Tous droits réservés © Département des relations industrielles de l'UniversitéLaval, 1984

This document is protected by copyright law. Use of the services of Érudit(including reproduction) is subject to its terms and conditions, which can beviewed online.https://apropos.erudit.org/en/users/policy-on-use/

This article is disseminated and preserved by Érudit.Érudit is a non-profit inter-university consortium of the Université de Montréal,Université Laval, and the Université du Québec à Montréal. Its mission is topromote and disseminate research.https://www.erudit.org/en/

Document generated on 05/01/2020 10:34 p.m.

Relations industrielles

L'approche systémique en relations industriellesViateur Larouche and Esther Déom

Volume 39, Number 1, 1984

URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/050006arDOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/050006ar

See table of contents

Publisher(s)Département des relations industrielles de l'Université Laval

ISSN0034-379X (print)1703-8138 (digital)

Explore this journal

Cite this articleLarouche, V. & Déom, E. (1984). L'approche systémique en relationsindustrielles. Relations industrielles / Industrial Relations, 39 (1), 114–145.https://doi.org/10.7202/050006ar

Article abstractThis article considers the concept of an industrial relations System. First, the Systemsapproach is described and its implications for the field of industrial relations are discussed.The treatment of each element of the Systems approach, by different authors, is examined.Second, an attempt is made to apply these elements to industrial relations and to present amore complète view of this field of study. The Systems concept, which originated in thenatural sciences, rapidly became a key concept in many disciplines. In some respects, theSystems approach's appeal is due to its inherent notions of order and logic. The elements ofthe concept are: definition of the system; description of its parts; relations among the parts;the operational dimension of the System; its static-dynamic dimension; itsclosed-openedimension; validity. A system may be defined as a complex set of interrelatedvariables. Functionally speaking, these variables are commonly identified as dependent,independent and intervening variables. The dependent variable is the heart of the system. Itis what we seek to explain through the independent variables. Intervening variables arethose which affect relationships between dependent and independent variables. Theoperational dimensionrefers to the distinction between operational and conceptual Systems,as well as to the system's validity,defined as its capability to reflect reality adequately. Theopenness of a system may be defined as the continuous exchange between the system andits environment. This flow of exchanges is essential to the system's viability. This dimensionalso refers to the existence of levels of Systems. Finally, the system's dynamism refers to itscapability to adapt to potential changes. Table I summarizes the ideas developed by severalauthors regarding these characteristics of the Systems approach. Analysis of the Systemsconcept as it is currently used by authors in the Industrial Relations (I.R.) field revealsconsiderable neglect of the various characterictics of the Systems approach. (An analyticallist of authors is available on request.) Despite this neglect and the lack of a commondefinition of the dependent variable for the industrial relations system, we can neverthelessarrive at a tentative characterization of an I.R. system. It appears to be concerned with theprocess of rules creation and particularly with collective bargaining, although a few authorsconsider «manpower» as a more adequate dependent variable. With respect to the othercharacteristics of the Systems approach, an I.R. system appears to be dynamic (changes mayoccur in the relationships between variables and variables themselves may change), open(there are levels of Systems) and allowing causal relationships. Finally, its validity restsupon the capability to reflect the real world and make predictions. The authors offer amodel of an I.R. system that takes into account the main dimensions of the Systemsapproach. Their proposai is illustrated in Diagram I: manpower, the dependent variable, isdefined differently for each level considered, namely the micro level (worker), the grouplevel (salaried employees, all the workers of an organization) and the macro or societal level(manpower). The diagram also reflects the characterization of an I.R. System as open,dynamic and allowing for causal relationships. The precision of measure of therelationships is a measure of the conceptual model's validity. The authors offer only a roughsketch of an. I.R. System that needs to be improved by both practitioners and theoreticians.Hopefully, this will allow Industrial Relations to become a discipline in its own right, ratherthan a fïeld of investigations for researchers in various other disciplines.