The Potential of Labour−Management Partnership: A Longitudinal Case Analysis
| Date | 01 July 2018 |
| Author | Adrian Wilkinson,Stewart Johnstone |
| Published date | 01 July 2018 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12240 |
British Journal of Management, Vol. 29, 554–570 (2018)
DOI: 10.1111/1467-8551.12240
The Potential of Labour−Management
Partnership: A Longitudinal Case Analysis
Stewart Johnstone and Adrian Wilkinson1
Newcastle University Business School, Newcastle University,Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 4SE, UK, and
1Grith Business School, Grith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Corresponding author email: stewart.johnstone@ncl.ac.uk
Issues of labour−management cooperation have long attracted the attention of manage-
ment researchers, practitioners and policymakers. In Britain, the most recent wave of
interest has been under the rubric of labour−management partnership,nor mally concern-
ing the development of cooperative relations betweenunions and employers. A recurring
theme is that cooperative relations can be dicult to develop and sustain, especially in
liberal market economies. This paper advances the debate by examining the dynamics of
labour−management partnership within the context of a British financial services orga-
nization over a 25-yearperiod. Drawing upon empirical case study data collected between
1990 and 2014, we assess the dynamics of the relationship betweena b uilding society and
the recognized sta union. We confirm the possibility of sustaining collaborative rela-
tionships associated with a mutual gains agenda within a liberal market economy as well
as the fragility of such arrangements. While we acknowledge that sustaining cooperative
regimes can be dicult, we also caution against the tendency towards institutional deter-
minism and underplaying of agency in many of the partnership critiques. Given the lack
of a credible alternative, we conclude that labour−management partnership remains an
important public policy goal and should not be dismissed as a chimera.
Introduction
Issues of labour−management cooperation have
long attracted the interest of management re-
searchers, policymakers and practitioners. In
Britain, the most recent wave of interest has
been under the rubric of labour−management
partnership (LMP) which gained momentum in
the UK in the 1990s. Although partnership was
an imprecise term (Bacon and Storey, 2000; Guest
and Peccei, 2001), for most industrial relations
(IR) specialists, partnership was a pluralist project
concerned with promoting cooperative relations
between unions and employers (Oxenbridge and
Brown, 2004). Ackers and Payne (1998) and Kelly
(1996) set out the normative case for and against
cooperative union−management partnerships,
and numerous empirical studies have since exam-
ined the benefits and risks for employers, unions
and their members in the UK (Brewster et al.,
2014; Butler, Glover and Tregaskis, 2011; Danford
et al., 2005, 2008, 2014; Johnstone, Wilkinson and
Ackers, 2010, 2011; Kelly, 2004), Ireland (Dobbins
and Dundon, 2016; Geary and Trif, 2011) and the
USA (Kochan, 2016). The findings are far from
clear cut; it is possible to find evidence to support
the mutual gains arguments of the advocates,
the risks and challenges identified by the critics,
and all the various points in between (Johnstone,
2014; Johnstone, Ackers and Wilkinson, 2009,
Johnstone and Wilkinson, 2016).
Three main camps can be observed and reflect
the ‘frames of reference’ which inform the main
research traditions in British IR (Edwards, 2017;
Fox, 1966, 1974; Heery, 2015, 2016; Kaufman,
2014). First, the most ardent empirical critiques,
written from within the radical and labour process
traditions and influenced by political Marxism,
argue that the fundamental dynamics of capital-
ism render union−management cooperation for
© 2017 British Academy of Management. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4
2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA, 02148, USA.
Potential of Labour−Management Partnership 555
mutual gain flawed and contradictory, and reject
collaborative partnership approaches in favour of
more militant unionism (Danford and Richard-
son, 2016; Danford et al., 2005, 2008, 2015; Kelly,
1996; Upchurch et al., 2008). Second, radical
pluralists, who combine elements of radical and
pluralist thinking, stress how capitalism creates
a ‘structured antagonism’ between workers and
management (Edwards, 1986; see also Dundon
and Dobbins, 2015). Writers in this tradition also
oer a critique of capitalist social relations butdis-
tance themselves from Marxist political projects.
Although not opposed to partnership per se,they
are pessimistic regarding the potential of diusing
and sustaining LMPs in liberal market economies
(LMEs) due to the systemic pressures of neoliberal
capitalism, limited statutory regulation and domi-
nance of multinational corporations(Dobbins and
Dundon, 2015; Simms, 2015). Without reforming
the institutional environment, LMP is believed to
be a chimera in voluntarist institutional contexts
(Dobbins and Dundon, 2015). In the final camp
reside neo-pluralist commentators who express
concerns regarding the risks of becoming trapped
in an ‘iron cage’ of institutional determinism
which underplays the role of actor action in shap-
ing institutions (Ackers, 2002, 2014). Heery (2015)
also observes how ‘there is a trend in pluralist
work to downplaythe agency of employers viewing
them instead as “institution takers” conforming to
systemic imperatives that operate above the level
of the firm [rather than] actors with the potential
for significant agentic action’(p. 31). Neo-pluralist
commentators are more optimistic regarding the
potential of localized actor agency, including the
role of management and union champions, in
sustaining collaborative partnerships within cap-
italist neoliberal market economies. They are also
pessimistic about the future of unions in LMEs
without partnership (Ackers, 2015; Donaghey,
2016; Johnstone, 2015; Johnstone and Wilkinson,
2016). As Heery (2016, p. 123) notes, ‘the dispute
over partnership echoes many earlier clashes
between the pluralist and critical frames, and is a
manifestation of a fundamental line of cleavage,
a zone of contention within the field’. However, as
the above discussion illustrates, this is no longer
just a clash between the critical and pluralist
frames but also an important point of contention
within the pluralist frame; neo-pluralists view
radical pluralists as having moved too close to
the radical perspective while radical pluralists
view neo-pluralists as shifting towards unitarism
(Ackers, 2014; Dundon and Dobbins, 2015).
Yet despite contentious debates regarding the
desirability of LMPs, as well as a voluminous
(but inconclusive) empirical literature assessing
the outcomes, our knowledge of the dynamics at
the enterprise level remains partial and incom-
plete (Butler, Glover and Tregaskis, 2011). Many
studies oer a snapshot into the outcomes of
specific incidents and initiatives (see for example
Johnstone, 2010). However, radical, radical plu-
ralist and neo-pluralist commentators all accept
that instances of partnership are possible; where
they dier is the desirability and sustainability
of such arrangements. We thus need to under-
stand how and why LMP evolves and survives in
some contexts but not others, ideally based on
analysis over an extended period of time (Butler,
Glover and Tregaskis, 2011; Geary and Trif, 2011;
Oxenbridge and Brown, 2004). While some au-
thors have traced relationships over a decade or
more (see for example Kochan, 2016) such studies
are rare but vital if we are to understand why
LMP survives or falters. This is the motivation
for the present paper. Our empirical focus is
the relationship between an employer (a British
building society) and a trade union (an internal
sta union) over a 25-year period (1990−2014).
Three main questions guided the study.
(1) Why did labour−management cooperation
develop at the enterprise level?
(2) How did labour−management cooperation
evolve over time?
(3) Which factors supported and hindered sus-
tainable labour−management cooperation?
Our paper makes several contributions.
Empirically, we provide rare insights into
labour−management cooperation in the con-
text of building societies, a sector renowned for
cooperative union−management relations but
largely absent from the partnership debate of
the 1990s (Gall, 2008). Second, our engage-
ment with union and management actors over a
25-year period allows us to provide much needed
longitudinal insights into how cooperation ebbs
and flows over time. Conceptually, we make a
contribution to recent debates in this journal
regarding the longevity of workplace partnership
in LMEs (Dobbins and Dundon, 2015) as well
broader debates regarding the influence of context
© 2017 British Academy of Management.
To continue reading
Request your trial