According to Cary & Edwin, (2000), this approach is justifiable by the usage of the Leader-member exchange organizational/industrial psychological theory. The theory asserts that the leader of a group develops a natural relationship with all the other members of the group he is leading. The relationship that is of greater quality is characterized by the members of the group having higher responsibilities and influences on the decisions as well as the access to the resources that there are (Cary & Edwin, 2000). The theory does subdivide the members of very high Leader-member exchange and the ones in the lower levels of exchange and the benefits enjoyed by each of them. Cary & Edwin, (2000) argues that the In-group comprise of the members who have the chance of enjoying high Leader member exchange while the group where the leader offers low support as well as the member himself or herself having low positions for influence and concerns is known as Out-group.DUE TO THE In group and out group dynamics the survey that has been proposed is offered the support it deserves for it trial here to seek information. The unionization might be influenced by the Chief Executive Officer preference of one group at the expense of the other hence when the survey results are gathered then it is easier to trace the root of the problem.
Paul, (2005), under the theory of Leader-member Exchange I industrial and organizational theory, the relationship is said to be related to the work that is done as well as the outcomes of the attitudes. As an example, it is realized beyond dought that the level of quality in exchange does influence the employees’ salaries and promotional aspects, their productivity as well as the realization of job happiness and commitment to the organization.
Leader-member Exchange theory is rooted on the premise that the leader and member associations are due to interactions through which the roles of both the leader and the members are defined (Paul, 2005). This role definition does involve three phases which are role taking initially whereby the member is brought into the organization and the leader takes time to evaluate his talents and abilities. Based on these, the member is assigned a specific role. This is seconded by the role making part whereby the leader and the member find themselves in a no structure and informal negotiation. The third bit does involve role routinization. After this the leader and the member are working under the same surrounding and each one of them is able to understand the other well thus the survey proposed would be able to give the employee verdict on the Chief Executive Officer concerning his leadership and how they are perceiving it. The reasons behind the demand for the unionization are also going to be brought out by the survey well enough hence justifying the method I choose here.
Paul ,(1999) says that Unionization of the company is likely to affect some of the key areas such as the economic performance. Unions are linked to influencing the economic performance based on the public policy degree of facilitation on the bargaining power and failure to have a good bargain makes the members of the union to underperform hence making the enterprise to produce less and gain little on revenues.
Productivity of the organization will also be affected by the unionization practice. Studies have shown that the unions do mostly concentrate on hiking the premiums for their members at the expense of performance. Compensation increment without formulating a way of increasing returns to offset these high demands is not positive for a company hence making it pull down the unionized profits (Paul, 1999).
The profitability and the investment capability of the organization shall go down due to the unionization perspective that is going to be adapted. The physical capita in investment and the support needed in research and development will be brought down hence lowering the rates of creating employment and the growth of sales.
From Paul, (1999), administration as well as the other costs shall be increased due to the unionization bit of the enterprise hence making it hard for the management to run effectively to company. The costs hinder management to extents that the management team would be seen as an inefficient lot. Other costs that are associated with the unionization and will affect management of the entity include the ones associated with the divisiveness of the workers and place of work, the extreme decline in the flexibility as one deals with the members of staff as well as the efficiency losses due to job classification and restrictions. These and the decline in individual determination for rewards make it expensive for the management team to run the enterprise.
The management can address the unionization through ensuring that they are up to date regarding the legal framework that is related to negotiations of the union. The manager shall have to be well informed of the likely effects that are due to the happenings on the frontline legalities more concerning the legal laws and they should unsure that the implementations of the union regulations are not delayed (Cary & Edwin, 2000).Individual recognition of the union members shall be positive, as their recognition would facilitate communication. Comprehension and appreciation of the fellers on the other side is positive, as they are useful in times of stalemate during negotiations.
Cary & Edwin, (2000), argues that the productivity losses should not be tolerated and due to likelihood of happening the management should set goals that are going to be attained per employee. Goal setting allows one to be pinned in case of a failure to reach the targets that were availed to him or her. The management shall make no compromise and as a result, all the employees should be encouraged work a little bit harder with the aim of ensuring that are able to raise the money needed to offset their compensation needs.
The compensation demands by the union representatives for their members should not be encouraged if the members are not productive enough to offset the cost linked to it. This is because selfish gain would be pleasing to lazy employees at the expense of backtracking company that is ready to pay more that it can generate. Such is a discouragement and it is supposed to be avoided at all costs.
Leader-member relationship should be impartial and no preference to ensure that all members of staff feel treated the same. This is because the in-group members feel as if they belong while the out-group considers itself neglected. This is not positive and should not be encouraged towards discouraging unionization of the business.
References
Cary,L & Edwin,A.(2000). Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Linking Theory with Practice. Wiley-Blackwell.
Paul,E.(2005). Industrial/Organizational Psychology: Understanding the Workplace.Uk. Wadsworth Publishing.
Paul,M.(1999). Psychology Applied to Work: An Introduction to Industrial and Organizational Psychology.Uk. Wadsworth Publishing.