Civil society organizations and the exercise of power in the employment relationship
| Pages | 91-107 |
| Published date | 11 November 2011 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/01425451211183282 |
| Date | 11 November 2011 |
| Author | Brian Abbott,Edmund Heery,Stephen Williams |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
Civil society organizations and
the exercise of power in the
employment relationship
Brian Abbott
Kingston Business School, Kingston University, Kingston upon Thames, UK
Edmund Heery
Cardiff University, Cardiff Business School, Cardiff, UK, and
Stephen Williams
University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth Business School, Portsmouth, UK
Abstract
Purpose – This paper seeks to focus on civil society organizations (CSOs) and their capacity to
exercise power in the employment relationship. In particular, the paper is concerned with identifying
the sources of power, how it is exercised and whether CSOs can exert pressure on other employment
actors despite their apparent lack of resources possessed by more established representative
structures.
Design/methodology/approach – Findings are based on 139 completed postal questionnaires and
47 interviews, primarily face-to-face, across 34 different CSOs.
Findings – Adopting a resource dependence framework suggests that CSOs have the capacity to
exercise power and influence key employment actors. However, the power of CSOs is undermined by
the absence of an internal organizational presence, making it difficult to mobilize workers.
Research limitations/implications – The research highlights the role of an often-ignored
employment actor. To provide further insights further research is needed to garner the views of other
employment participants.
Originality/value – In employee relations discussions of workplace power have typically focused on
the power of the state, employers and trade unions. This paper adopts a novel angle by exploring the
role of CSOs and their ability to exercise power.
Keywords Civil society organizations, Charities,Non-profit organizations, Power, Tradeunions,
Voluntary organizations, Industrialrelations, Management power
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Despite power being recognized as a central component of the employment relationship
it has received little attention from industrial relations scholars (Kirkbride, 1992, p. 68;
Kelly, 1998, p. 9; Martin, 1992, p. 2). This may stem from lack of agreement over how to
define and measure power, and the difficulties associated with studying it (Gospel and
Palmer, 1993, p. 189; Kelly, 1998, p. 13; Martin, 1992, p. 9). Where power has been
discussed the focus has principally been on employer and union power respectively
(Gospel and Palmer, 1993, p. 193; Heyes and Nolan, 2010, p. 118; Martin, 1992, p. 1). The
justification for this is based on management’s key role in controlling decision-making
and the traditional role of trade unions as the primary source of employee
representation (Bryson and Freeman, 2007, p. 72; Hyman, 1997; Kelly, 1998, p. 11;
Williams and Adam-Smith, 2010, p. 183). Union power is often associated with high
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm
Civil society
organizations
and power
91
Employee Relations
Vol. 34 No. 1, 2012
pp. 91-107
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0142-5455
DOI 10.1108/01425451211183282
levels of membership, the frequency of strike activity and the coverage of collective
bargaining (Edwards and Heery, 1989, p. 9; Freeman, 2005; Kelly, 1998, p. 10; Martin,
1992, p. 10). In advanced industrialized economies these traditional indicators are in
retreat, suggesting that union power is declining (Barratt, 2009; Peetz and Pocock,
2009, p. 623).
Given these developments are there any other resources that workers can utilize to
exercise power? The growing international awareness of the role of Civil Society
Organizations (CSOs) in supporting people at work may provide some insights and
forms the focus of this article (Turner and Cornfield, 2007; Heery and Ferge, 2006;
Michelson et al., 2008). Following Hutter and O’Mahony (2004), the label CSO is used to
refer to a wide range of bodies, including charities, voluntary associations, advocacy
bodies, social movement organizations non-governmental organizations, though
excluding professional organizations and trade unions. Typically, these organizations
are not for profit and independent of the state.
Studies of CSOs have focused on specific organizations including; community
groups, advice agencies and organizations seeking to represent the interest of specific
groups, such as migrant and ethnic workers (Fine, 2006; Fitzgerald, 2009; Wills, 2004).
A related concern has been to identify the characteristics of CSOs and their relations
with trade unions (Freeman, 2005; Healy, 2004; Osterman, 2006; Turner and Cornfield,
2007). The effectiveness of CSOs, in protecting and securing gains for workers, is a
further strand explored in the literature (Freeman, 2005; Scully and Segal, 2002).
With the exception of the work of Fine (2006) and Freeman (2005) the issue of CSOs
and power has largely been overlooked. This article builds on the extant literature by
providing the first dedicated academic study of a diverse group of UK based CSOs and
power. A key concern of this paper is to identify the power resources available to CSOs.
Second, can less powerfully resourced groups, such as CSOs exert pressure on key
employment actors when they seemingly lack the capacities possessed by other
representative institutions? Finally, how is power exercised and what tactics do CSOs
employ to secure gains for workers?
These concerns are analyzed using resource dependency theory. From this
perspective organizations are not self-contained units, unaffected by their
environment. This does not mean that organizations are simply victims of their
environment as they can also attempt to shape their environment. Organizations can
achieve this by possessing resources that are in demand from other organizations. It is
not sufficient, however, for an organization to simply possess a resource to exercise
power; it needs to control the resource, which needs to be scarce and critical for the
organization/department requiring the resource. Where these criteria are met it
increases the dependence of the organization requiring the resource on the organization
controlling the resource (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978).
In order to address these issues the paper adopts the following structure; the first
part discusses the nature of power, and the resources giving effect to power.
Methodological issues are outlined in the third section. The next section focuses on the
power resources available to CSOs. This is followed by a discussion of how CSOs
attempt to influence employer and state policies. The penultimate section attempts to
explain why key actors respond to CSOs and the final part identifies the obstacles to
the exercise of power by CSOs.
ER
34,1
92
To continue reading
Request your trial