Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management

Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management: A Subversive European Model

Author(s): Chris Brewster

Source: Industrielle Beziehungen / The German Journal of Industrial Relations , 1995, Jahrg. 2, H. 4, Human Resource Management und Industrielle Beziehungen (1995), pp. 395-413

Published by: Verlag Barbara Budrich; Rainer Hampp Verlag

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23275910

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 [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms

Verlag Barbara Budrich and are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Industrielle Beziehungen / The German Journal of Industrial Relations

This content downloaded from ��86.59.13.237 on Fri, 18 Jun 2021 13:55:46 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

https://www.jstor.org/stable/23275910

Industrielle Beziehungen, 2. Jg., Heft 4, 1995.

*

Chris Brewster

Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management:

A Subversive European Model**

The objective of this paper is to contribute to the debate about the tension between the fields of study of industrial relations and human resource management. The paper argues that there are conceptual and empirical problems in examining the two subjects and, after exploring these differences, proposes, on the basis of data from Europe, that HRM is often oversimplified in this debate and argues that progress is most likely to be made by integrating the subjects rather than separating them.

Die Absicht dieses Artikels ist, zur Debatte über das gespannte Verhältnis der Forschungsfelder der Industriellen Beziehungen und des Human Resource Management (HRM) beizutragen. Es wird argumentiert, daß es konzeptionelle und empirische Probleme bei der Untersuchung der beiden Gebiete gibt. Weil das HRM, insbesondere in der US-Version, oft zu vereinfacht in dieser Debatte dargestellt wird, wird auf der Basis von europäischen Daten vorgeschlagen, die beiden Themen eher zu integrieren als zu trennen und ein europäisches HRM-Modell zu entwickeln.

* Prof. Chris Brewster, BA (Econ), PhD, Director, Center for European Human Resource Management, Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield University, Cranfield, GB - Bedford MK43 OAL (Tel: 44 (0) 1234 751122, Fax: 44 (0) 1234 751806).

** Artikel eingegangen: 12.6.1995, revidierte Fassung akzeptiert: 29.8.95.



396_ Brewster: Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management

Introduction

Recent contributions to the debate about the relationship between industrial relations (IR) and human resource management (HRM) as fields of study have examined the tension between the two as disciplines. Two contributions in particular from the industrial relations side encapsulate opposing attitudes. Kaufman (1993) has argued that, in the USA, the field of industrial relations has declined to the point where is can only be rescued by, in effect, merging it with the "opposing", anti union, field of human resource management. Kelly (1994), by contrast, argues that IR needs to be refocussed "away from the emerging and threatening agenda of HRM".

This paper argues that IR should be merged with HRM, but it does so after reassessing the two concepts and arguing that on a more "European" view of HRM the subject is much less threatening than Kelly argues.

IR versus HRM

Fundamental to this debate is the view that industrial relations, and human resource management are in some senses inimical or mutually exclusive. This is of course partly a matter of definition and partly a matter of fact. In broad terms the impact of HRM on IR has been the subject of considerable comment (see, e.g. Kochan and Barocci 1985, Guest 1987, 1989; Storey and Sisson 1993). In most cases the authors have feared or claimed that HRM is a threat to IR: seeing HRM as "IR without unions" (Kochan et al 1986); "macho management" (MacKay 1986) or "a wolf in sheep's clothing" (Keenoy 1990). Other authors have argued that HRM, at least in some forms, is an attempt to by-pass trade unions (Armstrong 1992) or is anti-union or explicitly non-union (Barbash 1987; Storey 1992; Purcell and Ahlstrand 1994; Beaumont 1992). "HRM ideas .... may be used, in some cases, explicitly to undermine existing union membership and prevent new unionisation" (Goss 1994, 11). At the same time Kaufman (1993) and Kelly (1994) are by no means alone in identifying "a move from industrial relations to human resource management" (Bridgeford and Stirling 1992, 67) in practice and in study.

Empirically, the evidence is far from clear and is bedevilled by problems of definition. There is, nonetheless, a general assumption in the literature that HRM policies are in some way linked to a negative or at least more limited opportunity for trade unions to exercise their functions. This is the conclusion of Storey's (1992) broad study of the impact of HRM in the UK; and of Kochan et al (1986) and Fiorito et al (1987) in the US. A leading British trade union official writes of "the experience of many unionists that human resource management is associated with derecognition and a systematic attempt to undermine the union role"(Monks 1994,45). However, others have found that the adoption of HRM techniques has little separate and specific impact on trade unionism in the UK (Beaumont and Harris 1989); or in Ireland (Roche and Turner 1994) or in Germany (Fischer and Weitbrecht 1994). In



Industrielle Beziehungen, 2. Jg., Heft 4, 1995. J97

the article quoted above the trade union leader also refers to Millward's work on the British Workplace Industrial Relations Survey: "the conclusion is that there is no correlation between human resource management and anti-unionism" (Monks 1994, 42).

The implications of these different views for the study and teaching of industrial relations are profound; and are now being debated. The debate has been best expressed by two different, and potentially opposed, but rich and important texts by Kaufman and by Kelly.

Kaufman of Kelly: The Debate Encapsulated

In his 1993 book Kaufman provides a history of IR studies in the USA, but what has drawn the attention has been his conclusions about the trends and the future

of those studies. In the USA, as in the UK, IR is beset with problems arising from the fact that it is seen as outdated and irrelevant: student numbers are down or courses

have been cancelled, merged or re-titled. He argues that the researchers and teachers in the field have failed to adapt and are generally backward looking and remote from

practitioners. He is not entirely pessimistic, but in practice seems to believe that the decline is almost bound to continue. He recommends reformulating IR so that it operates as a form of "external" contrast to what he sees as the "internalist" perspective of HRM. In other words, IR can only save itself from HRM by becoming in effect a subdivision of HRM.

Kelly's approach has been developed through a series ot papers. Summarising the literature, Kelly states that the focus of IR is what others (he quotes Blyton and Turnbull 1994, 5) have referred to as "the employment relationship". He argues that this entails a study of different interests, conflicts between those interests, and power relationships. He is critical of much of the IR literature for being concerned solely with trade unions and collective bargaining; however, much of his own discussion follows these concerns. Essentially, Kelly is arguing that IR as a field of study is under threat from the field of study encompassed by HRM and that this is, partly, because there are serious weaknesses in IR, particularly centred around the development of theory and relevant related concepts. This has allowed other researchers, particularly management researchers, to move into the field. Kelly is, however, even less impressed by the standard of theory in the management literature than by that in IR; indeed, to reflect his argument fairly we should perhaps speak about HRM commentators rather than researchers.

These summaries do scant justice to two serious pieces of work, and they particularly understate some of the areas of agreement between them. However, my purpose here is not to expound or critique these works but to use them as exemplars of the two main strands of the debate currently underway in IR.

The argument of this paper is that, whilst the analyses of industrial relations contained in these papers are built on a long tradition of research, study and




conceptual development, they have too readily and uncritically accepted a view of human resource management which is coming under challenge. It is argued here that the view of human resource management that these two (representative) authors are working with is fundamentally rooted in the US tradition from which it springs; that, just as IR developed more UK and European analyses of the subject, so HRM is beginning to do the same: and that a non-US, "European" model of HRM allows us to steer a middle path between Kaufmann and Kelly - seeing HRM not as the saviour of a dying tradition, nor as its poisoner, but rather as a reformulation and additional approach to the same subject area.

In order to explore this debate further it is necessary to examine the concept of human resource management in rather more depth.

The Concept(s) of HRM

The confusion surrounding the concept of HRM has been pointed out on many occasions (see, as examples, Guest 1992; Goss 1994; Storey 1992; Boxall 1992). Conceptually, a range of definitions of human resource management is possible: from an almost etymological analysis at one end to a clearly normative perspective at the other. Within this range three broad categories can be discerned.

HRM as a subject area. From the words "Human Resource Management" alone the subject can be defined as the processes by which an organisation deals with the labour it needs to perform its functions. Such a broad definition would therefore encompass traditional definitions of personnel management (including manpower planning, resourcing, training and development etc and, importantly for us here, industrial relations). It would go beyond traditional personnel management since, because it does not refer to personnel or employees, it would include subcontracting, outsourcing and similar arrangements for utilising human resources even when not employed within the organisation.

This approach to HRM can be seen in attempts to provide all-encompassing classifications of the various areas which HRM covers: seeing, in one of the classic texts, a four-fold typology; employee influence, human resource flow (into, through, and out the organisation), reward systems and work systems (Beer et al 1985): or four rather different areas; the acquisition, maintenance, motivation and development of human resources (e.g. DeCenzo & Robbins, 1988): or a five step HRM cycle; selection, performance, appraisal, rewards and development (Storey 1989). At one point Hendry and Pettigrew (1990,.24) seem to adopt this view, defining HRM as "a range of things affecting the employment and contribution of people, against the criteria of coherence and appropriateness". Legge has tended to argue (1987;1995) that there is little in HRM, other than the rhetoric and "managerial triumphalism"(1995, 55), to distinguish HRM from personnel management.

"Closed" HRM. Many authorities have tried to narrow the concept to distinguish HRM from these related topics, particularly from personnel management. Their



Industrielle Beziehungen, 2. Jg., Heft 4, 1995_ 399

definitions can be seen as attempts to close down the range of policies or activities that are possible within the subject area in order to include certain approaches and to deny the term HRM to others. Storey (1987) used the phrase "soft" HRM to cover most of the closed approaches, but since it is equally possible to argue for closed versions which are not employee development or humanistically focussed, the wider term "closed" is more useful here. (Referring to particular approaches to the subject as closed also helps avoid the problems raised by motive: e.g. if a company invests in considerable training for its employees, is that a "soft" strategy undertaken because the employees are important stakeholders in the organisation, or a "hard" strategy undertaken for competitive advantage and to tie employees in to the organisation?) Boxall 1992, in a thoughtful synthesis called this "commitment oriented HRM practices".

Much of this stream of writings builds on the "Harvard" school ot work on HRM which, in its seminal text, argued that the centre of management's task lay in "balancing and, where possible, integrating the interests of the many stakeholders of the enterprise" (Beer et al 1985, 11) - and they argued that the employees are the most important stakeholders. In the UK, Legge (1989), in her review of British and American writing on HRM, sees HRM as distinctive in the following three areas: it gives greater emphasis to the development of the management team than personnel management; it differs from personnel management as an activity for line managers because it is more firmly integrated in the general coordinating activity of line managers, including a greater 'bottom-line' emphasis; it emphasises the management of corporate culture as a senior management activity (Legge 1989, 27 - 28).

Guest (who emphasises the more 'human' resources aspects ol the American theories and their roots in occupational psychology) conceives of HRM not as an alternative to personnel management but as a particular form of personnel management, which stresses "the goal of integration, the goal of employee commitment, the goal of flexibility/adaptability, the goal of quality" (Guest 1987). A later paper by the same author discusses a range of "innovative techniques of the sort typically associated with HRM" including such issues as flexible working practices, quality circles, training in participative skills and job enrichment (Guest 1990, 385).

Storey (1992) identifies 15 differences between personnel management and HRM under the four headings of beliefs and assumptions; strategic aspects; line management; and key levers and elsewhere claims to identify 25 "constituent elements" of "HRM recipes": including, notably for the discussion here, a "desire to marginalise shop stewards"(Storey and Sisson 1993, 16). Mahoney and Deckop (1986) also examined the differences between "personnel" and "HRM".

Beaumont (1991) identified five "major items typically mentioned" in the US literature as part of HRM. Given the state of development of this approach to HRM, it is no surprise to note that they are different items from those identified by Mahoney and Deckop.



400_ ßrewster: Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management

These various attempts to synthesise a distinctive, closed, approach to HRM show some areas of consistency (wider communication for example); some areas of greater or less detail and some areas of uncertainty (not only do the elements of compensation for example which are seen to be evidence of HRM differ between authors but there are two incompatible approaches to compensation even within single texts).

Guest, a leading figure promoting the closed concept of HRM, believes that IR is based on a system of collective bargaining which has as its objective the reconciliation of the differing interests of managements and employees; HRM is a managerial philosophy which aims to replace the collective relationship with an individualised one in which management will either deny the existence of separate employee interests or subordinate them to those of management (Guest 1987; 1989; 1990; 1992; Guest and Dewe 1991).

"Open" HRM. There is also a group of authorities who distinguish HRM from other approaches in that it is closely integrated with organisational strategies and objectives (Fombrun et al 1984; Schüler and Jackson 1987; Lengnick-Hall and Lengnick-Hall 1988; Hendry and Pettigrew 1990; Schüler 1992; Wright and McMahon 1992). These authors, therefore, see HRM as open\ any particular set of practices may or may not be appropriate depending upon the situation and corporate strategy of each different organisation. As the closed approach takes its lead from the Harvard school, so the open approach tends to follow the other main strand of seminal US writing, the "Michigan" school, initiated by Fombrun et al (1984). For this school, business strategy, organisational structure and HRM are the three crucial, interactive, elements of strategic management. Other authors have referred to the need for HR strategy to be "an integral part of business strategy, with labour utilisation approaches reflecting production and marketing priorities" (Ramsay 1992, 233).

Boxall (1992) has used the instructive term "matching" for this approach to HRM strategy. Hendry and Pettigrew (1990) have summarised the open approach clearly. They focus on HRM as strategic integration, defined by: 1. the use of planning; 2. a coherent approach to the design and management of personnel systems based

on an employment policy and manpower strategy, and often underpined by a 'philosophy';

3. matching HRM activities and policies to some explicit business strategy; and 4. seeing the people of the organisation as a 'strategic resource' for achieving

'competitive advantage'.

Later they say explicitly, "We see HRM as a perspective on employment systems, characterised by their closer alignment with business strategy" (Hendry & Pettigrew 1990, 36).



Industrielle Beziehungen, 2. Jg., Heft 4, 1995_ J01

In the hands of a different strand of the strategic HRM literature (Fombrun et al 1984; Ackermann 1986; Staffelbach 1986; Besseyre des Horts 1987, 1988), this approach can lead to a form of contingent determinism. The elements of the corporate strategy that dominate the HR strategy vary. Thus Purcell (1987) indicates that certain organisational forms will find it virtually impossible to adopt strategic HRM, whilst Marginson et al (1988) state that foreign companies are more likely to adopt it. Other authors have linked HR strategies to different factors: Schüler has indicated that they should be based on the type of market as defined by Porter (Schüler and Jackson 1987) or on a particular stage in a company's life-cycle (Schüler 1989). The market approach has also been propounded by others (Baird, Meshoulam and Degive 1983; Dertouzos, Lester and Solow 1989) and the life-cycle approach has been adopted by others too (Fombrun and Tichy 1983; Kochan and Barocci 1985). Cohen and Pfeffer (1986) argue that sector and type of organisation can be determining factors, with public sector and large, high visibility organisations more likely to adopt strategic HR practices.

Of course the 'subject area', 'open' and 'closed' definitions can be, and olten are, overlapping. Many of the texts assume that a focus on employee commitment or careful communication or employee development must, inevitably, be strategic. Arguably, the substantial redundancies declared by IBM at the end of the 1980s and Hewlett Packard at the beginning of the 1990s prove that this is not so. These companies were often held up as exemplars of the "model" (closed) HRM approach with a range of practices including lifetime employment. However the response to their worsening market position at that time was extensive job losses - showing perhaps that in the event where closed HRM and open or strategic HRM no longer coincide one has to be chosen at the expense of the other. One of the problems in the literature is that individual texts either do not specify which of these broad definitional levels they are addressing, or assume mutual inter-linking, or drift between them.

Theoretically it is quite possible that a closely integrated, strategic approach to HRM will involve nearly all the specific HRM objectives and practices and hence drive all aspects of the way labour is managed. Equally however, it is possible that the close integration of HRM with corporate strategy could, in some sectors for example, lead to a heavy emphasis on cost-reduction, eliminating all "people frills" such as training, communication with employees or employee benefits and making extensive use of outsourcing. Either would be "strategic" in this sense.



402_ ßrewster: Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management

The Empirical Data from Europe for the Development of a European Model of HRM

Although much of the seminal work on the concept in the USA looked to challenging practices in Japan and the Pacific and in Europe, both the open and closed theories of HRM that were developed were rooted in a US "ideal" which has at its core the notion of organisational autonomy (Guest 1990; Brewster and Bournois 1991). The way that the concept developed in the US - its reliance on specific aspects of Japanese practice; on the examples of a small number of private sector firms; its adherence to an independent "frontiersman" mentality; and its failure to link theory to general practice - have been much criticised in Europe (Guest 1990; Poole 1990; Pieper 1990; Bournois 1991; Beaumont 1991). Guest (1990) has argued that this view of freedom and autonomy in HRM is peculiarly American - related to the American view of their country as the land of opportunity in which any individual, through hard work or self improvement can be a success, with the ideal model of the "rugged individualist" or self-reliant small businessman, and a vision of the "frontier mentality". These ideals are reflected in the comparatively low levels of support, subsidy and control provided, or at least commonly understood to be acceptable, from the State. They are visible in the "private enterprise" culture of the United States, and in the concept of "the right to manage" and the antagonism of management towards trade unions.

These factors are untypical of, to take our example, most European countries. Certainly they have some limited acceptability in Great Britain: but each point remains the focus of considerable controversy even there. In other countries, such as Germany and Sweden, by contrast, these assumptions would be held by only a small minority of the population.

The argument has been made elsewhere (Brewster 1995) that European organisations operate with restricted autonomy: constrained at a national level, by culture and legislation, at the organisational level, by patterns of ownership, and at the HRM level, by trade union involvement and consultative arrangements. For the purposes of this paper it is only necessary to summarise the bones of this argument.

Organisations in Europe have much less autonomy than those in the United States because of the role played by the State and because of the organisations representing the people it employs. European governments provide comparatively high levels of legislative control of (or support for) the employment relationship even after the drive to reduce legal constraints that has occurred over the last decade or so. In addition there is now in Europe an "overlay" of European Union legislation which shows no sign of reducing: the European Union Social Charter, for example, prefigures legislation in the following areas (Table 1). State involvement in HRM is

For more detail on European HRM practices see Brewster, Hegewisch, Holden and Lockhart (1991). In the paper, unreferenced statements about individual country data are taken from that source.




not limited to the legislative role. In broad terms in Europe, as compared to the USA, the State has a higher involvement in underlying social security provision and labour market programmes (Table 2), a more directly interventionist role in the economy, applies rigorous limits to the terms of employment that may be agreed, provides far more personnel and industrial relations services and is a more substantial employer in its own right by virtue of a more extensive government-owned sector.

Table I: European Union Social Charter

European Union Social Charter

the freedom of movement;

employment and remuneration; improvement of living and working conditions; social protection; freedom of association; vocational training; equal treatment for men and women; information, consultation and participation of workers; health protection; protection of children and adolescents; elderly persons; and disabled persons

Public Expenditure on Labour Market Programmes 1990 (% GDP) (Source: OECD (1992) Employment Outlook, Paris)

Belgium 3.78

France 2.68

Germany 2.17

Italy 1.51

Netherlands 3.27

Norway 2.17

Sweden 2.60

Spain 3.18

UK 1.57

USA 0.74

These governmental constraints on organisational autonomy are supported by a variety of internal constraints: particularly in the form of employee representation. It has been pointed out that studies of HRM in the United States have tended to take place in the non-union sector (Beaumont 1991). A constant thread in research



404. Brewster: Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management

programmes in the US has been the link between HRM practices and non-unionism (see, e.g. Kochan et al 1986). "In the US a number of.... academics have argued that HRM [the concept and the practice] is anti-union and anti-collective bargaining" (Beaumont 1992, p.300).

The definition, meaning and reliability of union membership figures vary across countries (Walsh 1985; Blanchflower and Freeman 1990). However, it is quite clear that, in general, the European countries are more heavily unionised than the 10-16% reported for the United States. Trade union membership and influence varies considerably by country, of course, but is always significant. Sweden has union membership of 85% of the working population, the UK around 40% and even in the least unionised countries such as Switzerland, 23%, and France, 12%, union membership is above that in the USA (Table 3).

Union Density in the 12 EC Countries 1988 (Source: OECD Employment Outlook, Paris 1991)

Country Density (%)

Denmark 73,2 Belgium 53,0 Ireland 52,4 Luxembourg 49,7 United Kingdom 41,5 Italy 39,6 Germany 33,8 Portugal (30,0)' Netherlands 25,0 Greece (25,0)' Spain 16,02 France 12,0

1 estimates 2 1985

A more important question is trade union recognition. The number of employees who are union members in a workplace is of less relevance than whether the employer deals with a trade union in a collective bargaining relationship which sets terms and conditions for all or most of the employees. In many European countries union recognition for collective bargaining is required by law. Although the legal mechanisms vary, in some states such as Germany, France and the Benelux countries, employers over a certain size effectively have to recognise unions or work councils for consultative purposes at the establishment level. In France, Greece and Portugal employers have to negotiate with a union if it can show that it has any members in the workplace. Union recognition occurs in 9 out of 10 organisations with more than 200 employees in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Italy and Germany



Industrielle Beziehungen, 2. Jg., Heft 4, 1995_ JOS

and in more than 7 out of every 10 such organisations in Spam, Ireland and the UK (Gunnigle et al 1993).

In many European countries union recognition for collective bargaining purposes is required by law wherever there are trade unions and even in the UK, where there is no legal mechanism for enforcing recognition, there are still 72% of organisations with more than 200 employees recognising the trade unions (Gunnigle et al 1993).

Trade unionism remains widespread and important in Europe; an importance that current EC-level approaches may well enhance. Furthermore, in most European countries many of the union functions in such areas as pay bargaining, for example, are exercised at industrial or national level, - outside the direct involvement of managers within individual organisations - as well as at establishment level (Hegewisch 1991; Gunnigle et al 1993).

Beyond the immediate issues raised directly by trade unionism, lies the European practice of employee involvement. In countries such as France the establishment of works' councils is required by law. Employers in a workplace with 5 or more regular employees have to deal with workplace (and often wider) works councils wherever the employees request it in Germany and every employer has to consult employees who request it in Italy and Portugal. In Greece the unions can only insist on the establishment of a works council where the organisation is larger than 20 employees; there have to be 35 or more employees in the Netherlands; 50 or more in Spain and France and 100 in Belgium. These various forms of works council have differing degrees of power: but most would shock US managers brought up on theories of "management's right to manage". In Germany and the Netherlands, for example, employee representatives can resort to the courts to prevent, or to delay, managerial decisions in areas (recruitment, termination, changing working practices) which in the United States would be areas for considerable managerial prerogative (Table 4).

Beyond the workplace, legislation in countries such as the Netherlands, Denmark and, most famously, Germany requires organisations to have two-tier management boards, with employees having the right to be represented on the more senior Supervisory Board. Employee representation can, depending on country, size and sector, range up to 50% of the Board. These arrangements give considerable (legally-backed) power to the employee representatives and, unlike consultation in the US for example, they tend to supplement rather than supplant the union position. In relatively highly unionised countries it is unsurprising that many of the representatives of the workforce are, in practice, trade union lay officials. In Germany, as one instance, four fifths of them are union members.

The considerable moves that have been made by many employers in Europe to expand the degree of information given to the workforce irrespective of legal




requirements is clear (Table 5). This reflects a central theme of standard concepts of HRM - the requirement to generate significant workforce commitment.

Incidence of Statutory Works Councils/Statutory Board-Level Employee Representation in the 12 Member States (Source: EFILWC (1990) p.5)

Country Statutory Works Statutory Board Level Councils Employee Representation

Belgium •

Denmark •

Fed. Rep. of Germany • •

France • •

Greece • .*

Ireland • *

Italy Luxembourg • •

Netherlands • •

Portugal • • *

Spain •

United Kingdom » Statutory requirements confined to state-owned enterprises

Table 5: The percentage of companies indicating an increase in communication with employees either through staff bodies, verbally or written methods

COUNTRY

CH* D DK E F Fin Irl I* N NL P S UK

METHOD OF n = n = n= n= n= n= n = n= n= n= n= n= n=

COMMUNICATION 299 884 330 260 651 225 140 203 280 128 93 322 1243

Representative staff bodies 27 36 52 34 24 62 12 20 43 49 8 16 12

Verbally, direct to employees 46 47 65 43 58 66 58 53 47 43 45 63 63

Written, direct to employees 55 47 34 41 62 57 41 43 24 58 40 58 59

• 1991 data available only abstracted from Brewster and Hegewisch 1992

However it is noticeable that this provision of information to the workforce still includes a substantial number of organisations which are expanding their use of the formalised employee representation or trade union channels. The point is made equally clearly when upward communication is examined (Table 6). Across Europe,



Industrielle Beziehungen, 2. Jg., Heft 4, 1995. 407

the two most common means by a considerable margin are through immediate line management - and through the trade union or works council channel (Brewster et al 1994).

Table 6: The percentage of companies reporting line management or trade unions / work councils as employee methods of communicating to management

COUNTRY

CH* D DK E F Fin Irl I* N NL P S UK

METHOD OF n = n = n = n= n= n= n= n= n= n= n= n= n=

COMMUNICATION 299 884 330 260 651 225 140 203 280 128 93 322 1243

Line Managers 93 90 94 96 92 91 96 92 93 91 94 94 96

Trade Unions / Work Councils 52 78 86 79 86 89 73 52 95 78 29 89 69

* 1991 data available only abstracted from Brewster and Hegewisch 1992

At the supra-national, EU, level it is clear that the European Union is committed to maintaining the role of employers and trade unions. These are referred to, in instructive EU terminology, as the "social partners". In particular the latest proposals from the European Commission on the subject of employee involvement offer a series of options for the member states. These are, in effect, an attempt to draw on the best practice available in all the Community countries rather than to impose the system which exists in one state on the others.

This empirical data from Europe is leading to a rethink of US models of HRM. There has been criticism of the importation of US management theory (Cox and Cooper 1985; Thurley and Wirdenius 1991). In the context of HRM specifically, Europeans are increasingly critical of the various versions of the "closed" HRM models. Looking at the UK, Guest sees "signs that ....the American model is losing its appeal as attention focuses to a greater extent on developments in Europe" (Guest 1990 p.377) and the same author is elsewhere sceptical of the feasibility of transferring the model to Britain.

The inapplicability of autonomy-based models of HRM in Europe has also been noted in Germany. "An international comparison of HR practices clearly indicates that the basic functions of HR management are given different weights in different countries and that they are carried out differently." (Gaugler 1988 p.26). Another German surveying European personnel management similarly concluded that "a single universal model of HRM does not exist" (Pieper 1990 p.l 1). Critiques of any simplistic attempts to "universalise" the US models have also come from France (see, e.g. Bournois 1991, 1991a). European authors have argued that "we are in culturally different contexts" and, "rather than copy solutions which result from other



408. Brewster: Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management

cultural traditions, we should consider the state of mind that presided in the search for responses adapted to the culture" (Albert 1989, p.75 translation in Brewster and Bournois 1991).

A "European" model of HRM was therefore proposed, and subsequently refined (Brewster and Bournois 1991; Brewster 1995) (Figure 1).

Figure 1: „European" (contextual model) of HRM

Environment Organisation

This re-emphasises the influence of such factors as culture, ownership structures, the role of the state and trade union organisation. Clearly the European evidence suggests that managements can see the unions, for example, as social partners with a positive role to play in human resource management'2'. The manifest

Significantly, even in the UK, where there has been considerable antagonism between trade unions and "management" the unions, on their side, are now beginning to look more favourably upon management as a topic. In the last three years Cranfield School of Management has set up a Centre of Trade Union Management supported by the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and some of the largest unions in the country as well as some of the smaller ones. The Centre is working with the senior officials of these organisations to help them think through their own management issues in much the same way that a management school would



Industrielle Beziehungen, 2. Jg., Heft 4, 1995. _409

success of many European firms which adopt that approach shows that the, explicit or implicit, anti-unionism of approaches to HRM based on a "US style" conception does not fit the European culture. The model is subversive in the sense that its inclusion of a role for the state and for employees within the model challenges the unitary "managerialist" approach of many current HRM texts. Indeed a model of HRM which takes full account of the role of the State and its associated institutions

and gives a significant role to trade unions is not that far from the traditional "Dunlopian" model of IR (Dunlop 1958) and it can be argued to be close to the approach to IR adopted by Kochan et al (1986) in their seminal text. Of course, there are differences, of which the most significant is the focus of HRM on the management issues rather than the focus of IR on the trade union issue. This reflects, perhaps, a change in the perceived power relationship and certainly reflects a change in the interests of many teachers and students. However, serious IR scholars have always recognised the interdependence of the three elements of the Dunlop approach. The definition used by Kelly ("the employment relationship") is no more confined to employees or trade unions than it could be to management.

The Implications of a European Model of HRM

If the EuroHRM model has any validity, it has implications tor the theory and

practice of HRM outside Europe in the many countries where organisations have less autonomy than they would in the USA; but it also has implications for the debate about the study and teaching of IR. Now that the HRM texts are beginning to recognise the frequent interdependence of human resource management and industrial relations, we have an opportunity to reject the doom-and-gloom of both Kaufmann and Kelly's call for the purity of IR.

Arguably, our focus should be on the range of issues that we address and our ability to discover what is happening in practice and to construct some means of understanding what is happening. The danger of accepting too readily the bases of HRM developed in the United States as non- or anti-union is that it sets up IR and HRM as opposing and irreconcilable camps. Such a view puts IR (as trade union studies) onto a narrow and ultimately dead-end path. And as has been indicated, this is far from the reality of practice in most European countries; indeed an acceptance that influential trade unionism and HRM can go hand in hand is being increasingly

reported from Europe (Purcell and Ahlstrand 1994; Sisson 1993; Storey and Sisson 1994; Roche and Turner 1994 It is also being proposed, if not found, in the USA (Kochan et al 1986; Strauss 1992, p.32).

If this melting of IR and HRM happens, 1R or HRM ceases to be the issue. These become mutually compatible ways of addressing the employment relationship. At the minimum, a joining of the topics would allow IR scholars to retitle their topic

work with any other organisation. This work is increasingly involving the Scandinavian and other European unions.



4I0_ Brewster: Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management

and perhaps adopt a slightly wider view of their subject matter by paying more attention to the role of the state and the employer; thus making their studies more closely related to the reality of employment - and more popular - with little change in what they study or teach. At the maximum, it would allow IR scholars who accept the need to investigate and understand all elements of the topic and have (in Kaufman's phrase) an externalist view as part of their intellectual armoury, to take over HRM.

The IR or HRM (US-style) argument is sterile. The key issues are "what do we study?" and "how do we understand it?". A broader "European" view of HRM allows for an approach in which IR and HRM can be merged to the mutual advantage of each. Practically, this would mean reducing the pressure on managers to follow "American" prescriptions on HRM and to recognise that the European model has its own strengths. Theoretically, it would mean the integration of HRM and IR in both research and teaching, rather than a dry, and to most practitioners irrelevant, debate about whether one should supplant the other. That in turn means, if the model has any validity, research and teaching which addresses more pertinently the reality of employment relationships in Europe.

References

Ackermann, K..F. (1986): A Contingency Model of HRM Strategy - Empirical Research findings Reconsidered. In: Management Forum, 6: 65-83.

Albert, F.J. (1989): Les Ressources Humaines, atout Strategique. In: Editions L'harmattan: 75.

Armstrong, M. (1992): Human Resource Management: Strategy and Action. London.

Baird, L./Meshoulam, I./Degive, G. (1983): Meshing Human Resources Planning with Strategic Business Planning, A Model Approach. In: Personnel, 60: 14-25.

Barbash, J. (1987): Like Nature, Industrial Relations Abhors a Vacuum: Non-Union Strategies in US Workplaces. In: Relations Industrielles.

Beaumont, P.B. (1991): The US Human Resource Management Literature: A Review. In: G. Salaman (ed.): Human Resource Strategies. The Open University.

Beaumont: P.B. (1992): Trade Unions and HRM. In: Industrial Relations Journal, 22: 300-308. Beaumont, P. B./Harris, R.I.D. (1989): The North South Divide in Britain: The Case of Trade

Union Recognition: In: Oxford Bulletin of Economics & Statistics. .

Beer, M.,/Lawrence: R./Mills, Q.N./Walton, R.E. (1985): Human Resource Management. New York.

Besseyre des Horts, C.H. (1987): Typologies des pratiques de gestion des ressources humaines. In: Revue franfaise de Gestion: 149-155.

Besseyre des Horts, C.H. (1988): Vers une Gestion Strategique des Ressources Humaines. In: Editions d'Organisation: 69-84.

Blanchflower, D./Freeman, R. (1990): Going Different Ways: Unionism in the US and other Advanced OECD Countries. In: Centre for Economic Performance Discussion Paper 5, London.

Blyton/Turnbull (1994): Re-assessing Human Resource Management, London.

Bournois, F. (1991): Gestion des RH en Europe: Donnees Comparees. In: Revue Fran?aise de Gestion: 68-83.



Industrielle Beziehungen, 2. Jg., Heft 4, 1995. AU

Bournois, F. (1991b): Gestion Strategique des Ressources Humaines: Comparaisons Internationales. In: Actes du collogue de 1'Association Fran<;aise de gestion des ressources humaines, CERGY.

Boxall, P.F. (1992): Strategic Human Resource Management: Beginnings of a New Theoretical Sophistication? In: Human Resource Management Journal, 2: 60-79.

Brewster, C. (1995): Towards a European Model of HRM. In: Journal of International Business Studies, 26: 1-21.

Brewster, C./Bournois, F. (1991): A European Perspective on Human Resource Management. In: Personnel Review, 20: 4-13.

Brewster, C./Hegewisch, A.,/Holden, L./Lockhart, T. (eds.) (1992): The European Human Resource Management Guide. London.

Brewster, C./Hegewisch, A.,/Mayne, L./Tregaskis, O. (1994): Employee Communication and Participation. In:C. Brewster/A. Hegewisch (eds.): Policy and Practice in European Human Resource Management. London.

Bridgeford, G./Stirling J. (1992): Employee Relations in Europe. Oxford.

Cox, C./Cooper, G. (1985): The Irrelevance of American Organisational Sciences to the UK and Europe. In: Journal of General Management, 11: 27-34.

Decenzo, D.A./Robbins, S.P. (1988): Personnel/Human Resource Management. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Dertouzos, M.L./Lester, R.K./Solow, R.M. (1989): Made in America: Regaining the Productive Edge. Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Dunlop, J.T. (1958): Industrial Relations Systems. New York.

Fiorito, J./Lowman, C./Nelson, F.D. (1987): Industrial Relations, 26: 113-126.

Fischer, S./Weitbrecht, H. (1994): Individualism and Collectivism: Two Dimensions of Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations in Germany. IIRA European Regional Congress, Helsinki August 1994.

Fombrun, C./Tichy, N.M. (1983): Strategic Planning and Human Resources Management: at Rainbow's End. In: R. Lamb (ed.): Recent Advances in Strategic Planning. New York.

Fombrun, C./Tichy, N./Devanna, M. (eds.) (1984): Strategic human resource management. New York.

Gaugier, E. (1988): HR Management: An International Comparison. In: Personnel: 24-30.

Guest, D. (1987): Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations. In: Journal of Management Studies, 24: 503-521.

Guest, D. (1989): Human Resource Management: Its Implications for Industrial Relations and Trade Unions. In: J. Storey (ed.): New Perspectives in Human Resource Management. London.

Guest, D. (1990): Human Resource Management and the American Dream In: Journal of Management Studies, 27: 377-397.

Guest, D. (1992): Right Enough to be Dangerously Wrong: An Analysis of the In Search of Excellence. In: G. Salaman (ed.): Human Resource Strategies. London.

Guest, D./Dewe, P. (1991): Company or Trade Union: Which Wins Workers Allegiance? In: British Journal of Industrial Relations, 29: 75-96.

Goss, D. (1994): Principles of Human Resource Management. London.

Gunnigle, P./Brewster, C./Morley, M. (1993): Evaluating Change in Industrial Relations: Evidence from the Price Waterhouse Cranfield Project, P+. In: Journal of the European Foundation for

the Improvement of Working and Living Conditions.

Hegewisch, A. (1991): The Decentralisation of Pay Bargaining: European Comparisons. In: Personnel Review, 20: 28-35.




Hendry, C./Pettigrew, A. (1990): HRM: An Agenda for the 1990s. In: International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1: 17-25,.

Hendry, C./Pettigrew, A. (1992): Patterns of Strategic Change in the Development of Human Resource Management. In: British Journal of Management, 3: 137-156.

Kaufman, B. E. (1993): The Origins and Evolution of the Field of Industrial Relations in the United States. Ithaca, NY.

Keenoy, L.T. (1990): HRM: A Case of the Wolf in Sheep's Clothing? In: Personnel Review, 19: 3 9.

Kelly, J. (1994): Does the Field of Industrial Relations Have a Future? Paper to the 1994 BUIRA conference, Oxford.

Kochan, T.A./Barocci, T.A. (1985): Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations. Boston.

Kochan, T.A./Dyer L. (1992): Managing Transformational Change: The Role of Human Resource Professionals. Sloan Working Paper 3420-92-BPS, MIT, Mass.

Kochan, T.A./Katz, H.C./McKersie, R.B. (1986): The Transformation of American Industrial Relations. New York.

Legge, K. (1989): Human Resource Management: A Critical Analysis. In: J. Storey (ed.): New Developments in Human Resource Management. London.

Legge, K. (1995): HRM: Rhetoric, Reality and Hidden Agendas. In: J. Storey (ed.): Human Resource Management: A Critical Text. London.

Lengnick-Hall, C.A./Lengnick-Hall, M.L. (1988): Strategic Human Resources Management: A Review of the Literature and a Proposed Typology. In: Academy of Management Review, 13: 454-470.

Mackay, L./Torrington, D. (1986): Changing Nature of Personnel. London.

Mahoney, T./Deckup A. (1986): Evaluation of Concept and Practice in Personnel Administration / Human Resource Management. In: Journal of Management, 12: 223-241.

Marginson, P./Edwards, K./Purcell, J. (1988): Beyond the Workplace: Managing Industriell Relations in the Multi-Establishment Enterprise. Oxford.

Monks, J. (1994): The Trade Union Response to HRM: Fraud or Opportunity? In: Personnel Management: 42-47.

Pieper, R. (ed.) (1990): Human Resource Management: An International Comparison. Berlin.

Poole, M. (1990): Human Resource Management in an International Perspective. In: International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1: 1-15.

Purcell, J. (1987): Mapping Management Styles in Industrial Relations. In: Journal of Management Studies, 24: 535-48.

Purcell, J./Ahlstrand, B. (1994): Human Resource Management in the Multi-Divisional Firm. Oxford.

Ramsey, H./Beirne, D. (eds.) (1992): IT and Workplace Democracy. London. Roche, W.K./Turner, T. (1994): Testing Alternative Models of Human Resource Policy Effects on

Trade Union Recognition in the Republic of Ireland. In: International Journal of Human Resource Management, 5: 721-53.

Schuler, R.S. (1989): Human Resources Strategy: Focusing on Issues and Actions. In: Organisational Dynamics, 19: 4-20.

Schüler, R.S. (1992): Strategic HRM: Linking People with the Strategic Needs of the Business..

Schuler, R.S./Jackson, S.E. (1987): Linking Competitive Strategies with Human Resource Management Practices. In: Academy of Management Executive, 1: 209-213.




Sisson, K. (1993): In Search of HRM. In: British Journal of Industrial Relations, 31.

Staffelbach, B. (1986): Strategisches Personalmanagement. Bern, Stuttgart

Storey, J./Sisson, K. (1993): Managing Human Resources and Industrial Relations. Buckingham.

Storey, J. (1992): Developments in the Management of Human Resources. Oxford.

Storey, J. (1989): New Development in Human Resource Management. London.

Storey, J. (1987): Developments in the Management of Human Resources: An Interim Report. Warwick Papers in Industrial Relations, No 17, University of Warwick.

Strauss, G. (1992): Present at the Beginning: Some Personal Notes on OB's Early Days and Later. In: A. Bedeian (ed.): Management Laureates: A Collection of Autobiographical Essays. Greenwich.

Thurley, K./Wirdenius, H. (1991): Will Management Become 'European'? Strategic Choices for Organisations. In: European Management Journal, 9: 127-134.

Walsh, K. (1985): Trade Union Membership, Methods and Measurement in the European Community. Luxembourg.

Wright, P./McMahon, A. (1992): Theoretical Perspectives for Strategic Human Resource Management. In: Journal of Management, 18: 295-320.



Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management

Documents

Transcript of Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management