The Chimera of Sustainable Labour–Management Partnership
| Date | 01 July 2017 |
| Author | Tony Dundon,Tony Dobbins |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12128 |
| Published date | 01 July 2017 |
British Journal of Management, Vol. 28, 519–533 (2017)
DOI: 10.1111/1467-8551.12128
The Chimera of Sustainable
Labour–Management Partnership
Tony Dobbins and Tony Dundon1
Bangor Business School, Bangor University, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2DG, UK, and 1Alliance Manchester
Business School, University of Manchester, M15 6PB, UK
Corresponding author email: A.Dobbins@Bangor.ac.uk
The paper advances a threefoldtheoretical contribution using a system, society and dom-
inance (SSD) eects framework to show how and why sustainable management–labour
workplace partnerships are a chimera. First, managers (employers) find it increasingly
dicult to keep workplace bargains with employees (unions) owing to increasingly ne-
oliberal ‘system’ eects associated with capitalism as a globalized accumulation model.
Second, workplace mutuality will be rare because of ‘societal’ level eects under volun-
tarism. Third, ‘dominance’ eects arising from the power of dominant economies and
their multinational corporations can inhibit workplace mutuality. Drawing on empirical
case study data from Ireland, the future prognosisof management–labour collaboration
under neoliberal work regimes is discussed.
Introduction
With the decline in collective bargaining and
union density in most ‘English-speaking’ liberal
market economies, the concepts of mutuality and
cooperative labour–management partnership at
the workplace have attracted attention from man-
agement scholars, practitioners and policy-makers
for some time (Brewsteret al., 2014; Danford et al.,
2014; Guest and Peccei, 2001; Gunnigle, 1998;
Johnstone,2014; Kochan et al., 2008). The concept
of mutuality describes the desired outcome of the
practices that management use to engage workers,
both directly as individuals and indirectly through
employee representatives, to create shared benefits
for both parties (Cullinane et al., 2014). The spe-
cific mechanisms commonly associated with work-
place partnership are highly variable, but generally
include indirect cooperation between manage-
ment and employee representatives, parallel direct
employee involvement via teamwork and other
voice mechanisms, and bundles of complementary
human resource management (HRM) practices,
notably financial participation, employment
security and training (Johnstone and Ackers,
2014; Kochan et al., 2008; Wilkinson et al., 2014).
A rationale to evaluate collaborative labour–
management partnership has been advanced by
Budd (2004), including, specifically, processes that
can help mediate ‘eciency, equity and voice’ in
the employment relationship on an enduring basis
(Johnstone, Wilkinson and Ackers, 2010). While
the priorities of employers are invariably eciency
related, this needs to be balanced with equity (em-
ployment standards and fair treatment)and mean-
ingful worker voice (employees having an input
into decisions aecting them). In view of this, part-
nership arrangements involving trade unions are
commonly seen as more robust and facilitative of
a wider pluralist understanding of mutuality than
might be encountered in non-union work regimes,
e.g. because institutional power-sharing and inde-
pendence from management is more likely (Culli-
nane et al., 2014).
Employee participation arrangements in
economies such as Ireland, the UK, Australia
and the USA are subject to particular liberal
market pressures that underscore the significance
© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK
and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA, 02148, USA.
To continue reading
Request your trial