workplace values and beliefs
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/13/2019 Workplace Values and Beliefs
1/27
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
This article was downloaded by: [Swets Content Distribution]
On: 8 June 2010
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 912280237]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The International Journal of Human Resource ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713702518
Workplace values and beliefs: an empirical study of ideology highcommitment management and unionisationAlan Gearea; Fiona Edgara; Ian McAndrewaaDepartment of Management, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
To cite this ArticleGeare, Alan , Edgar, Fiona and McAndrew, Ian(2009) 'Workplace values and beliefs: an empirical studyof ideology, high commitment management and unionisation', The International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, 20: 5, 1146 1171
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09585190902850331URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585190902850331
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713702518http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585190902850331http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585190902850331http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713702518 -
8/13/2019 Workplace Values and Beliefs
2/27
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 when
considering society as a whole, but their workplace ideology is somewhat unitarist.A modest union impact on workers perspectives is found, but little evidence to suggestunions 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 towhich 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, 11461171
-
8/13/2019 Workplace Values and Beliefs
3/27
and quality circles (Edwards 1995)) that aim to promote organizational commitmentamong 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 thework 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
-
8/13/2019 Workplace Values and Beliefs
4/27
With HCM, the assumption of the unitary ideology being paramount is even morepronounced. The efficacy of HCM appears to be contingent upon employment relationships
eitherbeingunitary from the outset, or being made soby 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 thetheoretical
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,
OReilly 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. Geareet al.1148
-
8/13/2019 Workplace Values and Beliefs
5/27
ideologues, with most having a mix of unitarist and pluralist inclinations, it is predictedmanagers 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 changesmay 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-basedHRM 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
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1149
-
8/13/2019 Workplace Values and Beliefs
6/27
generally showed contrary to conventional wisdom a relationship between positiveemployment 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
labourmanagement 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
commitmentof 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 individuals identification with and involvement in a particularorganization ... In particular, commitment is characterized by three factors: a strong belief inand an acceptance of the organizations 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. Geareet al.1150
-
8/13/2019 Workplace Values and Beliefs
7/27
(Guest 1997). This positive influence on attitudes and behaviours is seen to be linked toimprovements 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, respondents 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 empiricalvalues 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 Pluralist;
1 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 Pluralist; 34 Pluralist/Unitarist; and 5 7 Unitarist.
Two statements aimed at providing a broader picture of employment relationshipswere 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 very poor and 5 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 .895) were included (some statements contained two parts). Using a five-
point Likert scale (1 strongly disagree; 5 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
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1151
-
8/13/2019 Workplace Values and Beliefs
8/27
indicate the extent they believed congruence existed between organization and employeegoals in their organization.
Organizational commitment was measured using three statements (a 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 strongly
disagree; 5 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 most important and 5 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 Zealands 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 managersand 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 organizations 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. Geareet al.1152
-
8/13/2019 Workplace Values and Beliefs
9/27
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 viewof 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 788)%Workers
(n 424)% Length of ServiceManagers
(n 788)%Workers
(n 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 work 21 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 13
Samoan 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.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1153
-
8/13/2019 Workplace Values and Beliefs
10/27
Table2a.Correlations:societya
ndworkplaceideologicalorientationbyg
roupa.
SOCIETY
WORKPLACE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1.Workersingeneralseethemselvesasbeing:
(a)Anintegralpartoftheorganizationinwhichtheywork(U)
MANAGERS
0.353**
(b)Membersofagroupwithinth
eorganizationinwhichtheywork(P)WORKERS
0.340**
2.Workersinterestsingeneralare
:
(a)Lookedafteradequatelyby
management(U)
MANAGERS
0.385**
(b)Lookedafteradequatelyby
theirunion/lawyer(P)
WORKERS
0.554**
3.Theprincipalobjectivesandinte
restsofmanagementandworkersare:
(a)Moreorlesssimilar(U)
MANAGERS
0.355**
(b)Similarinsomeareas,butareverydifferentinothers(P)
WORKERS
0.314**
4.Unionsingeneral:
(a)Arealiabilityastheyintrod
ucedistrustintothework
environment(U)
MANAGERS
0.624**
(b)Areanassetastheyprotect
theinterestsofworkers(P)
WORKERS
0.692**
5.Intheaverageorganization:
(a)Managementandworkersw
orktogetherasateam(U)
MANAGERS
0.354**
(b)Managementandworkerssometimesworkasateam,sometimes
areinconflict(P)
WORKERS
0.394**
6.Collectivebargaining:
(a)Doesnotwinanythingforw
orkerstheywouldnothavegotfrom
managementanyway(U)
MANAGERS
0.557**
(b)Isprobablythebestmeanso
fsettlingdifferencesbetweenvarious
groups(P)
WORKERS
0.562**
7.Themajorcausesofconflictin
theworkplace(e.g.strikes,etc.)is
(are):
(a)Basicallypoorcommunicationortrouble-makers(U)
MANAGERS
0.490**
(b)Thefactthatdifferentgroup
shavedifferentobjectiveswhich
sometimesclash(P)
WORKERS
0.518
Notes:aSamplesize:Managerialdata
n
788andWorkerdatan
424;
bItemswererewordedtoreflectaviewoftherespondentscurrentworkplace;cContextualvariables
controlled:Age,GenderandEthnicity;**p,
0.001*p,
0.05.
A. Geareet al.1154
-
8/13/2019 Workplace Values and Beliefs
11/27
Table2b.Ideologicalorientation
societyandworkplacea.
SocietalL
evel
Mean
WorkplaceLevel
b
Mean
t-test
Statement
MGR%W
KR%
MGR
WKR
MGR%
WKR%
MGR
WKR
SOCIETY
WORKPLACE
1.Workersingeneralseethemselv
esasbeing:
(a)Anintegralpartoftheorganizationinwhichtheywork(U)62
46
.62
.46
73
56
.73
.56
5.342**
6.142**
(b)Membersofagroupwithintheorganizationinwhichthey
work(P)
38
54
27
44
2.Workersinterestsingeneralare:
(a)Lookedafteradequatelybym
anagement(U)
92
75
.92
.75
97
82
.97
.82
8.359**
8.728**
(b)Lookedafteradequatelybytheirunion/lawyer(P)
8
25
3
18
3.Theprincipalobjectivesandinterestsofmanagementand
workersare:
(a)Moreorlesssimilar(U)
36
27
64
46
.64
.46
3.261**
6.189**
(b)Similarinsomeareas,butar
everydifferentinothers(P)
64
73
.36
.27
36
54
4.Unionsingeneral:
(a)Arealiabilityastheyintroducedistrustintothework
environment(U)
56
32
.56
.32
65
39
.65
.39
7.999**
8.287**
(b)Areanassetastheyprotecttheinterestsofworkers(P)
44
68
35
61
5.Intheaverageorganization:
(a)Managementandworkersworktogetherasateam(U)
45
31
.45
.31
72
49
.72
.49
4.850**
8.067**
(b)Managementandworkerssometimesworkasateam,
sometimesareinconflict(P)
55
69
28
51
6.Collectivebargaining:
(a)Doesnotwinanythingforwo
rkerstheywouldnothavegot
frommanagementanyway(U
)
43
25
.43
.25
64
35
.64
.35
6.304**
9.704**
(b)Isprobablythebestmeansofsettlingdifferencesbetween
variousgroups(P)
57
75
36
65
7.Themajorcausesofconflictinth
eworkplace(e.g.strikes,etc)
is(are):
(a)Basicallypoorcommunicatio
nortrouble-makers(U)
45
38
.44
.38
59
47
.59
.47
2.245**
3.903**
(b)Thefactthatdifferentgroupshavedifferent
objectiveswhichsometimesclash(P)
55
62
41
53
Notes:aSamplesize:Managerialdatan
788andWorkerdatan
424;bItemswererewordedtoreflectaviewoftherespondents
currentworkplace;**p,
.001.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1155
-
8/13/2019 Workplace Values and Beliefs
12/27
unitary than do the worker group. The worker sub-sample is more inclined overall tohave 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 (X2 0.657, p , .720), it does have an impact at the
workplace level (X2 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 very poor and 5 very good; M 3.14, SD 0.613). This view was shared by
the worker sub-sample (80% giving a rating of 3 or less; (M 3.02, SD 0.688). The chi-
square shows no statistically significant difference between the views of these two groups
about employment relations at the societal level (X2 5.861, p .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 theemployment relationship in their own organization to be either good or very good
(a rating of 4 or 5 on the Likert Scale; M 4.19, SD 0.810). In the worker group 70%
(M 3.84, SD 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 (X2 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 (X2 265.651,
p , .000), with perceived high usage of HCM (X2 218.458,p , .000), and with high
levels of organizational commitment (X2 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. Geareet al.1156
-
8/13/2019 Workplace Values and Beliefs
13/27
Table3.Collapsedideologicalo
rientation.
LevelofAbstraction
Mean
Differenceinmanagerand
workermeansat-testandsig.
Unitarist(57unitarist
responses)%
Mixed(34unitarist
responses)%
Pluralist(02unitarist
responses)%
Managerialsample
Society(n
759)
3.77
36
37
27
Workplace(n
764)
(SD1
.756)
4.89(SD
1.620)
61
30
9
Workersample
Society(n
405)
2.73
9.522**
17
33
50
Workplace(n
424)
(SD1
.771)
3.45(SD
1.928)
12.864**
30
35
35
Notes:aDifferencesinnreflectmissin
gdataforaparticularstatement(s);**p,
.001
.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1157
-
8/13/2019 Workplace Values and Beliefs
14/27
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 (X2 19.234,
p , .001) and worker (X2 20.899, p , .001) sub-samples. A pluralist view of
employment relations in ones own workplace was also significantly related to past union
affiliation for the worker sub-sample (X
2
17.498,p,
.001), but not for the managers.
Table 4a. Managerial views at societal level of abstraction and previous union membership.
Strong
unitarist%
Unitarist/
pluralist%
Strong
pluralist% Chi-square
Yes, previously belong to a union (n 313) 30 35 35No, never belonged to a union (n 443) 40 39 21 19.234**
Notes: **p , .001.
Table 4b. Managerial viewsa at workplace level of abstraction and previous union membership.
Strong
unitarist%
Unitarist/
pluralist%
Strong
pluralist% Chi-square
Yes, previously belong to a union (n 280) 57 31 12No, never belonged to a union (n 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.
Strong
unitarist%
Unitarist/
pluralist%
Strong
pluralist% Chi-square
Yes, previously belong to a union (n 205) 12 27 61
No, never belonged to a union (n
199) 23 38 39 20.899**
Note:**p , .001.
Table 4d. Worker viewsa at workplace level of abstraction and previous union membership.
Strong
unitarist%
Unitarist/
pluralist%
Strong
pluralist% Chi-square
Yes, previously belong to a union (n 186) 25 30 45No, never belonged to a union (n 180) 36 40 24 17.498**
Note: aDifference in n reflects missing data for these particular statement(s) across the different levels ofabstraction; **p , .001.
A. Geareet al.1158
-
8/13/2019 Workplace Values and Beliefs
15/27
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 (X2 28.995, p , .001) and at the workplace level
(X2 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 HCMResearch 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 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%
Unitarist/pluralist%
Strongpluralist% Chi-square
Yes, currently belong to a union (n 66) 1 20 79No, do not belong to a union (n 336) 21 35 44 28.995**
Note:**p , .001.
Table 5b. Worker viewsa at societal level of abstraction and current union membership.
Strongunitarist%
Unitarist/pluralist%
Strongpluralist% Chi-square
Yes, currently belong to a union (n
64) 5 22 73No, do not belong to a union (n 299) 37 38 25 55.254**
Notes: a
The differences in n reflects missing data for these particular statement(s) across the different levels ofabstraction; **p , .001.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1159
-
8/13/2019 Workplace Values and Beliefs
16/27
Table6.RelationshipbetweenstrengthofadoptedHCMpracticea
andideologicalorientationb(n
1042).
HCMMeant-test
StdDev.
Relationship
withideological
orientation
workplace
StatementsonHRMpractice
MGR
WKR
t-test
MGR
WKR
MGR
WKR
1.Ahighvalueisplacedontraininganddevelopmentfor:
(a)managerialstaff
3.50
3.02
5.818*
*
1.142
1.655
.150**
.142**
(b)non-managerialstaff
3.61
3.26
4.960*
*
1.112
1.285
.154**
.204**
2.Commitmentisencouragedby
havinghumanresourcemanagementpractices
thathelpstaffachievepersonalgoalsaswellasorganizationalgoals:
(a)managerialstaff
3.33
2.70
7.575*
*
1.155
1.719
.194**
.171**
(b)non-managerialstaff
3.27
2.90
4.807*
*
1.179
1.382
.245**
.235**
3.Promotionalprospectsareclearlydefinedanddevelopedfor:
(a)managerialstaff
2.91
2.35
6.473*
*
1.211
1.747
.107**
.080
(b)non-managerialstaff
2.98
2.61
4.822*
*
1.191
1.352
.166**
.069
4.Aperformanceappraisalofstaffmemberperformanceisundertakenoneither
anannualorbi-annualbasisin
thisorganizationfor:
(a)managerialstaff
3.73
2.69
10.022*
*
1.470
2.100
.094*
.198**
(b)non-managerialstaff
3.78
3.43
3.756*
*
1.415
1.645
.155**
.175**
5.Thepredominantsystemoforg
anisingworkinthisorganizationisteam-w
orking
3.91
3.66
3.696*
*
1.035
1.209
.223**
.165**
6.Regularmeetingsofqualitycircles(i.e.smallgroupsofworkers,supervis
orsand
managementwhomeettodiscussthequalityofaproductand/orservice)
areheld
inthisorganization
3.48
3.50
2
0.339
1.285
1.462
.095*
.156**
7.Jobdesignissuchthatskillsandabilitiesofstaffmembersareusedtofullestextent
3.61
3.17
6.744*
*
0.982
1.228
.192**
.273**
8.Staffmembersinthisorganizationareencouragedtotakeresponsibilityforthe
qualityoftheirownwork
4.30
4.09
4.000*
*
0.785
1.033
.300**
.191**
9.Plannedteambriefingsessions
areregularlyheldforthestaffmembersin
this
organization
3.59
3.42
2.150*
1.226
1.416
.146**
.155**
10.Jobdescriptionsinthisorganiz
ationareflexibleanddonotrestrictwork/duties
toaseriesofspecifictasks
4.07
3.69
3.960*
*
0.947
2.328
.192**
.294**
A. Geareet al.1160
-
8/13/2019 Workplace Values and Beliefs
17/27
Table6continued
HCMMeant-test
StdDev.
Relationship
withideological
orientation
workplace
StatementsonHRMpractice
MGR
WKR
t-test
MGR
WKR
MGR
WKR
11.Managerialstaffmembersareencouragedtoparticipateinworkplacedecisions
thatmayaffectthem
4.18
3.04
14.566
0.892
1.839
.263**
.283**
12.Non-managerialstaffmembers
areencouragedtoparticipatein
workplacedecisionsthatmaya
ffectthem
3.67
3.13
7.418*
*
1.115
1.394
.274**
.300**
13.Thisorganizationprotectsthesecurityofitscoreworkforceby
employingtemporarystaffmem
bersonlywhenabsolutelynecessary
4.04
3.20
10.249*
*
1.169
1.649
.127**
.096
14.Thisorganizationhasuniform(standard)termsandconditionsof
employmentforallitsstaffme
mbers
4.13
3.30
10.284*
*
1.136
1.673
.140**
.107*
15.Inthisorganization,staffmemberssharetheoverallgoalsof
managementandwillinglywor
ktowardsachievementofthesegoals
3.80
3.35
7.220*
*
0.904
1.219
.364**
.365**
TotalstrengthofHCMpractice
69.89
59.92
11.467*
*
12.28
16.29
.296**
.326**
Notes:aScale:1
Stronglydisagreea
nd5
Stronglyagree;
bScale:1
pluralist(02unitaristresponses),2
unitarist/pluralist(34unitaristresponses)and3
unitarist(57
unitaristresponses);*p,
.05**p,.001.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1161
-
8/13/2019 Workplace Values and Beliefs
18/27
Table7.RelationshipbetweenperceivedstrengthofHCMpracticeandlevelsoforganizationalcommitmenta(n
1214).
Inearlyalwaysagreewith
thisorganizationspolicieson
importantmattersrelatingto
itsemployees
Myworkenvironmentallows
metocontributetomyfull
potentia
l
Iintendtostayw
orkingfor
thisorganizationforalong
time
Meanaggregatetotal
(3items)
STATEMENTSONHCMPRACTIC
E
M(M
4.08)W(M
3.53)M(M
4.09)W(M
3.53)M(M
4.02)W(M
3.56)M(M
4.06)W(M
3.54)
1.Ahighvalueisplacedontraininganddevelopmentfor:
(a)managerialstaff
.257**
.155**
.266**
.127*
.174**
.095
.278**
.144**
(b)non-managerialstaff
.280**
.347**
.313**
.396**
.266**
.304**
.345**
.421**
2.Commitmentisencouragedbyh
avinghumanresourcemanagementpracticesthathelpstaffachievepersonalgoalsaswellasorganizationalgoals:
(a)managerialstaff
.228**
.213**
.244**
.155**
.157**
.132**
.250**
.190**
(b)non-managerialstaff
.256**
.363**
.284**
.403**
.187**
.284**
.290**
.412**
3.Promotionalprospectsareclearlydefinedanddevelopedfor:
(a)managerialstaff
.209**
.157**
.240**
.116*
.182**
.092
.254**
.143**
(b)non-managerialstaff
.194**
.250**
.212**
.399**
.193**
.237**
.242**
.362**
4.Aperformanceappraisalofstaffmemberperformanceisundertakenoneitheranannualorbi-annualbasisinthisorg
anizationfor:
(a)managerialstaff
.067
.166**
.147**
.098*
.053
.041
.108**
.109*
(b)non-managerialstaff
.090*
.192**
.128**
.256**
.070
.180**
.114**
.257**
5.Thepredominantsystemof
organizingworkinthisorganiz-
ationisteam-working
.297**
.270**
.286**
.310**
.261**
.274**
.339**
.347**
6.Regularmeetingsofqualitycircles
(i.e.smallgroupsofworkers,
supervisorsandmanagementwh
o
meettodiscussthequalityofa
productand/orservice)areheldin
thisorganization
.157**
.214**
.155**
.193**
.141**
.168**
.180**
.230**
7.Jobdesignissuchthatskillsand
abilitiesofstaffmembersareused
tofullestextent
.337**
.407**
.405**
.539**
.346**
.389**
.440**
.539**
A. Geareet al.1162
-
8/13/2019 Workplace Values and Beliefs
19/27
Table7continued
Inearlyalwaysagreewith
thisorganizationspolicieson
importantmattersrelatingto
itsemployees
Myworkenvironmentallows
metocontributetomyfull
potentia
l
Iintendtostayw
orkingfor
thisorganizationforalong
time
Meanaggregatetotal
(3items)
STATEMENTSONHCMPRACTIC
E
M(M
4.08)W(M
3.53)M(M
4.09)W(M
3.53)M(M
4.02)W(M
3.56)M(M
4.06)W(M
3.54)
8.Staffmembersinthisorganiz-
ationareencouragedtotake
responsibilityforthequalityof
theirownwork
.401**
.300**
.376**
.366**
.338**
.285**
.446**
.387**
9.Plannedteambriefingsessions
areregularlyheldforthestaff
membersinthisorganization
.111**
.235**
.154**
.246**
.151**
.128**
.168**
.236**
10.Jobdescriptionsinthisorganiz
-
ationareflexibleanddonot
restrictwork/dutiestoaseriesof
specifictasks
.245**
.185**
.272**
.248**
.223**
.182**
.298**
.249**
11.Managerialstaffmembersare
encouragedtoparticipatein
workplacedecisionsthatmay
affectthem
.415**
.259**
.352**
.231**
.329**
.115*
.434**
.231**
12.Non-managerialstaffmembers
areencouragedtoparticipatein
workplacedecisionsthatmay
affectthem
.354**
.343**
.301**
.429**
.273**
.276**
.369**
.420**
13.Thisorganizationprotectsthe
securityofitscoreworkforceb
y
employingtemporarystaff
membersonlywhenabsolutely
necessary
.179**
.101*
.195**
.096
.213**
.137**
.238**
.135**
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1163
-
8/13/2019 Workplace Values and Beliefs
20/27
Table7continued
Inearlyalwaysagreewith
thisorganizationspolicieson
importantmattersrelatingto
itsemployees
Myworkenvironmentallows
metocontributetomyfull
potentia
l
Iintendtostayw
orkingfor
thisorganizationforalong
time
Meanaggregatetotal
(3items)
STATEMENTSONHCMPRACTIC
E
M(M
4.08)W(M
3.53)M(M
4.09)W(M
3.53)M(M
4.02)W(M
3.56)M(M
4.06)W(M
3.54)
14.Thisorganizationhasuniform
(standard)termsandconditions
ofemploymentforallitsstaff
members
.156**
.115*
.149**
.160**
.189**
.088
.201**
.145**
15.Inthisorganization,staff
memberssharetheoverallgoals
ofmanagementandwillingly
worktowardsachievementof
thesegoals
.377**
.389**
.355**
.399**
.328**
.344**
.423**
.453**
TOTALSTRENGTHOFHCM
PRACTICE
.377**
.387**
.414**
.442**
.334**
.298**
.453**
.451**
Notes:aScales(both):1
Stronglydisagreeand5
StronglyagreeM
Manager
s(n
788)andW
Workers(n
424);*p
,
.05**p,
.001
A. Geareet al.1164
-
8/13/2019 Workplace Values and Beliefs
21/27
Table8.T-testofmeanrankeda
levelofcommitmentinrelationtoorganization/work-relatedcharacteristics.
Characteristicmostcommittedto:
Managergroup
(n
794)
Worker
grouptotal
(n41
4)1
Workergroupcurrent
unionmembers(n
68)
Workergroupnotunion
members(n
346)2
Organization
1.77(SD
1.02)
2.51(S
D
1.19)**
3.06(SD
1.39)
2.40(SD
1.12)**
Union
4.78(SD
0.86)
4.48(S
D
1.15)**
3.48(SD
1.14)
4.69(SD
0.94)**
Workgroup
2.89(SD
1.01)
2.55(S
D
1.11)**
2.60(SD
1.19)
2.54(SD
1.08)
Trade/occupation
2.97(SD
1.07)
2.76(S
D
1.17)*
2.47(SD
1.35)
2.81(SD
1.12)*
Personalcareerdevelopment
2.17(SD
1.13)
2.04(S
D
1.20)
2.26(SD
1.36)
1.98(SD
1.16)
Notes:aRankscale1
Mostimpor
tantand5
Leastimportant;*p,
.05**p,
.001;
1Differencebetweenmeansformanager/workergroups;
2Differencebetweenmeansfor
workerswhoarecurrentunionmembe
rs/notcurrentunionmembers.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1165
-
8/13/2019 Workplace Values and Beliefs
22/27
correlated with levels of organizational commitment, and this relationship is statisticallysignificant 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 1.77), and then to their personal careers (M 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 2.04), and secondarily to their
employing organization (M 2.51). Workers also exhibit some commitment to their work
group (M 2.55) and their trade/occupation (M 2.76). Perhaps surprisingly, there is
little evident commitment from the sub-sample of workers to the unions (M 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 unitaristpluralist 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, thegap 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. Geareet al.1166
-
8/13/2019 Workplace Values and Beliefs
23/27
of professionals, is a significant factor most probably serving to reduce difference, notcreate 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 organizations 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 notdecipherable 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
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1167
-
8/13/2019 Workplace Values and Beliefs
24/27
it as a secondary commitment. There is not the data to make a definitive ruling on whichof 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 thecausal 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 thedifference 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. Geareet al.1168
-
8/13/2019 Workplace Values and Beliefs
25/27
Furthermore, this study highlights the value that can most certainly be obtainedwhen 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, 213238.Clark, T., Mabey, C., and Skinner, D. (1998), Experiencing HRM: The Importance of the Inside
Story, inExperiencing Human Resource Management, eds. C. Mabey, D. Skinner and T. Clark,London: Sage, pp. 113.
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, 226228.Cully, M., Woodland, S., OReilly, 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, 588609.Delaney, J., and Godard, J. (2001), An Industrial Relations Perspective on the High-performance
Paradigm,Human Resource Management Review, 11, 395429.
Delery, J. (1998), Issues of Fit in Strategic Human Resource Management: Implications forResearch,Human Resource Management Review, 8, 3, 289309.
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, 204220.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, 105109.Gallagher, D.G., and Strauss, G. (1991), Union Membership Attitudes and Participation,
inThe 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, 113146.
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, 2,113146.
Godard, J. (1997), Whither Strategic Choice: Do Managerial IR Ideologies Matter?, IndustrialRelations, 36, 2, 206228.
Goll, I. (1991), Environment, Corporate Ideology, and Involvement Programs, IndustrialRelations, 30, 138149.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1169
-
8/13/2019 Workplace Values and Beliefs
26/27
Guest, D. (1987), Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations, Journal of ManagementStudies, 24, 5, 503521.
Guest, D. (1997), Human Resource Management and Performance: A Review and ResearchAgenda, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8, 3, 263277.
Guest, D. (1998), Beyond HRM: Commitment and the Contract Culture, in Human Resource
Management: The New Agenda, eds. P. Sparrow and M. Marchington, London: I.T. Pitman,
pp. 3751.Guest, D. (1999), Human Resource Management The Workers Verdict, Human Resource
Management Journal, 9, 3, 5 25.Hart, T. (1993), Human Resource Management Time to Exorcize the Militant Tendency,
Employee Relations, 15, 3, 2937.Horwitz, F. (1991), HRM: An Ideological Perspective, International Journal of Manpower, 12, 6,
29.Ichniowski, C., Kochan, T., Levine, D., Olson, C., and Strauss, G. (1996), What Works at Work:
Overview and Assessment, Industrial Relations, 35, 3, 299333.
Iles, P., Mabey, C., and Robertson, I. (1990), HRM Practices and Employee Commitment: Pitfallsand Paradoxes, British Journal of Management, 1, 147157.
Keenoy, T. (1991), The Roots of Metaphor in the Old and New Industrial Relations, BritishJournal of Industrial Relations, 29, 2, 313328.
Keenoy, T. (1999), HRM as Hologram: A Polemic, The Journal of Management Studies, 36, 1,
119.Kerr, C. (1955), Industrial Relations and the Liberal Pluralist, in Proceedings of the Seventh
Annual Meeting of the IRRA, IRRA, Wisconsin, pp. 2 16.Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S., Purcell, J., Rayton, B., and Swart, J. (2005), Satisfaction with HR
Practices and Commitment to the Organisation: Why One Size Does Not Fit All, HumanResource Management Journal, 15, 4, 929.
Lawler, E., and Mohrman, S. (1987), Unions and the New Management, Academy of ManagementExecutive, 1, 4, 293300.
MacDuffie, J. (1995), Human Resource Bundles and Manufacturing Performance: OrganizationalLogic and Flexible Production Systems in the World Auto Industry, Industrial and Labor
Relations Review, 48, 2, 197221.May, R., Walsh, P., and Otto, C. (2004), Unions and Union Membership in New Zealand: Annual
Review for 2003, New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 29, 3, 8396.Mowday, R., Steers, R., and Porter, L. (1979), The Measurement of Organizational Commitment,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224247.Muller, M. (1999), Unitarism, Pluralism, and Human Resource Management in Germany,
Management International Review, Special Issue 3, 125144.New Zealand Business Whos Who (2004), (45th Edition), New Zealand: New Zealand Financial
Press 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, 531544.
Purcell, J. (1993), The Challenge of Human Resource Management for Industrial RelationsResearch and Practice,International Journal of Human Resource Management, 4, 3, 511527.
Ramsey, H. (1975), Firms and Football Teams, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 13, 3,
359400.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, 228258.Sisson, K. (1993), In Search of HRM, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 31, 2, 201210.Storey, J. (1992), Developments in the Management of Human Resources, Oxford: Blackwell.
Strauss, G. (2001), HRM in the USA: Correcting Some British Impressions, International Journalof Human Resource Management, 12, 6, 873897.
Swailes, S. (2004), Commitment to Change: Profiles of Commitment and In-role Performance,Personnel Review, 33, 2, 187204.
Taft, P. (1954), Ideologies and Industrial Conflict, in Industrial Conflict, eds. A. Kornhauser,R. Dubin and A. Ross, New York: McGraw Hill, pp. 257265.
A. Geareet al.1170
-
8/13/2019 Workplace Values and Beliefs
27/27
Tsui, A. (1984), Personnel Department Effectiveness: A Tripartite Approach, Industrial Relations,23, 2, 184197.
Tsui, A., and Milkovich, G. (1987), Personnel Department Activities: Constituency Perspectivesand Preferences, Personnel Psychology, 40, 519537.
Ulrich, D. (1987), Strategic Human Resource Planning: Why and How?, Human ResourcePlanning, 10, 1, 3756.
van den Broek, D. (2003), Recruitment Strategies and Union Exclusion in Two Australian CallCentres, Industrial Relations, 58, 3, 515535.
Walton, R. (1985), From Control to Commitment in the Workplace, Harvard Business Review, 63,2, 7784.
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, 5685.
Wood, S. (1995), The Four Pillars of HRM: Are they Connected?, Human Resource Management
Journal, 5, 5, 4958.Zinn, J., Zalokowski, A., and Hunter, L. (2001), Identifying Indicators of Laboratory Management
Performance: A Multiple Constituency Approach, Health Care Management Review, 26, 1,4053.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1171