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, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Publication 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, high commitment management and unionisation
Alan Gearea; Fiona Edgara; Ian McAndrewa a Department of Management, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

To cite this Article Geare, Alan , Edgar, Fiona and McAndrew, Ian(2009) 'Workplace values and beliefs: an empirical study

of ideology, high commitment management and unionisation', The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20: 5, 1146 1171 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09585190902850331 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585190902850331

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

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 or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should 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 directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 20, No. 5, May 2009, 11461171

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 beliefs about employment relationships. It found that managers consider the employment relationship in their own workplaces unitarist rather than pluralist, but have mixed ideologies 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 suggest unions effect commitment to the employing organization. Workers commitment is to personal careers rst and the organization second, while managers put the organization ahead of personal careers. Correlations exist between unitary views of the employment relationship, increased High Commitment Management (HCM) practices, and high levels of commitment. The purpose and contribution of this study is that it reports an assessment of the relation between workplace attitudes and beliefs and the efcacy and inuence of management and union initiatives designed to impact them. Keywords: high commitment management; unionization; workplace ideology

Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 15:27 8 June 2010

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 rm as a team with committed employees working with managers for the benet of the rm. This paper briey discusses the concepts of HCM, and employment ideologies. Building on a previous study which identied the ideology of managers, this research evaluates and compares both managers and employees ideologies at a general level of abstraction and then specic 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,

*Corresponding author. Email: ageare@business.otago.ac.nz

ISSN 0958-5192 print/ISSN 1466-4399 online q 2009 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/09585190902850331 http://www.informaworld.com

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

1147

and quality circles (Edwards 1995)) that aim to promote organizational commitment among workers (Singh and Vinnicombe 1998), thereby generating a better t 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 t. Indeed some suggest such a shared value system is a requirement of HCM.
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 15:27 8 June 2010

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 dened as:
A connected set of beliefs, attitudes and values held by an identiable social group which refer to a specic aspect of social reality, which comprise normative, empirical and prescriptive elements 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) identied 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 conict between them is an aberration; if conict 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 conict between management and workers, and conict 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 awed 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).

1148

A. Geare et al.

Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 15:27 8 June 2010

With HCM, the assumption of the unitary ideology being paramount is even more pronounced. The efcacy 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 conict. 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, 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 signicance or insignicance 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 identies the current employment relations ideologies of managers and workers. Second, the inuence of union afliation on ideology is tested. Third, the issue of t 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 and workplace 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 reected in their roles and levels within the organization. While it is expected that very few people would be pure

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

1149

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 afliation 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 dened 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 signicantly 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 inuence 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 efcacy 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 benet 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 conict and thereby improve operating efciencies. 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

Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 15:27 8 June 2010

1150

A. Geare et al.

Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 15:27 8 June 2010

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 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 lter 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 with perceived 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 nd 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 and workforce 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) dened organization commitment straightforwardly as:
the relative strength of an individuals identication with and involvement in a particular organization ... In particular, commitment is characterized by three factors: a strong belief in and an acceptance of the organizations goals and values, a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization, and a strong desire to maintain membership in the organization (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

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

1151

(Guest 1997). This positive inuence 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 rst asked to respond to a range of demographic questions including sex, age, ethnicity, occupation, service, respondents level in the organization, past and present union afliation, 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 reecting a particular level of abstraction. The rst 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 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 reect the orientation of the manager or the worker: 0 2 Pluralist; 3 4 Pluralist/Unitarist; and 5 7 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 ve-point Likert scale was used with 1 very poor and 5 very good. A slightly modied version of the measure developed by Wood (1995) was used to assess the extent to which HCM is practiced. A total of 14 statements reecting HCM practice (a .895) were included (some statements contained two parts). Using a vepoint 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

Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 15:27 8 June 2010

1152

A. Geare et al.

Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 15:27 8 June 2010

indicate the extent they believed congruence existed between organization and employee goals 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 ve-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 benecial 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, ve 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 signicance) for two unrelated samples. The relationships between selected variables such as past and present union afliation 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 nal 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 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,

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Table 1. Total sample demographics. Gender Male Female Age Under 20 21 to 34 35 to 49 Over 50 Ethnicity NZ/European Maori Samoan Asian Other Union afliation Previous union afliation Current union afliation Sector Public Private Managers Workers (n 788)% (n 424)% Length of Service 59 41 1 18 44 37 91 2 1 3 3 41 2 11 89 47 53 5 38 36 21 85 3 3 2 7 51 16 26 74 Less than 1 year 1-3 years 4 years plus Hours of work Full time Part time Level in organization Senior management Middle management Team leader Supervisor Non-managerial Occupation Professional Semi-professional

1153

Managers Workers (n 788)% (n 424)% 10 21 69 96 4 71 29 13 11 76 63 19 32* 14 29 9 8 8 24 30 46 89 11

Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 15:27 8 June 2010

Admin/clerical/general 18 Tradesperson Labourer Other

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 professionals may impact results obtained. Intuitively organizations comprising predominantly professionals should be more unitarist than the more traditional manufacturing organization.

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

Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 15:27 8 June 2010

Table 2a. Correlations: society and workplace ideological orientation by groupa.

1154

SOCIETY MANAGERS WORKERS MANAGERS WORKERS MANAGERS WORKERS MANAGERS WORKERS MANAGERS WORKERS MANAGERS WORKERS 0.354** 0.394** 0.557** 0.562** 0.692** 0.624** 0.355** 0.314** 0.385** 0.554** 0.353** 0.340**

WORKPLACE 1

A. Geare et al.

1. Workers in general see themselves as being: (a) An integral part of the organization in which they work (U) (b) Members of a group within the organization in which they work (P) 2. Workers interests in general are: (a) Looked after adequately by management (U) (b) Looked after adequately by their union/lawyer (P) 3. The principal objectives and interests of management and workers are: (a) More or less similar (U) (b) Similar in some areas, but are very different in others (P) 4. Unions in general: (a) Are a liability as they introduce distrust into the work environment (U) (b) Are an asset as they protect the interests of workers (P) 5. In the average organization: (a) Management and workers work together as a team (U) (b) Management and workers sometimes work as a team, sometimes are in conict (P) 6. Collective bargaining: (a) Does not win anything for workers they would not have got from management anyway (U) (b) Is probably the best means of settling differences between various groups (P) 7. The major causes of conict in the workplace (e.g. strikes, etc.) is (are): (a) Basically poor communication or trouble-makers (U) (b) The fact that different groups have different objectives which sometimes clash (P) MANAGERS WORKERS 0.490** 0.518

Notes: aSample size: Managerial data n 788 and Worker data n 424; bItems were reworded to reect a view of the respondents current workplace; cContextual variables controlled: Age, Gender and Ethnicity; **p , 0.001 *p , 0.05.

Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 15:27 8 June 2010

Table 2b. Ideological orientation society and workplacea.

Societal Level MGR% WKR% MGR WKR MGR% 62 38 92 8 36 64 .36 .56 35 .45 .31 72 28 64 36 65 35 .64 49 51 .72 .49 61 4.850** 8.067** .32 65 39 .65 .39 .27 56 44 45 55 43 57 75 25 .43 .25 31 69 68 32 7.999** 27 73 64 36 46 54 .64 .46 3.261** 6.189** 8.287** 75 25 .92 .75 97 3 82 18 .97 .82 8.359** 8.728** 46 54 .62 .46 73 27 56 44 .73 .56 5.342** 6.142** WKR% MGR WKR SOCIETY WORKPLACE Mean Workplace Level b Mean t-test

Statement

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

.35

6.304**

9.704**

1. Workers in general see themselves as being: (a) An integral part of the organization in which they work (U) (b) Members of a group within the organization in which they work (P) 2. Workers interests in general are: (a) Looked after adequately by management (U) (b) Looked after adequately by their union/lawyer (P) 3. The principal objectives and interests of management and workers are: (a) More or less similar (U) (b) Similar in some areas, but are very different in others (P) 4. Unions in general: (a) Are a liability as they introduce distrust into the work environment (U) (b) Are an asset as they protect the interests of workers (P) 5. In the average organization: (a) Management and workers work together as a team (U) (b) Management and workers sometimes work as a team, sometimes are in conict (P) 6. Collective bargaining: (a) Does not win anything for workers they would not have got from management anyway (U) (b) Is probably the best means of settling differences between various groups (P) 7. The major causes of conict in the workplace (e.g. strikes, etc) is (are): (a) Basically poor communication or trouble-makers (U) (b) The fact that different groups have different objectives which sometimes clash (P) 45 55 38 62 .44 .38 59 41 47 53 .59 .47 2.245** 3.903**

1155

Notes: aSample size: Managerial data n 788 and Worker data n 424; bItems were reworded to reect a view of the respondents current workplace; **p , .001.

1156

A. Geare et al.

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 0.657, p , .720), it does have an impact at the workplace level (X 2 6.240, p , .044), with private sector respondents being somewhat more unitarist. For simplication and ease of interpretation, statement data are collapsed so ideological orientations can be classied 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 chisquare shows no statistically signicant difference between the views of these two groups about employment relations at the societal level (X 2 5.861, p .210). However, this nding 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 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 signicant level (X 2 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 2 265.651, p , .000), with perceived high usage of HCM (X 2 218.458, p , .000), and with high levels of organizational commitment (X 2 511.216, 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 semiprofessional 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 signicant. A similar analysis for age showed no signicant differences. For service, statistically signicant differences were identied. The ndings applied to both managers and workers, but were stronger for managers. Those with over 10 years of service were signicantly more pluralist, this possibly reecting 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.

Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 15:27 8 June 2010

Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 15:27 8 June 2010

Table 3.
Difference in manager and worker means at-test and sig. 36 61 9.522** 12.864** 17 30 33 35 50 35 37 30 27 9 Unitarist (5 7 unitarist responses)% Mixed (3 4 unitarist responses)%

Collapsed ideological orientation.

Pluralist (0 2 unitarist responses)%

Level of Abstraction

Mean

Managerial sample Society (n 759) Workplace (n 764)

3.77 (SD 1.756) 4.89 (SD 1.620)

Worker sample Society (n 405) Workplace (n 424)

2.73 (SD 1.771) 3.45 (SD 1.928)

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Notes: aDifferences in n reect missing data for a particular statement(s); **p , .001.

1157

1158

A. Geare et al.

Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 15:27 8 June 2010

Unions and ideology Research question two addressed the impact of union afliation 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 afliation (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 afliation for both the manager (X 2 19.234, p , .001) and worker (X 2 20.899, p , .001) sub-samples. A pluralist view of employment relations in ones own workplace was also signicantly related to past union afliation 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% Yes, previously belong to a union (n 313) No, never belonged to a union (n 443)
Notes: **p , .001.

Unitarist/ pluralist% 35 39

Strong pluralist% 35 21

Chi-square 19.234**

30 40

Table 4b. Managerial viewsa at workplace level of abstraction and previous union membership. Strong unitarist% Yes, previously belong to a union (n 280) No, never belonged to a union (n 391) 57 65 Unitarist/ pluralist% 31 29 Strong pluralist% 12 7 Chi-square 6.579

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

Table 4c. Worker views at societal level of abstraction and previous union membership. Strong unitarist% Yes, previously belong to a union (n 205) No, never belonged to a union (n 199)
Note: **p , .001.

Unitarist/ pluralist% 27 38

Strong pluralist% 61 39

Chi-square 20.899**

12 23

Table 4d. Worker viewsa at workplace level of abstraction and previous union membership. Strong unitarist% Yes, previously belong to a union (n 186) No, never belonged to a union (n 180)
a

Unitarist/ pluralist% 30 40

Strong pluralist% 45 24

Chi-square 17.498**

25 36

Note: Difference in n reects missing data for these particular statement(s) across the different levels of abstraction; **p , .001.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Table 5a. Worker views at societal level of abstraction and current union membership. Strong unitarist% Yes, currently belong to a union (n 66) No, do not belong to a union (n 336)
Note: **p , .001.

1159

Unitarist/ pluralist% 20 35

Strong pluralist% 79 44

Chi-square 28.995**

1 21

Table 5b. Worker viewsa at societal level of abstraction and current union membership.
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 15:27 8 June 2010

Strong unitarist% Yes, currently belong to a union (n 64) No, do not belong to a union (n 299)
a

Unitarist/ pluralist% 22 38

Strong pluralist% 73 25

Chi-square 55.254**

5 37

Notes: The differences in n reects missing data for these particular statement(s) across the different levels of abstraction; **p , .001.

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 28.995, p , .001) and at the workplace level (X 2 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 signicant 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 ndings 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 dened 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 nal 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 signicant (Organizational Commitment Aggregate Total (three items) t 10.339, p , .000). While the perceived strength of HCM practice is found to be

Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 15:27 8 June 2010

Table 6. Relationship between strength of adopted HCM practicea and ideological orientationb (n 1042).

1160

HCM Mean t-test MGR 3.50 3.61 3.33 3.27 2.91 2.98 3.73 3.78 3.91 3.48 3.61 4.30 3.59 4.07 3.42 3.69 3.17 4.09 6.744** 4.000** 2.150* 3.960** 2.69 3.43 3.66 3.50 10.022** 3.756** 3.696** 2 0.339 1.470 1.415 1.035 1.285 0.982 0.785 1.226 0.947 2.35 2.61 6.473** 4.822** 1.211 1.191 1.747 1.352 2.100 1.645 1.209 1.462 1.228 1.033 1.416 2.328 2.70 2.90 7.575** 4.807** 1.155 1.179 1.719 1.382 .194** .245** .107** .166** .094* .155** .223** .095* .192** .300** .146** .192** 3.02 3.26 5.818** 4.960** 1.142 1.112 1.655 1.285 .150** .154** .142** .204** .171** .235** .080 .069 .198** .175** .165** .156** .273** .191** .155** .294** WKR t-test MGR WKR MGR WKR

Std Dev.

Relationship with ideological orientation workplace

Statements on HRM practice

A. Geare et al.

1. A high value is placed on training and development for: (a) managerial staff (b) non-managerial staff 2. Commitment is encouraged by having human resource management practices that help staff achieve personal goals as well as organizational goals: (a) managerial staff (b) non-managerial staff 3. Promotional prospects are clearly dened and developed for: (a) managerial staff (b) non-managerial staff 4. A performance appraisal of staff member performance is undertaken on either an annual or bi-annual basis in this organization for: (a) managerial staff (b) non-managerial staff 5. The predominant system of organising work in this organization is team-working 6. Regular meetings of quality circles (i.e. small groups of workers, supervisors and management who meet to discuss the quality of a product and/or service) are held in this organization 7. Job design is such that skills and abilities of staff members are used to fullest extent 8. Staff members in this organization are encouraged to take responsibility for the quality of their own work 9. Planned team brieng sessions are regularly held for the staff members in this organization 10. Job descriptions in this organization are exible and do not restrict work/duties to a series of specic tasks

Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 15:27 8 June 2010

Table 6 continued

HCM Mean t-test MGR 4.18 3.67 4.04 4.13 3.80 69.89
b

Std Dev. MGR 0.892 1.115 1.169 1.136 0.904 12.28 1.219 16.29 1.673 1.649 .127** .140** .364** .296** 1.394 .274** 1.839 .263** .283** .300** .096 .107* .365** .326** WKR MGR WKR

Relationship with ideological orientation workplace

Statements on HRM practice 3.04 3.13 3.20 3.30 3.35 59.92 11.467** 7.220** 10.284** 10.249** 7.418** 14.566

WKR

t-test

11. Managerial staff members are encouraged to participate in workplace decisions that may affect them 12. Non-managerial staff members are encouraged to participate in workplace decisions that may affect them 13. This organization protects the security of its core workforce by employing temporary staff members only when absolutely necessary 14. This organization has uniform (standard) terms and conditions of employment for all its staff members 15. In this organization, staff members share the overall goals of management and willingly work towards achievement of these goals

Total strength of HCM practice

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Notes: Scale: 1 Strongly disagree and 5 Strongly agree; Scale: 1 pluralist (02 unitarist responses), 2 unitarist/pluralist (3 4 unitarist responses) and 3 unitarist (57 unitarist responses); *p , .05 **p , .001.

1161

Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 15:27 8 June 2010

Table 7. Relationship between perceived strength of HCM practice and levels of organizational commitmenta (n 1214).

1162

I nearly always agree with this organizations policies on My work environment allows I intend to stay working for important matters relating to me to contribute to my full this organization for a long Mean aggregate total its employees potential time (3 items)

STATEMENTS ON HCM PRACTICE 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) .266** .313** .127* .396** .174** .266** .095 .304** .278** .345** .144** .421**

1. A high value is placed on training and development for: (a) managerial staff .257** .155** (b) non-managerial staff .280** .347**

2. Commitment is encouraged by having human resource management practices that help staff achieve personal goals as well as organizational goals: (a) managerial staff .228** .213** .244** .155** .157** .132** .250** .190** (b) non-managerial staff .256** .363** .284** .403** .187** .284** .290** .412** .240** .212** .116* .399** .182** .193** .092 .237** .254** .242** .143** .362** .109* .257** .347** .230**

A. Geare et al.

3. Promotional prospects are clearly dened and developed for: (a) managerial staff .209** .157** (b) non-managerial staff .194** .250**

4. A performance appraisal of staff member performance is undertaken on either an annual or bi-annual basis in this organization for: (a) managerial staff .067 .166** .147** .098* .053 .041 .108** (b) non-managerial staff .090* .192** .128** .256** .070 .180** .114** 5. The predominant system of .297** .270** .286** .310** .261** .274** .339** organizing work in this organization is team-working 6. Regular meetings of quality circles .157** .214** .155** .193** .141** .168** .180** (i.e. small groups of workers, supervisors and management who meet to discuss the quality of a product and/or service) are held in this organization 7. Job design is such that skills and .337** .407** .405** .539** .346** .389** .440** abilities of staff members are used to fullest extent

.539**

Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 15:27 8 June 2010

Table 7 continued I nearly always agree with this organizations policies on My work environment allows I intend to stay working for important matters relating to me to contribute to my full this organization for a long Mean aggregate total its employees potential time (3 items)

STATEMENTS ON HCM PRACTICE 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) .401** .300** .376** .366** .338** .285** .446** .387**

.111** .245** .185** .272** .248** .223** .182** .298**

.235**

.154**

.246**

.151**

.128**

.168**

.236** .249**

.415**

.259**

.352**

.231**

.329**

.115*

.434**

.231**

.354**

.343**

.301**

.429**

.273**

.276**

.369**

.420**

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

8. Staff members in this organization are encouraged to take responsibility for the quality of their own work 9. Planned team brieng sessions are regularly held for the staff members in this organization 10. Job descriptions in this organization are exible and do not restrict work/duties to a series of specic tasks 11. Managerial staff members are encouraged to participate in workplace decisions that may affect them 12. Non-managerial staff members are encouraged to participate in workplace decisions that may affect them 13. This organization protects the security of its core workforce by employing temporary staff members only when absolutely necessary .179** .101* .195** .096 .213** .137** .238** .135**

1163

Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 15:27 8 June 2010

1164

Table 7 continued I nearly always agree with this organizations policies on My work environment allows I intend to stay working for important matters relating to me to contribute to my full this organization for a long Mean aggregate total its employees potential time (3 items)

STATEMENTS ON HCM PRACTICE 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) .156** .115* .149** .160** .189** .088 .201** .145**

14. This organization has uniform (standard) terms and conditions of employment for all its staff members 15. In this organization, staff members share the overall goals of management and willingly work towards achievement of these goals .377** .389** .355** .399** .328** .344** .423** .453** .377** .387** .414** .442** .334** .298** .453** .451**

A. Geare et al.

TOTAL STRENGTH OF HCM PRACTICE

Notes: aScales (both): 1 Strongly disagree and 5 Strongly agree M Managers (n 788) and W Workers (n 424); *p , .05 **p , .001

Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 15:27 8 June 2010

Table 8. T-test of mean rankeda level of commitment in relation to organization/work-related characteristics.

Manager group (n 794) Worker group current union members (n 68) 3.06 (SD 1.39) 3.48 (SD 1.14) 2.60 (SD 1.19) 2.47 (SD 1.35) 2.26 (SD 1.36) 1.77 (SD 1.02) 4.78 (SD 0.86) 2.89 (SD 1.01) 2.97 (SD 1.07) 2.17 (SD 1.13) 2.51 (SD 1.19)** 4.48 (SD 1.15)** 2.55 (SD 1.11)** 2.76 (SD 1.17)* 2.04 (SD 1.20) Worker group total (n 414) 1 Worker group not union members (n 346) 2 2.40 (SD 1.12)** 4.69 (SD 0.94)** 2.54 (SD 1.08) 2.81 (SD 1.12)* 1.98 (SD 1.16)

Characteristic most committed to:

Organization Union Work group Trade/occupation Personal career development

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1165

Notes: aRank scale 1 Most important and 5 Least important; *p , .05 **p , .001; 1Difference between means for manager/worker groups; 2Difference between means for workers who are current union members/not current union members.

1166

A. Geare et al.

Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 15:27 8 June 2010

correlated with levels of organizational commitment, and this relationship is statistically signicant in nearly all cases, in many instances the relationship is not a particularly strong one. Commitment has been identied as being multi-faceted, or perhaps more accurately, multi-focused. To control for this, ve contextual items which can be characterised as reecting 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 unitarist pluralist view of employment relations in general, with those having had some union afliation 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 inuences 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. Signicantly, 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

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

1167

of professionals, is a signicant 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 identied 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 inuence is evident among workers with both past and present union afliation, 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 identication 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 nding 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 reect a conventional pluralist diversity of interests, but with a natural if subsidiary employee identication with the employing organization (consistent with a pluralist view) as well; or it might be said to reect 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

Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 15:27 8 June 2010

1168

A. Geare et al.

it as a secondary commitment. There is not the data to make a denitive 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 rst 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 ndings, 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 signicant movement in employment relations, and what HRM actually represents, all denitions 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 eld of personnel. British academics however see HRM as more esoteric and have focussed on conicting 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 elds 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 rst step in the development of a platform for scholars to use to progress the discipline condently in the right direction.
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 15:27 8 June 2010

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

1169

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 Inside Story, 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., 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, 588 609. 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 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: A Theoretical 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 HRM Practice, 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?, Industrial Relations, 36, 2, 206 228. Goll, I. (1991), Environment, Corporate Ideology, and Involvement Programs, Industrial Relations, 30, 138 149.
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 15:27 8 June 2010

1170

A. Geare et al.

Guest, D. (1987), Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations, Journal of Management Studies, 24, 5, 503 521. Guest, D. (1997), Human Resource Management and Performance: A Review and Research Agenda, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8, 3, 263 277. 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. 37 51. 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, 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: Pitfalls and Paradoxes, British Journal of Management, 1, 147157. Keenoy, T. (1991), The Roots of Metaphor in the Old and New Industrial Relations, British Journal 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 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, Human Resource Management Journal, 15, 4, 9 29. Lawler, E., and Mohrman, S. (1987), Unions and the New Management, Academy of Management Executive, 1, 4, 293 300. MacDufe, J. (1995), Human Resource Bundles and Manufacturing Performance: Organizational Logic and Flexible Production Systems in the World Auto Industry, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48, 2, 197 221. 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, 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 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, 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, 511527. 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, 228258. 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: Proles of Commitment and In-role Performance, Personnel Review, 33, 2, 187204. Taft, P. (1954), Ideologies and Industrial Conict, in Industrial Conict, eds. A. Kornhauser, R. Dubin and A. Ross, New York: McGraw Hill, pp. 257 265.

Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 15:27 8 June 2010

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

1171

Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 15:27 8 June 2010

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 Perspectives and Preferences, Personnel Psychology, 40, 519 537. Ulrich, D. (1987), Strategic Human Resource Planning: Why and How?, Human Resource Planning, 10, 1, 37 56. van den Broek, D. (2003), Recruitment Strategies and Union Exclusion in Two Australian Call Centres, 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: Harvard Business School Press. Wells, D. (1993), Are Strong Unions Compatible with the New Model of Human Resource Management?, Relations Industrielles, 48, 1, 56 85. Wood, S. (1995), The Four Pillars of HRM: Are they Connected?, Human Resource Management Journal, 5, 5, 49 58. Zinn, J., Zalokowski, A., and Hunter, L. (2001), Identifying Indicators of Laboratory Management Performance: A Multiple Constituency Approach, Health Care Management Review, 26, 1, 40 53.