How do Party organizations’ boundary-spanning behaviors control worker unrest? A case study on a Chinese resource-based state-owned enterprise
| Published date | 13 February 2017 |
| Pages | 184-203 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-03-2016-0052 |
| Date | 13 February 2017 |
| Author | Jingfu Lu,Min Li |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour,Industrial/labour relations,Employment law |
How do Party organizations’
boundary-spanning behaviors
control worker unrest? A case
study on a Chinese resource-based
state-owned enterprise
Jingfu Lu and Min Li
School of Business Administration,
South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to understand the boundary-spanning behaviors of Party
organizations, and the processes and constraints of these behaviors in controlling worker unrest in Chinese
resource-based state-owned enterprises in the “new work-unit system”using boundary-spanning theory.
Design/methodology/approach –This case study was carried out in a resource-based state-owned
enterprise in the “new work-unit system”in China. The research utilized interviews and archival documents,
and then coded and analyzed the data using NVivo.
Findings –In China, Party organizations’boundary-spanning behaviors (PBSBs) in labor relations
management are identified, and classified into the behaviors of the ambassador, task coordinator, and scout.
Worker unrest can be controlled by these behaviors through the mediation effect of the behaviors of agents in
the “new work-unit system”but can also be provoked in the transformation of the “new work-unit system.”
Originality/value –The Communist Party plays a key role in labor relations management in China’s SOEs;
however, this role has not been explored in any depth. This study builds a model to reveal the “black box”in
which the PBSBs influence the agents’behaviors and how the agents’behaviors then influence the workers,
and in this way control worker unrest.
Keywords Boundary-spanning behaviour, New work-unit system, Party organization,
State-owned enterprise, Worker unrest
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
At the 2011 National Conference on Cooperation and on Constructing Harmonious Labor
Relations, the President of PR China, MrJinping Xi, stated that a “combinationof the powers
of the Party and government, mass organizations, and enterprises”is needed to “construct
harmonious labor relations”(Workers Daily, 2013). Since the reform and the opening up of
China, “the most remarkable transformation is the reform and restructuring of state-owned
enterprises (SOEs)”(Cheng and Wang, 2012, p. 5). The workers’“iron rice bowl”(an
occupation with guaranteed job security, as well as steady income and benefits) had been
broken during the “downsizing for efficiency”(Jian yuan zeng xiao),leading to worker unrest.
Although Party organizations play a key role in SOEs (Mi, 2007), few studies have explored
their behaviorsand the controlling effects andconstraints of these behaviors.Based on a case
study in a resource-based SOE named CH[1], this study uses boundary-spanning theory to
explore how Party organizations’behaviors control worker unrest in the workplace.
Theoretical relationship between Party organizations’behaviors and worker
unrest in “new work-unit system”
Party organizations’boundary-spanning behaviors (PBSBs)
Boundary-spanning behaviors are defined as “behaviors that aim at establishing
relationships and interactions with external actors in order to enable the team to meet its
Employee Relations
Vol. 39 No. 2, 2017
pp. 184-203
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0142-5455
DOI 10.1108/ER-03-2016-0052
Received 3 March 2016
Revised 28 August 2016
30 October 2016
Accepted 31 October 2016
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm
184
ER
39,2
overall goals”( Joshi et al., 2009, p. 732). Early studies mainly focused on information
transfer (e.g. Aldrich and Herker, 1976; Allen, 1984; Ancona and Caldwell, 1988; Gresov,
1989; Katz and Tushman, 1979, 1981, 1983; Tushman, 1977, 1979), coordination (Malone,
1987), and lobbying (Dean, 1987; Preffer, 1981). Ancona and Caldwell (1992) paved the way
for later studies by dividing boundary-spanning behaviors into those of the ambassador,
task coordinator, and scout (see Table I). Many scholars’classifications (e.g. Druskat and
Wheeler, 2003; Joshi et al., 2009; Marrone, 2010) about boundary-spanning behaviors derived
from the research of Ancona and Caldwell.
At the highest level, “the ACFTU [All-China Federation of Trade Unions] is far less able
than the party and government to exercise authority over its grassroots organizational
cells”(Chen, 2009, p. 664). At the grassroots level, unions always follow the Party line
(Chen, 2012). Based on the Chinese context, this study defines that PBSBs refer to the
behaviors that Party organizations use to build relationships and to interact with external
actors in labor relations management. Thus, the first research question is:
RQ1. Do PBSBs exist or not in labor relations management in SOEs and how are they
classified?
A labor process perspective to see how PBSBs control worker unrest
The “richly and vividly experience of […] collective action is the key to understanding the
change of work and employment in China”(Ngai, 2016: preface, cited in Liu and
Smith, 2016). Few studies have explored how Party organizations control worker unrest at
the enterprise level, and, with this in mind, the focus of this study is the relationship between
PBSBs and worker unrest in China.
There is a principal-agent relationship between the local Party committee and the local
government in controlling worker unrest (Xu et al., 2014). Lance (2011, pp. 47-48) points
out that this relationship “exists not only between the Party and the government but also
between the Party organizations and other types of administrations such as business
administrations.”The labor process perspective, “which builds bot tom-up from the
workplace to more macro pieces of social structure, stressing dynamism and innovation
within production, and constant forming and reforming of social relations between capital
and labor”(Smith and Liu, 2016, p. 5), provides a theoretical lens for this point. In order to
explore how Party organizations control worker unrest at the enterprise level, it is
necessary to figure out how PBSBs can become involved in the labor process. The labor
process refers to “‘workers’manufacturing activities in the workplace and the various
social and political relationships that derive from them”(Shen, 2007, p. 190). Burawoy
(1979/2008) classifies the labor process into production relations (e.g. the relations between
workers and the foremen on the shop floor) and production practices (the process of
turning raw materials into finished products). Because the Chinese Communist Party
(CCP) is “a Party of elites”but not “a Party of the masses,”it has to be involved in the labor
Behaviors Description
Ambassador Behaviors to “protect the team from outside pressure, persuade others to support the team,
and lobby for resources,”which “include both protective and persuasive goals”(Ancona and
Caldwell, 1992, p. 640)
Task
coordinator
Behaviors to “interact externally with teams or work groups at comparable or lower levels in
the organization,”which “involves coordinating tasks, sharing information and knowledge-
based resources, and gaining feedback”( Joshi et al., 2009, p. 733)
Scout Behaviors to “involve general scanning for ideas and information”(Ancona and
Caldwell, 1992, p. 643)
Table I.
Taxonomy of
boundary-spanning
behaviors
185
How do PBSBs
control worker
unrest?
To continue reading
Request your trial