THE INEVITABLE GROWTH OF INFORMALITY*
| Author | Michael Terry |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.1977.tb00074.x |
| Date | 01 March 1977 |
| Published date | 01 March 1977 |
British Journal
of
tndustrial Relations
Vol.
XV
No.
1
THE INEVITABLE GROWTH
OF
INFORMALIIY*
MICHAEL
TERRY?
INTRODUCTTON
IN
1968 the Donovan Commission recommended, among other things the
development of formal, factory-level agreements to replace the amalgam of for-
mal national agreements and informal shop-floor understandings which the Com-
mission identified as being typical of some major areas of British industry in the
mid-60s. Remarkably, only four years later, the authors of a survey of workplace
industrial relations concluded that ‘of the Donovan Commission’s enthusiasm for
the formalisation of factory-wide agreements there was remarkably little
evidence’.’
This is not to say that partial formalisation had not taken place. The same
authors, while admitting that directly comparable evidence is hard to find, are
confident that there were more written workplace agreements in 1972 than there
had been in 1966 (when the only comparable survey had been carried out). Des-
pite that, they say, ‘it is clear that informality still played a large part
in
the con-
duct of industrial relations in
1
972’.2
The authors of the Donovan Report were aware of this possible outcome.
While claiming that factory-wide agreements were ‘a means for the effective
regulation of industrial relations within the factory
where managers
and
workers
choose
to
use (them) for that purpo~e’,~
they warned that ‘fragmented bargaining
and informal workshop understandings can flourish under a factory agreement as
they can
in
its ab~ence’.~ Generally, the findings of the survey quoted suggest that,
despite moves towards formalisation, informality has either persisted,
or
has
rapidly vanished and re-appeared, to flourish under factory agreements. In other
words, significant groups within such factories have not chosen to use the new
agreements to eliminate informal practice.
This paper will, using empirical evidence, seek to explain some of the reasons
for this choice,
or
rather, will posit the inevitability of a degree of informal
regulation, and provide some
of
the tactical and structural reasons for its
emergence and persistence. Responding to Hill’s call for a deeper understanding
of the processes of rule formation in the ~orkplace,~ the analysis will concentrate
on the role of the workforce, its elected representatives, and junior line manage-
ment
in
these processes, since these are the groups most regularly affected by the
implementation of the rules governing work behaviour and,
as
the data will show,
the groups most actively involved in the generation of informal practices. In
so
doing, it will be necessary to develop further the notion of
‘
formalisation’ as pre-
scribed in the Donovan report, by examining in some detail what this process im-
plies for the groups affected.
The data presented in this paper come from detailed case studies undertaken in
three plants in which management had, broadly, followed the Donovan recom-
mendatiom6 In particular, all three plants had, when studied, a more thorough set
of written local procedures than had existed a few years earlier and, in all three,
*
This paper is based on findings from case studies undertaken as part of
the
research
for
a de-
gree
of
D.Phil., on a grant provided by
the
S.S.R.C.
I
am grateful
to
my supervisors,
w.
E.
J.
McCarthy and
J.
H.
Goldthorpe, for their assistance and encouragement, and to W. Brown
for
detailed
comments
on
an earlier draft.
t
Research Associate,
S.S.R.C.,
Industrial Relations Research Unit, University of Warwick.
76
To continue reading
Request your trial