THE MANAGEMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN THE MODERN CORPORATION: AGENDA FOR RESEARCH
| Published date | 01 March 1983 |
| Author | John Purcell |
| Date | 01 March 1983 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.1983.tb00117.x |
THE MANAGEMENT
OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN THE
MODERN CORPORATION: AGENDA
FOR
RESEARCH’
JOHN
PURCELL*
IT
is increasingly noted that insufficient attention has been paid to the policies and
practices of management in the handling of industrial relations (For a discussion
on
reasons for this neglect, see Wood,
1982).
One notable feature has been the failure to
appreciate the distinctive features of modern business corporations which increasingly
dominate both private sector manufacturing and service industries and provide a
model for management in public sector concerns such as nationalised industries,
essential services, and local and central government. This paper seeks
to
trace the
distinctive features of these corporations before considering the role and place
of
industrial relations management. Four areas for research are identified. These relate
to the link between corporate decision making and the conduct of industrial relations,
the location
of
collective bargaining and control over bargaining outcomes, the impact
of
management techniques on the design and structure of work and reward processes,
and the question of managerial style
in
the handling of relations with employees and
trade unions. In the process questions are asked about the adequacy
of
the traditional
boundaries
of
the study of industrial relations. It is suggested that there is a need both
to examine industrial relations in the broader context
of
how the corporation manages
the employment of labour, and to shift the focus of study away from what has become
an almost exclusive concern with the workplace.
THE WORKPLACE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS PARADIGM
In the decade and a half since the establishment of the Donovan Commission
(1968)
industrial relations research has been mainly focussed on the workplace and seems
likely to continue in this mode for some time. Our knowledge
of
the dynamics
of
workplace industrial relations has improved immeasurably as a result and
our
understanding
of
the role of management at the workplace has grown substantially.
Winchester
(1983),
in his overview of research in the
1970s,
concluded that,
‘On
inspection, the alleged neglect
of
management in industrial relations turns out to be a
widespread, almost overwhelming emphasis on the importance of management.’
For
example studies on the closed shop (Dunn
1981),
custom and practice (Brown,
1973;
Armstrong
et
a1
1981),
the functioning of shop stewards (Batstone
eta1
1977;
Boraston
et
a1
1975)
and shop steward committees (Brown
et
a1
1978)
and the reform
of
workplace relations (Purcell,
1981;
Parker
et
a1
1971)
have all emphasised the
dominant role
of
management in shaping practices in these areas. This managerial
dominance in determining the nature of workplace industrial relations has been taken
further by Clegg
(1976)
who suggests what amounts to a general theory
of
trade
unionism. The experience, structure and practice
of
collective bargaining is identified
as the ‘main, major, foremost and principal influence on union behaviour.’
(p.
4)
Collective bargaining, in its six dimensions, is
in
turn heavily influenced, suggests
Clegg, by ‘the structures and attitudes
of
employers’ associations and managements.’
We know then that management is important in influencing many facets
of
industrial relations especially at the workplace. However we know little about the
(P.
10)
*
Lecturer
in
Management Studies (Industrial Relations), University of Oxford,
and
Fellow
of
the Oxford Centre for Management Studies.
1
2
BRITISH
JOURNAL
OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
process of management and the way in which management initiatives are formulated
and carried through.
One
reason for this is that the focus
of
nearly all
of
the research
cited earlier was centred
on
issues or ‘problems’ relating to the operation and impact
of
trade unions at the point
of
production, itself a reflection
of
the problem centred, or
policy related nature
of
much research in the
1960s
and
1970s.
Although management
emerged as the dominant influence in many
of
the questions under consideration this
was almost as a surprising by-product. The dominant variable was identified but not
itself examined.
This
was matched by an unwillingness to go beyond the workplace
into the higher reaches of the enterprise. This is particularly strange given that much
of
the research cited was in fact conducted in establishments
of
multi-plant firms. Factors
within the firm, but outside the workplace were consequently treated as
environmental influences to be noted but not directly studied. This reduction
of
variables, whilst often sensible, has led to the neglect
of
corporate management, or a
very uncritical handling
of
activities within the company which were out
of
sight
of
the
researcher, and often plant management as well.
At the same time the focus
on
trade unions and collective bargaining issues has
forced researchers to be highly selective
of
the sort
of
management decisions which
they wish to study. Labour management questions, especially with regard to the
conduct
of
organised labour, are clearly relevant but come to be divorced from wider
questions
of
finance, production, marketing and corporate strategy which are largely
ignored or taken as given.
In
part this reflects the concern
of
many managements to
separate the conflicts implicit in industrial relations from the central decision making
activities
of
the firm.
To parody the position somewhat, the workplace industrial relations paradigm has
led researchers, in their dealings with management, to focus
on
a narrow range
of
issues handled in the main by managers who are not privy to the key decision making
centres
of
the enterprise. We have then compounded the error by making the
assumption that such managers were typical
of
management generally. Terms like ‘top
management’ or ‘senior managers’ are used to describe the works director
or
personnel manager
of
the establishment in question. Given the focus at the workplace
this is
no
doubt accurate, but viewed from corporate headquarters such operational
managers are in the middle
of
the management hierarchy and have little control over
corporate policies or resources. One source
of
confusion arises from the common
practice
of
most large corporations
of
dividing their activities into a number
of
divisions each subdivided further into wholly owned limited liability companies which
may in turn have a number
of
establishments.
In
effect the workplace paradigm has led
us to be uncritical
of
company forms, making the assumption that the traditional,
functionally organised ‘unitary’ company
is
the norm. As Williamson and Bhargava
(1972)
show the unitary company might still be typical
of
small to medium sized
enterprises but is rapidly being superceded by the multi-division or M-form
corporations, which now dominate the manufacturing and service industries.
DISTINCIIVE
FEATURES
OF
THE
MODERN CORPORATION
Table
1
gives some indication
of
the growing dominance
of
large enterprises in
manufacturing. Enterprises with
10,OOO
or more employees employed a quarter
of
the
working population
of
manufacturing industries in
1958.
This had increased to just
over a third in
1978,
while the number
of
such firms grew from
74
to
83.
At the same
time the average number
of
establishments owned by these conglomerates with over
10,000
employees grew from
30
to
40.
This indicates that the changing composition
of
British industries owes much to merger and acquisition rates and less to ‘organic‘
growth in establishment size (Prais,
1976,
p.
59).
The degree of concentration varies between industries but much
of
the classic
To continue reading
Request your trial