Employee Relations System in Singapore and Eire Essay

Employee Relations System in Singapore and Eire - Essay usageIn addition, it should also be flexible. (Schregle, 1981)There are certain theories that will act as a background and baseline for this comparative analysis. The first maven was brought forward by a human resource management author called Douglas McGregor. This author strongly believed in the power that the human being has at heart an organisation. He claimed that management is dependent on its employees just as the latter need the former. McGregor believed that management have the ability to determine whether or not their organisation was a success depending on how they chose to carry forward their management practices.The author came up with a human relations theory called theory Y. In this theory, he take a firm stand that all employees have the capacity to change. Consequently, management should endeavour to match employee goals and objectives to the organisation. Since these employees were able to get down in term s of their capacity to handle greater responsibility and to grow position wise, management should try its best to match their overall developmental activities within the organisation to individual ones. Indeed, theory Y forms one of the major guidelines for tidy employee-relations-systems in whatever country. We will therefore use this as a sort of barometer to check on the legitimacy and appropriateness of the employee relations between the devil countries under study.Another theory that will also serve as a backbone in the essay is the theory of the three Ss as postulated by Bartlett and Ghoshal where the three Ss are strategy, systems and structures. In this theory, the two authors believed that management had the distinct and fundamental responsibility to come up with organisational strategy. This would lay the foundation for organisational structures within any one organisation. In this management system, more emphasis is placed on the importance of aligning employees to org anisational behaviour. Adherents to this theory assert that human beings can be replaced and moldiness therefore not be the focus in human resource management. This is why most activities are seen as a form of control and enforcement of slump by employers towards their employees. Organisations and countries adhering to this theory are quite hierarchal. Beside this, their structures precede their strategies. (Bartlett and Sumantra, 1994)The latter theory is slowly phasing out. This has come after the realisation that the most useful resource within any company is its human resource. Employees have the ability to be creative and to apply knowledge appropriately to suite any given organisation. Consequently, there is a need to adopt a totally different approach to management. Most developed countries realise that there are no returns when the organisation places too oftentimes emphasis on controlling its employees because this only serves as backbone for conflicts. The better approac h is to try and create a rich corporate culture and understandably defined organisational objectives. Besides this, employee relation systems are moving way from the need to