workplace values and beliefs: an empirical study of … values and beliefs: an empirical study of...

Workplace values and beliefs: an empirical study of ideology,high commitment management and unionisation

Alan Geare*, Fiona Edgar and Ian McAndrew

Department of Management, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

This study is unique in that it examines both managers’ and workers’ values and beliefsabout employment relationships. It found that managers consider the employmentrelationship in their own workplaces unitarist rather than pluralist, but have mixedideologies when considering society as a whole. Workers are strongly pluralist whenconsidering society as a whole, but their workplace ideology is somewhat unitarist.A modest union impact on workers’ perspectives is found, but little evidence to suggestunion’s effect commitment to the employing organization. Workers’ commitment is topersonal careers first and the organization second, while managers put the organizationahead of personal careers. Correlations exist between unitary views of the employmentrelationship, increased High Commitment Management (HCM) practices, and highlevels of commitment. The purpose and contribution of this study is that it reports anassessment of the relation between workplace attitudes and beliefs and the efficacy andinfluence of management and union initiatives designed to impact them.

Keywords: high commitment management; unionization; workplace ideology

Introduction

Much of the Human Resource Management (HRM) literature, and in particular the more

recent variants such as high performing work systems, best practice HRM, and (the one to

which we refer) HCM, assume there are common values and objectives in the workplace,

to the extent that Purcell (1993, p. 517) claims, ‘HRM is the visual embodiment of the

unitarist frame of reference, both in the sense of the legitimation of managerial authority

and in the imagery of the firm as a team with committed employees working with

managers for the benefit of the firm.’

This paper briefly discusses the concepts of HCM, and employment ideologies.

Building on a previous study which identified the ideology of managers, this research

evaluates and compares both managers’ and employees’ ideologies at a general level of

abstraction and then specific to their particular workplace. In doing so, it offers a balanced

perspective which provides a fuller picture of the workplace reality as experienced by all its

main stakeholders. It examines the relationships between ideology and union membership,

HCM practices and levels of organizational commitment. In doing so, it assesses what

impact, if any, management and union initiatives have on workplace values and beliefs.

High Commitment Management (HCM)

An organization practicing HCM will engage in activities (including communication of

organizational goals to workers, employee involvement schemes, performance-based pay,

ISSN 0958-5192 print/ISSN 1466-4399 online

q 2009 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/09585190902850331

http://www.informaworld.com

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

The International Journal of Human Resource Management,

Vol. 20, No. 5, May 2009, 1146–1171

and quality circles (Edwards 1995)) that aim to promote organizational commitment

among workers (Singh and Vinnicombe 1998), thereby generating a better ‘fit’ between

organizational and employee objectives (Keenoy 1991, p. 2), and ultimately delivering a

competitive advantage to the organization.

An important characteristic of HCM is a shared value system between management

and those managed. Ideally, employees are recruited and selected, in part, for a value set

congruent with the goals of the organization. Once employees are on board, HCM

practices are intended to enhance the ‘fit’. Indeed some suggest such a shared value system

is a requirement of HCM.

Ideology

The concept of ideology has a long history in industrial relations literature, going back a half

century to the work of Taft (1954), Kerr (1955), and Dunlop (1958) in the United States, and

the succession of works by Fox (1966, 1974, 1979), which brought real attention to the

concept in the United Kingdom.

An ideology can be defined as:

A connected set of beliefs, attitudes and values held by an identifiable social group which referto a specific aspect of social reality, which comprise normative, empirical and prescriptiveelements and which may be at a general or particular level (Geare 1994, p. 125).

The beliefs, attitudes and values of the group may relate to society as a whole

(general level) or to a particular level, such as their own organization. Different studies

have shown that beliefs and values, or ideologies, can differ markedly depending on the

level under consideration (Cousins 1972; Ramsey 1975; Nichols and Armstrong 1976).

In addition, the beliefs, attitudes and values may relate to the perceived actual situation

(positive or empirical) or may relate to the perceived ideal situation (normative).

Fox (1966) identified two main managerial frames of reference, which can be

considered ideologies – unitary and pluralist. The essence of unitary theory is that

‘every work organization is an integrated and harmonious whole existing for a common

purpose’ (Farnham and Pilmott 1986, p. 4). The unitary ideology holds that management

exercises legitimate authority over employees, that managers’ and employees’ interests

are congruent, and that any conflict between them is an aberration; if conflict arises, it is

attributed to external sources (such as an agitator). The pluralist ideology, on the other

hand, sees the organization as comprising different sectional groups with both ‘common

and competing interests’ (Horwitz 1991, pp. 4–5). Hence, there inevitably exists the

potential for conflict between management and workers, and conflict is not considered to

be necessarily unhealthy.

Ideology and HCM

The theoretical view that employment relationships are unitary has become entrenched in

the basic (HRM) literature (Guest 1987; Wells 1993; Hart 1993; Storey 1992; Muller

1999; Delaney and Godard 2001), to the point that unitarism is now a ‘taken for granted

assumption’ of HRM (Keenoy 1999, p. 2).

Nonetheless, unitarism has been the subject of criticism in some sectors of the HRM

literature, with the suggestion that it offers a flawed conception of the employment

relationship (Hart 1993; Keenoy 1999), projecting an ideal but unreal image of the world,

‘predominantly managerially oriented in its inception, in its emphasis and in its

application’ (Farnham and Pilmott 1986, p. 15).

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1147

With HCM, the assumption of the unitary ideology being paramount is even more

pronounced. The efficacy of HCM appears to be contingent upon employment relationships

either being unitary from the outset, or being made so by HCM practices. Thus, the agenda

pursued is one whereby ‘there is no room for any expression of pluralism . . . you either have

to buy wholeheartedly into the culture or get out’ (Guest 1999, p. 6).

Critics of the unitary ideology claim pluralism is a more realistic interpretation of

employment relationships. Organizations are seen as comprising multiple stakeholders

(Tsui 1984; Farnham and Pilmott 1986; Zinn, Zalokowski and Hunter 2001), including

managers, workers, customers, suppliers and so on, all of whom have goals and interests

which may sometimes coincide, but may at other times conflict.

To date, both proponents and critics of both the unitary and pluralist ideology have

supported their assertions with surprisingly little empirical evidence. While the theoretical

issue of ideology and HRM/HCM has received attention (Horwitz 1991; Guest 1999),

there has not been much empirical attention to the debate (Muller 1999). Further, until

recently HRM/HCM research was undertaken predominantly from a managerial

perspective, with employees being largely ignored. There is now growing recognition

that the voice of employees, as those on the receiving end of HRM/HCM practices,

requires inclusion in the research (Clark, Mabey and Skinner 1998; Cully, Woodland,

O’Reilly and Dix 1999; Guest 1999).

This paper goes further than that, suggesting that the beliefs, attitudes and values of

managers and workers should also be researched, rather than simply making assumptions

as to the significance or insignificance of the competing ideologies. This research is

important because HCM, as a managerial initiative, appears not merely to rest on a unitary

base, but to be fundamentally incompatible with pluralism in the workplace.

This study

This paper examines current employment ideologies and their relationship to HCM, and

builds on earlier work (Geare, Edgar and McAndrew 2006). First, the study identifies the

current employment relations ideologies of managers and workers. Second, the influence

of union affiliation on ideology is tested. Third, the issue of ‘fit’ is examined, by assessing

whether or not a relationship exists between perceived usage of HCM in the workplace and

strength of support for the unitary view of the employment relationship. Finally, this study

looks at whether organizational commitment – the intended outcome of HCM – is indeed

associated with high usage of HCM practices. This research agenda suggests a number of

research questions:

Research question one

What are the ideological orientations of managers and of workers at both the general andworkplace levels of abstraction?

This requires an examination of the ideological orientation of managers and workers at

two levels of abstraction – general and workplace. Consistent with earlier research (see for

example, Ramsey 1975) it is anticipated that respondents will report ideological

differences between the different levels of abstraction.

It is also anticipated that there will be differences in ideological orientation between

managers and workers, and that these in turn may be reflected in their roles and levels

within the organization. While it is expected that very few people would be ‘pure’

A. Geare et al.1148

ideologues, with most having a mix of unitarist and pluralist inclinations, it is predicted

managers will be more likely than workers to hold unitarist views.

Research question two

Is an absence of union affiliation associated with a more unitarist ideological orientation?

Pluralism, as an ideological view, is strongly associated with unionism. The purported

impact of unions on workplace values and beliefs is evidenced in writings that suggest

unions and their initiatives compete with the interests of management and their initiatives

(Wells 1993; Farnham and Pilmott 1986). A strong and effective union movement

promotes union involvement. For the workers this involvement comes in the form of

membership; for management it comes in the form of participation – this participation

may result from compulsion or choice. Union density in New Zealand, which is defined as

the proportion of potential union members who belong to a union (Bamber and Lansbury

1998), has slightly increased since 2000 and stands at around 17% (May, Walsh and Otto

2004). However, this is significantly lower than it was in 1991 when it stood at 34%,

before the introduction of the Employment Contracts Act (1991) which made compulsory

union membership illegal (union membership had been compulsory since 1935). New

unions are predominantly workplace unions, and consequently small. This phenomenon

has largely emerged as a result of recent legislative frameworks (Employment Relations

Act (2000) and Employment Contracts Act (1991)) which encouraged enterprise

bargaining, should bargaining take place at all. The employment relations climate created

by the EC Act, with its overt unitarist overtones, countered only by the very weak response

of the ER Act, will certainly have impacted both managerial and worker views towards

employment relationships in New Zealand. It is reasonable to speculate that these changes

may have prompted an ideological stance supportive of unitarism. The question of whether

this ideological viewpoint should be considered ‘new’ as opposed to a ‘return to a previous

position’ is largely indeterminable however, because there are little historical data on

which comparisons can be made. One such study does exist however. This study examined

managerial ideologies in New Zealand and found the prevalent view of managers in the

mid 1980s to be quite strongly pluralist (Geare 1986). This study was, however, conducted

prior to the popularization of HCM and the introduction of neo-liberal political policies

with unitary underpinnings.

In this study, it is therefore predicted that union involvement will be a factor likely to

influence the workplace values and beliefs of both the manager and the worker groups.

However, as union density in New Zealand at present is reasonably low, the amount of

participants affected is likely to be comparatively small.

Some writers believe that unions can work effectively within a commitment-based

HRM framework (Walton 1985; Sisson 1993; Connor 1997), and indeed some go so far as

to suggest its efficacy requires unions (Bonnet, Figueiredo and Standing 2003; Ghai 2003).

The reasoning is that, by providing mechanisms for employee ‘voice’, unions foster high

levels of employee involvement to the benefit of all parties (Lawler and Mohrman 1987;

Rankin 1990; Bonnet et al. 2003; Ghai 2003). There is some empirical support for this

view. For example, Ichnioskwi, Kochan, Levine, Olson and Strauss (1996, p. 301) report

that ‘worker and union involvement in decision making can reduce grievances and other

sources of conflict and thereby improve operating efficiencies’.

Gallagher and Strauss (1991) examined the notion of workers’ ‘dual commitment’ to

the workplace and the union, recalling the ‘dual allegiance’ research of the 1950s, which


generally showed – contrary to conventional wisdom – a relationship between positive

employment relations and high dual commitment. Gallagher and Strauss reported that the

results of more recent studies on this point had been more ambivalent. Other than good

labour–management relations, which continued to be associated with dual commitment,

researchers had had little success in identifying other factors that simultaneously

contributed to the development of commitment to both the union and the employing

organization.

The point of HCM initiatives is to have employees feel identity with, and loyalty to,

the employing organization, leading most writers on the subject to take the conventional

view that unions are, as competitors for worker loyalty, antithetical to HCM (Farnham and

Pilmott 1986; Wells 1993). In this view, organizations practicing HCM would be hostile to

union presence, and would try to filter out union sympathies in employee selection, and to

counter any residual pro-union sentiment that slipped through with commitment-building

practices. Again, there is some empirical support for this view (see for example, van den

Broek 2003).

Research question three

Is a unitary ideological orientation at the workplace level of abstraction associated withperceived high usage of HCM practices?

Intuitively, the ideological orientation of the organization in which people work, if

promoted, could be expected to have an impact on their view of the employment

relationship, and on how they behave at work. So, while some organizations may seek to

select individuals whose basic ideology conforms easily to that of the organization, it is

also possible that employing organizations, through their HRM policies and practices, try

to mould the ideological orientation of workers.

It is therefore anticipated that this study will find a relationship between both managers

and non-managerial worker respondents holding a unitary view of the employment

relationship and their reporting of high usage of HCM in the workplace.

Research question four

Is there a relationship between perceived high usage of HCM practices in the workplace andworkforce self-reports of high levels of organizational commitment?

HCM is concerned with the effective management of people so that organizations

achieve their goals. In practice, effective HCM has come to be seen as that which wins the

commitment of employees as a necessary prerequisite for achieving organization goals

(Guest 1998, 1999).

Mowday, Steers and Porter (1979) defined organization commitment straight-

forwardly as:

the relative strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in a particularorganization ... In particular, commitment is characterized by three factors: a strong belief inand an acceptance of the organization’s goals and values, a willingness to exert considerableeffort on behalf of the organization, and a strong desire to maintain membership in theorganization (p. 226).

A primary objective of HCM is enhancing attitudinal commitment in the workforce.

Models of HCM assume that certain practices, when effectively implemented, can harness

workers’ discretionary efforts by fostering goal congruence between the worker and the

organization, thereby increasing their motivation and commitment to the organization

A. Geare et al.1150

(Guest 1997). This positive influence on attitudes and behaviours is seen to be linked to

improvements in organizational performance (Swailes 2004).

High levels of organizational commitment can therefore be seen as a goal of HCM.

Thus, it is predicted a relationship will exist between respondents reporting a perceived

high usage of HCM and their self-reporting of high levels of organizational commitment.

Research method

Data were collected by survey for this part of the study. While it is accepted that surveys

are limited in terms of their ability to generate theory, they enable data to be collected from

a large sample, facilitating generalizing of results (Ichniowski et al. 1996).

The survey

This study builds on earlier work on managerial ideology by including a worker

perspective, and in doing so some of the scales used are the same or similar to those

reported in Geare et al. (2006). The survey was designed to be answered by both managers

and workers. It comprised four sections – demographic details, ideological orientation,

HCM, and commitment. A pilot study led to several changes to statement wording, and

provided an opportunity to trial coding and analyses of the data.

Respondents were first asked to respond to a range of demographic questions including

sex, age, ethnicity, occupation, service, respondent’s level in the organization, past and

present union affiliation, and characteristics of their work and work environment, such as

industry, sector and size.

A variant of a comprehensive measure developed by Geare (1986) to assess values and

beliefs is used to measure ideological orientation. This measure comprises two sections –

each reflecting a particular level of abstraction. The first level of abstraction concerns

wider society and thus measures general empirical values and beliefs (beliefs about ‘what

is’ in society). The second level of abstraction assessed concerns organizational reality and

here the empirical values and beliefs of respondents about their particular organization

(beliefs about ‘what is’ in their current workplace) is measured.

The scale contained seven items. For each item respondents were required to indicate a

preference between two dichotomous, randomly ordered statements (0 ¼ Pluralist;

1 ¼ Unitarist) – (for example: The principal objectives and interests of management and

workers are (a) more or less similar, or (b) similar in some areas, but very different in

others). A total for each level of abstraction was calculated and collapsed into the

following three categories to reflect the orientation of the manager or the worker:

0–2 ¼ Pluralist; 3–4 ¼ Pluralist/Unitarist; and 5–7 ¼ Unitarist.

Two statements aimed at providing a broader picture of employment relationships

were also included. One asked respondents to indicate how they would currently rate

management/worker relations generally in their workplace; the second asked them to

rate management/worker relations generally in New Zealand. A five-point Likert scale

was used with 1 ¼ very poor and 5 ¼ very good.

A slightly modified version of the measure developed by Wood (1995) was used to

assess the extent to which HCM is practiced. A total of 14 statements reflecting HCM

practice (a ¼ .895) were included (some statements contained two parts). Using a five-

point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree; 5 ¼ strongly agree), respondents were asked to

indicate the extent to which they agreed each practice occurred in their organization

(Delery 1998). An additional statement, using the same Likert scale, asked respondents to


indicate the extent they believed congruence existed between organization and employee

goals in their organization.

Organizational commitment was measured using three statements (a ¼ 0.775),

adapted from the validated Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ), originally

developed by Mowday et al. (1979). Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to

which they agree with each of the statements using a five-point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly

disagree; 5 ¼ strongly agree).

Organizational commitment is multifaceted (Swailes 2004), comprising both external

(such as profession or union) and internal (such as workgroup) foci. Employee

commitment can be distributed across these various foci, and not all commitments are

necessarily beneficial to the employing organization (Iles, Mabey and Robertson 1990,

p. 153). Indeed Iles et al. (1990) suggest that the commitment context may be an important

factor in studies exploring the relationship between HRM practice and organizational

performance. Accordingly, five items were included to explore context (the organization,

union, work group, occupation, and personal career development). Respondents were

asked to identify what it is they were most committed to by ranking these in order of their

importance (1 ¼ most important and 5 ¼ least important).

Data analysis

Data were analysed using SPSS 13.00. In some instances the analysis used aggregated

data. Differences between manager and worker groups were explored using a t-test

(which reports chi-square and statistical significance) for two unrelated samples.

The relationships between selected variables – such as past and present union affiliation

and HCM practice – and ideological orientation, as well as the relationship between HCM

practice and organizational commitment were tested using Pearson correlation.

These comprise the main tests used for analysing survey data in this study. However,

descriptive statistics are also reported where appropriate. Reliability for the various

measures has been recorded using Cronbach alpha.

The sample

Both managerial and worker samples were needed for this study. Initially, HR managers

were targeted on a broad basis by distributing a survey in early 2005 to employing

organizations in New Zealand’s four main cities. A 17% response rate gave a total of 675

usable responses. These respondents not only gave responses to the survey but were also

asked if they would agree to having their wider workforce surveyed. Around 10% agreed

and a second survey was sent out in late 2005, eliciting 537 responses (46.5%)

(424 workers and 113 additional managers). The final sample consists of 788 managers

and 424 workers. The demographics of this full sample are presented in Table 1. Clear

limitations of this sample are that: (a) data are not matched by organization; (b) HR

managers who agreed to having their workforce participate may not be a random sample,

as they may well consider their organization’s employment relations climate to be

positive; and (c) the initial response rate obtained is small and the usual potential for

bias exists.

The manager and worker sub-samples are similar in terms of gender, ethnicity and

hours of work. As would be expected, there is some variation with respect to length of

service – with managers more likely to have worked over one year – and age, with the

managers tending to be slightly older than non-managerial workers. Not surprisingly,

A. Geare et al.1152

very few of the respondent managers currently belonged to a union. However, previous

union affiliation is fairly evenly distributed across the two groups. While this sample is

reasonably representative of the New Zealand workforce, persons of European descent are

slightly over-represented, and Maori and Pacific Islanders under-represented.

Survey results

Ideological orientations

The research distinguishes managers and non-managerial workers, and societal and

workplace levels of abstraction for their personal ideologies about employment

relationships (correlations between these two levels of abstraction are presented in

Table 2a). The results presented in Table 2b reveal that at the societal or general level,

managers tend to hold a marginally pluralist, but essentially mixed unitarist-pluralist view

of employment relationships. The majority of managers chose the pluralist option on four

of the seven items, and yielded an overall mean of 0.54 at the societal level. Workers are

clearly more inclined to see the relationship in pluralist terms at the societal level.

A majority of workers chose the pluralist option on all but one of the items. The margins in

most cases were substantial, yielding an overall mean of 0.39. At this societal level,

statistically significant differences are found between the manager and worker groups

across all seven statements.

The magnitude of this difference between manager and worker views is even more

pronounced at the workplace level of abstraction. This appears to be the result of the

manager group viewing employment relations in their own workplaces as being far more

Table 1. Total sample demographics.

GenderManagers

(n ¼ 788)%Workers

(n ¼ 424)% Length of ServiceManagers

(n ¼ 788)%Workers

(n ¼ 424)%

Male 59 47 Less than 1 year 10 24Female 41 53 1-3 years 21 30Age 4 years plus 69 46Under 20 1 5 Hours of work21 to 34 18 38 Full time 96 8935 to 49 44 36 Part time 4 11Over 50 37 21 Level in organizationEthnicity Senior management 71NZ/European 91 85 Middle management 29Maori 2 3 Team leader 13Samoan 1 3 Supervisor 11Asian 3 2 Non-managerial 76Other 3 7 OccupationUnion affiliation Professional 63 32*Previous unionaffiliation

41 51 Semi-professional 19 14

Current unionaffiliation

2 16 Admin/clerical/general 18 29

Sector Tradesperson 9Public 11 26 Labourer 8Private 89 74 Other 8

Note: *A much higher percentage of workers are in the professional group and these represent accountants,lawyers and IT specialists, among others, who hold non-managerial roles. This bias towards more professionalsmay impact results obtained. Intuitively organizations comprising predominantly professionals should be moreunitarist than the more traditional manufacturing organization.


Tab

le2

a.C

orr

elat

ion

s:so

ciet

yan

dw

ork

pla

ceid

eolo

gic

alo

rien

tati

on

by

gro

up

a.

SO

CIE

TY

WO

RK

PL

AC

E1

23

45

67

1.

Wo

rker

sin

gen

eral

see

them

selv

esas

bei

ng

:(a

)A

nin

teg

ral

par

to

fth

eo

rgan

izat

ion

inw

hic

hth

eyw

ork

(U)

MA

NA

GE

RS

0.3

53

**

(b)

Mem

ber

so

fa

gro

up

wit

hin

the

org

aniz

atio

nin

wh

ich

they

wo

rk(P

)W

OR

KE

RS

0.3

40

**

2.

Wo

rker

sin

tere

sts

ing

ener

alar

e:(a

)L

oo

ked

afte

rad

equ

atel

yb

ym

anag

emen

t(U

)M

AN

AG

ER

S0

.38

5*

*(b

)L

oo

ked

afte

rad

equ

atel

yb

yth

eir

un

ion

/law

yer

(P)

WO

RK

ER

S0

.55

4*

*3

.Th

ep

rin

cip

alo

bje

ctiv

esan

din

tere

sts

of

man

agem

entan

dw

ork

ers

are:

(a)

Mo

reo

rle

sssi

mil

ar(U

)M

AN

AG

ER

S0

.35

5*

*(b

)S

imil

arin

som

ear

eas,

bu

tar

ev

ery

dif

fere

nt

ino

ther

s(P

)W

OR

KE

RS

0.3

14

**

4.

Un

ion

sin

gen

eral

:(a

)A

rea

liab

ilit

yas

they

intr

od

uce

dis

tru

stin

toth

ew

ork

env

iro

nm

ent

(U)

MA

NA

GE

RS

0.6

24

**

(b)

Are

anas

set

asth

eyp

rote

ctth

ein

tere

sts

of

wo

rker

s(P

)W

OR

KE

RS

0.6

92

**

5.

Inth

eav

erag

eo

rgan

izat

ion

:(a

)M

anag

emen

tan

dw

ork

ers

wo

rkto

get

her

asa

team

(U)

MA

NA

GE

RS

0.3

54

**

(b)

Man

agem

ent

and

wo

rker

sso

met

imes

wo

rkas

ate

am,

som

etim

esar

ein

con

flic

t(P

)W

OR

KE

RS

0.3

94

**

6.

Co

llec

tiv

eb

arg

ain

ing

:(a

)D

oes

no

tw

inan

yth

ing

for

wo

rker

sth

eyw

ou

ldn

ot

hav

eg

ot

fro

mm

anag

emen

tan

yw

ay(U

)M

AN

AG

ER

S0

.55

7*

*

(b)

Isp

rob

ably

the

bes

tm

ean

so

fse

ttli

ng

dif

fere

nce

sb

etw

een

var

iou

sg

rou

ps

(P)

WO

RK

ER

S0

.56

2*

*

7.

Th

em

ajo

rca

use

so

fco

nfl

ict

inth

ew

ork

pla

ce(e

.g.

stri

kes

,et

c.)

is(a

re):

(a)

Bas

ical

lyp

oo

rco

mm

un

icat

ion

or

tro

ub

le-m

aker

s(U

)M

AN

AG

ER

S0

.49

0*

*(b

)T

he

fact

that

dif

fere

nt

gro

up

sh

ave

dif

fere

nt

ob

ject

ives

–w

hic

hso

met

imes

clas

h(P

)W

OR

KE

RS

0.5

18

No

tes:

aS

ample

size

:M

anag

eria

ldat

an¼

78

8an

dW

ork

erd

ata

n¼

42

4;

bIt

ems

wer

ere

wo

rded

tore

flec

ta

vie

wo

fth

ere

spo

nd

ent’

scu

rren

tw

ork

pla

ce;

cC

on

textu

alv

aria

ble

sco

ntr

oll

ed:

Ag

e,G

end

eran

dE

thn

icit

y;

**p,

0.0

01

*p,

0.0

5.

A. Geare et al.1154

Tab

le2

b.

Ideo

log

ical

ori

enta

tio

n–

soci

ety

and

wo

rkp

lace

a.

Soci

etal

Lev

elM

ean

Work

pla

ceL

evel

bM

ean

t-te

st

Sta

tem

ent

MG

R%

WK

R%

MG

RW

KR

MG

R%

WK

R%

MG

RW

KR

SO

CIE

TY

WO

RK

PL

AC

E

1.

Work

ers

ingen

eral

see

them

selv

esas

bei

ng:

(a)

An

inte

gra

lpar

tof

the

org

aniz

atio

nin

whic

hth

eyw

ork

(U)

62

46

.62

.46

73

56

.73

.56

5.3

42

**

6.1

42

**

(b)

Mem

ber

sof

agro

up

wit

hin

the

org

aniz

atio

nin

whic

hth

eyw

ork

(P)

38

54

27

44

2.

Work

ers

inte

rest

sin

gen

eral

are:

(a)

Looked

afte

rad

equat

ely

by

man

agem

ent

(U)

92

75

.92

.75

97

82

.97

.82

8.3

59

**

8.7

28

**

(b)

Looked

afte

rad

equat

ely

by

thei

runio

n/l

awyer

(P)

825

318

3.

The

pri

nci

pal

obje

ctiv

esan

din

tere

sts

of

man

agem

ent

and

work

ers

are:

(a)

More

or

less

sim

ilar

(U)

36

27

64

46

.64

.46

3.2

61

**

6.1

89

**

(b)

Sim

ilar

inso

me

area

s,but

are

ver

ydif

fere

nt

inoth

ers

(P)

64

73

.36

.27

36

54

4.

Unio

ns

ingen

eral

:(a

)A

rea

liab

ilit

yas

they

intr

oduce

dis

trust

into

the

work

envir

onm

ent

(U)

56

32

.56

.32

65

39

.65

.39

7.9

99

**

8.2

87

**

(b)

Are

anas

set

asth

eypro

tect

the

inte

rest

sof

work

ers

(P)

44

68

35

61

5.

Inth

eav

erag

eorg

aniz

atio

n:

(a)

Man

agem

ent

and

work

ers

work

toget

her

asa

team

(U)

45

31

.45

.31

72

49

.72

.49

4.8

50

**

8.0

67

**

(b)

Man

agem

ent

and

work

ers

som

etim

esw

ork

asa

team

,so

met

imes

are

inco

nfl

ict

(P)

55

69

28

51

6.

Coll

ecti

ve

bar

gai

nin

g:

(a)

Does

not

win

anyth

ing

for

work

ers

they

would

not

hav

egot

from

man

agem

ent

anyw

ay(U

)43

25

.43

.25

64

35

.64

.35

6.3

04

**

9.7

04

**

(b)

Ispro

bab

lyth

ebes

tm

eans

of

sett

ling

dif

fere

nce

sbet

wee

nvar

ious

gro

ups

(P)

57

75

36

65

7.T

he

maj

or

cause

sof

confl

ict

inth

ew

ork

pla

ce(e

.g.

stri

kes

,et

c)is

(are

):(a

)B

asic

ally

poor

com

munic

atio

nor

trouble

-mak

ers

(U)

45

38

.44

.38

59

47

.59

.47

2.2

45

**

3.9

03

**

(b)

The

fact

that

dif

fere

nt

gro

ups

hav

edif

fere

nt

obje

ctiv

es–

whic

hso

met

imes

clas

h(P

)55

62

41

53

No

tes:

aS

ample

size

:M

anag

eria

ldat

an¼

78

8an

dW

ork

erd

ata

n¼

42

4;

bIt

ems

wer

ere

word

edto

refl

ect

av

iew

of

the

resp

on

den

t’s

curr

ent

wo

rkp

lace

;*

*p,

.00

1.


unitary than do the worker group. The worker sub-sample is more inclined overall to

have a unitary outlook at the workplace level than at the societal level, with a seven-item

mean of 0.51 indicating a mixed unitarist/pluralist view. The greater movement in

orientation is, however, in the manager sub-sample, with majorities nominating the

unitarist option on all items, yielding a strongly unitarist overall mean of 0.71. While

the sector in which a respondent works appears to have no impact on ideological

orientations at the societal level (X 2 ¼ 0.657, p , .720), it does have an impact at the

workplace level (X 2 ¼ 6.240, p , .044), with private sector respondents being

somewhat more unitarist.

For simplification and ease of interpretation, statement data are collapsed so

ideological orientations can be classified as either unitarist, mixed, or pluralist. The results

of this aggregation are presented in Table 3. Twice as many managers as workers

(36% versus 17%) hold a unitary view of the employment relationship at the general level

of abstraction. At the workplace level, nearly four times as many workers as managers

(35% versus 9%) view the employment relationship as pluralist.

These data are consistent with the pattern of respondents’ assessments of current

management/worker relationships in their own workplaces and in New Zealand more

generally. Some 75% of the manager sub-sample considered employment relations in

New Zealand to be less than good (giving a rating of 3 or less on a 5-point Likert scale with

1 ¼ very poor and 5 ¼ very good; M ¼ 3.14, SD ¼ 0.613). This view was shared by

the worker sub-sample (80% giving a rating of 3 or less; (M ¼ 3.02, SD ¼ 0.688). The chi-

square shows no statistically significant difference between the views of these two groups

about employment relations at the societal level (X 2 ¼ 5.861, p ¼ .210).

However, this finding was reversed when respondents were asked about the state of

employment relations at their own workplaces. Again, the most pronounced change was in

how the manager sub-sample saw things. Of the manager group 85% consider the

employment relationship in their own organization to be either ‘good’ or ‘very good’

(a rating of 4 or 5 on the Likert Scale; M ¼ 4.19, SD ¼ 0.810). In the worker group 70%

(M ¼ 3.84, SD ¼ 1.01) also hold this view. While both groups had a far more positive

view of employment relations in their own workplace than nationally, the difference

between the groups is at a statistically significant level (X 2 ¼ 45.673, p , .000).

More positive ratings of the employment relationship at the workplace level

were also associated with the holding of unitarist views at workplace level (X 2 ¼ 265.651,

p , .000), with perceived high usage of HCM (X 2 ¼ 218.458, p , .000), and with high

levels of organizational commitment (X 2 ¼ 511.216, p , .000). These relationships held

true for the combined sample, and for both sub-samples measured separately.

Both managers and workers were categorized as professional/semi-professional and

administration/clerical/general, as well as (for workers only) trades, labourers and other.

As Table 1 shows, the sample contained a high number of professional and semi-

professional workers. These represented mainly accountants, lawyers and IT specialists,

working in subordinate, non-managerial roles. Analysis by occupational category showed

little ideological difference between these categories for both managers and workers, and

certainly the differences were not statistically significant. A similar analysis for age

showed no significant differences. For service, statistically significant differences were

identified. The findings applied to both managers and workers, but were stronger for

managers. Those with over 10 years of service were significantly more pluralist, this

possibly reflecting work experience in the pre-Employment Contracts Act era.

Interestingly, those with less than 3 years of service were much less unitarist than those

in the 4 to 10 years of service group.

A. Geare et al.1156

Tab

le3

.C

oll

apse

did

eolo

gic

alo

rien

tati

on

.

Lev

elof

Abst

ract

ion

Mea

nD

iffe

rence

inm

anager

and

work

erm

eans

at-

test

and

sig.

Unit

ari

st(5

–7

unit

ari

stre

sponse

s)%

Mix

ed(3

–4

unit

ari

stre

sponse

s)%

Plu

rali

st(0

–2

unit

ari

stre

sponse

s)%

Man

ager

ial

sam

ple

Soci

ety

(n¼

759)

3.7

736

37

27

Work

pla

ce(n

¼764)

(SD¼

1.7

56)

4.8

9(S

D¼

1.6

20)

61

30

9

Work

ersa

mple

Soci

ety

(n¼

405)

2.7

39.5

22

**

17

33

50

Work

pla

ce(n

¼424)

(SD¼

1.7

71)

3.4

5(S

D¼

1.9

28)

12.8

64**

30

35

35

No

tes:

aD

iffe

rence

sin

nre

flec

tm

issi

ng

dat

afo

ra

par

ticu

lar

stat

emen

t(s)

;*

*p,

.00

1.


Unions and ideology

Research question two addressed the impact of union affiliation on ideology. It was

anticipated that current or past union membership would encourage a pluralist view of the

employment relationship. To see if this was the case, the aggregated data pertaining to the

ideological orientation of managers and workers was correlated, using Pearson chi square,

with past union affiliation (see Tables 4a to 4d). As few managers in the sample are current

union members, the analysis for current union membership was conducted for just the

worker group.

These results show that holding a pluralist view of employment relations at societal

level was associated with past union affiliation for both the manager (X 2 ¼ 19.234,

p , .001) and worker (X 2 ¼ 20.899, p , .001) sub-samples. A pluralist view of

employment relations in one’s own workplace was also significantly related to past union

affiliation for the worker sub-sample (X 2 ¼ 17.498, p , .001), but not for the managers.

Table 4a. Managerial views at societal level of abstraction and previous union membership.

Strongunitarist%

Unitarist/pluralist%

Strongpluralist% Chi-square

Yes, previously belong to a union (n ¼ 313) 30 35 35No, never belonged to a union (n ¼ 443) 40 39 21 19.234**

Notes: **p , .001.

Table 4b. Managerial viewsa at workplace level of abstraction and previous union membership.

Strongunitarist%



Yes, previously belong to a union (n ¼ 280) 57 31 12No, never belonged to a union (n ¼ 391) 65 29 7 6.579

Note: aThe differences in n reflects missing data for these particular statement(s) across the different levels ofabstraction.

Table 4c. Worker views at societal level of abstraction and previous union membership.

Strongunitarist%




Note: **p , .001.

Table 4d. Worker viewsa at workplace level of abstraction and previous union membership.

Strongunitarist%




Note: aDifference in n reflects missing data for these particular statement(s) across the different levels ofabstraction; **p , .001.

A. Geare et al.1158

As anticipated, the data in Tables 5a and 5b show strong correlations for workers

between current union membership and a pluralist view of employment relations at the

level of New Zealand society (X 2 ¼ 28.995, p , .001) and at the workplace level

(X 2 ¼ 55.254, p , .001). So, while both past and present union membership can be seen

to be associated with holding a pluralist view of employment relationships, current union

membership is the far stronger predictor of workers’ ideological orientation.

Ideology and HCM

Research question 3 addressed the relationship between a unitarist ideological orientation

at the workplace level and perceived high usage of HCM practices. The results of this

analysis are presented in Table 6.

For the manager sub-sample, a strong statistically significant correlation is found

between HCM practice and ideological orientation, with increased perceived strength of

all HCM practices being related to a more unitary view of the current employment

relationship. Not surprisingly this is consistent with the findings reported in Geare et al.

(2006). The same result is evident for the worker group for most HCM practices, the

exceptions being (a) promotional prospects being clearly defined for both managerial and

non-managerial staff and (b) protection of the core workforce through the use of temporary

employment. When aggregated mean ratings of practice from managers are compared to

those received for the worker group, it is evident the manager group ratings are higher

across nearly all statements (the only exception being regular meetings of quality circles).

HCM practice and organizational commitment

The final research question examined in this paper explores the relationship between

perceived strength of HCM practice and levels of organizational commitment. These data

are set out in Table 7. Mean aggregated scores across the statements for organizational

commitment reveal that the manager group report higher levels of commitment to the

organization than do the worker group. Differences between these mean scores are

statistically significant (Organizational Commitment Aggregate Total (three items)

t ¼ 10.339, p , .000). While the perceived strength of HCM practice is found to be

Table 5a. Worker views at societal level of abstraction and current union membership.

Strongunitarist%



Yes, currently belong to a union (n ¼ 66) 1 20 79No, do not belong to a union (n ¼ 336) 21 35 44 28.995**

Note: **p , .001.

Table 5b. Worker viewsa at societal level of abstraction and current union membership.

Strongunitarist%



Yes, currently belong to a union (n ¼ 64) 5 22 73No, do not belong to a union (n ¼ 299) 37 38 25 55.254**

Notes: aThe differences in n reflects missing data for these particular statement(s) across the different levels ofabstraction; **p , .001.


Tab

le6

.R

elat

ion

ship

bet

wee

nst

ren

gth

of

ado

pte

dH

CM

pra

ctic

eaan

did

eolo

gic

alo

rien

tati

on

b(n

¼1

04

2).

HC

MM

ean

–t-

test

Std

Dev

.

Rel

ati

onsh

ipw

ith

ideo

logic

al

ori

enta

tion

–w

ork

pla

ce

Sta

tem

ents

on

HR

Mpra

ctic

eM

GR

WK

Rt-

test

MG

RW

KR

MG

RW

KR

1.

Ahig

hval

ue

ispla

ced

on

trai

nin

gan

ddev

elopm

ent

for:

(a)

man

ager

ial

staf

f3.5

03.0

25.8

18

**

1.1

42

1.6

55

.150

**

.142

**

(b)

non-m

anag

eria

lst

aff

3.6

13.2

64.9

60

**

1.1

12

1.2

85

.154

**

.204

**

2.

Com

mit

men

tis

enco

ura

ged

by

hav

ing

hum

anre

sourc

em

anag

emen

tpra

ctic

esth

athel

pst

aff

achie

ve

per

sonal

goal

sas

wel

las

org

aniz

atio

nal

goal

s:(a

)m

anag

eria

lst

aff

3.3

32.7

07.5

75

**

1.1

55

1.7

19

.194

**

.171

**

(b)

non-m

anag

eria

lst

aff

3.2

72.9

04.8

07

**

1.1

79

1.3

82

.245

**

.235

**

3.

Pro

moti

onal

pro

spec

tsar

ecl

earl

ydefi

ned

and

dev

eloped

for:

(a)

man

ager

ial

staf

f2.9

12.3

56.4

73

**

1.2

11

1.7

47

.107

**

.080

(b)

non-m

anag

eria

lst

aff

2.9

82.6

14.8

22

**

1.1

91

1.3

52

.166

**

.069

4.

Aper

form

ance

appra

isal

of

staf

fm

ember

per

form

ance

isunder

taken

on

eith

eran

annual

or

bi-

annual

bas

isin

this

org

aniz

atio

nfo

r:(a

)m

anag

eria

lst

aff

3.7

32.6

910.0

22

**

1.4

70

2.1

00

.094

*.1

98

**

(b)

non-m

anag

eria

lst

aff

3.7

83.4

33.7

56

**

1.4

15

1.6

45

.155

**

.175

**

5.

The

pre

dom

inan

tsy

stem

of

org

anis

ing

work

inth

isorg

aniz

atio

nis

team

-work

ing

3.9

13.6

63.6

96

**

1.0

35

1.2

09

.223

**

.165

**

6.

Reg

ula

rm

eeti

ngs

of

qual

ity

circ

les

(i.e

.sm

all

gro

ups

of

work

ers,

super

vis

ors

and

man

agem

ent

who

mee

tto

dis

cuss

the

qual

ity

of

apro

duct

and/o

rse

rvic

e)ar

ehel

din

this

org

aniz

atio

n

3.4

83.5

02

0.3

39

1.2

85

1.4

62

.095

*.1

56

**

7.

Job

des

ign

issu

chth

atsk

ills

and

abil

itie

sof

staf

fm

ember

sar

euse

dto

full

est

exte

nt

3.6

13.1

76.7

44

**

0.9

82

1.2

28

.192

**

.273

**

8.

Sta

ffm

ember

sin

this

org

aniz

atio

nar

een

coura

ged

tota

ke

resp

onsi

bil

ity

for

the

qual

ity

of

thei

row

nw

ork

4.3

04.0

94.0

00

**

0.7

85

1.0

33

.300

**

.191

**

9.

Pla

nned

team

bri

efing

sess

ions

are

regula

rly

hel

dfo

rth

est

aff

mem

ber

sin

this

org

aniz

atio

n3.5

93.4

22.1

50

*1.2

26

1.4

16

.146

**

.155

**

10.

Job

des

crip

tions

inth

isorg

aniz

atio

nar

efl

exib

lean

ddo

not

rest

rict

work

/duti

esto

ase

ries

of

spec

ific

task

s4.0

73.6

93.9

60

**

0.9

47

2.3

28

.192

**

.294

**

A. Geare et al.1160

Tab

le6

–co

nti

nued

HC

MM

ean

–t-

test

Std

Dev

.

Rel

ati

onsh

ipw

ith

ideo

logic

al

ori

enta

tion

–w

ork

pla

ce

Sta

tem

ents

on

HR

Mpra

ctic

eM

GR

WK

Rt-

test

MG

RW

KR

MG

RW

KR

11.

Man

ager

ial

staf

fm

ember

sar

een

coura

ged

topar

tici

pat

ein

work

pla

cedec

isio

ns

that

may

affe

ctth

em4.1

83.0

414.5

66

0.8

92

1.8

39

.263

**

.283

**

12.

Non-m

anag

eria

lst

aff

mem

ber

sar

een

coura

ged

topar

tici

pat

ein

work

pla

cedec

isio

ns

that

may

affe

ctth

em3.6

73.1

37.4

18

**

1.1

15

1.3

94

.274

**

.300

**

13.

This

org

aniz

atio

npro

tect

sth

ese

curi

tyof

its

core

work

forc

eby

emplo

yin

gte

mpora

ryst

aff

mem

ber

sonly

when

abso

lute

lynec

essa

ry4.0

43.2

010.2

49

**

1.1

69

1.6

49

.127

**

.096

14.

This

org

aniz

atio

nhas

unif

orm

(sta

ndar

d)

term

san

dco

ndit

ions

of

emplo

ym

ent

for

all

its

staf

fm

ember

s4.1

33.3

010.2

84

**

1.1

36

1.6

73

.140

**

.107

*

15.

Inth

isorg

aniz

atio

n,

staf

fm

ember

ssh

are

the

over

all

goal

sof

man

agem

ent

and

wil

lingly

work

tow

ards

achie

vem

ent

of

thes

egoal

s3.8

03.3

57.2

20

**

0.9

04

1.2

19

.364

**

.365

**

Tota

lst

rength

of

HC

Mpra

ctic

e69.8

959.9

211.4

67

**

12.2

816.2

9.2

96

**

.326

**

No

tes:

aS

cale

:1¼

Str

on

gly

dis

agre

ean

d5¼

Str

on

gly

agre

e;bS

cale

:1¼

plu

rali

st(0

–2

un

itar

ist

resp

on

ses)

,2¼

un

itar

ist/

plu

rali

st(3

–4

un

itar

ist

resp

on

ses)

and

3¼

un

itar

ist

(5–

7u

nit

aris

tre

spo

nse

s);

*p,

.05

**p,

.00

1.


Tab

le7

.R

elat

ion

ship

bet

wee

np

erce

ived

stre

ng

tho

fH

CM

pra

ctic

ean

dle

vel

so

fo

rgan

izat

ion

alco

mm

itm

enta

(n¼

12

14

).

Inea

rly

alw

ays

agre

ew

ith

this

org

aniz

ati

on’s

poli

cies

on

import

ant

matt

ers

rela

ting

toit

sem

plo

yees

My

work

envi

ronm

ent

all

ow

sm

eto

contr

ibute

tom

yfu

llpote

nti

al

Iin

tend

tost

ay

work

ing

for

this

org

aniz

ati

on

for

alo

ng

tim

eM

ean

aggre

gate

tota

l(3

item

s)

ST

AT

EM

EN

TS

ON

HC

MP

RA

CT

ICE

M(M

¼4.0

8)

W(M

¼3.5

3)

M(M

¼4.0

9)

W(M

¼3.5

3)

M(M

¼4.0

2)

W(M

¼3.5

6)

M(M

¼4.0

6)

W(M

¼3.5

4)

1.

Ahig

hval

ue

ispla

ced

on

trai

nin

gan

ddev

elopm

ent

for:

(a)

man

ager

ial

staf

f.2

57

**

.155

**

.266**

.127

*.1

74

**

.095

.278

**

.144

**

(b)

non-m

anag

eria

lst

aff

.280

**

.347

**

.313**

.396

**

.266

**

.304

**

.345

**

.421

**

2.

Com

mit

men

tis

enco

ura

ged

by

hav

ing

hum

anre

sourc

em

anag

emen

tpra

ctic

esth

athel

pst

aff

achie

ve

per

sonal

goal

sas

wel

las

org

aniz

atio

nal

goal

s:(a

)m

anag

eria

lst

aff

.228

**

.213

**

.244**

.155

**

.157

**

.132

**

.250

**

.190

**

(b)

non-m

anag

eria

lst

aff

.256

**

.363

**

.284**

.403

**

.187

**

.284

**

.290

**

.412

**

3.

Pro

moti

onal

pro

spec

tsar

ecl

earl

ydefi

ned

and

dev

eloped

for:

(a)

man

ager

ial

staf

f.2

09

**

.157

**

.240**

.116

*.1

82

**

.092

.254

**

.143

**

(b)

non-m

anag

eria

lst

aff

.194

**

.250

**

.212**

.399

**

.193

**

.237

**

.242

**

.362

**

4.

Aper

form

ance

appra

isal

of

staf

fm

ember

per

form

ance

isunder

taken

on

eith

eran

annual

or

bi-

annual

bas

isin

this

org

aniz

atio

nfo

r:(a

)m

anag

eria

lst

aff

.067

.166

**

.147**

.098

*.0

53

.041

.108

**

.109

*(b

)non-m

anag

eria

lst

aff

.090

*.1

92

**

.128**

.256

**

.070

.180

**

.114

**

.257

**

5.

The

pre

dom

inan

tsy

stem

of

org

aniz

ing

work

inth

isorg

aniz

-at

ion

iste

am-w

ork

ing

.297

**

.270

**

.286**

.310

**

.261

**

.274

**

.339

**

.347

**

6.R

egula

rm

eeti

ngs

of

qual

ity

circ

les

(i.e

.sm

all

gro

ups

of

work

ers,

super

vis

ors

and

man

agem

ent

who

mee

tto

dis

cuss

the

qual

ity

of

apro

duct

and/o

rse

rvic

e)ar

ehel

din

this

org

aniz

atio

n

.157

**

.214

**

.155**

.193

**

.141

**

.168

**

.180

**

.230

**

7.

Job

des

ign

issu

chth

atsk

ills

and

abil

itie

sof

staf

fm

ember

sar

euse

dto

full

est

exte

nt

.337

**

.407

**

.405**

.539

**

.346

**

.389

**

.440

**

.539

**

A. Geare et al.1162

Tab

le7

–co

nti

nued

Inea

rly

alw

ays

agre

ew

ith

this

org

aniz

ati

on’s

poli

cies

on

import

ant

matt

ers

rela

ting

toit

sem

plo

yees

My

work

envi

ronm

ent

all

ow

sm

eto

contr

ibute

tom

yfu

llpote

nti

al

Iin

tend

tost

ay

work

ing

for

this

org

aniz

ati

on

for

alo

ng

tim

eM

ean

aggre

gate

tota

l(3

item

s)

ST

AT

EM

EN

TS

ON

HC

MP

RA

CT

ICE

M(M

¼4.0

8)

W(M

¼3.5

3)

M(M

¼4.0

9)

W(M

¼3.5

3)

M(M

¼4.0

2)

W(M

¼3.5

6)

M(M

¼4.0

6)

W(M

¼3.5

4)

8.

Sta

ffm

ember

sin

this

org

aniz

-at

ion

are

enco

ura

ged

tota

ke

resp

onsi

bil

ity

for

the

qual

ity

of

thei

row

nw

ork

.401

**

.300

**

.376**

.366

**

.338

**

.285

**

.446

**

.387

**

9.

Pla

nned

team

bri

efing

sess

ions

are

regula

rly

hel

dfo

rth

est

aff

mem

ber

sin

this

org

aniz

atio

n

.111

**

.235

**

.154**

.246

**

.151

**

.128

**

.168

**

.236

**

10.

Job

des

crip

tions

inth

isorg

aniz

-at

ion

are

flex

ible

and

do

not

rest

rict

work

/duti

esto

ase

ries

of

spec

ific

task

s

.245

**

.185

**

.272**

.248

**

.223

**

.182

**

.298

**

.249

**

11.

Man

ager

ial

staf

fm

ember

sar

een

coura

ged

topar

tici

pat

ein

work

pla

cedec

isio

ns

that

may

affe

ctth

em

.415

**

.259

**

.352**

.231

**

.329

**

.115

*.4

34

**

.231

**

12.

Non-m

anag

eria

lst

aff

mem

ber

sar

een

coura

ged

topar

tici

pat

ein

work

pla

cedec

isio

ns

that

may

affe

ctth

em

.354

**

.343

**

.301**

.429

**

.273

**

.276

**

.369

**

.420

**

13.

This

org

aniz

atio

npro

tect

sth

ese

curi

tyof

its

core

work

forc

eby

emplo

yin

gte

mpora

ryst

aff

mem

ber

sonly

when

abso

lute

lynec

essa

ry

.179

**

.101

*.1

95**

.096

.213

**

.137

**

.238

**

.135

**


Tab

le7

–co

nti

nued

Inea

rly

alw

ays

agre

ew

ith

this

org

aniz

ati

on’s

poli

cies

on

import

ant

matt

ers

rela

ting

toit

sem

plo

yees

My

work

envi

ronm

ent

all

ow

sm

eto

contr

ibute

tom

yfu

llpote

nti

al

Iin

tend

tost

ay

work

ing

for

this

org

aniz

ati

on

for

alo

ng

tim

eM

ean

aggre

gate

tota

l(3

item

s)

ST

AT

EM

EN

TS

ON

HC

MP

RA

CT

ICE

M(M

¼4.0

8)

W(M

¼3.5

3)

M(M

¼4.0

9)

W(M

¼3.5

3)

M(M

¼4.0

2)

W(M

¼3.5

6)

M(M

¼4.0

6)

W(M

¼3.5

4)

14.

This

org

aniz

atio

nhas

unif

orm

(sta

ndar

d)

term

san

dco

ndit

ions

of

emplo

ym

ent

for

all

its

staf

fm

ember

s

.156

**

.115

*.1

49**

.160

**

.189

**

.088

.201

**

.145

**

15.

Inth

isorg

aniz

atio

n,

staf

fm

ember

ssh

are

the

over

all

goal

sof

man

agem

ent

and

wil

lingly

work

tow

ards

achie

vem

ent

of

thes

egoal

s

.377

**

.389

**

.355**

.399

**

.328

**

.344

**

.423

**

.453

**

TO

TA

LS

TR

EN

GT

HO

FH

CM

PR

AC

TIC

E.3

77

**

.387

**

.414**

.442

**

.334

**

.298

**

.453

**

.451

**

No

tes:

aS

cale

s(b

oth

):1¼

Str

on

gly

dis

agre

ean

d5¼

Str

on

gly

agre

eM

¼M

anag

ers

(n¼

78

8)

and

W¼

Wo

rker

s(n

¼4

24

);*p,

.05

**p,

.00

1

A. Geare et al.1164

Tab

le8

.T

-tes

to

fm

ean

ran

ked

ale

vel

of

com

mit

men

tin

rela

tio

nto

org

aniz

atio

n/w

ork

-rel

ated

char

acte

rist

ics.

Chara

cter

isti

cm

ost

com

mit

ted

to:

Manager

gro

up

(n¼

794)

Work

ergro

up

–to

tal

(n¼

414)

1W

ork

ergro

up

–cu

rren

tunio

nm

ember

s(n

¼68)

Work

ergro

up

–not

unio

nm

ember

s(n

¼346)

2

Org

aniz

atio

n1.7

7(S

D¼

1.0

2)

2.5

1(S

D¼

1.1

9) *

*3.0

6(S

D¼

1.3

9)

2.4

0(S

D¼

1.1

2) *

*U

nio

n4.7

8(S

D¼

0.8

6)

4.4

8(S

D¼

1.1

5) *

*3.4

8(S

D¼

1.1

4)

4.6

9(S

D¼

0.9

4) *

*W

ork

gro

up

2.8

9(S

D¼

1.0

1)

2.5

5(S

D¼

1.1

1) *

*2.6

0(S

D¼

1.1

9)

2.5

4(S

D¼

1.0

8)

Tra

de/

occ

upat

ion

2.9

7(S

D¼

1.0

7)

2.7

6(S

D¼

1.1

7) *

2.4

7(S

D¼

1.3

5)

2.8

1(S

D¼

1.1

2) *

Per

sonal

care

erdev

elopm

ent

2.1

7(S

D¼

1.1

3)

2.0

4(S

D¼

1.2

0)

2.2

6(S

D¼

1.3

6)

1.9

8(S

D¼

1.1

6)

No

tes:

aR

ank

scal

e–

1¼

Mo

stim

po

rtan

tan

d5¼

Lea

stim

po

rtan

t;*p,

.05

**p,

.00

1;

1D

iffe

ren

ceb

etw

een

mea

ns

for

man

ager

/wo

rker

gro

ups;

2D

iffe

ren

ceb

etw

een

mea

ns

for

wo

rker

sw

ho

are

curr

ent

un

ion

mem

ber

s/n

ot

curr

ent

un

ion

mem

ber

s.


correlated with levels of organizational commitment, and this relationship is statistically

significant in nearly all cases, in many instances the relationship is not a particularly

strong one.

Commitment has been identified as being multi-faceted, or perhaps more accurately,

multi-focused. To control for this, five contextual items which can be characterised as

reflecting either a unitarist or pluralist orientation were incorporated in the analysis. As a

measure of relative commitment, respondents were asked to rank these targets in order of

importance. These results are presented in Table 8.

Table 8 shows the manager group is most committed to their employing organization

(M ¼ 1.77), and then to their personal careers (M ¼ 2.17). Managers show little

commitment to the union, to a work group or to a trade/occupation. The worker group is

most committed to their personal career development (M ¼ 2.04), and secondarily to their

employing organization (M ¼ 2.51). Workers also exhibit some commitment to their work

group (M ¼ 2.55) and their trade/occupation (M ¼ 2.76). Perhaps surprisingly, there is

little evident commitment from the sub-sample of workers to the unions (M ¼ 4.48). It is

well to remember that only 16% of the worker sub-sample were union members at the time

of the survey, although this approximates the level of union density in the New Zealand

labour market.

There is a union membership factor evident in Table 8, but it is a fairly modest one.

Current union members were, unsurprisingly, more committed to the union than were

non-members, but their commitment to the union still ranked last among the options.

Commitment to the employing organization was also affected to some extent by current

union membership, although less or differently than might have been expected. For union

members, the trade or occupation and the workgroup rated above the organization,

whereas for the non-members and for the worker sub-sample as a whole, commitment to

the organization came in second only to personal career development.

Discussion

Our data show that New Zealand managers have a mixed unitarist–pluralist view of

employment relations in general, with those having had some union affiliation in the past

being somewhat more likely to hold some beliefs that are consistent with a pluralist

perspective.

When it comes to characterizing employment relations in their own work

organizations, managers have an overwhelmingly unitarist view, and at this level there

are no lingering influences evident from any past association with unions.

Workers are much more likely than managers to see employment relations at societal

level in pluralist terms. However, like managers, they see employment relations in their

own workplaces in unitarist terms, but not to the same extent that managers do. In fact, the

gap in perceptions of workplace relations between managers and workers is substantial,

with four times as many managers as workers seeing employment relations in their own

workplaces in purely unitary terms. Significantly, more managers than workers also rated

employment relations in their workplaces as ‘good’ or ‘very good’, and such a positive

rating was, unsurprisingly, correlated with having a unitary view. It could be argued that

‘difference’ found in both ideological orientation and employment relations climate

between the manager and worker groups in this study is unsurprising – analysis of

aggregated group-level data, rather than matched organization-level data, is likely to

compound ‘difference’ between these groups. However, the sample itself, both in terms of

organizations self-selecting their workplaces for participation and the over-representation

A. Geare et al.1166

of ‘professionals’, is a significant factor most probably serving to reduce ‘difference’, not

create or exacerbate it. It is reasonable to speculate that this sample more likely comprises

those organizations and individuals (‘professionals’ are identified as a separate group who

consider positive manager-employee relations climate to be a key factor impacting their

attitudes towards the workplace – Kinnie, Hutchinson, Purcell, Rayton and Swart (2005))

who consider their workplaces, and their employment relationships, to be relatively

harmonious; a relationship in which the goals and objectives of managers and workers are

mutually shared and strived for.

Union influence is evident among workers with both past and present union affiliation,

but particularly the latter, associated with pluralist views of employment relations at both

society and organization levels of abstraction. This, despite workers exhibiting remarkably

little commitment to unions, even allowing for just a 17% union membership among the

worker sub-sample.

The study set out to examine manager and worker ideologies and how, if at all, they

related to HCM practices and commitment to the organization. HCM practices are

designed to promote employee commitment to the employing organization by screening

out contrary inclinations at the hiring gate, and adjusting any wayward inclinations that do

get through with on-going HCM attention. Intuitively, it would be hypothesized that

managers holding a unitarist view of employment relations in the workplace, as on this

evidence they overwhelmingly do, would employ HCM practices as being consistent with

that view, to maximize the ‘natural’ employee identification with, and commitment to,

organization goals, and to correct for any perversity that might have slipped under

the radar.

A more cynical view might reason that HCM practitioners fully appreciate

that employees bring a divergence of interests to the employment relationship and that

aggressive HCM ‘counter-practices’ are needed to turn away trouble-makers at the gate,

and to cause employees to commit to organization goals, or at least to act as if they have.

The evidence shows that managers report higher levels of commitment than do

workers. However, there is little evidence here of the stereotypical competition for worker

allegiance between the employing organization and a labour union. The experience of

union membership certainly appears to contribute to non-managerial workers in particular

holding pluralist views. But, whatever roles unions might play for these workers, being a

competitor for their loyalty is a minor one at best, even among current union members. It

seems likely that union membership prompts or reinforces in workers the perception that

their interests and the organization’s are somewhat different, but it does not seem to inspire

strong allegiance to the union. That the work group and occupation win higher

commitment from union members than does the organization would tend to reinforce this

‘us’ and ‘them’ impression, without explaining why the union still attracts relatively little

allegiance. The extent to which HCM practices might be a factor in this finding is not

decipherable from survey data alone.

The sub-sample of managers rates their commitment to the organization above all else,

including their own careers. Not so the sub-sample of workers. They rated commitment to

their own careers paramount, although they also showed quite strong commitment to the

organization. This might be said to reflect a conventional pluralist diversity of interests,

but with a ‘natural’ if subsidiary employee identification with the employing organization

(consistent with a pluralist view) as well; or it might be said to reflect a conventional

pluralist diversity of interests, but with effective HCM practices successfully promoting

some level of employee commitment to the organization. The HCM practices would not be

supplanting self-interest with commitment to the organization, but successfully promoting


it as a secondary commitment. There is not the data to make a definitive ruling on which

of those two things is happening here. Probably, both of them are. Both managers and,

to a lesser extent, workers with a more unitary view of employment relations at the

workplace level were more likely than others to report strong use of HCM practices in

the organization; and both managers and workers reporting high usage of HCM practices

in the organization were more likely than others to exhibit high levels of organizational

commitment.

Concluding remarks

So, unitarist views of employment relations in the organization, positive appraisals of

employment relations in the organization, the perceived high use of HCM practices in the

organization, and high levels of organization commitment are all correlated. What is now

required is further examination of the causal relationships.

This study has two possible limitations. The first is the bluntness of the instrument

used to measure ideological orientation. However, while it is acknowledged that

respondents were not provided with scope to indicate the degree to which they agreed

or disagreed with each of the statements contained within this instrument, it nonetheless

provides a measurement of the overall inclination of respondents in terms of ideological

orientation. A second possible limitation is that as a result of the approach taken to data

collection, a somewhat skewed sample biased towards the manager group has been

used in this analysis.

This study uses New Zealand data, and while there is nothing particularly unique to the

New Zealand environment that would likely impact the generalizability of these findings,

in order to further enhance their generalizability, survey data is now being collected in

Ireland and Turkey. Further research and analysis are also now required to explore the

causal connections and inter-relationships between ideological orientation, HCM practice

and commitment amongst organizational members. This research requires analysis of data

obtained from both managers and workers within the same organizational setting to see if

causality between these constructs can be established.

While opinions vary as to when HRM emerged as a significant movement in

employment relations, and what HRM actually represents, all definitions of HRM accept

that it covers standard ‘personnel’ functions such as recruitment and selection, training and

development, job evaluation, payment systems, and performance management. According

to Strauss (2001, p. 873) most academics in the US see HRM as simply ‘a re-labelled (or at

most re-packaged) version of the old fusty field of personnel’. British academics however

see HRM as more esoteric and have focussed on conflicting models of HRM associated

with Michigan (Fombrun, Tichy and Devanna 1984) or Harvard (Beer, Spector, Lawrence,

Mills and Walton 1984; Walton 1985; Walton and Lawrence 1985). We consider the

difference to be largely a matter of emphasis and perspective – with HRM seeing things

largely from a managerial perspective, whereas employment relations views things from

the perspectives of managers, workers, unions and, to some extent, the State. Indeed it is

this very difference that makes HRM appear sympathetic to a unitary ideology and ER to a

pluralist ideology. This research seems to make an empirical contribution to the fields of

both ER and HRM. It provides information concerning the views of managers and workers

about employment relationships; some of which contradicts, and some of which provides

support for the pivotal assumptions that currently underpin HRM in the literature. This

empirical evidence is a first step in the development of a platform for scholars to use to

progress the discipline confidently in the right direction.

A. Geare et al.1168

Furthermore, this study highlights the value that can most certainly be obtained

when connected disciplines, such as ER and HRM, work together to accumulate a body of

knowledge. While these two disciplines currently appear to have, at least as far as views

about employment relationships are concerned, a number of irreconcilable contradictions

between them, much greater progress is likely to accrue from scholarly attempts to resolve

or reconcile these contradictions rather than efforts solely devoted to proving one or other

is the ‘right’ view.

References

Bamber, G., and Lansbury, R. (1998), International and Comparative Employment Relations,London: Sage.

Beer, M., Spector, B., Lawrence, P., Mills, D., and Walton, R. (1984), Managing Human Assets,New York: Free Press.

Bonnet, F., Figueiredo, J., and Standing, G. (2003), ‘A Family of Decent Work Indexes,’International Labour Review, 142, 2, 213–238.

Clark, T., Mabey, C., and Skinner, D. (1998), ‘Experiencing HRM: The Importance of the InsideStory,’ in Experiencing Human Resource Management, eds. C. Mabey, D. Skinner and T. Clark,London: Sage, pp. 1–13.

Connor, B. (1997), Working with Human Resource Management: An Usdaw Guide, Manchester:Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers.

Cousins, J. (1972), ‘The Non-militant Shop Steward,’ New Society, 3 Feb, 226–228.Cully, M., Woodland, S., O’Reilly, A., and Dix, G. (1999), Britain at Work: As Depicted by the 1998

Workplace Employee Relations Survey, London: Routledge.Deery, S., and Iverson, R. (2005), ‘Labor-management Cooperation: Antecedents and Impact on

Organizational Performance,’ Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 58, 4, 588–609.Delaney, J., and Godard, J. (2001), ‘An Industrial Relations Perspective on the High-performance

Paradigm,’ Human Resource Management Review, 11, 395–429.Delery, J. (1998), ‘Issues of Fit in Strategic Human Resource Management: Implications for

Research,’ Human Resource Management Review, 8, 3, 289–309.Dunlop, J. (1958), Industrial Relations Systems, New York: Holt.Edwards, P.K. (1995), ‘Human Resource Management, Union Voice and the Use of Discipline:

An Analysis of WIRS3,’ Industrial Relations Journal, 26, 3, 204–220.Farnham, D., and Pilmott, J. (1986), Understanding Industrial Relations, London: Holt, Rinehart and

Winston.Fombrun, C., Tichy N., and Devanna, M. (eds.) (1984), Strategic Human Resource Management,

New York: Wiley.Fox, A. (1966), Industrial Sociology and Industrial Relations, London: HMSO.Fox, A. (1974), Beyond Contact: Work, Power and Trust Relations, London: Faber.Fox, A. (1979), ‘A Note on Industrial Relations Pluralism,’ Sociology, 13, 1, 105–109.Gallagher, D.G., and Strauss, G. (1991), ‘Union Membership Attitudes and Participation,’

in The State of the Unions, eds. D.G. Gallagher, G. Strauss and J. Fiorito, Madison, WI: IRRA,pp. 139–174.

Geare, A.J. (1986), ‘An Examination of Certain Aspects of Industrial Relations Ideologies: ATheoretical Analysis and an Empirical Study,’ unpublished PhD thesis, University of Otago,New Zealand.

Geare, A.J. (1994), ‘Ideology in Industrial Relations,’ New Zealand Journal of Industrial Relations,19, 2, 113–146.

Geare, A.J., Edgar, F.J., and McAndrew, I. (2006), ‘Employment Relationships: Ideology and HRMPractice,’ International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17, 7, 1190–1208.

Ghai, D. (2003), ‘Decent Work: Concepts and Indicators,’ International Labour Review, 142, 2,113–146.

Godard, J. (1997), ‘Whither Strategic Choice: Do Managerial IR Ideologies Matter?,’ IndustrialRelations, 36, 2, 206–228.

Goll, I. (1991), ‘Environment, Corporate Ideology, and Involvement Programs,’ IndustrialRelations, 30, 138–149.


Guest, D. (1987), ‘Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations,’ Journal of ManagementStudies, 24, 5, 503–521.

Guest, D. (1997), ‘Human Resource Management and Performance: A Review and ResearchAgenda,’ International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8, 3, 263–277.

Guest, D. (1998), ‘Beyond HRM: Commitment and the Contract Culture,’ in Human ResourceManagement: The New Agenda, eds. P. Sparrow and M. Marchington, London: I.T. Pitman,pp. 37–51.

Guest, D. (1999), ‘Human Resource Management – The Workers’ Verdict,’ Human ResourceManagement Journal, 9, 3, 5–25.

Hart, T. (1993), ‘Human Resource Management – Time to Exorcize the Militant Tendency,’Employee Relations, 15, 3, 29–37.

Horwitz, F. (1991), ‘HRM: An Ideological Perspective,’ International Journal of Manpower, 12, 6,2–9.

Ichniowski, C., Kochan, T., Levine, D., Olson, C., and Strauss, G. (1996), ‘What Works at Work:Overview and Assessment,’ Industrial Relations, 35, 3, 299–333.

Iles, P., Mabey, C., and Robertson, I. (1990), ‘HRM Practices and Employee Commitment: Pitfallsand Paradoxes,’ British Journal of Management, 1, 147–157.

Keenoy, T. (1991), ‘The Roots of Metaphor in the Old and New Industrial Relations,’ BritishJournal of Industrial Relations, 29, 2, 313–328.

Keenoy, T. (1999), ‘HRM as Hologram: A Polemic,’ The Journal of Management Studies, 36, 1,1–19.

Kerr, C. (1955), ‘Industrial Relations and the Liberal Pluralist,’ in Proceedings of the SeventhAnnual Meeting of the IRRA, IRRA, Wisconsin, pp. 2–16.

Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S., Purcell, J., Rayton, B., and Swart, J. (2005), ‘Satisfaction with HRPractices and Commitment to the Organisation: Why One Size Does Not Fit All,’ HumanResource Management Journal, 15, 4, 9–29.

Lawler, E., and Mohrman, S. (1987), ‘Unions and the New Management,’ Academy of ManagementExecutive, 1, 4, 293–300.

MacDuffie, J. (1995), ‘Human Resource Bundles and Manufacturing Performance: OrganizationalLogic and Flexible Production Systems in the World Auto Industry,’ Industrial and LaborRelations Review, 48, 2, 197–221.

May, R., Walsh, P., and Otto, C. (2004), ‘Unions and Union Membership in New Zealand: AnnualReview for 2003,’ New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 29, 3, 83–96.

Mowday, R., Steers, R., and Porter, L. (1979), ‘The Measurement of Organizational Commitment,’Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224–247.

Muller, M. (1999), ‘Unitarism, Pluralism, and Human Resource Management in Germany,’Management International Review, Special Issue 3, 125–144.

New Zealand Business Who’s Who (2004), (45th Edition), New Zealand: New Zealand FinancialPress Limited.

Nichols, T., and Armstrong, P. (1976), Workers Divided, London: Fontana.Osterman, P. (1994), ‘How Common is Workplace Transformation and Who Adopts it?,’ Industrial

and Labor Relations Review, 47, 531–544.Purcell, J. (1993), ‘The Challenge of Human Resource Management for Industrial Relations

Research and Practice,’ International Journal of Human Resource Management, 4, 3, 511–527.Ramsey, H. (1975), ‘Firms and Football Teams,’ British Journal of Industrial Relations, 13, 3,

359–400.Rankin, T. (1990), New Forms of Work Organization: The Challenge to North American Unions,

Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Singh, V., and Vinnicombe, S. (1998), ‘What Does “Commitment” Really Mean?: Views of UK and

Swedish Engineering Managers,’ Personnel Review, 29, 2, 228–258.Sisson, K. (1993), ‘In Search of HRM,’ British Journal of Industrial Relations, 31, 2, 201–210.Storey, J. (1992), Developments in the Management of Human Resources, Oxford: Blackwell.Strauss, G. (2001), ‘HRM in the USA: Correcting Some British Impressions,’ International Journal

of Human Resource Management, 12, 6, 873–897.Swailes, S. (2004), ‘Commitment to Change: Profiles of Commitment and In-role Performance,’

Personnel Review, 33, 2, 187–204.Taft, P. (1954), ‘Ideologies and Industrial Conflict,’ in Industrial Conflict, eds. A. Kornhauser,

R. Dubin and A. Ross, New York: McGraw Hill, pp. 257–265.

A. Geare et al.1170

Tsui, A. (1984), ‘Personnel Department Effectiveness: A Tripartite Approach,’ Industrial Relations,23, 2, 184–197.

Tsui, A., and Milkovich, G. (1987), ‘Personnel Department Activities: Constituency Perspectivesand Preferences,’ Personnel Psychology, 40, 519–537.

Ulrich, D. (1987), ‘Strategic Human Resource Planning: Why and How?,’ Human ResourcePlanning, 10, 1, 37–56.

van den Broek, D. (2003), ‘Recruitment Strategies and Union Exclusion in Two Australian CallCentres,’ Industrial Relations, 58, 3, 515–535.

Walton, R. (1985), ‘From Control to Commitment in the Workplace,’ Harvard Business Review, 63,2, 77–84.

Walton, R., and Lawrence, P. (eds.) (1985), HRM Trends & Challenges, Boston, MA: HarvardBusiness School Press.

Wells, D. (1993), ‘Are Strong Unions Compatible with the New Model of Human ResourceManagement?,’ Relations Industrielles, 48, 1, 56–85.

Wood, S. (1995), ‘The Four Pillars of HRM: Are they Connected?,’ Human Resource ManagementJournal, 5, 5, 49–58.

Zinn, J., Zalokowski, A., and Hunter, L. (2001), ‘Identifying Indicators of Laboratory ManagementPerformance: A Multiple Constituency Approach,’ Health Care Management Review, 26, 1,40–53.


workplace values and beliefs: an empirical study of … values and beliefs: an empirical study of...

Documents