Introduction
Ideas of employee participation and voice have a long history as part of the search for positive employment relations, and have also attracted extensive interest among human resource management (HRM) and industrial relations researchers. In practice, participation can refer to a wide range of approaches and techniques, ranging from direct employee involvement initiatives such as profit-sharing, quality circles and communication techniques, to giving workers ownership and control of organisations (Wilkinson et al. 2010, 2014a). In between these two extremes is the pluralist idea of representative participation, where the central assumption is that differences of interest will inevitably arise in organisations, and that effective employee representation is important in attempting to reconcile different interests (Johnstone and Ackers 2015). Historically, collective employee representation would normally be provided by independent trade unions through collective bargaining and joint regulation of the employment relationship.
However, examination of various indicators—such as union membership, density and collective bargaining coverage—reveals trade union decline in many nations (Verma et al. 2002; Waddington 2014). Some employers may take the view that this is not necessarily a problem but a sign of the times, with most modern organisations recognising the value of good people management. New HRM techniques offer more sophisticated ways of managing the employment relationship and there has been an increase in legislation designed to protect workers from unfair treatment (Gollan et al. 2014). Few industrial relations commentators would consider the above position to be realistic, and the influential concept of ‘frames of reference’ developed by Fox (1966) is useful in understanding why. Industrial relations scholarship has traditionally rejected a unitarist view of the employment relationship which assumes that the interests of employers and workers are congruent and naturally cooperative, in favour of a pluralist understanding which recognises an irremovable conflict of interest at the heart of the employment relationship (Heery 2015). In addition to basic economic and legal dimensions, the employment relationship is also believed to have an important psychological aspect which influences employee attitude and behaviour, and crucially a political dimension, with power normally tipped in favour of employers (Colling and Terry 2010). As a result, collective representation of employee interests is considered desirable as a means of redressing this imbalance and to protect employees from exploitation and unfair treatment. Classic pluralism viewed strong trade unions and collective bargaining as the best solution to this regulatory challenge. Some industrial unrest and conflict was accepted as normal, and the emphasis was therefore upon the reconciliation of divergent interests, meaning relationships between unions and employers may be expected to be adversarial and antagonistic at times (Ackers 2014).
However, there has long been an interest in developing more constructive and proactive arrangements where employers and unions work collaboratively in support of the overall success of the organisation. In academic industrial relations, the works of Walton and McKersie (A Behavioural Theory of Labor Negotiations, 1965) in the USA and Flanders (The Fawley Productivity Agreements, 1964) in the UK were seminal publications, both suggesting that different kinds of bargaining relationships were possible between unions and employers. The central idea was that in contrast to the distributive agenda associated with the ‘arms-length adversarialism’ of classic pluralism, where employers and unions focus on defending their own distinctive interests, unions and employers can potentially work together as part of an integrative agenda, forming cooperative ‘productivity coalitions’ to the benefit of all parties (Heery 2015). Freeman and Medoff (1984, 165) described this as ‘management and unions work[ing] together to increase the size of the pie as well as fighting over the size of their slices’.
In some European nations such as Germany, and rooted in notions of ‘economic democracy’ (Wirtschaftdemokratie), the system stresses the importance of stakeholder participation in issues of labour and industrial management (Casey and Gold 2000). The ideas and language of cooperation, dialogue and mutual gains are well established in the concept of social partnership, which itself is embedded in European-style social democracy and industrial citizenship (Hyman and Gumbrell-McCormick 2010). Social partnership is concerned with encouraging cooperation, consultation and dialogue between the social partners (unions, employers, government agencies and other interest groups) in the making of economic and social policies on specific issues such as wage fixing and broader challenges such as retirement provision. As a minimum, this encourages discussion and debate, but may also lead to consensus regarding appropriate policy responses. The social partnership approach is also enshrined in law and supported by specific institutional mechanisms, mostly notably the dual system of industrial relations which channels the integrative aspects through employee-based works councils, and the redistributive aspects through centralised collective bargaining between unions and employers at the sector level. This ‘dual system’ arrangement is believed to lead to a close partnership between the two sides of industry (Gold and Artus 2015).
In other nations, especially the liberal market economies, such approaches have been described as having an ‘alien ring’ (Ferner and Hyman 1998, xv). More voluntarist traditions mean a range of possible arrangements have been identified. In the context of Britain for example, Purcell (1981) outlined four patterns of industrial relations depending on both the degree of trust between the actors and the degree of formalisation of the arrangements. Purcell argued that while cooperation could develop in both formal and informal contexts it was trust that was a prerequisite for cooperation. These ideas were further developed by Purcell and Sisson (1983) in a subsequent typology which considered the extent to which unitarism and pluralism were evident. Unitarist employers, with their emphasis on common purpose and shared goals, might favour an authoritarian approach stressing compliance with rules, or a softer paternalistic approach concerned with promoting employee welfare and involving employees to increase levels of commitment. Both approaches are primarily concerned with the direct relationship between employers and individual employees and the extent to which this helps or hinders enterprise goals.
For pluralists, however, the inevitability of conflict and political dynamics of the employment relationship mean strong workplace institutions, such as trade unions and collective bargaining, are needed in order to mediate and reconcile tensions in the employment relationship. The particular value of the Purcell and Sisson framework is that it notes how different types of relationships are possible between unions and employers. Employers may be pragmatic and opportunistic, with industrial relations viewed as a firefighting activity and management responding to issues as and when they arise without a guiding strategy or ideology (standard moderns). Alternatively, a more legalistic ‘constitutional’ approach may be taken where the limits on collective bargaining are formalised and codified in a collective agreement and managers are generally free to make decisions on issues beyond the scope of formal agreements. Finally, there may be an aspiration to go beyond formally prescribed and primarily distributive issues, and to develop more cooperative and integrative bargaining relationships characterised by high trust, extensive consultation and a commitment to joint problem-solving (a sophisticated modern ‘consultative approach’). It is this third approach which has many of the hallmarks of the labour–management partnerships which form the focus of this book.
The Partnership Alternative
In broad terms, contemporary debates regarding partnership and labour–management cooperation are concerned with developing collaborative relationships between employment relations actors, and usually between trade unions and employers, as part of an attempt to work together in search of mutual gains outcomes (Kochan and Osterman 1994). In recent years, attempts at developing more collaborative relationships have variously been termed ‘workplace partnership’, ‘enterprise partnership’, ‘labour–management partnership’ and ‘mutual gains’. However, the terminology of partnership is frequently confusing and we need a more developed definition.
Firstly, partnership is primarily informed by pluralist concerns with the collective dimension of the employment relationship, reconciling the inevitable tensions between different business priorities and improving the overall quality of workplace relations. Reflecting this emphasis, most of the debate has occurred in the industrial relations field, though there are clear linkages with broader HRM debates concerning high-performance work systems and employee engagement. Secondly, there is also a general emphasis on improving the nature of the relationships between stakeholders, greater involvement of workers and their representatives in decision-making and encouraging organisational actors to work together to solve problems and pre-empt conflict. In terms of processes, representative voice is central to all definitions, with partnership typically associated with a highly consultative management style and a transparent approach to decision-making. Developing constructive dialogue around issues of business concern (e.g. efficiency, productivity) as well as employee priorities (e.g. job security, fair treatment) means recognising the legitimacy of different points of view and requires high-trust relationships to be effective. Partnership is also normally associated with a range of supporting HRM practices, including agreements concerning job security and flexibility. Finally, partnership is primarily concerned with the dynamics of workplace relations at the individual employer or workplace level (see Johnstone et al. 2009).
The focus at the employer or workplace level means partnership remains distinct from continental European social partnership (Hyman 2005). Partnership, as an approach to industrial relations, is also distinct from partnership as a form of ownership associated with cooperatives and employee-owned enterprises such as the John Lewis Partnership in the UK. As a result, distinguishing between partnership and non-partnership can be difficult. One option is to be guided by how organisations themselves describe their approach to industrial relations. Some officially espouse a partnership model and develop a formal agreement reflecting many of the principles outlined above, though in reality, the agreements can be quite vague (Samuel and Bacon 2010) and reveal little about the nature of industrial relations on a day-to-day basis. Conversely, some organisations are reluctant to use the language of partnership or to sign a formal agreement but demonstrate many of the characteristics of partnership models (Johnstone et al. 2009, 2011). A further ambiguity is whether partnership requires trade unions or whether it can describe an approach in non-union organisations through a non-union employee representative (NER) body (Cathcart 2014; Johnstone et al. 2010, Johnstone and Wilkinson, 2014). A more inclusive definition suggests we cannot rule out the possibility of both de facto and de jure partnerships, or union and non-union partnerships, without first examining the empirical evidence (Ackers et al. 2005).
Despi...