Research Notes. GRIEVANCE RATES AND TECHNOLOGY.

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy of Management Journal.The grievance procedure is a very important aspect of labor relations. It serves as a mechanism for the peaceful resolution of conflict, provides a system of private law, extends the relationship between the parties, serves as a means for continuous collective bargaining, acts as a diagnostic device, and facilitates communication and consultation (Thomson, 1974). It occupies a significant proportion of time of labor and management officials and may be the best indicator of the stability and maturity of labor relations in a particular setting.Of the many questions posed by the grievance procedure, one of the most significant is why certain groups in a given plant have higher grievance rates than others. A leading study dealing with grievance rates was conducted by Leonard Sayles (1958). He hypothesized that grievance rates are based on technology. He argued that grievance rates are high in certain groups because of the social system erected by the technology, not because the technology makes certain jobs unpleasant, repetitive, mechanically paced, heavy or dirty, or exacting in terms of quantity and quality of output required. It is the internal organization of the work and the status of the work independent of supervisor skills, management and union pressures, and individual personality that determine grievance rates. The nature of the jobs does play a role, but the social system that results from technological factors is a basic and continuing determinant of work group attitudes and actions.Sayles's hypothesis was based on his observation of 300 work groups in 30 plants. He distinguished four patterns of grievance behavior, which he labeled apathetic, erratic, strategic, and conservative. Apathetic groups had a low level of grievance activity because they were not likely to challenge management decisions or to try to get something extra for themselves. Erratic groups had a medium level of grievance activity. They were labeled as erractic because there was no relationship between the seriousness of the grievances and the intensity of their protests and IThe author would like to thank William Sickman, a graduate student at Cleveland State University, for his assistance and also his colleagues in the Department of Management and Labor for their suggestions.

Research on unionized grievance procedures: Management issues and recommendations

“…In addition, one of the two plants he studied was very new, and this may well have contributed to the relatively high level of grievances filed there. In a later study, Nelson (1979) was able to corroborate Sayles' findings using a sample of 53 work groups in a single plant. Kuhn (1961) reported the results of grievance case studies in eight large tire and electrical equipment plants.…”

“…2 have been done by psychologists who attempted to identify and explain individual differences in grievant behavior (e.g., Eckerman 1948;Fleishman & Harris 1962;Sulkin & Pranis 1967). These researchers focused their attention on three major issues: (1) differences in demographic and job-related characteristics of grievance filers and non-filers; (2) personality Younger, male, more educated more skilled employees most likely to file grievances; democratic supervision associated with lower grievance rates; frequency of employee complaints to shop stewards positively related to grievance filing Weiss (1957), Sayles (1958), Kuhn (1961), Ronan (1963) Peach & Livernash (1974), Nelson (1979), Muchinsky & Maassarani (1980, 1981, Bemmels, Reshef, & Stratton-Devine (1991) Work groups of semi-skilled employees performing specialized work who undergo frequent changes in work methods have high grievance rates and use the grievance process to influence collective bargaining A. Rees (1977), Freeman & Medoff (1984), Katz, Kochan, & Gobeille (1983), Katz, Kochan, & Weber (1985), Norsworthy & Zabala (1985), Ichniowski & Lewin (1987), Cappelli & Chauvin (1991), Ichniowski (1986Ichniowski ( , 1992, Kleiner, Nickelsburg & Pilarski (1995) Presence of a grievance procedure associated with lower turnover, longer job tenure, greater human capital and higher productivity; use of the grievance procedure negatively associated with organizational performance Slichter, Healy & Livernash (1960), Knight (1986), Clark & Gallagher (1988), Gordon (1988), Fryxell & Gordon (1989), Klass & DeNisi (1989), …”

Reactance and Intentionality Attributions as Determinants of the Intent to File a Grievance

“…Most previous research on grievance-filing behavior sought to identify individual difference variables that discriminated between employees who had filed a grievance and those who had not (e.g., Ash, 1970;Kissler, 1977;Price, DeWire, Nowack, Schenkel, & Ronan, 1976;Sulkin & Pranis, 1967). The premises of this research are that grievance-filing behavior may be attributed to the personal disposition or characteristics of the actor (e.g., McMuny, 1944) and that individuals with these characteristics will display a greater tendency to file a grievance, whatever the circumstances.…”

“…Another line of research proposed that dissimilar work environments would produce differences in the number of grievances filed (e.g., Begin, 1971;Kissler, 1977;Nelson, 1979;Ronan, 1963;Weiss, 1957) and the type of issues underlying the filing of a grievance (e.g., Muchinsky & Maassarani, 1980). Similarly, the social environment of work created by the leadership style of the supervisor (Fleishman & Harris, 1962) and the manifest needs of the steward (Dalton & Todor, 1979) has been shown to be related to grievance rates.…”

Determinants of Grievance Outcomes: A Case Study

“…Studies concentrating on group, organizational, and work environment determinants have found that the type of group and the nature of the work (Ronan 1963), technological change (Peach and Livernash 1974), the type of technology used (Nelson 1979), decision-making centralization (Weiss 1957), and general work environments (Wynne 1973;Muchinsky and Maassarani 1980) are major factors affecting the number of grievances filed. Regarding the impact of the unionmanagement relationship on grievance filing activity, Gandz and Whitehead (1981) and Gandz (1979) found that good union-management relationships are associated with lower grievance activity.…”