Workplace values and beliefs: an empirical study of … values and beliefs: an empirical study of...
Transcript of Workplace values and beliefs: an empirical study of … values and beliefs: an empirical study of...
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 whenconsidering society as a whole, but their workplace ideology is somewhat unitarist.A modest union impact on workers’ perspectives is found, but little evidence to suggestunion’s 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 to
which 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, 1146–1171
and quality circles (Edwards 1995)) that aim to promote organizational commitment
among 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 the work 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
With HCM, the assumption of the unitary ideology being paramount is even more
pronounced. The efficacy of HCM appears to be contingent upon employment relationships
either being unitary from the outset, or being made so by 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 the theoretical
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,
O’Reilly 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. Geare et al.1148
ideologues, with most having a mix of unitarist and pluralist inclinations, it is predicted
managers 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 changes
may 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-based
HRM 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
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1149
generally showed – contrary to conventional wisdom – a relationship between positive
employment 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
labour–management 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
commitment of 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 individual’s identification with and involvement in a particularorganization ... In particular, commitment is characterized by three factors: a strong belief inand an acceptance of the organization’s 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. Geare et al.1150
(Guest 1997). This positive influence on attitudes and behaviours is seen to be linked to
improvements 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, respondent’s 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 empirical values 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 ¼ Pluralist;
1 ¼ 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 ¼ Pluralist; 3–4 ¼ Pluralist/Unitarist; and 5–7 ¼ Unitarist.
Two statements aimed at providing a broader picture of employment relationships
were 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 ¼ very poor and 5 ¼ 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 ¼ .895) were included (some statements contained two parts). Using a five-
point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree; 5 ¼ 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
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1151
indicate the extent they believed congruence existed between organization and employee
goals in their organization.
Organizational commitment was measured using three statements (a ¼ 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 ¼ strongly
disagree; 5 ¼ 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 ¼ most important and 5 ¼ 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 Zealand’s 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 managers
and 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 organization’s 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. Geare et al.1152
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 view
of 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 ¼ 788)%Workers
(n ¼ 424)% Length of ServiceManagers
(n ¼ 788)%Workers
(n ¼ 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 work21 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 13Samoan 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.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1153
Tab
le2
a.C
orr
elat
ion
s:so
ciet
yan
dw
ork
pla
ceid
eolo
gic
alo
rien
tati
on
by
gro
up
a.
SO
CIE
TY
WO
RK
PL
AC
E1
23
45
67
1.
Wo
rker
sin
gen
eral
see
them
selv
esas
bei
ng
:(a
)A
nin
teg
ral
par
to
fth
eo
rgan
izat
ion
inw
hic
hth
eyw
ork
(U)
MA
NA
GE
RS
0.3
53
**
(b)
Mem
ber
so
fa
gro
up
wit
hin
the
org
aniz
atio
nin
wh
ich
they
wo
rk(P
)W
OR
KE
RS
0.3
40
**
2.
Wo
rker
sin
tere
sts
ing
ener
alar
e:(a
)L
oo
ked
afte
rad
equ
atel
yb
ym
anag
emen
t(U
)M
AN
AG
ER
S0
.38
5*
*(b
)L
oo
ked
afte
rad
equ
atel
yb
yth
eir
un
ion
/law
yer
(P)
WO
RK
ER
S0
.55
4*
*3
.Th
ep
rin
cip
alo
bje
ctiv
esan
din
tere
sts
of
man
agem
entan
dw
ork
ers
are:
(a)
Mo
reo
rle
sssi
mil
ar(U
)M
AN
AG
ER
S0
.35
5*
*(b
)S
imil
arin
som
ear
eas,
bu
tar
ev
ery
dif
fere
nt
ino
ther
s(P
)W
OR
KE
RS
0.3
14
**
4.
Un
ion
sin
gen
eral
:(a
)A
rea
liab
ilit
yas
they
intr
od
uce
dis
tru
stin
toth
ew
ork
env
iro
nm
ent
(U)
MA
NA
GE
RS
0.6
24
**
(b)
Are
anas
set
asth
eyp
rote
ctth
ein
tere
sts
of
wo
rker
s(P
)W
OR
KE
RS
0.6
92
**
5.
Inth
eav
erag
eo
rgan
izat
ion
:(a
)M
anag
emen
tan
dw
ork
ers
wo
rkto
get
her
asa
team
(U)
MA
NA
GE
RS
0.3
54
**
(b)
Man
agem
ent
and
wo
rker
sso
met
imes
wo
rkas
ate
am,
som
etim
esar
ein
con
flic
t(P
)W
OR
KE
RS
0.3
94
**
6.
Co
llec
tiv
eb
arg
ain
ing
:(a
)D
oes
no
tw
inan
yth
ing
for
wo
rker
sth
eyw
ou
ldn
ot
hav
eg
ot
fro
mm
anag
emen
tan
yw
ay(U
)M
AN
AG
ER
S0
.55
7*
*
(b)
Isp
rob
ably
the
bes
tm
ean
so
fse
ttli
ng
dif
fere
nce
sb
etw
een
var
iou
sg
rou
ps
(P)
WO
RK
ER
S0
.56
2*
*
7.
Th
em
ajo
rca
use
so
fco
nfl
ict
inth
ew
ork
pla
ce(e
.g.
stri
kes
,et
c.)
is(a
re):
(a)
Bas
ical
lyp
oo
rco
mm
un
icat
ion
or
tro
ub
le-m
aker
s(U
)M
AN
AG
ER
S0
.49
0*
*(b
)T
he
fact
that
dif
fere
nt
gro
up
sh
ave
dif
fere
nt
ob
ject
ives
–w
hic
hso
met
imes
clas
h(P
)W
OR
KE
RS
0.5
18
No
tes:
aS
ample
size
:M
anag
eria
ldat
an¼
78
8an
dW
ork
erd
ata
n¼
42
4;
bIt
ems
wer
ere
wo
rded
tore
flec
ta
vie
wo
fth
ere
spo
nd
ent’
scu
rren
tw
ork
pla
ce;
cC
on
textu
alv
aria
ble
sco
ntr
oll
ed:
Ag
e,G
end
eran
dE
thn
icit
y;
**p,
0.0
01
*p,
0.0
5.
A. Geare et al.1154
Tab
le2
b.
Ideo
log
ical
ori
enta
tio
n–
soci
ety
and
wo
rkp
lace
a.
Soci
etal
Lev
elM
ean
Work
pla
ceL
evel
bM
ean
t-te
st
Sta
tem
ent
MG
R%
WK
R%
MG
RW
KR
MG
R%
WK
R%
MG
RW
KR
SO
CIE
TY
WO
RK
PL
AC
E
1.
Work
ers
ingen
eral
see
them
selv
esas
bei
ng:
(a)
An
inte
gra
lpar
tof
the
org
aniz
atio
nin
whic
hth
eyw
ork
(U)
62
46
.62
.46
73
56
.73
.56
5.3
42
**
6.1
42
**
(b)
Mem
ber
sof
agro
up
wit
hin
the
org
aniz
atio
nin
whic
hth
eyw
ork
(P)
38
54
27
44
2.
Work
ers
inte
rest
sin
gen
eral
are:
(a)
Looked
afte
rad
equat
ely
by
man
agem
ent
(U)
92
75
.92
.75
97
82
.97
.82
8.3
59
**
8.7
28
**
(b)
Looked
afte
rad
equat
ely
by
thei
runio
n/l
awyer
(P)
825
318
3.
The
pri
nci
pal
obje
ctiv
esan
din
tere
sts
of
man
agem
ent
and
work
ers
are:
(a)
More
or
less
sim
ilar
(U)
36
27
64
46
.64
.46
3.2
61
**
6.1
89
**
(b)
Sim
ilar
inso
me
area
s,but
are
ver
ydif
fere
nt
inoth
ers
(P)
64
73
.36
.27
36
54
4.
Unio
ns
ingen
eral
:(a
)A
rea
liab
ilit
yas
they
intr
oduce
dis
trust
into
the
work
envir
onm
ent
(U)
56
32
.56
.32
65
39
.65
.39
7.9
99
**
8.2
87
**
(b)
Are
anas
set
asth
eypro
tect
the
inte
rest
sof
work
ers
(P)
44
68
35
61
5.
Inth
eav
erag
eorg
aniz
atio
n:
(a)
Man
agem
ent
and
work
ers
work
toget
her
asa
team
(U)
45
31
.45
.31
72
49
.72
.49
4.8
50
**
8.0
67
**
(b)
Man
agem
ent
and
work
ers
som
etim
esw
ork
asa
team
,so
met
imes
are
inco
nfl
ict
(P)
55
69
28
51
6.
Coll
ecti
ve
bar
gai
nin
g:
(a)
Does
not
win
anyth
ing
for
work
ers
they
would
not
hav
egot
from
man
agem
ent
anyw
ay(U
)43
25
.43
.25
64
35
.64
.35
6.3
04
**
9.7
04
**
(b)
Ispro
bab
lyth
ebes
tm
eans
of
sett
ling
dif
fere
nce
sbet
wee
nvar
ious
gro
ups
(P)
57
75
36
65
7.T
he
maj
or
cause
sof
confl
ict
inth
ew
ork
pla
ce(e
.g.
stri
kes
,et
c)is
(are
):(a
)B
asic
ally
poor
com
munic
atio
nor
trouble
-mak
ers
(U)
45
38
.44
.38
59
47
.59
.47
2.2
45
**
3.9
03
**
(b)
The
fact
that
dif
fere
nt
gro
ups
hav
edif
fere
nt
obje
ctiv
es–
whic
hso
met
imes
clas
h(P
)55
62
41
53
No
tes:
aS
ample
size
:M
anag
eria
ldat
an¼
78
8an
dW
ork
erd
ata
n¼
42
4;
bIt
ems
wer
ere
word
edto
refl
ect
av
iew
of
the
resp
on
den
t’s
curr
ent
wo
rkp
lace
;*
*p,
.00
1.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1155
unitary than do the worker group. The worker sub-sample is more inclined overall to
have 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 (X 2 ¼ 0.657, p , .720), it does have an impact at the
workplace level (X 2 ¼ 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 ¼ very poor and 5 ¼ very good; M ¼ 3.14, SD ¼ 0.613). This view was shared by
the worker sub-sample (80% giving a rating of 3 or less; (M ¼ 3.02, SD ¼ 0.688). The chi-
square shows no statistically significant difference between the views of these two groups
about employment relations at the societal level (X 2 ¼ 5.861, p ¼ .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 the
employment relationship in their own organization to be either ‘good’ or ‘very good’
(a rating of 4 or 5 on the Likert Scale; M ¼ 4.19, SD ¼ 0.810). In the worker group 70%
(M ¼ 3.84, SD ¼ 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 (X 2 ¼ 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 (X 2 ¼ 265.651,
p , .000), with perceived high usage of HCM (X 2 ¼ 218.458, p , .000), and with high
levels of organizational commitment (X 2 ¼ 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. Geare et al.1156
Tab
le3
.C
oll
apse
did
eolo
gic
alo
rien
tati
on
.
Lev
elof
Abst
ract
ion
Mea
nD
iffe
rence
inm
anager
and
work
erm
eans
at-
test
and
sig.
Unit
ari
st(5
–7
unit
ari
stre
sponse
s)%
Mix
ed(3
–4
unit
ari
stre
sponse
s)%
Plu
rali
st(0
–2
unit
ari
stre
sponse
s)%
Man
ager
ial
sam
ple
Soci
ety
(n¼
759)
3.7
736
37
27
Work
pla
ce(n
¼764)
(SD¼
1.7
56)
4.8
9(S
D¼
1.6
20)
61
30
9
Work
ersa
mple
Soci
ety
(n¼
405)
2.7
39.5
22
**
17
33
50
Work
pla
ce(n
¼424)
(SD¼
1.7
71)
3.4
5(S
D¼
1.9
28)
12.8
64**
30
35
35
No
tes:
aD
iffe
rence
sin
nre
flec
tm
issi
ng
dat
afo
ra
par
ticu
lar
stat
emen
t(s)
;*
*p,
.00
1.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1157
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 (X 2 ¼ 19.234,
p , .001) and worker (X 2 ¼ 20.899, p , .001) sub-samples. A pluralist view of
employment relations in one’s own workplace was also significantly related to past union
affiliation for the worker sub-sample (X 2 ¼ 17.498, p , .001), but not for the managers.
Table 4a. Managerial views at societal level of abstraction and previous union membership.
Strongunitarist%
Unitarist/pluralist%
Strongpluralist% Chi-square
Yes, previously belong to a union (n ¼ 313) 30 35 35No, never belonged to a union (n ¼ 443) 40 39 21 19.234**
Notes: **p , .001.
Table 4b. Managerial viewsa at workplace level of abstraction and previous union membership.
Strongunitarist%
Unitarist/pluralist%
Strongpluralist% Chi-square
Yes, previously belong to a union (n ¼ 280) 57 31 12No, never belonged to a union (n ¼ 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.
Strongunitarist%
Unitarist/pluralist%
Strongpluralist% Chi-square
Yes, previously belong to a union (n ¼ 205) 12 27 61No, never belonged to a union (n ¼ 199) 23 38 39 20.899**
Note: **p , .001.
Table 4d. Worker viewsa at workplace level of abstraction and previous union membership.
Strongunitarist%
Unitarist/pluralist%
Strongpluralist% Chi-square
Yes, previously belong to a union (n ¼ 186) 25 30 45No, never belonged to a union (n ¼ 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. Geare et al.1158
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 (X 2 ¼ 28.995, p , .001) and at the workplace level
(X 2 ¼ 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 HCM
Research 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 ¼ 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 ¼ 66) 1 20 79No, do not belong to a union (n ¼ 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 ¼ 64) 5 22 73No, do not belong to a union (n ¼ 299) 37 38 25 55.254**
Notes: aThe differences in n reflects missing data for these particular statement(s) across the different levels ofabstraction; **p , .001.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1159
Tab
le6
.R
elat
ion
ship
bet
wee
nst
ren
gth
of
ado
pte
dH
CM
pra
ctic
eaan
did
eolo
gic
alo
rien
tati
on
b(n
¼1
04
2).
HC
MM
ean
–t-
test
Std
Dev
.
Rel
ati
onsh
ipw
ith
ideo
logic
al
ori
enta
tion
–w
ork
pla
ce
Sta
tem
ents
on
HR
Mpra
ctic
eM
GR
WK
Rt-
test
MG
RW
KR
MG
RW
KR
1.
Ahig
hval
ue
ispla
ced
on
trai
nin
gan
ddev
elopm
ent
for:
(a)
man
ager
ial
staf
f3.5
03.0
25.8
18
**
1.1
42
1.6
55
.150
**
.142
**
(b)
non-m
anag
eria
lst
aff
3.6
13.2
64.9
60
**
1.1
12
1.2
85
.154
**
.204
**
2.
Com
mit
men
tis
enco
ura
ged
by
hav
ing
hum
anre
sourc
em
anag
emen
tpra
ctic
esth
athel
pst
aff
achie
ve
per
sonal
goal
sas
wel
las
org
aniz
atio
nal
goal
s:(a
)m
anag
eria
lst
aff
3.3
32.7
07.5
75
**
1.1
55
1.7
19
.194
**
.171
**
(b)
non-m
anag
eria
lst
aff
3.2
72.9
04.8
07
**
1.1
79
1.3
82
.245
**
.235
**
3.
Pro
moti
onal
pro
spec
tsar
ecl
earl
ydefi
ned
and
dev
eloped
for:
(a)
man
ager
ial
staf
f2.9
12.3
56.4
73
**
1.2
11
1.7
47
.107
**
.080
(b)
non-m
anag
eria
lst
aff
2.9
82.6
14.8
22
**
1.1
91
1.3
52
.166
**
.069
4.
Aper
form
ance
appra
isal
of
staf
fm
ember
per
form
ance
isunder
taken
on
eith
eran
annual
or
bi-
annual
bas
isin
this
org
aniz
atio
nfo
r:(a
)m
anag
eria
lst
aff
3.7
32.6
910.0
22
**
1.4
70
2.1
00
.094
*.1
98
**
(b)
non-m
anag
eria
lst
aff
3.7
83.4
33.7
56
**
1.4
15
1.6
45
.155
**
.175
**
5.
The
pre
dom
inan
tsy
stem
of
org
anis
ing
work
inth
isorg
aniz
atio
nis
team
-work
ing
3.9
13.6
63.6
96
**
1.0
35
1.2
09
.223
**
.165
**
6.
Reg
ula
rm
eeti
ngs
of
qual
ity
circ
les
(i.e
.sm
all
gro
ups
of
work
ers,
super
vis
ors
and
man
agem
ent
who
mee
tto
dis
cuss
the
qual
ity
of
apro
duct
and/o
rse
rvic
e)ar
ehel
din
this
org
aniz
atio
n
3.4
83.5
02
0.3
39
1.2
85
1.4
62
.095
*.1
56
**
7.
Job
des
ign
issu
chth
atsk
ills
and
abil
itie
sof
staf
fm
ember
sar
euse
dto
full
est
exte
nt
3.6
13.1
76.7
44
**
0.9
82
1.2
28
.192
**
.273
**
8.
Sta
ffm
ember
sin
this
org
aniz
atio
nar
een
coura
ged
tota
ke
resp
onsi
bil
ity
for
the
qual
ity
of
thei
row
nw
ork
4.3
04.0
94.0
00
**
0.7
85
1.0
33
.300
**
.191
**
9.
Pla
nned
team
bri
efing
sess
ions
are
regula
rly
hel
dfo
rth
est
aff
mem
ber
sin
this
org
aniz
atio
n3.5
93.4
22.1
50
*1.2
26
1.4
16
.146
**
.155
**
10.
Job
des
crip
tions
inth
isorg
aniz
atio
nar
efl
exib
lean
ddo
not
rest
rict
work
/duti
esto
ase
ries
of
spec
ific
task
s4.0
73.6
93.9
60
**
0.9
47
2.3
28
.192
**
.294
**
A. Geare et al.1160
Tab
le6
–co
nti
nued
HC
MM
ean
–t-
test
Std
Dev
.
Rel
ati
onsh
ipw
ith
ideo
logic
al
ori
enta
tion
–w
ork
pla
ce
Sta
tem
ents
on
HR
Mpra
ctic
eM
GR
WK
Rt-
test
MG
RW
KR
MG
RW
KR
11.
Man
ager
ial
staf
fm
ember
sar
een
coura
ged
topar
tici
pat
ein
work
pla
cedec
isio
ns
that
may
affe
ctth
em4.1
83.0
414.5
66
0.8
92
1.8
39
.263
**
.283
**
12.
Non-m
anag
eria
lst
aff
mem
ber
sar
een
coura
ged
topar
tici
pat
ein
work
pla
cedec
isio
ns
that
may
affe
ctth
em3.6
73.1
37.4
18
**
1.1
15
1.3
94
.274
**
.300
**
13.
This
org
aniz
atio
npro
tect
sth
ese
curi
tyof
its
core
work
forc
eby
emplo
yin
gte
mpora
ryst
aff
mem
ber
sonly
when
abso
lute
lynec
essa
ry4.0
43.2
010.2
49
**
1.1
69
1.6
49
.127
**
.096
14.
This
org
aniz
atio
nhas
unif
orm
(sta
ndar
d)
term
san
dco
ndit
ions
of
emplo
ym
ent
for
all
its
staf
fm
ember
s4.1
33.3
010.2
84
**
1.1
36
1.6
73
.140
**
.107
*
15.
Inth
isorg
aniz
atio
n,
staf
fm
ember
ssh
are
the
over
all
goal
sof
man
agem
ent
and
wil
lingly
work
tow
ards
achie
vem
ent
of
thes
egoal
s3.8
03.3
57.2
20
**
0.9
04
1.2
19
.364
**
.365
**
Tota
lst
rength
of
HC
Mpra
ctic
e69.8
959.9
211.4
67
**
12.2
816.2
9.2
96
**
.326
**
No
tes:
aS
cale
:1¼
Str
on
gly
dis
agre
ean
d5¼
Str
on
gly
agre
e;bS
cale
:1¼
plu
rali
st(0
–2
un
itar
ist
resp
on
ses)
,2¼
un
itar
ist/
plu
rali
st(3
–4
un
itar
ist
resp
on
ses)
and
3¼
un
itar
ist
(5–
7u
nit
aris
tre
spo
nse
s);
*p,
.05
**p,
.00
1.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1161
Tab
le7
.R
elat
ion
ship
bet
wee
np
erce
ived
stre
ng
tho
fH
CM
pra
ctic
ean
dle
vel
so
fo
rgan
izat
ion
alco
mm
itm
enta
(n¼
12
14
).
Inea
rly
alw
ays
agre
ew
ith
this
org
aniz
ati
on’s
poli
cies
on
import
ant
matt
ers
rela
ting
toit
sem
plo
yees
My
work
envi
ronm
ent
all
ow
sm
eto
contr
ibute
tom
yfu
llpote
nti
al
Iin
tend
tost
ay
work
ing
for
this
org
aniz
ati
on
for
alo
ng
tim
eM
ean
aggre
gate
tota
l(3
item
s)
ST
AT
EM
EN
TS
ON
HC
MP
RA
CT
ICE
M(M
¼4.0
8)
W(M
¼3.5
3)
M(M
¼4.0
9)
W(M
¼3.5
3)
M(M
¼4.0
2)
W(M
¼3.5
6)
M(M
¼4.0
6)
W(M
¼3.5
4)
1.
Ahig
hval
ue
ispla
ced
on
trai
nin
gan
ddev
elopm
ent
for:
(a)
man
ager
ial
staf
f.2
57
**
.155
**
.266**
.127
*.1
74
**
.095
.278
**
.144
**
(b)
non-m
anag
eria
lst
aff
.280
**
.347
**
.313**
.396
**
.266
**
.304
**
.345
**
.421
**
2.
Com
mit
men
tis
enco
ura
ged
by
hav
ing
hum
anre
sourc
em
anag
emen
tpra
ctic
esth
athel
pst
aff
achie
ve
per
sonal
goal
sas
wel
las
org
aniz
atio
nal
goal
s:(a
)m
anag
eria
lst
aff
.228
**
.213
**
.244**
.155
**
.157
**
.132
**
.250
**
.190
**
(b)
non-m
anag
eria
lst
aff
.256
**
.363
**
.284**
.403
**
.187
**
.284
**
.290
**
.412
**
3.
Pro
moti
onal
pro
spec
tsar
ecl
earl
ydefi
ned
and
dev
eloped
for:
(a)
man
ager
ial
staf
f.2
09
**
.157
**
.240**
.116
*.1
82
**
.092
.254
**
.143
**
(b)
non-m
anag
eria
lst
aff
.194
**
.250
**
.212**
.399
**
.193
**
.237
**
.242
**
.362
**
4.
Aper
form
ance
appra
isal
of
staf
fm
ember
per
form
ance
isunder
taken
on
eith
eran
annual
or
bi-
annual
bas
isin
this
org
aniz
atio
nfo
r:(a
)m
anag
eria
lst
aff
.067
.166
**
.147**
.098
*.0
53
.041
.108
**
.109
*(b
)non-m
anag
eria
lst
aff
.090
*.1
92
**
.128**
.256
**
.070
.180
**
.114
**
.257
**
5.
The
pre
dom
inan
tsy
stem
of
org
aniz
ing
work
inth
isorg
aniz
-at
ion
iste
am-w
ork
ing
.297
**
.270
**
.286**
.310
**
.261
**
.274
**
.339
**
.347
**
6.R
egula
rm
eeti
ngs
of
qual
ity
circ
les
(i.e
.sm
all
gro
ups
of
work
ers,
super
vis
ors
and
man
agem
ent
who
mee
tto
dis
cuss
the
qual
ity
of
apro
duct
and/o
rse
rvic
e)ar
ehel
din
this
org
aniz
atio
n
.157
**
.214
**
.155**
.193
**
.141
**
.168
**
.180
**
.230
**
7.
Job
des
ign
issu
chth
atsk
ills
and
abil
itie
sof
staf
fm
ember
sar
euse
dto
full
est
exte
nt
.337
**
.407
**
.405**
.539
**
.346
**
.389
**
.440
**
.539
**
A. Geare et al.1162
Tab
le7
–co
nti
nued
Inea
rly
alw
ays
agre
ew
ith
this
org
aniz
ati
on’s
poli
cies
on
import
ant
matt
ers
rela
ting
toit
sem
plo
yees
My
work
envi
ronm
ent
all
ow
sm
eto
contr
ibute
tom
yfu
llpote
nti
al
Iin
tend
tost
ay
work
ing
for
this
org
aniz
ati
on
for
alo
ng
tim
eM
ean
aggre
gate
tota
l(3
item
s)
ST
AT
EM
EN
TS
ON
HC
MP
RA
CT
ICE
M(M
¼4.0
8)
W(M
¼3.5
3)
M(M
¼4.0
9)
W(M
¼3.5
3)
M(M
¼4.0
2)
W(M
¼3.5
6)
M(M
¼4.0
6)
W(M
¼3.5
4)
8.
Sta
ffm
ember
sin
this
org
aniz
-at
ion
are
enco
ura
ged
tota
ke
resp
onsi
bil
ity
for
the
qual
ity
of
thei
row
nw
ork
.401
**
.300
**
.376**
.366
**
.338
**
.285
**
.446
**
.387
**
9.
Pla
nned
team
bri
efing
sess
ions
are
regula
rly
hel
dfo
rth
est
aff
mem
ber
sin
this
org
aniz
atio
n
.111
**
.235
**
.154**
.246
**
.151
**
.128
**
.168
**
.236
**
10.
Job
des
crip
tions
inth
isorg
aniz
-at
ion
are
flex
ible
and
do
not
rest
rict
work
/duti
esto
ase
ries
of
spec
ific
task
s
.245
**
.185
**
.272**
.248
**
.223
**
.182
**
.298
**
.249
**
11.
Man
ager
ial
staf
fm
ember
sar
een
coura
ged
topar
tici
pat
ein
work
pla
cedec
isio
ns
that
may
affe
ctth
em
.415
**
.259
**
.352**
.231
**
.329
**
.115
*.4
34
**
.231
**
12.
Non-m
anag
eria
lst
aff
mem
ber
sar
een
coura
ged
topar
tici
pat
ein
work
pla
cedec
isio
ns
that
may
affe
ctth
em
.354
**
.343
**
.301**
.429
**
.273
**
.276
**
.369
**
.420
**
13.
This
org
aniz
atio
npro
tect
sth
ese
curi
tyof
its
core
work
forc
eby
emplo
yin
gte
mpora
ryst
aff
mem
ber
sonly
when
abso
lute
lynec
essa
ry
.179
**
.101
*.1
95**
.096
.213
**
.137
**
.238
**
.135
**
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1163
Tab
le7
–co
nti
nued
Inea
rly
alw
ays
agre
ew
ith
this
org
aniz
ati
on’s
poli
cies
on
import
ant
matt
ers
rela
ting
toit
sem
plo
yees
My
work
envi
ronm
ent
all
ow
sm
eto
contr
ibute
tom
yfu
llpote
nti
al
Iin
tend
tost
ay
work
ing
for
this
org
aniz
ati
on
for
alo
ng
tim
eM
ean
aggre
gate
tota
l(3
item
s)
ST
AT
EM
EN
TS
ON
HC
MP
RA
CT
ICE
M(M
¼4.0
8)
W(M
¼3.5
3)
M(M
¼4.0
9)
W(M
¼3.5
3)
M(M
¼4.0
2)
W(M
¼3.5
6)
M(M
¼4.0
6)
W(M
¼3.5
4)
14.
This
org
aniz
atio
nhas
unif
orm
(sta
ndar
d)
term
san
dco
ndit
ions
of
emplo
ym
ent
for
all
its
staf
fm
ember
s
.156
**
.115
*.1
49**
.160
**
.189
**
.088
.201
**
.145
**
15.
Inth
isorg
aniz
atio
n,
staf
fm
ember
ssh
are
the
over
all
goal
sof
man
agem
ent
and
wil
lingly
work
tow
ards
achie
vem
ent
of
thes
egoal
s
.377
**
.389
**
.355**
.399
**
.328
**
.344
**
.423
**
.453
**
TO
TA
LS
TR
EN
GT
HO
FH
CM
PR
AC
TIC
E.3
77
**
.387
**
.414**
.442
**
.334
**
.298
**
.453
**
.451
**
No
tes:
aS
cale
s(b
oth
):1¼
Str
on
gly
dis
agre
ean
d5¼
Str
on
gly
agre
eM
¼M
anag
ers
(n¼
78
8)
and
W¼
Wo
rker
s(n
¼4
24
);*p,
.05
**p,
.00
1
A. Geare et al.1164
Tab
le8
.T
-tes
to
fm
ean
ran
ked
ale
vel
of
com
mit
men
tin
rela
tio
nto
org
aniz
atio
n/w
ork
-rel
ated
char
acte
rist
ics.
Chara
cter
isti
cm
ost
com
mit
ted
to:
Manager
gro
up
(n¼
794)
Work
ergro
up
–to
tal
(n¼
414)
1W
ork
ergro
up
–cu
rren
tunio
nm
ember
s(n
¼68)
Work
ergro
up
–not
unio
nm
ember
s(n
¼346)
2
Org
aniz
atio
n1.7
7(S
D¼
1.0
2)
2.5
1(S
D¼
1.1
9) *
*3.0
6(S
D¼
1.3
9)
2.4
0(S
D¼
1.1
2) *
*U
nio
n4.7
8(S
D¼
0.8
6)
4.4
8(S
D¼
1.1
5) *
*3.4
8(S
D¼
1.1
4)
4.6
9(S
D¼
0.9
4) *
*W
ork
gro
up
2.8
9(S
D¼
1.0
1)
2.5
5(S
D¼
1.1
1) *
*2.6
0(S
D¼
1.1
9)
2.5
4(S
D¼
1.0
8)
Tra
de/
occ
upat
ion
2.9
7(S
D¼
1.0
7)
2.7
6(S
D¼
1.1
7) *
2.4
7(S
D¼
1.3
5)
2.8
1(S
D¼
1.1
2) *
Per
sonal
care
erdev
elopm
ent
2.1
7(S
D¼
1.1
3)
2.0
4(S
D¼
1.2
0)
2.2
6(S
D¼
1.3
6)
1.9
8(S
D¼
1.1
6)
No
tes:
aR
ank
scal
e–
1¼
Mo
stim
po
rtan
tan
d5¼
Lea
stim
po
rtan
t;*p,
.05
**p,
.00
1;
1D
iffe
ren
ceb
etw
een
mea
ns
for
man
ager
/wo
rker
gro
ups;
2D
iffe
ren
ceb
etw
een
mea
ns
for
wo
rker
sw
ho
are
curr
ent
un
ion
mem
ber
s/n
ot
curr
ent
un
ion
mem
ber
s.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1165
correlated with levels of organizational commitment, and this relationship is statistically
significant 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 ¼ 1.77), and then to their personal careers (M ¼ 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 ¼ 2.04), and secondarily to their
employing organization (M ¼ 2.51). Workers also exhibit some commitment to their work
group (M ¼ 2.55) and their trade/occupation (M ¼ 2.76). Perhaps surprisingly, there is
little evident commitment from the sub-sample of workers to the unions (M ¼ 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 unitarist–pluralist 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, the
gap 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. Geare et al.1166
of ‘professionals’, is a significant factor most probably serving to reduce ‘difference’, not
create 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 organization’s 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 not
decipherable 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
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1167
it as a secondary commitment. There is not the data to make a definitive ruling on which
of 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 the
causal 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 the
difference 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. Geare et al.1168
Furthermore, this study highlights the value that can most certainly be obtained
when 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, 213–238.
Clark, T., Mabey, C., and Skinner, D. (1998), ‘Experiencing HRM: The Importance of the InsideStory,’ in Experiencing Human Resource Management, eds. C. Mabey, D. Skinner and T. Clark,London: Sage, pp. 1–13.
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, 226–228.Cully, M., Woodland, S., O’Reilly, 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, 588–609.Delaney, J., and Godard, J. (2001), ‘An Industrial Relations Perspective on the High-performance
Paradigm,’ Human Resource Management Review, 11, 395–429.Delery, J. (1998), ‘Issues of Fit in Strategic Human Resource Management: Implications for
Research,’ Human Resource Management Review, 8, 3, 289–309.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, 204–220.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, 105–109.Gallagher, D.G., and Strauss, G. (1991), ‘Union Membership Attitudes and Participation,’
in The 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, 113–146.
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, 2,113–146.
Godard, J. (1997), ‘Whither Strategic Choice: Do Managerial IR Ideologies Matter?,’ IndustrialRelations, 36, 2, 206–228.
Goll, I. (1991), ‘Environment, Corporate Ideology, and Involvement Programs,’ IndustrialRelations, 30, 138–149.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1169
Guest, D. (1987), ‘Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations,’ Journal of ManagementStudies, 24, 5, 503–521.
Guest, D. (1997), ‘Human Resource Management and Performance: A Review and ResearchAgenda,’ International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8, 3, 263–277.
Guest, D. (1998), ‘Beyond HRM: Commitment and the Contract Culture,’ in Human ResourceManagement: The New Agenda, eds. P. Sparrow and M. Marchington, London: I.T. Pitman,pp. 37–51.
Guest, D. (1999), ‘Human Resource Management – The Workers’ Verdict,’ Human ResourceManagement Journal, 9, 3, 5–25.
Hart, T. (1993), ‘Human Resource Management – Time to Exorcize the Militant Tendency,’Employee Relations, 15, 3, 29–37.
Horwitz, F. (1991), ‘HRM: An Ideological Perspective,’ International Journal of Manpower, 12, 6,2–9.
Ichniowski, C., Kochan, T., Levine, D., Olson, C., and Strauss, G. (1996), ‘What Works at Work:Overview and Assessment,’ Industrial Relations, 35, 3, 299–333.
Iles, P., Mabey, C., and Robertson, I. (1990), ‘HRM Practices and Employee Commitment: Pitfallsand Paradoxes,’ British Journal of Management, 1, 147–157.
Keenoy, T. (1991), ‘The Roots of Metaphor in the Old and New Industrial Relations,’ BritishJournal of Industrial Relations, 29, 2, 313–328.
Keenoy, T. (1999), ‘HRM as Hologram: A Polemic,’ The Journal of Management Studies, 36, 1,1–19.
Kerr, C. (1955), ‘Industrial Relations and the Liberal Pluralist,’ in Proceedings of the SeventhAnnual Meeting of the IRRA, IRRA, Wisconsin, pp. 2–16.
Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S., Purcell, J., Rayton, B., and Swart, J. (2005), ‘Satisfaction with HRPractices and Commitment to the Organisation: Why One Size Does Not Fit All,’ HumanResource Management Journal, 15, 4, 9–29.
Lawler, E., and Mohrman, S. (1987), ‘Unions and the New Management,’ Academy of ManagementExecutive, 1, 4, 293–300.
MacDuffie, J. (1995), ‘Human Resource Bundles and Manufacturing Performance: OrganizationalLogic and Flexible Production Systems in the World Auto Industry,’ Industrial and LaborRelations Review, 48, 2, 197–221.
May, R., Walsh, P., and Otto, C. (2004), ‘Unions and Union Membership in New Zealand: AnnualReview for 2003,’ New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 29, 3, 83–96.
Mowday, R., Steers, R., and Porter, L. (1979), ‘The Measurement of Organizational Commitment,’Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224–247.
Muller, M. (1999), ‘Unitarism, Pluralism, and Human Resource Management in Germany,’Management International Review, Special Issue 3, 125–144.
New Zealand Business Who’s Who (2004), (45th Edition), New Zealand: New Zealand FinancialPress 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, 531–544.Purcell, J. (1993), ‘The Challenge of Human Resource Management for Industrial Relations
Research and Practice,’ International Journal of Human Resource Management, 4, 3, 511–527.Ramsey, H. (1975), ‘Firms and Football Teams,’ British Journal of Industrial Relations, 13, 3,
359–400.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, 228–258.Sisson, K. (1993), ‘In Search of HRM,’ British Journal of Industrial Relations, 31, 2, 201–210.Storey, J. (1992), Developments in the Management of Human Resources, Oxford: Blackwell.Strauss, G. (2001), ‘HRM in the USA: Correcting Some British Impressions,’ International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 12, 6, 873–897.Swailes, S. (2004), ‘Commitment to Change: Profiles of Commitment and In-role Performance,’
Personnel Review, 33, 2, 187–204.Taft, P. (1954), ‘Ideologies and Industrial Conflict,’ in Industrial Conflict, eds. A. Kornhauser,
R. Dubin and A. Ross, New York: McGraw Hill, pp. 257–265.
A. Geare et al.1170
Tsui, A. (1984), ‘Personnel Department Effectiveness: A Tripartite Approach,’ Industrial Relations,23, 2, 184–197.
Tsui, A., and Milkovich, G. (1987), ‘Personnel Department Activities: Constituency Perspectivesand Preferences,’ Personnel Psychology, 40, 519–537.
Ulrich, D. (1987), ‘Strategic Human Resource Planning: Why and How?,’ Human ResourcePlanning, 10, 1, 37–56.
van den Broek, D. (2003), ‘Recruitment Strategies and Union Exclusion in Two Australian CallCentres,’ Industrial Relations, 58, 3, 515–535.
Walton, R. (1985), ‘From Control to Commitment in the Workplace,’ Harvard Business Review, 63,2, 77–84.
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, 56–85.
Wood, S. (1995), ‘The Four Pillars of HRM: Are they Connected?,’ Human Resource ManagementJournal, 5, 5, 49–58.
Zinn, J., Zalokowski, A., and Hunter, L. (2001), ‘Identifying Indicators of Laboratory ManagementPerformance: A Multiple Constituency Approach,’ Health Care Management Review, 26, 1,40–53.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1171