The changing systems of British industrial relations, 1954-1979: Hugh Clegg and the Warwick sociological turn

With hindsight, the appointment of Richard Hyman to the Warwick Industrial Relations (IR) group marked a new direction for the academic field. The 1960s Oxford IR group had already begun to borrow from sociological research to better understand and reform the workplace. Alan Fox was emerging as a sociologist. However, it was only after Hugh Clegg had established the Warwick Industrial Relations Research Unit (IRRU) that workplace sociology became a fully indigenous part of British IR, illustrated by both Hyman's Marxist analysis and Eric Batstone's qualitative factory studies. This article charts the development of Oxford/Warwick social science through the shifting content of the three ‘System’ texts. IR pluralism proved unsuccessful as public policy reform, but Clegg's Warwick research programme fostered a theoretical and empirical engagement between pluralism and radical sociology that revitalized the field. Alongside Clegg's post-Donovan determination to study management, this new intellectual dynamic facilitated the 1980s emergence of a sceptical and empirical tradition of IR-shaped HRM in British business schools

Rethinking the employment relationship: a neo-pluralist critique of British industrial relations orthodoxy

Radical pluralism, the mainstream perspective for British and European industrial relations, centres on a Marxian, sociological conception of the employment relationship, which structures explanations of power and conflict. This theoretical critique stresses the historical specificity of the experience of work and the explanatory limitations of the employment relationship. The intellectual history of radical pluralism is traced from Fox ((1974), Beyond Contract: Work, Power and Trust Relations, London: Faber) to Edwards ((1995, 2003), ‘The Employment Relationship,’ in Industrial Relations, ed. P. Edwards, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 1–36) and Blyton and Turnbull ((1994, 1998, 2004), The Dynamics of Employee Relations, Basingstoke: Macmillan). Five objections to the radical-pluralist employment relationship are outlined and an alternative, neo-pluralist sociological and historical perspective is sketched

Women’s Choices in Europe: Striking the Work-life Balance

The article presents evidence from interviews in France, Spain and Poland to explore how individual actors make choices about their work-life balance. It shows that choice is a complex, contingent, and relative concept, which is both facilitated and obstructed by public policies and working regulations. Despite differences in national and sub-national policy contexts, institutional and cultural norms and expectations, the article draws the conclusion that family-friendly issues need to be mainstreamed and that the concerns of families should be added to those of the state, trade unions and employers on the agenda for negotiating work-life balance. It is also argued that the focus and scope of industrial relations need to be rethought to take account of the gendered nature of employment relationships

Experiments in Industrial Democracy: An Historical Assessment of the Leicestershire Boot and Shoe Co-operative Co-partnership Movement

The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link

Free Collective Bargaining and Incomes Policy: Learning from Barbara Wootton and Hugh Clegg on post-war British Industrial Relations and wage inequality

The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link

Neo-pluralism as a theoretical framework for understanding HRM in sub-saharan Africa

The argument in this paper is made against the background of the adoption of the rhetoric of HRM and neo-liberal approaches to organisational analysis following the introduction of structural adjustment policies (SAP) in Sub-Saharan African (SSA). It is about the practice of employment management in a social context where values, beliefs and actions tend to challenge the notion that Western management practices are universally applicable. However, the issue is not just the suitability and contextual relevance of specific management theories and practices, but also whether the extent and nature of prevailing forms of analysis and the resultant suggestions regarding HRM models for SSA are appropriate and suitable

Achieving efficiency, equity and voice? Labour-management cooperation in UK financial services

Labor management co-operation is a perennial issue in British industrial relations research. Recent interest has focused upon workplace ‘partnership’ agreements, which have been a key plank of the New Labour government’s employment policy of ‘modernisation’ (Stuart and Martinez-Lucio, 2004). Although the European language of social partnership does not have an exact equivalent in the US literature, Kelly (2004) suggests that “the phrase ‘labor management co-operation for mutual gains’ comes closest in meaning (p.268). The term partnership remains notoriously ambiguous (Guest and Peccei, 2001; Terry, 2003), though most would agree that it concerns an attempt to shift the culture of employment relations away from zero-sum and adversarial relationships, towards co-operative employment relations, characterised by mutual trust and ultimately mutual gains (Stuart and Martinez-Lucio, 2004). Much of the literature has focused on whether partnership offers a valuable opportunity for the beleaguered trade union movement (Terry, 2003), and the extent to which it delivers mutual gains. Empirical evidence is mixed, though the most recent empirical studies have been critical in tone (Stuart and Martinez-Lucio, 2004), suggesting that – despite the mutual gains rhetoric - the ‘balance of advantage’ is often skewed in favour of management (Guest and Peccei, 2001). This paper presents the findings of a three-year research study conducted in the British financial service sector. Case studies were conducted in three diverse banking organisations, known as Nat Bank, Bu Soc and Web Bank. It is suggested that, in order to transcend the current polarised debate on mutual gains, it is important to reconsider what partnership is expected to achieve. Existing research has tended to focus on the labor/union outcomes of partnership, while a key aim of this study was to examine the way issues were handled, and how decision decisions are made, drawing upon the analytical framework proposed by Budd (2004). It asks to what extent partnership contributes to the moderation/accommodation of the competing employment relations objectives of efficiency, equity and voice? In this way, the study avoids the crude use of labor outcomes – such as job losses or pay levels – as simple indicators of the success or otherwise of partnership working. It is argued that, when judged in this light, partnership working can be seen to demonstrate more than a modicum of success in contributing to the regulation of the employment relationship

Better than nothing? Is non-union partnership a contradiction in terms?

Though the notion of union-management partnership commands an extensive body of literature, little is known about non-union partnership arrangements. This article addresses the relatively unexplored issue of non-union partnership through a detailed case study of WebBank, a British internet bank. Three main themes are explored. Firstly, we seek to understand more about the meaning of – and rationale for – partnership in non-union settings. Secondly, we explore the operation of non-union partnership in practice. Finally, we evaluate the effectiveness of non-union partnership from the perspectives of various organisational actors. The article suggests that in judging the effectiveness of a partnership arrangement, or indeed any voice regime more generally, there is a need to re-consider the benchmarks for success, and to place them in the context of contemporary employment relations. The evidence suggests that it would be deeply unhelpful and inaccurate to dismiss a non-union partnership a priori as a ‘contradiction in terms’

Partnership paradoxes : a case study of an energy company

This paper presents the findings of a case study undertaken in a British utility company, referred to as Energy Co. The main aim of the study was to assess how the agreement of a partnership arrangement in 1995 had affected the conduct of employment relations. The study found that partnership was borne out of a poor industrial relations climate, and driven primarily by management. They hoped that it might improve industrial relations, raise employee commitment, inform and educate the workforce, and increase employee contribution. Partnership was not intended to encourage joint governance or power sharing. In practice, partnership combined direct EI such as team briefing and problem solving groups, with representative participation through a formal partnership council system. Management suggested that, on balance, partnership had been successful, with benefits including improved industrial relations, quicker pay negotiations and increased legitimacy of decision-making. It was also suggested that there was a positive link –albeit indirect and intangible –with organisational performance. Union representatives also proposed that partnership was a success, citing benefits including greater access to information, greater influence, inter-union co-operation, and more local decision-making. Employee views were more mixed. There was also clear evidence of several tensions. Four were particularly noteworthy: employee apathy, management-representative relations, employee-representative relations and the role of FTOs. Despite espoused partnership, management hostility to unions was evident, and a preference for non-union employment relations clear. Consequently, the future of the partnership in its current form is uncertain