
London, George Allen and Unwin.
16.
Dickson,D. (1974). Technology and the Construction of
Social Reality, Radical Science Journal, Volume I, pp 29-50.

17.
Dill,W.R. (1958). Environment as an Influence in
Managerial Autonomy, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Volume 2, pp 409 443.
18.
Drucker,P.
Heinemann.

(1951).

The

New

Society,

London,

19.
Dunlop, J.T. (1958). Industrial Relations System, New
York, Holt.
20.Eldridge,J.E.T (1973). Sociology of Industrial Life, London,
Nelson.
21.Emery,P.E and Trist,E.L. (1965). The Causal Texture of
Organizational
Environment, Human Relations, Volume 2, pp 21 31.
22. Evan,W.M. (1966). The Organizational-set in James
D,Thompspn (Ed).
Approaches to Organizational Design, Pittsburgh,
University of Pittsburgh
Press.
23. Friedman, A.L. (1977). Industry and Labour, London,
Macmillan.
24. Fox,A.(1971). A Sociology of Work and Industry, London,
Collier Macmillan.
25. Goldthorpe,J.H, Loockwood,D., Bechhofer,F and Platt,J.
(1968). The Affluent
Worker: Industrial Attitudes and Behaviour, London,
Cambridge University
Press.
26. Goulder,A.W. (1955), Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy,
London, Routledge
and Kegan Paul.
27. .. (1955), Wildcat Strike- A Study of an
unofficial Strike, London,
Routledge and Kegan Paul.

10

28. .. (1960), Organizational Analysis in

Merton, R.K., Broom,L and
Cottrell,L.S., (Eds)., Sociology Today, New York, Basic
Books.
29.Harvey,E.(1968). Technology and the Structure of
Organizations, American
Sociological Review, Volume 33, pp 247-259.
30. Hirschman,A.O. (1970), Exit, Voice, Loyalty, Harvard
University Press.
31. Homans,G.C. (1950). The Human Group, London,
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
32. Kornhauser,A., Dubin,R., and Ross, A.M., (1954). Industrial
Conflict, New
York, McGraw Hill.
33. Lawrence,P.R. and Lorch,J.W. (1967). Organization and
Environment:
Managing Differentiation and Integration, Boston, Harvard
University Press.
34. Lewin,K. (1936). Principles of Typological Psychology, New
York, McGraw Hill.
35. Mann, M.(1973). Workers on the Move: The Sociology of
Relocation, London,
Cambridge University Press.
36. Merton, R.K. (1957). The RoleSet: Problems in
Sociological Theory, British
Journal of Sociology, Volume 8, pp 106 120.
37. .. (1959). Social Theory and Social Structure,
Glencoe, The Free
Press.
38. Myrdal, G. (1968). Asian Drama: An Enquiry into the
Poverty of Nations,
Harmondsworth, Penguin.

11

39. Parsons,T. (1956). Suggestions for a Sociological Approach

to the Theory of
Organizations, Administrative Science Quarterly,Volume 1,
pp 63-85.
40. Perrow,C.(1965) Hospitals, Technology Structure and
Goals, in March,J.G.,
Handbook of Organizations, New York, M.Rand McNally.
41. (1976). Organizational Analysis:A Sociological
Review,
London,Tavistock.
42. Pugh,D.S, and Hickson,D.J. Organizational Structure in its
Context:The Aston
Programme,England, Saxon House, D.C. Heath Ltd.
43. Roberts, B., (1959). Trade Union in a Free Society: Studies
in the Organization
of Labour in Britain and the U.S.A., London, Hutchison.
44. Roethlisberger,F.T., and Dickson, W.J., (1964). Management
and the Worker,
New York, Wiley.
45. Rosenberg, M., (1957). Occupations and Values,
Chicago,Free Press.
46. Saunders, D.A. (1962). Executive Discontent in Nosow,S.,
and Form, W.H.
(Eds), Man, Work, and Society, New York, Basic Books.
47. Schumacher, E.F (1972), Small in Beautiful, New Delhi,
Radha Krishna.
48. Selznick, P (1949). TVA and the Grass Roots: A Study in
the Sociology of
Formal Organizations, Berkeley, University of California
Press.

12

49. (1974). Law, Society, and Industrial Justice,

New York, Russell
Sage Foundations quoted in Fox, A., Beyond Contract:
Work, Power and
Trust Relations., London, Faber and Faber.
50. Thompson, J.D and McEven, W.J (1958)., Organizational
Goal Setting as an
Interactive Process, American Sociological Review,Volume
23, pp 23 31.
51. Taylor, F.W. (1911). The Principle of Scientific Management,
New York,
Harper.
52. Watson, T.J. (1980), Sociology, Work and Industry, London,
Routledge and
Kegal Paul.
53. Wells, L.T (Jr) (1972). The Product of Life Cycle and
International Trade,
Boston, Harvard Business School.
54. Whyte, W.F. (1959). An Interaction Approach to the Theory
of
Organizations, in Haire, M (Ed). Modern Organization
Theory, New York,
Wiley.
55. Woodward, J. ((1965). Industrial Organization: Theory and
Practice,London,
Oxford University Press.
*******

13

14

15