HRM At Work: Student Notes
Chapter 10: Managing Worker Voice
Chapter overview
This chapter introduces you to the structures and processes for effective employee relations,
and employee voice in particular, offering an overview of the recent historical context,
discussing the changes in the pattern of employee relations, as well as the decline in the
prevalence of collective bargaining. You will learn how to offer advice on employee relations
objectives, be able to design a policy for dealing with trade unions, and discuss and be aware
of the benefits or limitations of different forms of employee involvement. You will also be
able to understand how effective employee relations can engender greater commitment, and
make better use of employees’ potential to contribute.
Chapter objectives
After studying this chapter, you should be able to:
 provide management with advice on employee relations objectives appropriate to your
own organisation
 design an employee relations policy explaining how trade unions and collective
bargaining will be dealt with, or how a non-union strategy will be effected
 provide advice on the appropriateness of adopting different forms of employee
involvement within your organisation.
In addition, you should understand and be able to explain:
 the way in which effective employee relations can contribute to increased employee
potential and commitment
 the processes of union recognition and derecognition
 the nature and meaning of collective bargaining and employee involvement, and their
place within the employee relations framework.
Chapter outline
Management’s role in employee relations
The chapter begins by looking at the role of management employee relations, emphasising
how the relationship between employer and employee is characterised by both conflict and
co-operation, but simultaneously underlining the idea that there are two opposing sides, or
two ‘actors’ in the employment relationship, given the role of government and wider
legislation. Typical employee relations objectives are listed and discussed (reducing labour
cost, achieving greater stability, increasing productivity, increasing co-operation and
commitment, increasing control over the labour process, minimising disruption) before Fox’s
influential concept of frames of reference is introduced, and the two most widely discussed
frames are outlined (unitarism – one team, with common goals; pluralism – organisations
have various interest groups with some shared and some divergent interests).
The extent and nature of union recognition
The next topic discussed is union recognition and some empirical evidence that contributes to
this debate is examined before three options for management (work with unions, ‘edge out’
unions, manage without unions) are outlined.
Collective bargaining
The discussion of collective bargaining offers a historical perspective of this phenomenon, as
well as (more recently) thoughts on whether managerial prerogative has been extended with
changes in large public-sector organisations (such as the privatisation of utility companies)
and a greater emphasis on site- or unit-level negotiation.
From industrial democracy to employee involvement
This discussion of the recent industrial context informs the following section, which outlines
the changing nature of employee participation, from industrial democracy (predominantly a
phenomenon associated with the 1970s) to employee involvement (1980s to the present day).
A four-part typology of involvement is presented and described (downward communication,
upward problem-solving, task participation and teamworking, financial involvement).
Employee voice and social partnership
Discussion of employee voice and social partnership further illustrates the contemporary
context of employee relations, as well as introducing the role that Europe has in shaping the
UK employment relationship.
Conclusions
This chapter should have helped you understand that employee relations, like all aspects of
HRM, is characterised by conflict and co-operation. At certain times, and in certain
workplaces, one of these can predominate. This sometimes gives the misguided impression
that employee relations at one site or at one point in time is solely about conflict, whereas at
other establishments or times it is seen only in terms of co-operation. Furthermore, just
because conflict is not expressed overtly does not mean that it is absent, and neither can it be
assumed that the workplace is a haven of content. Given the degree to which labour markets
have been deregulated over the last 20 years, employers now have greater flexibility in
choosing appropriate styles and structures for managing employee relations, as well as a
greater opportunity to integrate people management strategies with those affecting the
business as a whole. To do this effectively, however, employers must embrace a more
strategic approach to the management of employee relations, be aware of the techniques
adopted by other employers, and disregard fads and fashions if these are inappropriate for
their own workplace.
Feedback on mini-questions
Write two lists, one specifying the common interests of employers and employees, and
the other the divergent interests.
Apply this to an organisation you are familiar with and see if it helps you to evaluate
the quality of employee relations there.
Although employers and employees both have a vested interest in the success of the
enterprise (employers want to make money and keep the business afloat – employees want to
keep their job security), in many other areas they may not share objectives. As you will be
aware, much of this is because employers want to minimise the cost of labour (thereby
increasing margins), whereas employees are likely to want to maximise their salary. Perhaps
more fundamentally, there is an obvious imbalance in power between employer and
employees. A list of common interests might include the following: long-term viability of the
enterprise, present-day success of the business, a favourable competitive context, no shortage
of customers, an efficient and effective supply chain, manufacturing processes/information
systems free from error, and optimal working conditions (although there are cost issues here).
Potentially, also, common interest might include softer issues such as: job satisfaction, high
levels of commitment, loyalty, pride in the work, and a sense of the team. A list of divergent
interests (from the employees) might include: high salaries, better fringe benefits, paid
parental leave, longer holidays, shorter working hours, state-of-the-art equipment, being seen
as a priority over customers. You should be be able to identify particular areas of concern for
your organisation. One way in which the quality of employee relations could be seen as poor,
or likely to be characterised by conflict, is if their list of divergent interests is long and
substantial.
Think of examples of conflicts between different objectives that occur in your
organisation. To what extent do objectives change over time?
As we saw in the chapter, a list of typical employee relations objectives can be a long one:
reducing labour costs, channelling discontent through grievance procedures, maximising
productivity and making better use of labour, increasing co-operation and commitment,
reducing barriers to change, minimising conflict or disruption to processes, and increasing
control over the labour process. If you have worked for an organisation, you are likely to
have experienced some sense of conflict, although you may not have articulated it in these
terms. For example, particularly if one is new in an organisation, when existing employees
express dissatisfaction about the introduction of new technology, this can be seen as
‘moaning’, but an alternative way of looking at it would be to see it as resistance to change in
work processes. Similarly, the introduction of many HRM systems or accounting systems can
be greeted with suspicion where they are perceived to be a form of surveillance (in other
words, increasing control over the labour process). For example, seemingly trivial issues such
as newer, more detailed ways of reporting absence, holidays and expenses can be interpreted
by employees as signalling a lack of trust or being patronising. These objectives can change
over time, perhaps when employers need greater levels of commitment and performance
above and beyond the call of duty; this does not go hand-in-hand with increased monitoring.
Equally, increasing co-operation and commitment to facilitate the acceptance of change
should not be a never-ending business goal, given that this would imply a continual state of
change that is not likely to enhance organisational effectiveness.
Does the absence of strikes indicate that employees are content? How do employees
show their discontent? How can discontent be monitored and handled?
A low incidence of strikes is often used to argue that there are harmonious employment
relations. However, this is problematic since strikes are only one (particularly dramatic) form
of industrial discontent, and while the absence of strikes may demonstrate high or increasing
levels of trust between employer and employee, it may also show a fear of management and
an abuse of the managerial prerogative. Conflict is not lacking but rather expressed through
high levels of absenteeism and labour turnover. Managers may take a unitarist view of the
enterprise that aspires to a ‘happy ship’, assuming that ‘what is good for their business is
good for employees’.
Frames of references may be useful in helping you understand this. Under unitarism, a
common metaphor is that the organisation is a team, with all employees sharing a common
goal (the organisation’s goal), each member expected to do his/her best and to follow the
leader, one legitimate source of authority, no factions or cliques, and that any conflict that
arises is caused by troublemakers or deviants. Unions are not needed because everybody is
working together. Under pluralism, the organisation is perceived as comprising various
interest groups or stakeholders. Although they may share some common, overarching goals,
the nature of the employment relationship is such that conflict is inevitable and should be
managed. If you don’t have any experience of institutionalised forms of conflict, you may
want to think of recent examples reported in the media. You should be able to find examples
of where employees have demonstrated discontent with their employer. You should also be
able to see the difference between institutionalised conflict and conflict or subversion on an
individual level. For example, the latter might include tacit unwillingness to offer support or
help, through to deliberately obstructive behaviour such as wilful misinterpretation of
instructions or directions, to forms of sabotage, or theft.
According to the CIPD, managing conflict at work – including disciplinary and grievance
cases and preparing for employment tribunals – costs the average employer nearly 450 days
of management time very year: equivalent to the time of two managers full-time. The figure
does not take into account the significant associated costs of mismanaged conflict at work,
including lost productivity, sickness absence and higher-than-expected turnover of
employees.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of union recognition for employers?
As we saw earlier in the chapter, there has been considerable interest in the idea of
partnership by which management is prepared to support trade union activities and employees
may be more likely to see union membership as a key part of their employment. The
Involvement and Participation Association report Towards Industrial Partnership points to
common goals shared by unions and employers, as well as emphasising the need to formally
recognise the legitimacy of representative institutions. However, there can be a problem with
over-reliance on union mechanisms for communication where this denies management the
opportunity to communicate directly with employees. More recent changes in the way we
work have meant that instances of union derecognition could be understood in terms of it not
as a deliberate strategy but rather as a by-product of widespread social change, such as
changes in firm ownership, a general trend to move to personal contracts, relocation or
reorganisation.
The HR practices used by these ‘good’ firms ( see Chapter 3) certainly look attractive
to employees. Do they represent a cost-effective alternative to trade unions?
These firms are called ‘good’ in line with Guest and Hoque’s categorisation of non-union
firms into the good, the bad, the ugly and the lucky. In these firms – generally blue-chip
industry leaders – employees are likely to be offered a complete employment package that
might include: good pay and benefits, sophisticated recruitment techniques, an emphasis on
induction and socialisation schemes, training and development opportunities,
communication/information-sharing, alternative ways of expressing or assessing employee
‘voice’/upward communication – such as speak-up schemes – long-term commitment to
providing job satisfaction, harmonisation, individual contracts, and appraisal-based
performance-related pay. It could be argued that union derecognition can be beneficial where
substitution policies encourage greater loyalty and commitment, and where employees can
directly attribute favourable working conditions to the actions of their employer rather than to
the intervention of a third party. In terms of whether these are a cost-effective alternative, one
could argue that such policies and practices will have a range of benefits above and beyond
allowing for substitution of trade unions. Equally, it is obviously not the case that removing
each of these conditions and replacing them with a trade union would represent a symmetrical
change. Better pay, communication, commitment to job satisfaction and the other practices
listed are presumably policies pursued because these companies value their employees, and
wish to get the most from them, rather than policies designed to exclude a trade union with
great effectiveness. A key conundrum when assessing such ‘excellence’ is whether these
policies make the company successful or whether they are a product of the company’s being
successful.
To what extent has the collapse of collective regulation removed employee voice in
relation to setting terms and conditions?
It is important to remember that collective bargaining was the principal method by which
wages and conditions were determined for a majority of the workforce from the end of World
War I to the 1980s. Collective bargaining outcomes (in terms of wage levels, hours worked
and holiday entitlements, for example) also influenced the terms and conditions of employees
whose pay was determined by management alone. However, the prominence of collective
bargaining has declined over the last 30 years.
The WERS data shows that 70% of workplaces set pay for at least some of their employees
unilaterally by management, but 27% set pay for at least some of their employees through
collective bargaining with unions. As Millward et al (2000, pp234–5) note,
The system of collective relations, based on the shared values of the legitimacy of
representation by independent trade unions and on joint regulation, crumbled
. . . to such an extent that it no longer represents a dominant model.
In these systems the role of the union may be marginalised as the employer focuses on direct
communication with individual employees and HR practices, such as performance-related
pay, are managerially determined. In short, the scope of managerial prerogative has been
extended .
Find out how pay and working conditions are determined at an organisation of your
choice, and whether it has changed in the last few years. Why has it changed or why
has it not changed? Review your answer after completing this section.
If you have work experience especially in HR, and had experience of pay and working
conditions negotiations or planning, this is a very interesting question to consider. If not, you
may want to look at a case where there is public data. Some of the larger public-sector
organisations have pay determined annually after recommendations have been made by an
investigatory body. So nursing and schools may be compared to a private-sector organisation,
and you will get to grips with the very different settings and contexts.
What purpose do these different forms of EIP serve? Think up ways in which these
practices could be improved.
The four forms of employee involvement are: downward communication (moving from
managers to employees to inform and educate staff so they buy into management plans – eg
in-house journals, corporate videos, PR techniques); upward problem-solving (to allow
employees to contribute to the development of processes and work-related issues, enhancing
quality and productivity – eg quality circles, suggestions schemes, surveys); task participation
and teamworking (extending the range and type of tasks at work – eg job enrichment, job
redesign); and financial involvement (linking employee rewards directly to business success
– eg share ownership schemes, profit-sharing). This question encourages you to investigate
whether any of these types of involvement or related forms of involvement are used at your
organisation, or one with which you are familiar, and this will help you link theory and
practice. Also, you may wish to assess whether the form of involvement employed at your
organisation is appropriate – in other words, is what it actually achieves consistent with what
it is intended to achieve?
How does an organisation choose which voice structures are appropriate for its
employees? In practice how effective are such structures? What are seen as the main
barriers?
HR managers do play an important role in the choices made about employee voice, in
identifying the options available, forming alliances with line managers and devising strategies
for implementation. A mix of factors shape management choice. For some, rational choice is
about satisfying employee expectations, particularly when faced with tight labour markets;
others may equate choice with their own understanding of corporate and organisational
objectives. In smaller and family-run enterprises this can relate to the personal styles and
characteristics of owner-managers. Others may see no choice, either because employees
demanded ‘a say’ or due to market pressures and new legislative requirements. On the whole,
however, management decides whether or not workers have a voice, and it is managers rather
than employees who decide what mechanisms to utilise.
In relation to barriers, CIPD research identified three particular barriers to employee voice –
lack of employee enthusiasm, an absence of necessary skills, and issues concerning line
managers. In a few of the case studies, employees lacked enthusiasm to participate in voice
arrangements. At some larger and multi-site organisations, managers noted that although
employees demanded a greater say, in practice they did not always use it. There was evidence
that some managers lacked the necessary skills to implement and manage employee voice
programmes, and this seems a more important barrier than a lack of employee enthusiasm. In
several organisations support for employee voice from the top was critical, and in a majority
of cases middle managers acted as a blockage, either through choice or through ignorance. In
several organisations line managers regarded HR issues as secondary to operational matters.
However, there was evidence of a major cultural change over time. The generation of ‘cops’
and ‘giving orders’ had much diminished, and the departure of the old guard through
restructuring and redundancy was a feature at several sites. It was also apparent that the use
of new technology and electronic forms of employee voice allowed employers to bypass
middle managers more easily.
Why might there be different views amongst the various stakeholders in the partnership
process?
Johnstone et al (2007) argue that in order to transcend the current polarised debate on mutual
gains and who gets what, it is important to reconsider what partnership is expected to
achieve. Existing research has tended to focus on the labour/union outcomes of partnership
rather than to examine the way issues were handled and how decisions were made. It asks to
what extent partnership contributes to the moderation/accommodation of the competing
employment relations objectives of efficiency, equity and voice (Budd, 2004). In this way,
the approach avoids the crude use of labour outcomes, such as job losses or pay levels, as
simple indicators of the success of partnership working. But much depends on a shared view
of what partnership is intended to achieve. If parties have widely differing views, a
partnership may not be sustainable.
Review the evidence, both from the NatBank case and other studies, and assess how
successful social partnership is likely to be in satisfying both employer and employee
objectives.
Research at NatBank identified five main tensions, and this is at the heart of many
partnership relations. Firstly, there were questions about what ‘partnership’ actually meant
and was expected to deliver. Specifically, partnership did not mean joint decision-making and
the final decision always lay with management. Secondly, there were challenges in
embedding a partnership culture, overcoming middle management resistance, and getting
engagement with grassroots employees who might have little knowledge of or interest in the
union. Thirdly, communication was said to be a problem and an area of great importance if
the espoused ‘no surprises culture’ was to be a reality. The fourth challenge concerned the
ability of representatives to build and maintain credibility in the eyes of both managers and
employees. Lastly, there were concerns whether the partnership would survive a major
organisational incident – such as a business takeover or the appointment of a new
management team who might be less sympathetic to the notion of a union–management
partnership.
Do you think that employers have much to fear from the Information and Consultation
Directive? What impact has the the Directive had on your organisation or one with
which you are familiar?
The thinking behind this Directive is consistent with other EU initiatives, as well as the
Human Rights Act and the Social Chapter. This rights-based approach differs from the way
employment relations have traditionally been ‘regulated’ in the UK – ie through reliance on a
voluntarist/laissez-faire approach. This traditional/historical context may influence how
British employers perceive the Directive, potentially as diminishing employer prerogative,
coming between management and employees, creating bureaucratic red tape and cumbersome
procedures, restricting flexibility and the ability of the organisation to change, thereby
reducing competitiveness. You may want to assess whether these arguments against
consultative bodies are valid or well founded. It might be best to look at a particular
organisation and organisational context.