A Review and Critique of Research on Developments in Joint Consultation1
| Published date | 01 November 1987 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.1987.tb00723.x |
| Date | 01 November 1987 |
A
Review and Critique
of
Research on
Developments in Joint Consultation’
Mick Marchington
*
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, there has been a renewed debate about the extent and
nature
of
joint consultation within British industry. Evidence has been
produced from a number
of
surveys about the
extent
of consultation, and
the degree to which this may or may not have changed since the early to
mid
1970’s
(Brown,
1980;
Daniel and Millward,
1983;
Joyce and Woods,
1984;
Edwards,
1985;
MacInnes,
1985).
Whilst most commentators are
agreed that there has been an increase in the extent of consultation over
this period, MacInnes dissents from this position, arguing that the
statistical evidence available does not in fact provide evidence
of
expansion. Rather, ‘the high birth rate and apparent “renaissance”
of
consultation is paralleled by an equally high but less visible death rate and
its continued “withering away”. This keeps the overall incidence
of
consultation relatively stable, while the continual turnover of committees
gives rise to the appearance depending on the viewpoint
of
the observer of
either decline or renaissance’.
(1985; 106)
Daniel and Millward disagree
with this, and report an introduction to abandonment ratio
of
9:l
between
1975
and
1980
which, even allowing for lapses
of
memory, seems to point
to some expansion.
More important than arguing about the extent
of
consultation, which can
become rather sterile, is the debate about its
nature.
This is the principal
focus
of
this article. In very broad terms, two different models
of
consultation have been put forward by researchers and both are directly
contradictory.
On
the one hand, a number
of
writers (Terry,
1983;
Chadwick,
1983;
Batstone,
1984;
Edwards,
1985)
all point to a revitalisation
of consultation which has coincided with the increased use
of
direct
employee involvement approaches by employers. This, it is argued, has the
effect
-
intentional or not
-
of
undermining collective bargaining and
consequently weakening trade unions by the back door. On the other hand,
the Glasgow researchers, (MacInnes,
1985;
Cressey
et al.,
1985)
have
argued that recent years have seen an increased trivialisation and
’
*Department
of
Management Sciences,
UMIST.
To continue reading
Request your trial