I assume this is a question fir an assignment. If so it would be far better if you give us your thoughts first.

Most HR people aren’t Employee Advocates ..

Advocates for employees are normally employee reps, or trade union reps.

When I worked in HR & management I've always believed I was generally on the side of those who pay me. Which of course is why we get paid.

Thank you! It is not an assignment question. :-)

Thank you!

Hi Karin, I'm also curious to know what your thoughts are. Interesting to see the use of the word 'unitarist', I wonder where that came from. Apparently this is a word referred to by Alan Price in his book 'Human Resource Management' . Perhaps there needs to be some clarity over 'support' and what that means although I would agree HRM is there to guide, advise and uphold the legal aspects of employment as well as adopting a pragmatic approach to handling employee issues.

As per my view, which is based on study materials, therefore novice, unitarist approach may not be the best strategy all the time. To put this into context I came across the below article that captured my interest.

This suggests, if my interpretation is correct, that opting for a neo-pluralist approach during the design and implementation of change management practices may be more beneficial for both parties. Instead of ‘winning hearts and minds in pursuit of management goals’ understanding the problematic nature of ER as well as being Employee Champion may lead to a more desirable outcome.

J. Arrowsmith and J. Parker (2013) The meaning of employee engagement for the values and roles of the HRM function. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Volume 24. Issue 14.

My question is basically a genuine personal interest in how HR professionals look at the concept of unitarism.

I thought the word unitarist is widely used within HR circle as the profession is based on this idea.
J. Storey mentions in his books also the article I referenced and I come across this expression numerous times in HR articles. It is great to get the view of HR professionals like you so thank you. :-)

In reply to Karin:

I have been studying/practising HRM for very many years and teaching it for 6 but I do not think I have come across the term. I think I knew what it means but it is not a term that is in widespread use.
To misquote an old law professor "On the shop floor they talk of little else than res ipsa loquitor"

Thank you Peter.
Can you please recommend some books you find great and useful in this profession?

In reply to Karin:

Employment law by Smith & Wood
Managing Employment Relations Gennard Judge, saundry etc
Armstrong's Handbook of HRM
Just looked in the text book and I think I am a pluralist

Thank you Peter! I am so pleased to hear that you considering yourself a pluralist. I share the views of this group as well and kind of bothered me that according to John Storey HR has/should have the views of unitarism (It could be my misconception though). That’s why I posted my initial question to see how the HR community sees this.
You made my day and thank you for the book recommendation! :-)

Back in 1978 I remember Sander Merideen of the LSE using the term unitarist to contrast it with the pluralistic approach the he espoused in his Industrial Relations classes . He described pluralism as seeking a win/win where ideally the overall gain was greater than the sum of the parts - as opposed to a zero sum game where it was obligatory to have a “loser” in the outcome. He also considered that the unitarist position was typically held by people whose strategic vision was blinded by myopic short term power play.

Hi Karin

While an HR professional will advocate for employees on occasion, we are not Employee Advocates.

I realise that your question acknowledges that HR roles are multi-facetted, but there is something about the way the question is phrased that has made me react exactly as Keith and David have.

I think it is because misunderstandings about the role of HR crop up in these forums from time to time: a belief that it is HR's role to be neutral, or that we are some kind of variation on a TU rep or social worker funded by the business or that we are Employee Advocates. We aren't. Anyone who characterises HR in any of these ways has fundamentally misunderstood what HR is for, what HR people do and the nature of the employment relationship. Having encountered these misconceptions in the past, it may be that I am now hyper-vigilant and am overreacting to your question. But I'm not the only one.

There can appear to be a balancing act in that sometimes for the good of the organisation we champion the rights of an employee. When you see that occurring, it is just us monitoring and managing the people system of the organisation, doing our jobs as part of the management team, fulfilling our duty to our employer.

That makes it sound as if there is no moral dimension to our work and of course there is. There is a moral dimension to every job in every function. I also get very cross when people try to characterise HR as the conscience of the organisation (which you haven't). This is highly dangerous. If HR is the conscience, then every other function is absolved of their moral responsibility. It's another one of those myths which has accreted around HR and which needs to be challenged vigorously.

In reply to Elizabeth Divver:

What Elizabeth said! Elizabeth also posted on a different question that HR isn't a theoretical practice but actually exists in nuanced organisations. Would my colleagues in my business react well to my theorising about whether I was a pluralist or unitarian? Without a shadow of doubt they wouldn't!

The theoretician/academic will talk about pluralism. The businessman (this includes HR) will talk about aligning the interests of diverse stakeholders. Less cryptic and intellectual but more specific and easily understood outside of academic circles.