Voices from the Shop Floor

Dramas of the Employment Relationship

Anne Marie Greene

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9780367249557
• eBook ISBN: 9781351762656
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

This title was first published in 2001. This edition presents the view that strategies which aim for team building without recognizing the importance of diversity are likely to have limited success. This volume makes use of the an ethnographic account of an occupational industry based around lock manufacturing in England, plus a number of ethnographically informed industrial relations accounts from the developing world. The book presents some examples from the lock industry ethnographies, exploring the experience of work on the assembly line in a lock factory from both the perspective of an ethnographic observer and then from the perspective of two assembly line workers themselves. It also presents a developing world example. The ethnographic observer's view is complemented and challenged by the accounts of the people rersearched. The accounts provided give a small glimpse of the many themes that arise in the workplace.

Chapter One

Focusing on the Interior of Social Action: the Contribution of Ethnographic Approaches to Industrial Relations

The quantitative approach dominates the industrial relations field. As a consequence, we contend that the industrial relations literature for developing countries is severely underdeveloped as a consequence of the rigid hold of quantitative industrial relations paradigms over the discipline. In addition, many developing countries do not have the statistical bases or the resources to build the statistical bases, which would generate industrial relations literature within the prevailing paradigm. Ethnography is an appropriate methodology for exploring industrial relations. This volume thus opens the gate to industrial relations voices from the developing world by establishing the prestige and current contribution of ethnographic methods within this policy and academic domain. It makes links between the analysis presented and its methodology with a model for industrial relations research within the developing world context.

Before specifically looking at industrial relations research in the developing world, some background discussion is necessary. Both the quantitative, macro-level survey and the micro-level case study have a long history within industrial relations inquiry in Britain, North America and Australia. However, two more recent areas of debate in the field have relevance for the methodology proposed within this volume. The first involves concerns raised by researchers about the growing predominance of the quantitative survey as an industrial relations methodology while the second deals with calls for voiced accounts, where the voices of those involved in the research: their thoughts, comments, observations and actions can be directly seen and heard in the text.

Marginson (1998) summarises the concerns raised by a number of researchers about the demise of the tradition of case-study research and the spread of research based on analysis of survey data sets (Brown and Wright, 1994; Kelly, 1994; McCarthy, 1994). In contrast to fears that the survey method is being rejected, Whitfield and Strauss (1998) trace the increasing use of quantitative methods in industrial relations research in Britain and North America. A quick glance through latest editions of industrial relations journals will attest to the predominance of quantitative research material. Indeed Strauss and Whitfield state that the editorial system of those journals deemed to be of the highest quality, ‘encourages safe, narrow articles that can pass the scrutiny of often hostile reviewers. Most journals today seem to prefer highly empirical studies, highly buttressed with statistics’ (1998, p. 18). In addition, the accessibility of survey data sets such as the Workplace Employee Relations Survey (Cully et al., 1999) in Britain and the technology capable of analysing it, has meant that quantitative surveys are more popular in that they have the capability to generate high productivity for academics in terms of publication (Kelly, 1994). We need to begin now however, to question whether this is really generating quality of inquiry and account.

The emergence of the survey as the predominant paradigm is of concern because it is felt that the survey method is limited in uncovering processes behind structures and practices (Edwards, 1995) and emphasises explanations focused on structures and environments rather than processes and actions (Kelly, 1994). Morris and Wood (1992) also identify that surveys tend to emphasise continuity rather than change. While surveys are often held up as providing fruitful starting points for further case studies (Morris and Wood, 1992), the opposite is also true, that more qualitative approaches can provide challenges to and support for generalised survey findings. Terry and Edwards (1988), make a specific call for more industrial relations studies at the level of individual plant or company, to complement the broader historical accounts, which emphasise patterns across whole industries.

Within the developing world context specifically, the factors presented as being particular strengths of the quantitative survey can present clear difficulties. Marginson (1998, p. 365) outlines two main strengths of the most recent quantitative British industrial relations surveys in comparison to those earlier surveys, which he feels are more open to criticism:

the ability of such surveys to provide an account of structures and practices that is representative of workplaces or large enterprises, across the economy … flows from the use of proper statistical sampling procedures and rigorous fieldwork methods. Provided that a high level of response is elicited, the findings from the sample survey can be generalised … The principal methodological disadvantage confronting the earlier, pre-1980, workplace surveys lay in the unavailability of a suitable comprehensive listing of the population of workplaces across the economy … from which an economy-wide representative sample could have been drawn.

If generalisability underpins the contribution of surveys within industrial relations, then one must seriously consider whether such a methodology is appropriate for the developing world context. In the development field, researchers and academics confess the difficulty that is confronted in conducting large scale survey research in many countries in the developing world where such comprehensive population lists are not available, nor the statistical databases to develop such resources (Ravi Kanbur, personal communication).

The second area of new debate, involves calls for voiced accounts within industrial relations in order to expand the issues researched beyond simply bargaining within organisations. Seeing industrial relations as about social interactions and relational processes directs one to methods that have a greater participatory dimension such as ethnography.

An Ethnographic Approach: Voicing the Accounts

A gap in the industrials relations field is only significant if an alternative offers benefits. In order to outline a possible alternative, there is a need to elucidate what we mean by ethnography and the value of it as a set of methods for industrial relations. Ethnography is not easy to circumscribe and there appears to be considerable diversity in the prescription and practice of it. Indeed in his discussion of the roots and development of ethnography, Linstead states, ‘the term “ethnography” covers a diversity of positions, at the level of technique, methodology, or epistemology’ (1993, p. 100). Looking at ‘ethnography’ in purely etymological terms, the word ethnography means the art and science of describing a group or culture, usually involving an exploration of the history of the group, the geography of location, kinship patterns, symbols, politics, economic systems, educational and socialisation systems and the degree of contact between target culture and main stream culture. However, this simplistic definition does not really capture the essence of the ethnographic approach. Essentially, ethnography is all about detail; providing rich description, sensitivity to perceptions and above all, paying attention to the voices of those people being researched. It has evolved essentially from anthropological research and so with regard to the basic elements of ethnography, in classic anthropological terms, the main technique involves participant observation. Hammersley and Atkinson characterise ethnographic participant observation as:

The ethnographer participates overtly or covertly in people’s daily lives for an extended period of time; watching what happens, listening to what is said, asking questions, collecting whatever data are available to throw light on the issue with which he or she is concerned (1983, p. 3).

However, a purist view of ethnography where it includes only participant observation appears to be particularly narrow and constricted. The practical contingencies of fieldwork mean that a ‘full-blown’, classical ethnography is often impossible. The ability to be a participant observer is limited to the extent that a lucky access situation exists or the study is in a work place that does not require particular qualifications (Czarniawska-Jeorges, 1992). In addition, this kind of participation requires a time context that is quite impractical in most cases.

Friedman and McDaniel (1998, pp. 115–16) outline four main features that offer a broader definition of ethnography, within an industrial relations arena. Firstly, direct and personal observation of people and situations. Within ethnography, a more critical and interpretative approach is preferred, which sees as its ultimate aim, an increased understanding of the social worlds researched. The main interest is in exploring more closely, the dynamics of the employment relationship and trying to investigate the social relations of work related to particular contexts, looking at how people create and legitimate their worlds. Secondly, the ‘voicing’ of accounts is emphasised, so that prominence is given to the words, interpretations and experiences of the people studied. This involves a concern to study: ‘the frame of reference within which the actor’s own definitions of the situations in which they are engaged are taken as an initial basis for the explanation of their social behaviour and relations’ (Goldthorpe et al., 1968, p. 184) which emerges from older industrial sociological enquiries. One needs to investigate this process of accounting: how do people express and legitimate their social world? Ethnography is thus largely about capturing voices: one has to look for the meaning attributed to those actions by the people being researched themselves. The ethnographer relies on the spoken interpretations of those people involved and then tries to use external concepts, value systems and ideologies to help interpret them (Czarniawrska-Jeorges, 1992).

Therefore, thirdly, observations and analyses are made in the context of the people going about daily business and interacting with others. Ethnography focuses explicitly on the social context and people interacting within this context, rather than more positivistic and quantitative research techniques, in which the focus is on individuals in isolated situations and where the premise is on the need for objectivity. Industrial relations analyses within ethnographies should thus be situated firmly in their workplace contexts, focusing in on the discourses of individuals, building up ‘thick description’ (Geertz, 1973) by overlaying different viewpoints, observations, rhetoric and factual information derived from a variety of sources. This is a central premise: the need for the voices of the employees, managers and trade unionists to come through into the account, rather than solely from the mouth of the apparently objective researcher.

Finally, these observations from the researcher are then shared with the reader. Thus, the researcher needs to be extremely reflexive about the research process and reflexivity represents a framework in which to regard the authenticity of an ethnographic account (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1983; Hammersley, 1992; Potter, 1996; Linstead, 1993). The most important thing is that any interpretations of the meanings attributed by the participants and any analysis of what people say and do are made explicit. Such a viewpoint attempts to overcome some of the weaknesses of many ethnographic accounts that they describe the particular social realm as ‘it really is’, or that it is a ‘true account’ (Hammersley, 1992; Rosaldo, 1989). This is particularly within the anthropological tradition, where the ethnographer’s ability to describe what has been seen and heard within the framework of the social group’s view of reality, is considered to be one of the primary contributions of ethnography (Fetterman, 1989). The presentation of findings from the view of the participants is however, largely an ideal and all social scientists attribute a point of view and interpretations to the people whose actions they analyse. In essence, we can only aim to present with the most practical accuracy what people think they are doing, what meanings they give to the objects and events in their lives and experience (Geertz, 1973, p. 23). This is done by allowing the voices of those researched to come through within the text, allowing the reader some space to assess whether the researchers’ evaluations and explanations are appropriate.

Dramaturgical Analysis

As the title of this volume suggests, we are also concerned to present in our analysis, what we have defined as various ‘dramas’ of the employment relationship. Dramaturgical conceptions of social relations accept a view that there are certain accepted understandings about forms of interaction, which can be seen as involving the existence of certain roles, within certain contexts, with certain vocabularies, demanding certain behaviours, akin to the workings of a scripted play. A dramaturgical perspective on social action concerns how people (defined as social ‘actors’), use impression management behaviours to create and maintain identities. Impression management (in a broad definition) is seen as part of an everyday process of socially ‘constructing’ reality (Gardner and Avolio, 1998), which fits with the subject matter commonly researched within ethnography. Such a view is drawn essentially from the work of Erving Goffman (1959), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, where people are seen as ‘actors’ engaging in ‘performances’, in certain ‘settings’ for a particular ‘audience’. Use of dramatic terminology, notably, ‘framing’, ‘scripting’, ‘staging’ and ‘performing’ constitutes the phases of this dramaturgical process (Gardner and Avolio, 1998, p. 32). An emphasis is placed on the interaction between actors, so that the meaning of people’s action is found in the manner in which they express themselves, within a context of that interaction with other similarly expressive people (Brissett and Edgeley, 1990). This highlights the existence of a two-way dramaturgical process, where leaders and followers jointly construct their identities and establish boundaries on appropriate behaviour and action: in terms of the dramaturgical vocabulary, the ‘role’ or ‘part’ that the leader should play. In the context of particular leaders in the workplace (whether that be union or management), the ability of leaders picking up on ‘signals’ emanating from the ‘audience’ or followers (in the employment context: employees or workers) is thus important. The idea of this two-way dramaturgical process is brought out very clearly in this volume, where contextualised worker expectations are found to influence perceptions and attitudes towards both union and management, and consequently levels of trust and commitment. The objective in using a dramaturgical perspective is not in developing new models of impression management (for a review of current research around these issues see Gardner and Avolio, 1998), but as a way of analysing the importance of leadership and management styles in influencing perceptions of commitment and trust, the acceptance or rejection of workplace restructuring and change programmes, and the mobilisation and maintenance of collective support and action.

Ethnographic Methods and the Developing World Context

In the development arena, concerns for voicing of accounts have become an important agenda item. There is a growing concern that development policy should involve more of a dialogue, rather than relying on the monologue of the ‘Western expert’. As Slim and Thompson state: ‘it is no longer enough for the development “expert” to summarise and interpret the views of others, the “others” must be allowed to speak for themselves’ (1993, p. 2). Development agencies are making increasing efforts to canvass the views and opinions of people in the areas where they intervene as is demonstrated with the World Development Report on Poverty (www.worldbank.orgidevforum/forum_poverty.html). Currently, the paradigm established within developing world industrial relations supports the rendering of only the formal account and captures only a small segment of the population. Conventional methods predominantly only capture the formal record, which would tend to exclude a large proportion of the developing world who are illiterate and who have no formal voice within the economic, political or social sphere. Those most excluded from formal policy-making thus remain voiceless. In comparison, ethnography provides a methodology that captures the informal (Thompson and Ackroyd, 1999, p. 51), which would give the illiterate a voice allowing analysis of their discourse and action. Development theory as it has emerged in academic institutions has tended to be premised on the mechanical application of methodologies and research findings derived from the political economies of the West (Sathyamurthy, 1999). This is a significant weakness when one considers that industrial relations behaviours and institutions may have very different meanings and functions in differing cultures (Whitefield and Strauss, 1999). We need to recognise that within this rigid paradigmatic translation, there is an implicit discrediting or unwillingness to view alternative models to those of the West (Sathyamurthy, 1999). As Sathyamurthy continues, and as the later analysis of the use of qualitative methodologies within developing world industrial relations research will support, new areas of research at the macroscopic level, have been almost always carried out at the expense of the microscopic. Yet, it is at this level that we are more likely to have greater understanding of the everyday relationships between management and labour, and what consequences such understandings may have for more macro economic and industrial policies. Part of industrial relations obviously relates to social behaviour and Redding points to the requirement of access to ‘indigenous frameworks of meanings’ (1994, p. 344) if we are to understand organisational behaviour comparatively across countries. As Redding continues, this ‘may require a radical ethnographically based challenge’ to the ‘bankruptcy of empirical positivism’. Such an ethnographic position holds a conviction that the ‘deterministic mechanical causal model of the natural sciences is inappropriate for the enterprise of social science’ (ibid., p. 347). In the field of industrial relations, this could be turned around to state that such a model is inappropriate for the ‘social science of the enterprise’.

Yet currently, there exist few practical suggestions of how industrial relations research in the developing world should be carried out. In reviewing the recent 1998 book edited by Whitfield and Strauss, Researching the World of Work: Strategies and methods in studying industrial relations, Hawes concludes his review by noting that the book:

is centred entirely on Australasia, North America and Britain. It includes almost no serious discussion of how qualitative and quantitative methods might need to be adapted in the Moslem, South American, Eastern, African and broader European worlds (1999, p. 539).

There is thus a need to develop new ways of thinking about industrial relations research and looking at studies that appear to offer a different approach. This is particularly as there is a significant lack of industrial relations ethnographies within the developing world context.

Existing Use of Ethnographic Methodologies in Developing World Industrial Relations

In attempting to sketch the field in terms of the use of ethnographic methodologies in industrial relations-related research in the developing world, a good starting point is to conduct bibliographical searches of the most relevant facilities. In Britain, searches were made at the British Library and at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London. Such searches leave no doubt that ethnographic research has not began to hold a place with the current industrial relations paradigms in the developing world. The data sets are particularly weak in this area. For example typical Boolean keyword searches at SOAS, making connections between ethnography and labour relations or industrial relations, yielded no entries whatsoever. When the search was limited to purely ethnography and particular regions, Africa yielded 23, of which none were industrial relations-related; India yielded nine, of which only one was ind...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Dedication
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Plates
• Acknowledgements
• Prologue
• 1 Focusing on the Interior of Social Action: the Contribution of Ethnographic Approaches to Industrial Relations
• 2 Paternalism: Industrial Relations and Historical Legacies
• 3 Gender and Family: Industrial Relations Beyond the Factory Gates
• 4 Collective Action: Industrial Relations and the Mobilisation of Solidarity
• 5 A Better Way: Authentic Voice, Authentic Participation in the Processes of Industrial Relations
• Appendix
• Ethnographic Resource Archive
• Bibliography
• Index