From Bread and Roses to #MeToo: Multiplicity, Distance, and the Changing Dynamics of Conflict in IR Theory

Abstract

A central assumption in industrial relations theory is that conflict is rooted in an enduring difference between the interests of labor and management. In recent years, the reality of work has changed for many, and scholarship has called attention to overlooked dimensions of conflict that depart from this assumption. The authors account for these developments with the concepts of multiplicity and distance. Multiplicity means that a broad range of actors bring diverse goals, tied to identities and values in addition to interests, to the employment relationship. The competing and fluid motivations that stem from these goals alter how actors individually and collectively name conflict. Distance reflects a growing rift between those who control work and those who labor, rooted in prevailing organizational forms and practices and the transformation of institutions. Distance alters actors’ interdependence and their perceived and actual power in addressing conflict. From these observations, the authors derive propositions suggesting directions for research and theory regarding conflict and the institutions through which actors balance goals.

New Directions in Employment Relations Theory: Understanding Fragmentation, Identity, and Legitimacy

“…Employment relations theory can adapt in a variety of ways. One approach, taken by Christine Riordan and Alexander Kowalski (2021) in this issue, is to examine how fissuring and other organizational changes shape how we understand conflict. They note that the introduction of greater organizational distance between the key actors in the employment relationship is likely to make it more difficult to resolve disparate interests in a mutually beneficial way.…”

“…Other articles in this special issue explore how identity might intersect with worker interests and power. Similar to Ranganathan, Riordan and Kowalski (2021) ask how identity shapes conflict within the employment relationship. They note that identity and its accompanying values are powerful determinants of conflicts, smoothing a path to resolution when they are aligned and creating major challenges when they are not.…”

“…Corporate diversity and inclusion departments are becoming standard, while affinity or employee resource groups provide a form of collective voice at work (Bell, O ¨zbilgin, Beauregard, and Su ¨rgevil 2011). As Riordan and Kowalski (2021) note, the development of organizing along identity lines has had powerful influences on the workplace.…”

Commentary on New Theories in Employment Relations

“…Riordan and Kowalski (2021) note that a central assumption in the field of industrial relations (IR) has been that conflict is rooted in the enduring divergence of interests between labor and management. Using the concepts of “multiplicity” and “distance,” they probe the changing dynamics of conflict in IR theory.…”

“…Although we were not asked to comment on Riordan and Kowalski’s article “From Bread and Roses to #MeToo: Multiplicity, Distance, and the Changing Dynamics of Conflict in IR Theory,” we see some similar themes and questions there. Riordan and Kowalski (2021) ground their theory of conflict in the shift from a worker–management dichotomy to individual (employee) rights (citing Piore and Safford 2006; Colvin and Darbishire 2013; Currie and Teague 2016). Complementary to Lee and Tapia’s argument, Riordan and Kowalski make the case that it is time to toss out the “assumption of homogeneity (i.e., that of white, male breadwinners) that is woven throughout prior IR theory” (p. 585).…”