Partnership paradoxes. A case study of an energy company
| Date | 01 August 2004 |
| Pages | 353-376 |
| Published date | 01 August 2004 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/01425450410544470 |
| Author | Stewart Johnstone,Adrian Wilkinson,Peter Ackers |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
Partnership paradoxes
A case study of an energy company
Stewart Johnstone, Adrian Wilkinson and Peter Ackers
Business School, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK
Keywords Partnership, Trade unions, Case studies, Industrial relations
Abstract This paper presents the findings of a case study undertaken in a UK utility company,
referred to as Energy Co. The main aim of the study was to assess how the agreement of a
partnership arrangement in 1995 had affected the conduct of employment relations. The study found
that partnership was born out of a poor industrial relations climate, and driven primarily by
management. They hoped that it might improve industrial relations, raise employee commitment,
inform and educate the workforce, and increase employee contribution. Partnership was notintended
to encouragejoint governanceor power sharing.In practice, partnership combineddirect employment
involvement (EI) such as team briefing andproblem solving groups,with representativeparticipation
through a formal partnership council system. Management suggested that, on balance, partnership
had been successful, with benefits including improved industrial relations, quicker pay negotiations
and increased legitimacy of decision making. It was also suggested that there was a positive link –
albeit indirect and intangible – with organisati onalperformance. U nionrep resentativesals opr oposed
that partnership was a success, citing benefits including greater access to information, greater
influence, inter-union co-operation, and more local decision making. Employee views were more
mixed. There was also clear evidence of several tensions. Four were particularly noteworthy: employee
apathy, management-representative relations, employee-representative relations, and the role of
full-time union officials (FTOs). Despite espoused partnership, management hostility to unions was
evident, and a preference for non-union employment relations clear. Consequently, the future of the
partnership in its current form is uncertain.
Introduction and background to the study
Partnership [is] a unique combination of employee involvement processes which has the
potential to maximise the benefits to the company and to the employees in the process of
change (Coupar and Stevens, 1998, p. 157).
The dominant characteristics of British business...donot furnish and environment in which
a union strategy of partnership can flourish (Heery, 2002, p. 26).
It has been stated how “the notion of social partnership had an alien ring to the
English” (Ferner and Hyman, 1998, p. xv). Certainly one of the main problems with
partnership is ambiguity of definition despite attempts to define the term (Ackers et al.,
2004; Ackers and Payne, 1998; Beale, 2004; Haynes and Allen, 2001; Heery et al., 2004)
Ferner and Hyman (1998) suggest that the approach has three characteristics. First,
acknowledging the different interests of workers. Second, encouraging the
representation of these different interests. Third, a belief that such an approach may
be an effective way to regulate work and the labour market. In a similar vein,
partnership has been described as an attempt to marry efficiency issues with social
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm
The authors would like to thank David Beale of the Manchester School of Management, UMIST
for his supervision of the MSc dissertation on which the article is based.
Partnership
paradoxes
353
Received August 2003
Revised March 2004
Accepted March 2004
Employee Relations
Vol. 26 No. 4, 2004
pp. 353-376
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0142-5455
DOI 10.1108/01425450410544470
issues (Martinez-Lucio and Stuart, 2002). Partnership can also be viewed at different
levels – for example, European, state, economy, secto ral and company level – but in
the UK the focus is at enterprise level, as it lacks the institutional and legislative
support afforded in most other Western European nations (Haynes and Allen, 2001;
Heery, 2002). Yet the idea of “enlightened” consensual relations and co-operation is not
new, but draws from a long history of modernisation in British industrial relations
(Coupar and Stevens, 1998; Marchington, 1998, Martinez-Lucio and Stuart, 2002;
McBride and Stirling, 2002).
Firms enter partnerships for a variety of reasons. These include: financial problems,
to win public sector contracts, facilitate change, implement quality initiatives or
harmonise terms and conditions (Brown, 2000; Oxenbridge and Brown, 2004). Yet
opinions on the impact of partnership remain polarised. Consequently, some authors
have highlighted the need for further research, given the limited knowledge of the
outcomes of partnership in practice (Martinez-Lucio and Stuart, 2002 ; Oxenbridge and
Brown, 2004; Roche and Geary, 2002). This study aims to make a contribution to this
debate.
It has been claimed that “greater direct participation and autonomy over work,
together with a collective voice in organisational decision making are seen by
enthusiasts as the hallmark of the partnershipapproach” (Tailby and Winchester, 2000,
p. 384). Clearly, this contrasts with 1980s employee involvement (EI), which generally
ignored or was suspicious of representative participation (Marchington and Wilkinson,
2000). Indeed, one study concluded that companies that rely solelyon direct EI could be
damaging their competitiveness (Wood and O’ Creevy, 1999). Similarly, Ackers et al.
(2004) suggest that more employers are acknowledging the limitations of direct EI.
Of course, interest in partnership did not occur in a political vacuum. The election of
New Labour in 1997 and their “Third Way” principles supposedly represented an
alternative to macho management and traditional adversarialism. The Employment
Relations Act 1999 and the development of the Partnership Fund are viewed as
evidence of a more sympathetic attitude to unions following the neo-liberalism of the
New Right (Taylor and Ramsey, 1998). There has also been more active engagement in
European social policy (Ackers et al., 2004). The information and consultation directive
due to become active in 2005 is another noteworthy development (Hall et al., 2002;
Sisson, 2002). Support for partnership is also evident from various non-governmen tal
organisations[1]. Other issues may also be responsible for the interest in partnership,
including the realisation that 1980s style direct EI did not engender commitment in the
way it was envisaged (Ackers and Payne, 1998; Cully et al., 1999, Tailby and
Winchester, 2000; Wilkinson, 2002), a retreat of the traditional left within the union
movement, continued European integration (Heery, 2002) and a desire by employers to
facilitate organisational change (Martinez-Lucio and Stuart, 2002).
Partnership – nirvana or dead end?
Despite the ongoing debate in policy and academic circles, views on partnership
remain divided. While proponents predict mutual gains for all stakeholders (most
notably Kochan and Osterman, 1994), critics suggest that the benefits are elusive at
best. The main arguments can be set out simply, with most radicals opposed and most
pluralists broadly in favour.
ER
26,4
354
To continue reading
Request your trial