Co‐operation in the employment relationship continues to be a widely lauded goal, but academics, practitioners and policy makers rarely define the concept or analyse systematically its variants. This is problematic because a lack of clarity is a significant barrier to academic discourse and practical implementation in many organizations and countries. This article therefore carefully develops a framework that results in six key perspectives on co‐operation rooted in five assumptions. In addition to fostering a deeper understanding of co‐operation, these six perspectives can be used to theorize alternative employment relations paradigms when co‐operation rather than conflict is viewed as the central construct. Moreover, a dynamic analysis of these six perspectives adds new insights to understanding the challenges of achieving and sustaining truly co‐operative regimes, while also highlighting the need to go beyond structures and practices by incorporating the role of ideas in analyses of the success or failure of co‐operative efforts.
This paper offers an alternative framework for characterizing individualism and collectivism. This framework is constructed in terms of three dimensions of the employment relationship — who makes the rules; who is covered by the rules; and who enforces the rules. The value of the framework is demonstrated by applying it to the analysis of awards in Australia, revealing fundamental changes in the individualist/ collectivist character of awards over the last 20 years.
There is a storm brewing over the roles of unions and collective bargaining in Australian employment relations. Unions, frustrated with what they see as practical and legislative restrictions on protection of workers’ rights, seek to ‘change the rules’. Employers, on the other hand, have been successful in restricting or rolling back bargaining rights, supported by their associations, the Coalition government and an assertive interpretation of the Fair Work Act. Add to this the impending federal election and the scene is set for a tempest that could bring industrial relations back to the centre of Australian politics in 2019. The review explores the various elements contributing to the coming storm, including trends in union membership, structure and strategy. It also surveys trends in the number and coverage of collective agreements, wage outcomes and industrial disputes. Two idiosyncractically Australian versions of collective agreement making are also discussed: cooperative bargaining facilitated by the Fair Work Commission and non-union collective agreement making.
This article proposes a new theoretical framework to explain the role of third-party facilitators in interest-based negotiation, and applies the framework in a qualitative case study of a collective bargaining process at an aluminium smelter in Australia. The theoretical framework describes the activities of third parties in terms of the objectives they seek to meet to support bargaining, and the consulting approach they deploy to do so. The case study demonstrates that third parties undertake a range of distinct activities to facilitate bargaining between management and unions, dominated by, although not limited to, a ‘process’ approach to consulting. Moreover, third parties support the development of three types of relationship: their own with the individual parties, as well as relationships between the parties and within each party. While the framework needs confirmation in future research, the article offers rare insights into how third parties participate in interest-based negotiation.
The link between academic theory and the professional practice of human resource management (HRM) is often tenuous and disjointed. The "gap" between theory and practice is damaging to academics and practitioners. On the one hand, academic research is often highly theoretical and methodologically complex. On the other, HR professionals tend to oversimplify advice on "how to solve" HRM "problems" and they may conduct research lacking rigor and nuance. Insofar as a bridge can be built between HRM theory and practice, significant benefits exist for both parties. Mick Marchington exemplified this bridge. His commitment to pluralism wrought significant influence on the professional practice of HRM through highly readable and practically useful theory.We look to Marchington's work to draw lessons on how we can better bridge theory and practice for the enrichment of academics and practitioners. We develop a framework contrasting "academic esotericism" with "practitioner reductionism." We then propose a third way: "industry-engaged academic research."
Managers may implement outsourcing for one or more of a range of reasons: to improve strategic focus, to achieve numerical or functional flexibility, to reduce costs or risk, to change their own roles, to change organisational culture or workplace power structure, and to intensify work effort. However, often there are associated costs, either unanticipated or unquantified. This paper provides evidence from two food processing companies to address the following questions: (1) Why do managers pursue outsourcing? and (2) Have managers anticipated and quantified the potential costs as well as the benefits of outsourcing? We conclude that while it seems clear that managers do begin with clear objectives for outsourcing and anticipate that benefits will flow, sometimes these objectives are not met, unexpected costs are incurred, or objectives change as new information is available or situations change. In other cases managers have been unable to objectively substantiate the outsourcing decision.
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explain progress, or the lack of it, in achieving workplace gender equality goals prescribed by affirmative action regulation by using concepts from soft regulation and organizational learning. Design/methodology/approach The research design is a longitudinal study (2002-2012) of a critical case, that of a single large organization in the male-dominated steel manufacturing, distribution and mining industries. The case focusses on the evidence about organizational learning to be found in that organization’s reports to government on its activities to promote workplace gender equality. Findings While other factors play a role, the apparent failure of the soft regulation to generate a significant shift in gender equality outcomes may also be attributed to ineffective organizational learning, demonstrated by the absence of systematic reflection within the organization on how to improve workplace gender equality, and the lack of firm targets and external benchmarking. Research limitations/implications Self-reported data may be overstated or incomplete. More research is needed to confirm the nature of the specific learning processes occurring within organizations. Practical implications Absent the advent of hard sanctions in workplace gender equality regulation, the responsible government agencies may find it valuable to focus on ways to encourage target organizations to develop competence in organizational learning. Social implications More effective gender equality regulation may change organizational policy and practice and improve work opportunities for women. Originality/value Rather than concluding that the only alternative, when soft regulation is unsuccessful, is hard regulation, this paper shifts the focus to ways that soft regulatory processes might be improved to strengthen their effect.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.