Workplace Values and Beliefs

8/13/2019 Workplace Values and Beliefs

1/27

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Swets Content Distribution]

On: 8 June 2010

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 912280237]

Publisher Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-

41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The International Journal of Human Resource ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713702518

Workplace values and beliefs: an empirical study of ideology highcommitment management and unionisationAlan Gearea; Fiona Edgara; Ian McAndrewaaDepartment of Management, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

To cite this ArticleGeare, Alan , Edgar, Fiona and McAndrew, Ian(2009) 'Workplace values and beliefs: an empirical studyof ideology, high commitment management and unionisation', The International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, 20: 5, 1146 1171

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09585190902850331URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585190902850331

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713702518http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585190902850331http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585190902850331http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713702518


2/27

Workplace values and beliefs: an empirical study of ideology,

high commitment management and unionisation

Alan Geare*, Fiona Edgar and Ian McAndrew

Department of Management, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

This study is unique in that it examines both managers and workers values and beliefsabout employment relationships. It found that managers consider the employmentrelationship in their own workplaces unitarist rather than pluralist, but have mixedideologies when considering society as a whole. Workers are strongly pluralist when

considering society as a whole, but their workplace ideology is somewhat unitarist.A modest union impact on workers perspectives is found, but little evidence to suggestunions effect commitment to the employing organization. Workers commitment is topersonal careers first and the organization second, while managers put the organizationahead of personal careers. Correlations exist between unitary views of the employmentrelationship, increased High Commitment Management (HCM) practices, and highlevels of commitment. The purpose and contribution of this study is that it reports anassessment of the relation between workplace attitudes and beliefs and the efficacy andinfluence of management and union initiatives designed to impact them.

Keywords:high commitment management; unionization; workplace ideology

Introduction

Much of the Human Resource Management (HRM) literature, and in particular the more

recent variants such as high performing work systems, best practice HRM, and (the one towhich we refer) HCM, assume there are common values and objectives in the workplace,

to the extent that Purcell (1993, p. 517) claims, HRM is the visual embodiment of the

unitarist frame of reference, both in the sense of the legitimation of managerial authority

and in the imagery of the firm as a team with committed employees working with

managers for the benefit of the firm.

This paper briefly discusses the concepts of HCM, and employment ideologies.

Building on a previous study which identified the ideology of managers, this research

evaluates and compares both managers and employees ideologies at a general level of

abstraction and then specific to their particular workplace. In doing so, it offers a balanced

perspective which provides a fuller picture of the workplace reality as experienced by all its

main stakeholders. It examines the relationships between ideology and union membership,

HCM practices and levels of organizational commitment. In doing so, it assesses what

impact, if any, management and union initiatives have on workplace values and beliefs.

High Commitment Management (HCM)

An organization practicing HCM will engage in activities (including communication of

organizational goals to workers, employee involvement schemes, performance-based pay,

ISSN 0958-5192 print/ISSN 1466-4399 online

q 2009 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/09585190902850331

http://www.informaworld.com

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

The International Journal of Human Resource Management,

Vol. 20, No. 5, May 2009, 11461171


3/27

and quality circles (Edwards 1995)) that aim to promote organizational commitmentamong workers (Singh and Vinnicombe 1998), thereby generating a better fit between

organizational and employee objectives (Keenoy 1991, p. 2), and ultimately delivering a

competitive advantage to the organization.

An important characteristic of HCM is a shared value system between management

and those managed. Ideally, employees are recruited and selected, in part, for a value set

congruent with the goals of the organization. Once employees are on board, HCM

practices are intended to enhance the fit. Indeed some suggest such a shared value system

is a requirement of HCM.

Ideology

The concept of ideology has a long history in industrial relations literature, going back a half

century to thework of Taft (1954), Kerr (1955), and Dunlop (1958) in the United States, and

the succession of works by Fox (1966, 1974, 1979), which brought real attention to the

concept in the United Kingdom.

An ideology can be defined as:

A connected set of beliefs, attitudes and values held by an identifiable social group which referto a specific aspect of social reality, which comprise normative, empirical and prescriptiveelements and which may be at a general or particular level (Geare 1994, p. 125).

The beliefs, attitudes and values of the group may relate to society as a whole

(general level) or to a particular level, such as their own organization. Different studies

have shown that beliefs and values, or ideologies, can differ markedly depending on the

level under consideration (Cousins 1972; Ramsey 1975; Nichols and Armstrong 1976).

In addition, the beliefs, attitudes and values may relate to the perceived actual situation

(positive or empirical) or may relate to the perceived ideal situation (normative).Fox (1966) identified two main managerial frames of reference, which can be

considered ideologies unitary and pluralist. The essence of unitary theory is that

every work organization is an integrated and harmonious whole existing for a common

purpose (Farnham and Pilmott 1986, p. 4). The unitary ideology holds that management

exercises legitimate authority over employees, that managers and employees interests

are congruent, and that any conflict between them is an aberration; if conflict arises, it is

attributed to external sources (such as an agitator). The pluralist ideology, on the other

hand, sees the organization as comprising different sectional groups with both common

and competing interests (Horwitz 1991, pp. 4 5). Hence, there inevitably exists the

potential for conflict between management and workers, and conflict is not considered to

be necessarily unhealthy.

Ideology and HCM

The theoretical view that employment relationships are unitary has become entrenched in

the basic (HRM) literature (Guest 1987; Wells 1993; Hart 1993; Storey 1992; Muller

1999; Delaney and Godard 2001), to the point that unitarism is now a taken for granted

assumption of HRM (Keenoy 1999, p. 2).

Nonetheless, unitarism has been the subject of criticism in some sectors of the HRM

literature, with the suggestion that it offers a flawed conception of the employment

relationship (Hart 1993; Keenoy 1999), projecting an ideal but unreal image of the world,

predominantly managerially oriented in its inception, in its emphasis and in its

application (Farnham and Pilmott 1986, p. 15).

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1147


4/27

With HCM, the assumption of the unitary ideology being paramount is even morepronounced. The efficacy of HCM appears to be contingent upon employment relationships

eitherbeingunitary from the outset, or being made soby HCM practices. Thus, the agenda

pursued is one whereby there is no room for any expression of pluralism . . . you either have

to buy wholeheartedly into the culture or get out (Guest 1999, p. 6).

Critics of the unitary ideology claim pluralism is a more realistic interpretation of

employment relationships. Organizations are seen as comprising multiple stakeholders

(Tsui 1984; Farnham and Pilmott 1986; Zinn, Zalokowski and Hunter 2001), including

managers, workers, customers, suppliers and so on, all of whom have goals and interests

which may sometimes coincide, but may at other times conflict.

To date, both proponents and critics of both the unitary and pluralist ideology have

supported their assertions with surprisingly little empirical evidence. While thetheoretical

issue of ideology and HRM/HCM has received attention (Horwitz 1991; Guest 1999),

there has not been much empirical attention to the debate (Muller 1999). Further, until

recently HRM/HCM research was undertaken predominantly from a managerial

perspective, with employees being largely ignored. There is now growing recognition

that the voice of employees, as those on the receiving end of HRM/HCM practices,

requires inclusion in the research (Clark, Mabey and Skinner 1998; Cully, Woodland,

OReilly and Dix 1999; Guest 1999).

This paper goes further than that, suggesting that the beliefs, attitudes and values of

managers and workers should also be researched, rather than simply making assumptions

as to the significance or insignificance of the competing ideologies. This research is

important because HCM, as a managerial initiative, appears not merely to rest on a unitary

base, but to be fundamentally incompatible with pluralism in the workplace.

This study

This paper examines current employment ideologies and their relationship to HCM, and

builds on earlier work (Geare, Edgar and McAndrew 2006). First, the study identifies the

current employment relations ideologies of managers and workers. Second, the influence

of union affiliation on ideology is tested. Third, the issue of fit is examined, by assessing

whether or not a relationship exists between perceived usage of HCM in the workplace and

strength of support for the unitary view of the employment relationship. Finally, this study

looks at whether organizational commitment the intended outcome of HCM is indeed

associated with high usage of HCM practices. This research agenda suggests a number of

research questions:

Research question one

What are the ideological orientations of managers and of workers at both the general andworkplace levels of abstraction?

This requires an examination of the ideological orientation of managers and workers at

two levels of abstraction general and workplace. Consistent with earlier research (see for

example, Ramsey 1975) it is anticipated that respondents will report ideological

differences between the different levels of abstraction.

It is also anticipated that there will be differences in ideological orientation between

managers and workers, and that these in turn may be reflected in their roles and levels

within the organization. While it is expected that very few people would be pure

A. Geareet al.1148


5/27

ideologues, with most having a mix of unitarist and pluralist inclinations, it is predictedmanagers will be more likely than workers to hold unitarist views.

Research question two

Is an absence of union affiliation associated with a more unitarist ideological orientation?

Pluralism, as an ideological view, is strongly associated with unionism. The purported

impact of unions on workplace values and beliefs is evidenced in writings that suggest

unions and their initiatives compete with the interests of management and their initiatives

(Wells 1993; Farnham and Pilmott 1986). A strong and effective union movement

promotes union involvement. For the workers this involvement comes in the form of

membership; for management it comes in the form of participation this participation

may result from compulsion or choice. Union density in New Zealand, which is defined as

the proportion of potential union members who belong to a union (Bamber and Lansbury

1998), has slightly increased since 2000 and stands at around 17% (May, Walsh and Otto

2004). However, this is significantly lower than it was in 1991 when it stood at 34%,

before the introduction of the Employment Contracts Act (1991) which made compulsory

union membership illegal (union membership had been compulsory since 1935). New

unions are predominantly workplace unions, and consequently small. This phenomenon

has largely emerged as a result of recent legislative frameworks (Employment Relations

Act (2000) and Employment Contracts Act (1991)) which encouraged enterprise

bargaining, should bargaining take place at all. The employment relations climate created

by the EC Act, with its overt unitarist overtones, countered only by the very weak response

of the ER Act, will certainly have impacted both managerial and worker views towards

employment relationships in New Zealand. It is reasonable to speculate that these changesmay have prompted an ideological stance supportive of unitarism. The question of whether

this ideological viewpoint should be considered new as opposed to a return to a previous

position is largely indeterminable however, because there are little historical data on

which comparisons can be made. One such study does exist however. This study examined

managerial ideologies in New Zealand and found the prevalent view of managers in the

mid 1980s to be quite strongly pluralist (Geare 1986). This study was, however, conducted

prior to the popularization of HCM and the introduction of neo-liberal political policies

with unitary underpinnings.

In this study, it is therefore predicted that union involvement will be a factor likely to

influence the workplace values and beliefs of both the manager and the worker groups.

However, as union density in New Zealand at present is reasonably low, the amount of

participants affected is likely to be comparatively small.

Some writers believe that unions can work effectively within a commitment-basedHRM framework (Walton 1985; Sisson 1993; Connor 1997), and indeed some go so far as

to suggest its efficacy requires unions (Bonnet, Figueiredo and Standing 2003; Ghai 2003).

The reasoning is that, by providing mechanisms for employee voice, unions foster high

levels of employee involvement to the benefit of all parties (Lawler and Mohrman 1987;

Rankin 1990; Bonnet et al. 2003; Ghai 2003). There is some empirical support for this

view. For example, Ichnioskwi, Kochan, Levine, Olson and Strauss (1996, p. 301) report

that worker and union involvement in decision making can reduce grievances and other

sources of conflict and thereby improve operating efficiencies.

Gallagher and Strauss (1991) examined the notion of workers dual commitment to

the workplace and the union, recalling the dual allegiance research of the 1950s, which



6/27

generally showed contrary to conventional wisdom a relationship between positiveemployment relations and high dual commitment. Gallagher and Strauss reported that the

results of more recent studies on this point had been more ambivalent. Other than good

labourmanagement relations, which continued to be associated with dual commitment,

researchers had had little success in identifying other factors that simultaneously

contributed to the development of commitment to both the union and the employing

organization.

The point of HCM initiatives is to have employees feel identity with, and loyalty to,

the employing organization, leading most writers on the subject to take the conventional

view that unions are, as competitors for worker loyalty, antithetical to HCM (Farnham and

Pilmott 1986; Wells 1993). In this view, organizations practicing HCM would be hostile to

union presence, and would try to filter out union sympathies in employee selection, and to

counter any residual pro-union sentiment that slipped through with commitment-building

practices. Again, there is some empirical support for this view (see for example, van den

Broek 2003).

Research question three

Is a unitary ideological orientation at the workplace level of abstraction associated withperceived high usage of HCM practices?

Intuitively, the ideological orientation of the organization in which people work, if

promoted, could be expected to have an impact on their view of the employment

relationship, and on how they behave at work. So, while some organizations may seek to

select individuals whose basic ideology conforms easily to that of the organization, it is

also possible that employing organizations, through their HRM policies and practices, try

to mould the ideological orientation of workers.It is therefore anticipated that this study will find a relationship between both managers

and non-managerial worker respondents holding a unitary view of the employment

relationship and their reporting of high usage of HCM in the workplace.

Research question four

Is there a relationship between perceived high usage of HCM practices in the workplace andworkforce self-reports of high levels of organizational commitment?

HCM is concerned with the effective management of people so that organizations

achieve their goals. In practice, effective HCM has come to be seen as that which wins the

commitmentof employees as a necessary prerequisite for achieving organization goals

(Guest 1998, 1999).

Mowday, Steers and Porter (1979) defined organization commitment straight-forwardly as:

the relative strength of an individuals identification with and involvement in a particularorganization ... In particular, commitment is characterized by three factors: a strong belief inand an acceptance of the organizations goals and values, a willingness to exert considerableeffort on behalf of the organization, and a strong desire to maintain membership in theorganization (p. 226).

A primary objective of HCM is enhancing attitudinal commitment in the workforce.

Models of HCM assume that certain practices, when effectively implemented, can harness

workers discretionary efforts by fostering goal congruence between the worker and the

organization, thereby increasing their motivation and commitment to the organization

A. Geareet al.1150


7/27

(Guest 1997). This positive influence on attitudes and behaviours is seen to be linked toimprovements in organizational performance (Swailes 2004).

High levels of organizational commitment can therefore be seen as a goal of HCM.

Thus, it is predicted a relationship will exist between respondents reporting a perceived

high usage of HCM and their self-reporting of high levels of organizational commitment.

Research method

Data were collected by survey for this part of the study. While it is accepted that surveys

are limited in terms of their ability to generate theory, they enable data to be collected from

a large sample, facilitating generalizing of results (Ichniowski et al. 1996).

The survey

This study builds on earlier work on managerial ideology by including a worker

perspective, and in doing so some of the scales used are the same or similar to those

reported in Geare et al. (2006). The survey was designed to be answered by both managers

and workers. It comprised four sections demographic details, ideological orientation,

HCM, and commitment. A pilot study led to several changes to statement wording, and

provided an opportunity to trial coding and analyses of the data.

Respondents were first asked to respond to a range of demographic questions including

sex, age, ethnicity, occupation, service, respondents level in the organization, past and

present union affiliation, and characteristics of their work and work environment, such as

industry, sector and size.

A variant of a comprehensive measure developed by Geare (1986) to assess values and

beliefs is used to measure ideological orientation. This measure comprises two sections each reflecting a particular level of abstraction. The first level of abstraction concerns

wider society and thus measures general empiricalvalues and beliefs (beliefs about what

is in society). The second level of abstraction assessed concerns organizational reality and

here the empirical values and beliefs of respondents about their particular organization

(beliefs about what is in their current workplace) is measured.

The scale contained seven items. For each item respondents were required to indicate a

preference between two dichotomous, randomly ordered statements (0 Pluralist;

1 Unitarist) (for example: The principal objectives and interests of management and

workers are (a) more or less similar, or (b) similar in some areas, but very different in

others). A total for each level of abstraction was calculated and collapsed into the

following three categories to reflect the orientation of the manager or the worker:

0 2 Pluralist; 34 Pluralist/Unitarist; and 5 7 Unitarist.

Two statements aimed at providing a broader picture of employment relationshipswere also included. One asked respondents to indicate how they would currently rate

management/worker relations generally in their workplace; the second asked them to

rate management/worker relations generally in New Zealand. A five-point Likert scale

was used with 1 very poor and 5 very good.

A slightly modified version of the measure developed by Wood (1995) was used to

assess the extent to which HCM is practiced. A total of 14 statements reflecting HCM

practice (a .895) were included (some statements contained two parts). Using a five-

point Likert scale (1 strongly disagree; 5 strongly agree), respondents were asked to

indicate the extent to which they agreed each practice occurred in their organization

(Delery 1998). An additional statement, using the same Likert scale, asked respondents to



8/27

indicate the extent they believed congruence existed between organization and employeegoals in their organization.

Organizational commitment was measured using three statements (a 0.775),

adapted from the validated Organizational Commitment Questionnaire(OCQ), originally

developed by Mowday et al. (1979). Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to

which they agree with each of the statements using a five-point Likert scale (1 strongly

disagree; 5 strongly agree).

Organizational commitment is multifaceted (Swailes 2004), comprising both external

(such as profession or union) and internal (such as workgroup) foci. Employee

commitment can be distributed across these various foci, and not all commitments are

necessarily beneficial to the employing organization (Iles, Mabey and Robertson 1990,

p. 153). Indeed Iles et al. (1990) suggest that the commitment context may be an important

factor in studies exploring the relationship between HRM practice and organizational

performance. Accordingly, five items were included to explore context (the organization,

union, work group, occupation, and personal career development). Respondents were

asked to identify what it is they were most committed to by ranking these in order of their

importance (1 most important and 5 least important).

Data analysis

Data were analysed using SPSS 13.00. In some instances the analysis used aggregated

data. Differences between manager and worker groups were explored using a t-test

(which reports chi-square and statistical significance) for two unrelated samples.

The relationships between selected variables such as past and present union affiliation

and HCM practice and ideological orientation, as well as the relationship between HCM

practice and organizational commitment were tested using Pearson correlation.

These comprise the main tests used for analysing survey data in this study. However,

descriptive statistics are also reported where appropriate. Reliability for the various

measures has been recorded using Cronbach alpha.

The sample

Both managerial and worker samples were needed for this study. Initially, HR managers

were targeted on a broad basis by distributing a survey in early 2005 to employing

organizations in New Zealands four main cities. A 17% response rate gave a total of 675

usable responses. These respondents not only gave responses to the survey but were also

asked if they would agree to having their wider workforce surveyed. Around 10% agreed

and a second survey was sent out in late 2005, eliciting 537 responses (46.5%)

(424 workers and 113 additional managers). The final sample consists of 788 managersand 424 workers. The demographics of this full sample are presented in Table 1. Clear

limitations of this sample are that: (a) data are not matched by organization; (b) HR

managers who agreed to having their workforce participate may not be a random sample,

as they may well consider their organizations employment relations climate to be

positive; and (c) the initial response rate obtained is small and the usual potential for

bias exists.

The manager and worker sub-samples are similar in terms of gender, ethnicity and

hours of work. As would be expected, there is some variation with respect to length of

service with managers more likely to have worked over one year and age, with the

managers tending to be slightly older than non-managerial workers. Not surprisingly,

A. Geareet al.1152


9/27

very few of the respondent managers currently belonged to a union. However, previous

union affiliation is fairly evenly distributed across the two groups. While this sample is

reasonably representative of the New Zealand workforce, persons of European descent are

slightly over-represented, and Maori and Pacific Islanders under-represented.

Survey results

Ideological orientations

The research distinguishes managers and non-managerial workers, and societal and

workplace levels of abstraction for their personal ideologies about employment

relationships (correlations between these two levels of abstraction are presented in

Table 2a). The results presented in Table 2b reveal that at the societal or general level,

managers tend to hold a marginally pluralist, but essentially mixed unitarist-pluralist viewof employment relationships. The majority of managers chose the pluralist option on four

of the seven items, and yielded an overall mean of 0.54 at the societal level. Workers are

clearly more inclined to see the relationship in pluralist terms at the societal level.

A majority of workers chose the pluralist option on all but one of the items. The margins in

most cases were substantial, yielding an overall mean of 0.39. At this societal level,

statistically significant differences are found between the manager and worker groups

across all seven statements.

The magnitude of this difference between manager and worker views is even more

pronounced at the workplace level of abstraction. This appears to be the result of the

manager group viewing employment relations in their own workplaces as being far more

Table 1. Total sample demographics.

GenderManagers

(n 788)%Workers

(n 424)% Length of ServiceManagers

(n 788)%Workers

(n 424)%

Male 59 47 Less than 1 year 10 24Female 41 53 1-3 years 21 30Age 4 years plus 69 46Under 20 1 5 Hours of work 21 to 34 18 38 Full time 96 8935 to 49 44 36 Part time 4 11Over 50 37 21 Level in organizationEthnicity Senior management 71NZ/European 91 85 Middle management 29Maori 2 3 Team leader 13

Samoan 1 3 Supervisor 11Asian 3 2 Non-managerial 76Other 3 7 OccupationUnion affiliation Professional 63 32*Previous unionaffiliation

41 51 Semi-professional 19 14

Current unionaffiliation

2 16 Admin/clerical/general 18 29

Sector Tradesperson 9Public 11 26 Labourer 8Private 89 74 Other 8

Note: *A much higher percentage of workers are in the professional group and these represent accountants,lawyers and IT specialists, among others, who hold non-managerial roles. This bias towards more professionalsmay impact results obtained. Intuitively organizations comprising predominantly professionals should be moreunitarist than the more traditional manufacturing organization.



10/27

Table2a.Correlations:societya

ndworkplaceideologicalorientationbyg

roupa.

SOCIETY

WORKPLACE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1.Workersingeneralseethemselvesasbeing:

(a)Anintegralpartoftheorganizationinwhichtheywork(U)

MANAGERS

0.353**

(b)Membersofagroupwithinth

eorganizationinwhichtheywork(P)WORKERS

0.340**

2.Workersinterestsingeneralare

:

(a)Lookedafteradequatelyby

management(U)

MANAGERS

0.385**

(b)Lookedafteradequatelyby

theirunion/lawyer(P)

WORKERS

0.554**

3.Theprincipalobjectivesandinte

restsofmanagementandworkersare:

(a)Moreorlesssimilar(U)

MANAGERS

0.355**

(b)Similarinsomeareas,butareverydifferentinothers(P)

WORKERS

0.314**

4.Unionsingeneral:

(a)Arealiabilityastheyintrod

ucedistrustintothework

environment(U)

MANAGERS

0.624**

(b)Areanassetastheyprotect

theinterestsofworkers(P)

WORKERS

0.692**

5.Intheaverageorganization:

(a)Managementandworkersw

orktogetherasateam(U)

MANAGERS

0.354**

(b)Managementandworkerssometimesworkasateam,sometimes

areinconflict(P)

WORKERS

0.394**

6.Collectivebargaining:

(a)Doesnotwinanythingforw

orkerstheywouldnothavegotfrom

managementanyway(U)

MANAGERS

0.557**

(b)Isprobablythebestmeanso

fsettlingdifferencesbetweenvarious

groups(P)

WORKERS

0.562**

7.Themajorcausesofconflictin

theworkplace(e.g.strikes,etc.)is

(are):

(a)Basicallypoorcommunicationortrouble-makers(U)

MANAGERS

0.490**

(b)Thefactthatdifferentgroup

shavedifferentobjectiveswhich

sometimesclash(P)

WORKERS

0.518

Notes:aSamplesize:Managerialdata

n

788andWorkerdatan

424;

bItemswererewordedtoreflectaviewoftherespondentscurrentworkplace;cContextualvariables

controlled:Age,GenderandEthnicity;**p,

0.001*p,

0.05.

A. Geareet al.1154


11/27

Table2b.Ideologicalorientation

societyandworkplacea.

SocietalL

evel

Mean

WorkplaceLevel

b

Mean

t-test

Statement

MGR%W

KR%

MGR

WKR

MGR%

WKR%

MGR

WKR

SOCIETY

WORKPLACE

1.Workersingeneralseethemselv

esasbeing:

(a)Anintegralpartoftheorganizationinwhichtheywork(U)62

46

.62

.46

73

56

.73

.56

5.342**

6.142**

(b)Membersofagroupwithintheorganizationinwhichthey

work(P)

38

54

27

44

2.Workersinterestsingeneralare:

(a)Lookedafteradequatelybym

anagement(U)

92

75

.92

.75

97

82

.97

.82

8.359**

8.728**

(b)Lookedafteradequatelybytheirunion/lawyer(P)

8

25

3

18

3.Theprincipalobjectivesandinterestsofmanagementand

workersare:

(a)Moreorlesssimilar(U)

36

27

64

46

.64

.46

3.261**

6.189**

(b)Similarinsomeareas,butar

everydifferentinothers(P)

64

73

.36

.27

36

54

4.Unionsingeneral:

(a)Arealiabilityastheyintroducedistrustintothework

environment(U)

56

32

.56

.32

65

39

.65

.39

7.999**

8.287**

(b)Areanassetastheyprotecttheinterestsofworkers(P)

44

68

35

61

5.Intheaverageorganization:

(a)Managementandworkersworktogetherasateam(U)

45

31

.45

.31

72

49

.72

.49

4.850**

8.067**

(b)Managementandworkerssometimesworkasateam,

sometimesareinconflict(P)

55

69

28

51

6.Collectivebargaining:

(a)Doesnotwinanythingforwo

rkerstheywouldnothavegot

frommanagementanyway(U

)

43

25

.43

.25

64

35

.64

.35

6.304**

9.704**

(b)Isprobablythebestmeansofsettlingdifferencesbetween

variousgroups(P)

57

75

36

65

7.Themajorcausesofconflictinth

eworkplace(e.g.strikes,etc)

is(are):

(a)Basicallypoorcommunicatio

nortrouble-makers(U)

45

38

.44

.38

59

47

.59

.47

2.245**

3.903**

(b)Thefactthatdifferentgroupshavedifferent

objectiveswhichsometimesclash(P)

55

62

41

53

Notes:aSamplesize:Managerialdatan

788andWorkerdatan

424;bItemswererewordedtoreflectaviewoftherespondents

currentworkplace;**p,

.001.



12/27

unitary than do the worker group. The worker sub-sample is more inclined overall tohave a unitary outlook at the workplace level than at the societal level, with a seven-item

mean of 0.51 indicating a mixed unitarist/pluralist view. The greater movement in

orientation is, however, in the manager sub-sample, with majorities nominating the

unitarist option on all items, yielding a strongly unitarist overall mean of 0.71. While

the sector in which a respondent works appears to have no impact on ideological

orientations at the societal level (X2 0.657, p , .720), it does have an impact at the

workplace level (X2 6.240, p , .044), with private sector respondents being

somewhat more unitarist.

For simplification and ease of interpretation, statement data are collapsed so

ideological orientations can be classified as either unitarist, mixed, or pluralist. The results

of this aggregation are presented in Table 3. Twice as many managers as workers

(36% versus 17%) hold a unitary view of the employment relationship at the general level

of abstraction. At the workplace level, nearly four times as many workers as managers

(35% versus 9%) view the employment relationship as pluralist.

These data are consistent with the pattern of respondents assessments of current

management/worker relationships in their own workplaces and in New Zealand more

generally. Some 75% of the manager sub-sample considered employment relations in

New Zealand to be less than good (giving a rating of 3 or less on a 5-point Likert scale with

1 very poor and 5 very good; M 3.14, SD 0.613). This view was shared by

the worker sub-sample (80% giving a rating of 3 or less; (M 3.02, SD 0.688). The chi-

square shows no statistically significant difference between the views of these two groups

about employment relations at the societal level (X2 5.861, p .210).

However, this finding was reversed when respondents were asked about the state of

employment relations at their own workplaces. Again, the most pronounced change was in

how the manager sub-sample saw things. Of the manager group 85% consider theemployment relationship in their own organization to be either good or very good

(a rating of 4 or 5 on the Likert Scale; M 4.19, SD 0.810). In the worker group 70%

(M 3.84, SD 1.01) also hold this view. While both groups had a far more positive

view of employment relations in their own workplace than nationally, the difference

between the groups is at a statistically significant level (X2 45.673,p , .000).

More positive ratings of the employment relationship at the workplace level

were also associated with the holding of unitarist views at workplace level (X2 265.651,

p , .000), with perceived high usage of HCM (X2 218.458,p , .000), and with high

levels of organizational commitment (X2 511.216,p , .000). These relationships held

true for the combined sample, and for both sub-samples measured separately.

Both managers and workers were categorized as professional/semi-professional and

administration/clerical/general, as well as (for workers only) trades, labourers and other.

As Table 1 shows, the sample contained a high number of professional and semi-professional workers. These represented mainly accountants, lawyers and IT specialists,

working in subordinate, non-managerial roles. Analysis by occupational category showed

little ideological difference between these categories for both managers and workers, and

certainly the differences were not statistically significant. A similar analysis for age

showed no significant differences. For service, statistically significant differences were

identified. The findings applied to both managers and workers, but were stronger for

managers. Those with over 10 years of service were significantly more pluralist, this

possibly reflecting work experience in the pre-Employment Contracts Act era.

Interestingly, those with less than 3 years of service were much less unitarist than those

in the 4 to 10 years of service group.

A. Geareet al.1156


13/27

Table3.Collapsedideologicalo

rientation.

LevelofAbstraction

Mean

Differenceinmanagerand

workermeansat-testandsig.

Unitarist(57unitarist

responses)%

Mixed(34unitarist

responses)%

Pluralist(02unitarist

responses)%

Managerialsample

Society(n

759)

3.77

36

37

27

Workplace(n

764)

(SD1

.756)

4.89(SD

1.620)

61

30

9

Workersample

Society(n

405)

2.73

9.522**

17

33

50

Workplace(n

424)

(SD1

.771)

3.45(SD

1.928)

12.864**

30

35

35

Notes:aDifferencesinnreflectmissin

gdataforaparticularstatement(s);**p,

.001

.



14/27

Unions and ideology

Research question two addressed the impact of union affiliation on ideology. It was

anticipated that current or past union membership would encourage a pluralist view of the

employment relationship. To see if this was the case, the aggregated data pertaining to the

ideological orientation of managers and workers was correlated, using Pearson chi square,

with past union affiliation (see Tables 4a to 4d). As few managers in the sample are current

union members, the analysis for current union membership was conducted for just the

worker group.

These results show that holding a pluralist view of employment relations at societal

level was associated with past union affiliation for both the manager (X2 19.234,

p , .001) and worker (X2 20.899, p , .001) sub-samples. A pluralist view of

employment relations in ones own workplace was also significantly related to past union

affiliation for the worker sub-sample (X

2

17.498,p,

.001), but not for the managers.

Table 4a. Managerial views at societal level of abstraction and previous union membership.

Strong

unitarist%

Unitarist/

pluralist%

Strong

pluralist% Chi-square

Yes, previously belong to a union (n 313) 30 35 35No, never belonged to a union (n 443) 40 39 21 19.234**

Notes: **p , .001.

Table 4b. Managerial viewsa at workplace level of abstraction and previous union membership.

Strong

unitarist%

Unitarist/

pluralist%

Strong


Yes, previously belong to a union (n 280) 57 31 12No, never belonged to a union (n 391) 65 29 7 6.579

Note: aThe differences in n reflects missing data for these particular statement(s) across the different levels ofabstraction.

Table 4c. Worker views at societal level of abstraction and previous union membership.

Strong

unitarist%

Unitarist/

pluralist%

Strong


Yes, previously belong to a union (n 205) 12 27 61

No, never belonged to a union (n

199) 23 38 39 20.899**

Note:**p , .001.

Table 4d. Worker viewsa at workplace level of abstraction and previous union membership.

Strong

unitarist%

Unitarist/

pluralist%

Strong


Yes, previously belong to a union (n 186) 25 30 45No, never belonged to a union (n 180) 36 40 24 17.498**

Note: aDifference in n reflects missing data for these particular statement(s) across the different levels ofabstraction; **p , .001.

A. Geareet al.1158


15/27

As anticipated, the data in Tables 5a and 5b show strong correlations for workers

between current union membership and a pluralist view of employment relations at the

level of New Zealand society (X2 28.995, p , .001) and at the workplace level

(X2 55.254,p , .001). So, while both past and present union membership can be seen

to be associated with holding a pluralist view of employment relationships, current union

membership is the far stronger predictor of workers ideological orientation.

Ideology and HCMResearch question 3 addressed the relationship between a unitarist ideological orientation

at the workplace level and perceived high usage of HCM practices. The results of this

analysis are presented in Table 6.

For the manager sub-sample, a strong statistically significant correlation is found

between HCM practice and ideological orientation, with increased perceived strength of

all HCM practices being related to a more unitary view of the current employment

relationship. Not surprisingly this is consistent with the findings reported in Geare et al.

(2006). The same result is evident for the worker group for most HCM practices, the

exceptions being (a) promotional prospects being clearly defined for both managerial and

non-managerial staff and (b) protection of the core workforce through the use of temporary

employment. When aggregated mean ratings of practice from managers are compared to

those received for the worker group, it is evident the manager group ratings are higher

across nearly all statements (the only exception being regular meetings of quality circles).

HCM practice and organizational commitment

The final research question examined in this paper explores the relationship between

perceived strength of HCM practice and levels of organizational commitment. These data

are set out in Table 7. Mean aggregated scores across the statements for organizational

commitment reveal that the manager group report higher levels of commitment to the

organization than do the worker group. Differences between these mean scores are

statistically significant (Organizational Commitment Aggregate Total (three items)

t 10.339, p , .000). While the perceived strength of HCM practice is found to be

Table 5a. Worker views at societal level of abstraction and current union membership.

Strongunitarist%

Unitarist/pluralist%

Strongpluralist% Chi-square

Yes, currently belong to a union (n 66) 1 20 79No, do not belong to a union (n 336) 21 35 44 28.995**

Note:**p , .001.

Table 5b. Worker viewsa at societal level of abstraction and current union membership.

Strongunitarist%

Unitarist/pluralist%

Strongpluralist% Chi-square

Yes, currently belong to a union (n

64) 5 22 73No, do not belong to a union (n 299) 37 38 25 55.254**

Notes: a

The differences in n reflects missing data for these particular statement(s) across the different levels ofabstraction; **p , .001.



16/27

Table6.RelationshipbetweenstrengthofadoptedHCMpracticea

andideologicalorientationb(n

1042).

HCMMeant-test

StdDev.

Relationship

withideological

orientation

workplace

StatementsonHRMpractice

MGR

WKR

t-test

MGR

WKR

MGR

WKR

1.Ahighvalueisplacedontraininganddevelopmentfor:

(a)managerialstaff

3.50

3.02

5.818*

*

1.142

1.655

.150**

.142**

(b)non-managerialstaff

3.61

3.26

4.960*

*

1.112

1.285

.154**

.204**

2.Commitmentisencouragedby

havinghumanresourcemanagementpractices

thathelpstaffachievepersonalgoalsaswellasorganizationalgoals:

(a)managerialstaff

3.33

2.70

7.575*

*

1.155

1.719

.194**

.171**


3.27

2.90

4.807*

*

1.179

1.382

.245**

.235**

3.Promotionalprospectsareclearlydefinedanddevelopedfor:

(a)managerialstaff

2.91

2.35

6.473*

*

1.211

1.747

.107**

.080


2.98

2.61

4.822*

*

1.191

1.352

.166**

.069

4.Aperformanceappraisalofstaffmemberperformanceisundertakenoneither

anannualorbi-annualbasisin

thisorganizationfor:

(a)managerialstaff

3.73

2.69

10.022*

*

1.470

2.100

.094*

.198**


3.78

3.43

3.756*

*

1.415

1.645

.155**

.175**

5.Thepredominantsystemoforg

anisingworkinthisorganizationisteam-w

orking

3.91

3.66

3.696*

*

1.035

1.209

.223**

.165**

6.Regularmeetingsofqualitycircles(i.e.smallgroupsofworkers,supervis

orsand

managementwhomeettodiscussthequalityofaproductand/orservice)

areheld

inthisorganization

3.48

3.50

2

0.339

1.285

1.462

.095*

.156**

7.Jobdesignissuchthatskillsandabilitiesofstaffmembersareusedtofullestextent

3.61

3.17

6.744*

*

0.982

1.228

.192**

.273**

8.Staffmembersinthisorganizationareencouragedtotakeresponsibilityforthe

qualityoftheirownwork

4.30

4.09

4.000*

*

0.785

1.033

.300**

.191**

9.Plannedteambriefingsessions

areregularlyheldforthestaffmembersin

this

organization

3.59

3.42

2.150*

1.226

1.416

.146**

.155**

10.Jobdescriptionsinthisorganiz

ationareflexibleanddonotrestrictwork/duties

toaseriesofspecifictasks

4.07

3.69

3.960*

*

0.947

2.328

.192**

.294**

A. Geareet al.1160


17/27

Table6continued

HCMMeant-test

StdDev.

Relationship

withideological

orientation

workplace

StatementsonHRMpractice

MGR

WKR

t-test

MGR

WKR

MGR

WKR

11.Managerialstaffmembersareencouragedtoparticipateinworkplacedecisions

thatmayaffectthem

4.18

3.04

14.566

0.892

1.839

.263**

.283**

12.Non-managerialstaffmembers

areencouragedtoparticipatein

workplacedecisionsthatmaya

ffectthem

3.67

3.13

7.418*

*

1.115

1.394

.274**

.300**

13.Thisorganizationprotectsthesecurityofitscoreworkforceby

employingtemporarystaffmem

bersonlywhenabsolutelynecessary

4.04

3.20

10.249*

*

1.169

1.649

.127**

.096

14.Thisorganizationhasuniform(standard)termsandconditionsof

employmentforallitsstaffme

mbers

4.13

3.30

10.284*

*

1.136

1.673

.140**

.107*

15.Inthisorganization,staffmemberssharetheoverallgoalsof

managementandwillinglywor

ktowardsachievementofthesegoals

3.80

3.35

7.220*

*

0.904

1.219

.364**

.365**

TotalstrengthofHCMpractice

69.89

59.92

11.467*

*

12.28

16.29

.296**

.326**

Notes:aScale:1

Stronglydisagreea

nd5

Stronglyagree;

bScale:1

pluralist(02unitaristresponses),2

unitarist/pluralist(34unitaristresponses)and3

unitarist(57

unitaristresponses);*p,

.05**p,.001.



18/27

Table7.RelationshipbetweenperceivedstrengthofHCMpracticeandlevelsoforganizationalcommitmenta(n

1214).

Inearlyalwaysagreewith

thisorganizationspolicieson

importantmattersrelatingto

itsemployees

Myworkenvironmentallows

metocontributetomyfull

potentia

l

Iintendtostayw

orkingfor

thisorganizationforalong

time

Meanaggregatetotal

(3items)

STATEMENTSONHCMPRACTIC

E

M(M

4.08)W(M

3.53)M(M

4.09)W(M

3.53)M(M

4.02)W(M

3.56)M(M

4.06)W(M

3.54)

1.Ahighvalueisplacedontraininganddevelopmentfor:

(a)managerialstaff

.257**

.155**

.266**

.127*

.174**

.095

.278**

.144**


.280**

.347**

.313**

.396**

.266**

.304**

.345**

.421**

2.Commitmentisencouragedbyh

avinghumanresourcemanagementpracticesthathelpstaffachievepersonalgoalsaswellasorganizationalgoals:

(a)managerialstaff

.228**

.213**

.244**

.155**

.157**

.132**

.250**

.190**


.256**

.363**

.284**

.403**

.187**

.284**

.290**

.412**

3.Promotionalprospectsareclearlydefinedanddevelopedfor:

(a)managerialstaff

.209**

.157**

.240**

.116*

.182**

.092

.254**

.143**


.194**

.250**

.212**

.399**

.193**

.237**

.242**

.362**

4.Aperformanceappraisalofstaffmemberperformanceisundertakenoneitheranannualorbi-annualbasisinthisorg

anizationfor:

(a)managerialstaff

.067

.166**

.147**

.098*

.053

.041

.108**

.109*


.090*

.192**

.128**

.256**

.070

.180**

.114**

.257**

5.Thepredominantsystemof

organizingworkinthisorganiz-

ationisteam-working

.297**

.270**

.286**

.310**

.261**

.274**

.339**

.347**

6.Regularmeetingsofqualitycircles

(i.e.smallgroupsofworkers,

supervisorsandmanagementwh

o

meettodiscussthequalityofa

productand/orservice)areheldin

thisorganization

.157**

.214**

.155**

.193**

.141**

.168**

.180**

.230**

7.Jobdesignissuchthatskillsand

abilitiesofstaffmembersareused

tofullestextent

.337**

.407**

.405**

.539**

.346**

.389**

.440**

.539**

A. Geareet al.1162


19/27

Table7continued




itsemployees



potentia

l

Iintendtostayw

orkingfor


time

Meanaggregatetotal

(3items)


E

M(M

4.08)W(M

3.53)M(M

4.09)W(M

3.53)M(M

4.02)W(M

3.56)M(M

4.06)W(M

3.54)

8.Staffmembersinthisorganiz-

ationareencouragedtotake

responsibilityforthequalityof

theirownwork

.401**

.300**

.376**

.366**

.338**

.285**

.446**

.387**

9.Plannedteambriefingsessions

areregularlyheldforthestaff

membersinthisorganization

.111**

.235**

.154**

.246**

.151**

.128**

.168**

.236**

10.Jobdescriptionsinthisorganiz

-

ationareflexibleanddonot

restrictwork/dutiestoaseriesof

specifictasks

.245**

.185**

.272**

.248**

.223**

.182**

.298**

.249**

11.Managerialstaffmembersare

encouragedtoparticipatein

workplacedecisionsthatmay

affectthem

.415**

.259**

.352**

.231**

.329**

.115*

.434**

.231**

12.Non-managerialstaffmembers

areencouragedtoparticipatein

workplacedecisionsthatmay

affectthem

.354**

.343**

.301**

.429**

.273**

.276**

.369**

.420**

13.Thisorganizationprotectsthe

securityofitscoreworkforceb

y

employingtemporarystaff

membersonlywhenabsolutely

necessary

.179**

.101*

.195**

.096

.213**

.137**

.238**

.135**



20/27

Table7continued




itsemployees



potentia

l

Iintendtostayw

orkingfor


time

Meanaggregatetotal

(3items)


E

M(M

4.08)W(M

3.53)M(M

4.09)W(M

3.53)M(M

4.02)W(M

3.56)M(M

4.06)W(M

3.54)

14.Thisorganizationhasuniform

(standard)termsandconditions

ofemploymentforallitsstaff

members

.156**

.115*

.149**

.160**

.189**

.088

.201**

.145**

15.Inthisorganization,staff

memberssharetheoverallgoals

ofmanagementandwillingly

worktowardsachievementof

thesegoals

.377**

.389**

.355**

.399**

.328**

.344**

.423**

.453**

TOTALSTRENGTHOFHCM

PRACTICE

.377**

.387**

.414**

.442**

.334**

.298**

.453**

.451**

Notes:aScales(both):1

Stronglydisagreeand5

StronglyagreeM

Manager

s(n

788)andW

Workers(n

424);*p

,

.05**p,

.001

A. Geareet al.1164


21/27

Table8.T-testofmeanrankeda

levelofcommitmentinrelationtoorganization/work-relatedcharacteristics.

Characteristicmostcommittedto:

Managergroup

(n

794)

Worker

grouptotal

(n41

4)1

Workergroupcurrent

unionmembers(n

68)

Workergroupnotunion

members(n

346)2

Organization

1.77(SD

1.02)

2.51(S

D

1.19)**

3.06(SD

1.39)

2.40(SD

1.12)**

Union

4.78(SD

0.86)

4.48(S

D

1.15)**

3.48(SD

1.14)

4.69(SD

0.94)**

Workgroup

2.89(SD

1.01)

2.55(S

D

1.11)**

2.60(SD

1.19)

2.54(SD

1.08)

Trade/occupation

2.97(SD

1.07)

2.76(S

D

1.17)*

2.47(SD

1.35)

2.81(SD

1.12)*

Personalcareerdevelopment

2.17(SD

1.13)

2.04(S

D

1.20)

2.26(SD

1.36)

1.98(SD

1.16)

Notes:aRankscale1

Mostimpor

tantand5

Leastimportant;*p,

.05**p,

.001;

1Differencebetweenmeansformanager/workergroups;

2Differencebetweenmeansfor

workerswhoarecurrentunionmembe

rs/notcurrentunionmembers.



22/27

correlated with levels of organizational commitment, and this relationship is statisticallysignificant in nearly all cases, in many instances the relationship is not a particularly

strong one.

Commitment has been identified as being multi-faceted, or perhaps more accurately,

multi-focused. To control for this, five contextual items which can be characterised as

reflecting either a unitarist or pluralist orientation were incorporated in the analysis. As a

measure of relative commitment, respondents were asked to rank these targets in order of

importance. These results are presented in Table 8.

Table 8 shows the manager group is most committed to their employing organization

(M 1.77), and then to their personal careers (M 2.17). Managers show little

commitment to the union, to a work group or to a trade/occupation. The worker group is

most committed to their personal career development (M 2.04), and secondarily to their

employing organization (M 2.51). Workers also exhibit some commitment to their work

group (M 2.55) and their trade/occupation (M 2.76). Perhaps surprisingly, there is

little evident commitment from the sub-sample of workers to the unions (M 4.48). It is

well to remember that only 16% of the worker sub-sample were union members at the time

of the survey, although this approximates the level of union density in the New Zealand

labour market.

There is a union membership factor evident in Table 8, but it is a fairly modest one.

Current union members were, unsurprisingly, more committed to the union than were

non-members, but their commitment to the union still ranked last among the options.

Commitment to the employing organization was also affected to some extent by current

union membership, although less or differently than might have been expected. For union

members, the trade or occupation and the workgroup rated above the organization,

whereas for the non-members and for the worker sub-sample as a whole, commitment to

the organization came in second only to personal career development.

Discussion

Our data show that New Zealand managers have a mixed unitaristpluralist view of

employment relations in general, with those having had some union affiliation in the past

being somewhat more likely to hold some beliefs that are consistent with a pluralist

perspective.

When it comes to characterizing employment relations in their own work

organizations, managers have an overwhelmingly unitarist view, and at this level there

are no lingering influences evident from any past association with unions.

Workers are much more likely than managers to see employment relations at societal

level in pluralist terms. However, like managers, they see employment relations in their

own workplaces in unitarist terms, but not to the same extent that managers do. In fact, thegap in perceptions of workplace relations between managers and workers is substantial,

with four times as many managers as workers seeing employment relations in their own

workplaces in purely unitary terms. Significantly, more managers than workers also rated

employment relations in their workplaces as good or very good, and such a positive

rating was, unsurprisingly, correlated with having a unitary view. It could be argued that

difference found in both ideological orientation and employment relations climate

between the manager and worker groups in this study is unsurprising analysis of

aggregated group-level data, rather than matched organization-level data, is likely to

compound difference between these groups. However, the sample itself, both in terms of

organizations self-selecting their workplaces for participation and the over-representation

A. Geareet al.1166


23/27

of professionals, is a significant factor most probably serving to reduce difference, notcreate or exacerbate it. It is reasonable to speculate that this sample more likely comprises

those organizations and individuals (professionals are identified as a separate group who

consider positive manager-employee relations climate to be a key factor impacting their

attitudes towards the workplace Kinnie, Hutchinson, Purcell, Rayton and Swart (2005))

who consider their workplaces, and their employment relationships, to be relatively

harmonious; a relationship in which the goals and objectives of managers and workers are

mutually shared and strived for.

Union influence is evident among workers with both past and present union affiliation,

but particularly the latter, associated with pluralist views of employment relations at both

society and organization levels of abstraction. This, despite workers exhibiting remarkably

little commitment to unions, even allowing for just a 17% union membership among the

worker sub-sample.

The study set out to examine manager and worker ideologies and how, if at all, they

related to HCM practices and commitment to the organization. HCM practices are

designed to promote employee commitment to the employing organization by screening

out contrary inclinations at the hiring gate, and adjusting any wayward inclinations that do

get through with on-going HCM attention. Intuitively, it would be hypothesized that

managers holding a unitarist view of employment relations in the workplace, as on this

evidence they overwhelmingly do, would employ HCM practices as being consistent with

that view, to maximize the natural employee identification with, and commitment to,

organization goals, and to correct for any perversity that might have slipped under

the radar.

A more cynical view might reason that HCM practitioners fully appreciate

that employees bring a divergence of interests to the employment relationship and that

aggressive HCM counter-practices are needed to turn away trouble-makers at the gate,and to cause employees to commit to organization goals, or at least to act as if they have.

The evidence shows that managers report higher levels of commitment than do

workers. However, there is little evidence here of the stereotypical competition for worker

allegiance between the employing organization and a labour union. The experience of

union membership certainly appears to contribute to non-managerial workers in particular

holding pluralist views. But, whatever roles unions might play for these workers, being a

competitor for their loyalty is a minor one at best, even among current union members. It

seems likely that union membership prompts or reinforces in workers the perception that

their interests and the organizations are somewhat different, but it does not seem to inspire

strong allegiance to the union. That the work group and occupation win higher

commitment from union members than does the organization would tend to reinforce this

us and them impression, without explaining why the union still attracts relatively little

allegiance. The extent to which HCM practices might be a factor in this finding is notdecipherable from survey data alone.

The sub-sample of managers rates their commitment to the organization above all else,

including their own careers. Not so the sub-sample of workers. They rated commitment to

their own careers paramount, although they also showed quite strong commitment to the

organization. This might be said to reflect a conventional pluralist diversity of interests,

but with a natural if subsidiary employee identification with the employing organization

(consistent with a pluralist view) as well; or it might be said to reflect a conventional

pluralist diversity of interests, but with effective HCM practices successfully promoting

some level of employee commitment to the organization. The HCM practices would not be

supplanting self-interest with commitment to the organization, but successfully promoting



24/27

it as a secondary commitment. There is not the data to make a definitive ruling on whichof those two things is happening here. Probably, both of them are. Both managers and,

to a lesser extent, workers with a more unitary view of employment relations at the

workplace level were more likely than others to report strong use of HCM practices in

the organization; and both managers and workers reporting high usage of HCM practices

in the organization were more likely than others to exhibit high levels of organizational

commitment.

Concluding remarks

So, unitarist views of employment relations in the organization, positive appraisals of

employment relations in the organization, the perceived high use of HCM practices in the

organization, and high levels of organization commitment are all correlated. What is now

required is further examination of the causal relationships.

This study has two possible limitations. The first is the bluntness of the instrument

used to measure ideological orientation. However, while it is acknowledged that

respondents were not provided with scope to indicate the degree to which they agreed

or disagreed with each of the statements contained within this instrument, it nonetheless

provides a measurement of the overall inclination of respondents in terms of ideological

orientation. A second possible limitation is that as a result of the approach taken to data

collection, a somewhat skewed sample biased towards the manager group has been

used in this analysis.

This study uses New Zealand data, and while there is nothing particularly unique to the

New Zealand environment that would likely impact the generalizability of these findings,

in order to further enhance their generalizability, survey data is now being collected in

Ireland and Turkey. Further research and analysis are also now required to explore thecausal connections and inter-relationships between ideological orientation, HCM practice

and commitment amongst organizational members. This research requires analysis of data

obtained from both managers and workers within the same organizational setting to see if

causality between these constructs can be established.

While opinions vary as to when HRM emerged as a significant movement in

employment relations, and what HRM actually represents, all definitions of HRM accept

that it covers standard personnel functions such as recruitment and selection, training and

development, job evaluation, payment systems, and performance management. According

to Strauss (2001, p. 873) most academics in the US see HRM as simply a re-labelled (or at

most re-packaged) version of the old fusty field of personnel. British academics however

see HRM as more esoteric and have focussed on conflicting models of HRM associated

with Michigan (Fombrun, Tichy and Devanna 1984) or Harvard (Beer, Spector, Lawrence,

Mills and Walton 1984; Walton 1985; Walton and Lawrence 1985). We consider thedifference to be largely a matter of emphasis and perspective with HRM seeing things

largely from a managerial perspective, whereas employment relations views things from

the perspectives of managers, workers, unions and, to some extent, the State. Indeed it is

this very difference that makes HRM appear sympathetic to a unitary ideology and ER to a

pluralist ideology. This research seems to make an empirical contribution to the fields of

both ER and HRM. It provides information concerning the views of managers and workers

about employment relationships; some of which contradicts, and some of which provides

support for the pivotal assumptions that currently underpin HRM in the literature. This

empirical evidence is a first step in the development of a platform for scholars to use to

progress the discipline confidently in the right direction.

A. Geareet al.1168


25/27

Furthermore, this study highlights the value that can most certainly be obtainedwhen connected disciplines, such as ER and HRM, work together to accumulate a body of

knowledge. While these two disciplines currently appear to have, at least as far as views

about employment relationships are concerned, a number of irreconcilable contradictions

between them, much greater progress is likely to accrue from scholarly attempts to resolve

or reconcile these contradictions rather than efforts solely devoted to proving one or other

is the right view.

References

Bamber, G., and Lansbury, R. (1998), International and Comparative Employment Relations,London: Sage.

Beer, M., Spector, B., Lawrence, P., Mills, D., and Walton, R. (1984), Managing Human Assets,New York: Free Press.Bonnet, F., Figueiredo, J., and Standing, G. (2003), A Family of Decent Work Indexes,

International Labour Review, 142, 2, 213238.Clark, T., Mabey, C., and Skinner, D. (1998), Experiencing HRM: The Importance of the Inside

Story, inExperiencing Human Resource Management, eds. C. Mabey, D. Skinner and T. Clark,London: Sage, pp. 113.

Connor, B. (1997), Working with Human Resource Management: An Usdaw Guide , Manchester:Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers.

Cousins, J. (1972), The Non-militant Shop Steward, New Society, 3 Feb, 226228.Cully, M., Woodland, S., OReilly, A., and Dix, G. (1999), Britain at Work: As Depicted by the 1998

Workplace Employee Relations Survey, London: Routledge.Deery, S., and Iverson, R. (2005), Labor-management Cooperation: Antecedents and Impact on

Organizational Performance, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 58, 4, 588609.Delaney, J., and Godard, J. (2001), An Industrial Relations Perspective on the High-performance

Paradigm,Human Resource Management Review, 11, 395429.

Delery, J. (1998), Issues of Fit in Strategic Human Resource Management: Implications forResearch,Human Resource Management Review, 8, 3, 289309.

Dunlop, J. (1958), Industrial Relations Systems, New York: Holt.Edwards, P.K. (1995), Human Resource Management, Union Voice and the Use of Discipline:

An Analysis of WIRS3, Industrial Relations Journal, 26, 3, 204220.Farnham, D., and Pilmott, J. (1986),Understanding Industrial Relations, London: Holt, Rinehart and

Winston.Fombrun, C., Tichy N., and Devanna, M. (eds.) (1984), Strategic Human Resource Management,

New York: Wiley.Fox, A. (1966), Industrial Sociology and Industrial Relations, London: HMSO.Fox, A. (1974), Beyond Contact: Work, Power and Trust Relations, London: Faber.Fox, A. (1979), A Note on Industrial Relations Pluralism, Sociology, 13, 1, 105109.Gallagher, D.G., and Strauss, G. (1991), Union Membership Attitudes and Participation,

inThe State of the Unions, eds. D.G. Gallagher, G. Strauss and J. Fiorito, Madison, WI: IRRA,pp. 139 174.

Geare, A.J. (1986), An Examination of Certain Aspects of Industrial Relations Ideologies: ATheoretical Analysis and an Empirical Study, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Otago,New Zealand.

Geare, A.J. (1994), Ideology in Industrial Relations, New Zealand Journal of Industrial Relations,19, 2, 113146.

Geare, A.J., Edgar, F.J., and McAndrew, I. (2006), Employment Relationships: Ideology and HRMPractice, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17, 7, 1190 1208.

Ghai, D. (2003), Decent Work: Concepts and Indicators, International Labour Review, 142, 2,113146.

Godard, J. (1997), Whither Strategic Choice: Do Managerial IR Ideologies Matter?, IndustrialRelations, 36, 2, 206228.

Goll, I. (1991), Environment, Corporate Ideology, and Involvement Programs, IndustrialRelations, 30, 138149.



26/27

Guest, D. (1987), Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations, Journal of ManagementStudies, 24, 5, 503521.

Guest, D. (1997), Human Resource Management and Performance: A Review and ResearchAgenda, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8, 3, 263277.

Guest, D. (1998), Beyond HRM: Commitment and the Contract Culture, in Human Resource

Management: The New Agenda, eds. P. Sparrow and M. Marchington, London: I.T. Pitman,

pp. 3751.Guest, D. (1999), Human Resource Management The Workers Verdict, Human Resource

Management Journal, 9, 3, 5 25.Hart, T. (1993), Human Resource Management Time to Exorcize the Militant Tendency,

Employee Relations, 15, 3, 2937.Horwitz, F. (1991), HRM: An Ideological Perspective, International Journal of Manpower, 12, 6,

29.Ichniowski, C., Kochan, T., Levine, D., Olson, C., and Strauss, G. (1996), What Works at Work:

Overview and Assessment, Industrial Relations, 35, 3, 299333.

Iles, P., Mabey, C., and Robertson, I. (1990), HRM Practices and Employee Commitment: Pitfallsand Paradoxes, British Journal of Management, 1, 147157.

Keenoy, T. (1991), The Roots of Metaphor in the Old and New Industrial Relations, BritishJournal of Industrial Relations, 29, 2, 313328.

Keenoy, T. (1999), HRM as Hologram: A Polemic, The Journal of Management Studies, 36, 1,

119.Kerr, C. (1955), Industrial Relations and the Liberal Pluralist, in Proceedings of the Seventh

Annual Meeting of the IRRA, IRRA, Wisconsin, pp. 2 16.Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S., Purcell, J., Rayton, B., and Swart, J. (2005), Satisfaction with HR

Practices and Commitment to the Organisation: Why One Size Does Not Fit All, HumanResource Management Journal, 15, 4, 929.

Lawler, E., and Mohrman, S. (1987), Unions and the New Management, Academy of ManagementExecutive, 1, 4, 293300.

MacDuffie, J. (1995), Human Resource Bundles and Manufacturing Performance: OrganizationalLogic and Flexible Production Systems in the World Auto Industry, Industrial and Labor

Relations Review, 48, 2, 197221.May, R., Walsh, P., and Otto, C. (2004), Unions and Union Membership in New Zealand: Annual

Review for 2003, New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 29, 3, 8396.Mowday, R., Steers, R., and Porter, L. (1979), The Measurement of Organizational Commitment,

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224247.Muller, M. (1999), Unitarism, Pluralism, and Human Resource Management in Germany,

Management International Review, Special Issue 3, 125144.New Zealand Business Whos Who (2004), (45th Edition), New Zealand: New Zealand Financial

Press Limited.Nichols, T., and Armstrong, P. (1976), Workers Divided, London: Fontana.Osterman, P. (1994), How Common is Workplace Transformation and Who Adopts it?, Industrial

and Labor Relations Review, 47, 531544.

Purcell, J. (1993), The Challenge of Human Resource Management for Industrial RelationsResearch and Practice,International Journal of Human Resource Management, 4, 3, 511527.

Ramsey, H. (1975), Firms and Football Teams, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 13, 3,

359400.Rankin, T. (1990), New Forms of Work Organization: The Challenge to North American Unions ,

Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Singh, V., and Vinnicombe, S. (1998), What Does Commitment Really Mean?: Views of UK and

Swedish Engineering Managers, Personnel Review, 29, 2, 228258.Sisson, K. (1993), In Search of HRM, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 31, 2, 201210.Storey, J. (1992), Developments in the Management of Human Resources, Oxford: Blackwell.

Strauss, G. (2001), HRM in the USA: Correcting Some British Impressions, International Journalof Human Resource Management, 12, 6, 873897.

Swailes, S. (2004), Commitment to Change: Profiles of Commitment and In-role Performance,Personnel Review, 33, 2, 187204.

Taft, P. (1954), Ideologies and Industrial Conflict, in Industrial Conflict, eds. A. Kornhauser,R. Dubin and A. Ross, New York: McGraw Hill, pp. 257265.

A. Geareet al.1170


27/27

Tsui, A. (1984), Personnel Department Effectiveness: A Tripartite Approach, Industrial Relations,23, 2, 184197.

Tsui, A., and Milkovich, G. (1987), Personnel Department Activities: Constituency Perspectivesand Preferences, Personnel Psychology, 40, 519537.

Ulrich, D. (1987), Strategic Human Resource Planning: Why and How?, Human ResourcePlanning, 10, 1, 3756.

van den Broek, D. (2003), Recruitment Strategies and Union Exclusion in Two Australian CallCentres, Industrial Relations, 58, 3, 515535.

Walton, R. (1985), From Control to Commitment in the Workplace, Harvard Business Review, 63,2, 7784.

Walton, R., and Lawrence, P. (eds.) (1985), HRM Trends & Challenges, Boston, MA: HarvardBusiness School Press.

Wells, D. (1993), Are Strong Unions Compatible with the New Model of Human ResourceManagement?,Relations Industrielles, 48, 1, 5685.

Wood, S. (1995), The Four Pillars of HRM: Are they Connected?, Human Resource Management

Journal, 5, 5, 4958.Zinn, J., Zalokowski, A., and Hunter, L. (2001), Identifying Indicators of Laboratory Management

Performance: A Multiple Constituency Approach, Health Care Management Review, 26, 1,4053.


Documents

Workplace Values and Beliefs