The new workplace: change at work in Ireland

The new workplace: change at work inIreland

John F. Geary

Abstract This paper examines new forms of work organization in Ireland, theirincidence, shape and origins. Using data from a recently conducted national workplacesurvey it is timely on two counts: it provides for the � rst time reliable data on keydimensions of work reorganization. Previous research � ndings, which have relied oncompany listings for their sampling frames, have been of questionable statisticalprovenance. Second, from this more reliable statistical base, the paper seeks to questionthe popularly held contention that the radical shift in fortunes enjoyed by the Irisheconomy in recent years is, in no small measure, due to workplace innovation. Inaddition, the paper examines the factors associated with new work practices. Threevariables stand out as exercising particularly robust effects: establishments in ‘high-tech’sectors of the economy, � nancial services and competitive strategies that give emphasisto product and service customization. Finally, the paper attempts to locate patterns ofworkplace change in Ireland within the wider international literature.

Keywords Work organization, workplace transformation, teamworking, Ireland

Introduction

The issues of workplace change and new forms of work organization have beendominant themes in Irish industrial relations scholarship and commentary in recentyears. This debate has coincided with a signi� cant shift in the fortunes of the nationaleconomy. After failing for decades to narrow the income and performance gap betweenitself and richer countries, Ireland has, over the past � ve years, seen its economyoutgrow, by as much as three times, other European economies. It was quickly dubbedthe ‘Celtic Tiger’ and the contribution of four successive national wage agreementscame to be seen as having been critical in creating and sustaining the country’seconomic success. More recently, underpinning this economic turnaround, manycommentators now believe, has been the place of workplace innovation and workreorganization. The claim that workplace transformation is well advanced is nowwidely accepted, to the degree that Ireland is often seen to be ahead of other advancedindustrial economies in its adoption of � exible and team-based forms of workorganization (cf. Jacobsen, 1996; McCartney and Teague, 1997).

This paper takes issue with this optimistic account and, in contrast to many recentstudies, offers a less sanguine and more sober judgement of the extent of change in theworkplace. As well as contributing to national debates, the paper seeks to make acontribution to the international literature on work organization and employeeinvolvement. It seeks to do this in a number of ways. First, it adds to the relatively few

John F. Geary, Lecturer in Industrial Relations, Graduate School of Business, UniversityCollege, Dublin, Blackrock, Co. Dublin, Ireland.

Int. J. of Human Resource Management 10:5 October 1999 870–890

The International Journal of Human Resource ManagementISSN 0958-5192 print/ISSN 1466-4399 online © 1999 Taylor & Francis Ltd

surveys of work organization change. As Osterman (1994) points out, studies of workorganization and its determinants are rare. Since Osterman published his work, therehave been a number of studies, perhaps most notably the EPOC survey of directparticipation in ten European countries, which have contributed signi� cantly to ourunderstanding of employee involvement and work reorganization. Like the latter study,the present paper places considerable emphasis on how concepts of work organizationmight be operationalized for survey research. In this way, it provides an importantcontribution to the existing literature, much of which has relied on limited and narrowde� nitions of work reorganization. Second, the determinants of new forms of workorganization are identi� ed. Finally and brie� y, the paper addresses the issue of whetherthe incidence of innovation is best explained by the nature of markets and competitivepressures or by the in� uence of a country’s industrial relations regime.

The paper begins by examining a number of previous studies of work organizationchange in Ireland, pointing to their weaknesses and strengths. The main body of thepaper draws from two recently conducted surveys, the UCD workplace survey andthe EPOC survey, to examine the extent of work organization change and, taking theexample of teamworking, estimates a number of regression models in an attempt toexplain variations in the adoption of new work practices. The � nal section of the paperbrie� y compares Ireland with other countries and suggests some reasons for differencesin levels of diffusion.

The ‘Celtic Tiger’: accounting for the transition from bust to boom

Charles Sabel of Columbia University provides one of the most notable accounts ofworkplace innovation in Ireland in a recent OECD report (1996). In this Ireland ispresented as a country which has seen widespread experimentation with new forms ofwork organization, particularly around concepts of teamworking, employee empower-ment and job enrichment as well as other innovations in the broad area of humanresource management and production systems. Notwithstanding a cautious and coypresentation of his views, Sabel does, in the end, come down on the side of proclaimingthat change in the direction of new ‘decentralized production’ methods has beensigni� cant and substantial (1996: 29). Taking issue with the ‘of� cial view’ of Irisheconomic development and its ‘misleading account’ (1996: 24), Sabel claims thatIreland is well-advanced in adopting ‘decentralized and collaborative production’techniques.

Another optimistic account, which seeks to link the adoption of high-performancework organization strategies by Irish employers with the country’s improved economicperformance, is provided by McCartney and Teague. In this study the authors examinethe diffusion of so-called high-performance work organization (HPWO) practices (jobrotation, quality circles, total quality management and teamworking) in three sectors;food/drink/tobacco, electronics, and banking and � nance. A ‘relatively high overalladoption level’ is reported with the main precipitating factor being Irish � rms move outof low value added, cost-competitive commodity markets into more quality sensitiveexport niches (1997: 384). The authors then construct a table comparing the incidenceof HPWO practices in Ireland with � ndings from Osterman’s (1994) study, whichwould appear to suggest that workplace innovation, with the exception of teamworking,is more prevalent in Ireland than in the US. This is a bold intimation that rests on shakyempirical foundations.1 The claim that is most contestable is that workplace transforma-tion can be read from surface measurements of changes in work practices. This is awell-understood problem and has given rise to much criticism of Osterman’s research.

Geary: The new workplace: change at work in Ireland 871

The latter’s claim that a third of American workplaces have been ‘transformed’ isoverly reliant on the use of popular labels (like teamworking, quality circles, TQM andjob rotation) and where the meaning and signi� cance of such practices is likely to varya great deal from one organization to another. That is, to have teamworking or problem-solving groups says nothing about the level of autonomy or discretion enjoyed byemployees. Moreover, no attempt is made, in either Osterman’s or McCartney andTeague’s work to examine the persistence or coexistence of traditional work structureswith new work practices: without which we have no � rm basis to claim that innovationin work patterns is well advanced. In the circumstances, it would seem sensible toaccept the more circumspect conclusions of other commentators (cf. Ichniowski et al.,1996; Weinstein and Kochan, 1995) who have reviewed existing evidence of workplacechange in the US to argue that new practices are only partially diffused and that onlya ‘relatively small number of � rms can be unambiguously categorized as transformed’(Weinstein and Kochan, 1995: 23).

But perhaps the most pressing questions that need to be asked of McCartney andTeague’s research is in regard to their sample design and the extent to which this allowsfor generalization both to the sectors chosen for study and to the wider Irish economy.Although the authors inform us that their sample was strati� ed by age, size and sector,no information is provided as to how establishments were distributed within thesevarious classi� cations. Similarly, while the incidence of foreign-owned workplaces andindigenous establishments is reported, we are not informed as to their representative-ness. One might normally assume that such results would be reported as a matter ofcourse so that peers might be in a position to evaluate the researchers’ � ndings.Nonetheless we are asked to accept – in good faith – that the achieved sample isrepresentative.

Quite apart from these misgivings, there are some other areas of concern. First, thesectors chosen for analysis are those most commonly associated with innovation andadvanced forms of production and service delivery systems. Second, the focus onestablishments with � fty or more employees risks a double distortion: (a) the majorityof Irish workplaces are in size categories below this size threshold and (b) within oneof the sectors studied – banking and � nance – most branches, particularly outside largeurban areas, employ far fewer than � fty employees and would thus seem to fall outsidethe scope of the study. The statistical provenance of the study’s � ndings are thereforesuspect on two levels: there is the considerable risk that change will be over-estimatedand generalization beyond the sectors studied perilous; and even within the sectorschosen generalization is signi� cantly restricted. Third, there would also seem to be abias towards multinational companies. With at least 57 per cent of the sampledworkplaces being foreign-owned – we are not told if any of the indigenously ownedworkplaces is part of a multinational organization – we might reasonably expect thatthis additional skew would lead to a further distortion in the survey’s results, asinnovation in work organization policies is often more salient in multinationalcompanies. In sum, we are left in something of an interpretative quandary. McCartneyand Teague’s methodology is not only hampered by a number of weaknesses in sampledesign, but, in relying on surface measurements of practices which are notoriouslyvaried and ‘elastic’ in their meaning and without some form of further corroboration –either through the use of multiple respondents, the use of multiple measures of the sameconstruct or through the examination of the existence of traditional work practices – itis very dif� cult to accept uncritically their conclusion that ‘it is clear that the vastmajority of Irish � rms are experimenting with workplace reorganization’ (1997:396).

872 The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Other studies which have examined the incidence of new working practices are theCran� eld/University of Limerick (CUL) surveys (Gunnigle et al., 1994, 1997).2 Likethe other studies reviewed above, however, the CUL surveys share a number of failingswhich again compel us to exercise caution in any interpretation of their � ndings. First,the surveys were limited to companies with � fty or more employees.3 Second, noattempt was made either to stratify the sample (by size or sector) or to adjust the resultsby weighting factors so that the number of � rms in each size or sector band might bematched to their pro� le in the survey population.4 Thus, the accuracy of the estimatesis likely to be questionable and any meaningful comparison between small and largecompanies dif� cult to conduct. Third, the unit of analysis was the company and not theworkplace. Finally, the surveys were successful in achieving only modest response rates– 23 per cent in 1992 and 21.5 per cent in 1995. Their � ndings are, therefore, ofuncertain statistical generalizability.

The CUL surveys examined a number of broad areas in HRM and, of those, workorganization was least well covered. Only one speci� c question was asked: whether‘major change’ had been introduced in people’s jobs which made them ‘more speci� cor � exible’. The respondent was asked to reply in respect of four categories of staff –management, professional/technical, clerical and manual. The data reveal somesigni� cant changes in recent years with people’s work being made more � exible,especially among manual and clerical employees. Change was, however, found to beless apparent in Irish organizations than in foreign-owned enterprises and the absence ofchange was particularly marked among public-sector organizations (Gunnigle et al.,1997: 122–5).

The results of the 1995 survey do not provide a composite measure of the totalnumber of organizations that had or had not undertaken initiatives of this sort. Estimatesare provided in respect of only the four occupational categories. Data are howeveravailable from the � rst survey which found that 47 per cent of companies had notpursued any changes in work structures for any of the four categories of staff in thethree years preceding the survey. Only 15 per cent of companies had made jobs wideror more � exible for all categories of employee (Roche and Turner, 1996). Experimenta-tion with new work structures would thus seem to be con� ned to a relatively modestnumber of organizations. To add further support to this view, quality circles werepresent in little over a quarter of organizations surveyed in 1995 and in only 15 per centof cases had their use increased over the preceding three years (Gunnigle et al., 1997:212).

In a secondary analysis of CUL (1992), Roche and Turner (1996) examined thein� uence of a range of internal and external in� uences on the incidence of new formsof work organization, as well as other elements of HRM. Three indicators of changewere examined: whether jobs had been made more � exible, the presence of qualitycircles and the use of teambuilding training for managers. The latter was used as aproxy for the importance attached by an organization to teamworking. Exposure tointernational competition and the degree of priority given to integrating human resourcepolicy with business strategy were among the factors found to be associated with newforms of work organization. More unexpected perhaps was the absence of anyrelationship between the take-up of new work structures and the presence of tradeunions and whether a � rm operated in a ‘high-technology’ industry. As the authorspoint out, this might be due to factors such as the limited variability of productstrategies and manufacturing processes in Irish high-technology � rms and, second, thepredominance of routine fabrication in this sector. With employees concentrated in low-skilled positions and in the absence of a variety of occupations, it is likely, therefore,


that the structure of the internal labour market would be unable to support sophisticatedforms of work organization.

The UCD workplace survey

In order to obtain a more reliable account of the degree of workplace innovation inIreland it is necessary to turn to a more detailed and comprehensive survey of workorganization practices. For this the author draws from a recent survey conducted at theGraduate School of Business at University College Dublin. This is the largest surveyconducted to date of management practices in Ireland and the � rst to have examinedindustrial relations and HRM practices at the workplace level. In this respect it is quiteunlike other surveys, many of which have relied on ‘bootstrapped’ or ‘convenience’samples from company listings of uncertain statistical provenance. As such, the UCDsurvey provides the � rst complete analysis of developments at the workplace level inIreland and, in this respect, offers a singular opportunity to revisit claims of economicand workplace transformation.

The UCD survey,5 Irish Management Practice in the Changing Marketplace,examined a range of issues, including industrial relations, human resource managementand work organization, manufacturing/services management and buyer–supplier rela-tions. Administered as a postal survey, the study covered workplaces in all areas of theprivate sector, with the sole exception of the construction industry and also includedcommercial public (‘semi-state’) companies.

Workplaces in which separate managers were responsible for industrial relations/human resources and operations/services management received two questionnaires. Aquestionnaire covering industrial relations and HRM issues, and containing a set ofbasic questions on work organization, was sent to the designated human resource/industrial relations manager.6 Another questionnaire covering operations/services andincorporating more detailed questions on work organization was sent to the designatedproduction or operations manager. Workplaces where one manager was responsible forboth areas (and often other areas besides) received a composite but shorter version ofboth questionnaires.7

The results reported below on basic features of work organization are based on thecombined responses of human resource/industrial relations managers and managerswith a general brief covering human resource, operations and often other areas. Thiswill be referred to in the text and at the foot of relevant tables as the IR-HRM Survey,as most respondents were, in fact, IR-HRM specialists. Data on more detailed aspectsof work organization provided by production/operations specialists will also bepresented and text and tables will identify these data as deriving from the Production/Operations Management Survey.

The survey � eldwork was conducted between mid-1996 and mid-1997 and wasadministered by the Survey Unit of the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI),Dublin, in conjunction with the authors. As no reliable population list of Irishworkplaces existed, a two-stage sampling strategy was followed. Stage one involveddrawing a sample of enterprises from the enterprise population � le maintained by theESRI. The population for this stage comprised all enterprises in the sectors employingmore than twenty persons. Stage two involved inspecting the sample of enterprises todistinguish single and multi-establishment enterprises. For 39 per cent of � rms, theenterprise and the workplace were not synonymous. All multi-establishment enterprisesin the sample were then ‘decomposed’ into their constituent workplaces using a rangeof sources and business directories, and in many cases following detailed discussions


with managers in the enterprises concerned. The multi-site sample companies were thenre-sampled and the selected workplaces were added to the single-establishmentsample.

A disproportionate strati� ed probability sampling procedure was employed. As isstandard in workplace surveys like the UK and Australian workplace industrial relationssurveys, a proportionately higher number of larger enterprises were selected at stageone. The overall survey response rate was 36 per cent – very much higher than iscommon for postal surveys. The total effective samples of 450 workplaces, in the caseof the IR-HRM Survey, and 273 workplaces, in the case of the Production/OperationsManagement Survey were then re-weighted to restore the numbers of cases in each sizestratum to their proportions in the survey population. All the data analysis reported onhere was carried out in respect of the re-weighted samples. The resulting re-weightedsamples are well representative of workplaces in the survey population and provide areliable basis for statistical generalization (see Roche et al., 1998: Table 1.3; Geary,1998: Table A.1; full technical details of sample design, sample stages, response ratesand weighting factors are available on request from the author).

New forms of work organization

To compare the UCD � ndings with those of McCartney and Teague (1997) similaraspects of work organization were measured (e.g. TQM, quality circles and teamwork)as well as periodic or ad hoc task forces. The incidence of these practices is detailed inTable 1. The diffusion of TQM is surprisingly high and quite similar to the level foundby McCartney and Teague. But in respect of the other two innovations – teamwork andQCs – the difference between the two sets of � ndings is stark. Teamwork was found in59 per cent of workplaces in the UCD study, but in only 27.5 per cent of establishmentsin McCartney and Teague’s study. The difference in the distribution of quality circleswas in the opposite direction with a far greater incidence reported by McCartney andTeague than our survey. The incidence of ad hoc task forces is surprisinglywidespread.

Table 1 The incidence of new work organization and employee involvement practices

% of workplaces1

TQM2 71.1 (68.7)5

Teamwork3 59.0 (27.5)Quality circles 15.0 (44.1)Ad hoc task forces4 45.5

Source : IR/HRM SurveyNotesN (unweighted) 5 450; the data reported here are in respect of workplaces’ largestoccupational group.1 The percentages reported in this and all subsequent tables derive from the re-weighted

samples.2 The data on the TQM item are drawn from a question asked only of IR/HRM managers (N

unweighted 5 329).3 Teamwork was de� ned as instances where: employees work in formally designated teams,

where the group is responsible for managing working arrangements .4 Ad hoc task forces were de� ned as initiatives which involve employees in the resolution of

production or business problems through periodic/ad hoc task forces.5 McCartney and Teague’s (1997) results are in parentheses .


The depth and penetration of new forms of work organization

Thus far, the � ndings from the UCD survey con� rm that experimentation with newwork organization strategies in Ireland is impressive. But, while the data reported onabove is certainly useful in estimating the incidence of new work practices, it is limitedas an indicator of the depth and scope of change. For this we have to go beyond mereestimates of diffusion. To overcome this handicap some detailed questions about theform of teamworking in the production/operations management questionnaire wereasked. These data are reported in this section of the paper, as well as evidence from therecent EPOC8 study, which examined various elements of direct participation in tenEuropean countries. The incidence and depth of change in Ireland can therefore becompared with other European economies.

It was found that in the area of ‘consultative participation’, ‘temporary groups’, suchas project groups or task forces, were present in 36 per cent of � rms and ‘permanentgroups’ like quality circles were used in 28 per cent of enterprises in Ireland. Thiscompared with a ten-country average of 31 per cent and 30 per cent respectively.‘Delegative participation’ organized around team structures was found in 42 per cent ofIrish organizations. This is above the average score of 36 per cent in the study as awhole, with Ireland coming third behind Sweden (56 per cent) and The Netherlands (48per cent). From these estimates it would seem that direct participation is practised inabout a third of Irish workplaces.

When coverage is taken into account, that is whether the participation initiativeinvolved more than 50 per cent of the largest occupational group, the � gures for Irelandalso compare favourably with other European countries (the average ten-country scoreis given in brackets). They are: temporary group consultation 73 per cent (48 per cent);permanent group consultation 71 per cent (48 per cent) and group delegation (i.e.teamworking) 58 per cent (47 per cent). Where participation is practised in Ireland,then, well over half, and in some cases nearly two-thirds, of enterprises involve morethan half of the largest occupational group.

Taken on their own, these � ndings would suggest that new work practices are quitewidespread in Ireland, and compare favourably with most other countries. At this point– which is the point at which most previous Irish studies to date have stopped – thenotion of Irish exceptionality can at least be considered. But the conceit of Ireland as anexceptional instance is quickly revealed when one digs a little deeper through the data.First, data from the UCD Production/Operations Management Survey9 reveal thatemployers’ experimentation with teamworking is a relatively recent phenomenon, withonly 19 per cent of workplaces having introduced it three or more years ago. It can besafely assumed, then, that teamworking is � rmly embedded in only a � fth of Irishworkplaces; elsewhere, its introduction is too recent to make any � rm claims as to itsdurability or permanence.

Second, there is the issue of the level of discretion permitted to employees underthese new working arrangements. In workplaces using teams, respondents were askedwhether management or team members played the leading role in deciding on a rangeof issues. The results are listed in Table 2.

The organization of work One might normally associate the use of teamworkingwith managerial efforts to reorganize the structure of work and, as part of that, to grantemployees autonomy to manage work allocation, scheduling and pace. In respect of the� rst of these two items, less than half of the workplaces surveyed permitted teammembers to play the leading role, and in only 53 per cent of cases was control over pace


of work vested in team members. While it would seem that responsibility for theorganization of work has moved from management to teams in some workplaces, inthe majority of cases control continues to reside with management.

Quality management and continuous improvement Working in teams is often seento provide employees with a means for identifying problems and empowering them tomake suggestions and resolve dif� culties. The management of quality and thecontinuous improvement of work processes which was previously the preserve ofquality engineers or supervisors is now assumed by employees under these newarrangements. There is considerable evidence to show that teams have been givensigni� cant levels of autonomy in this � eld, particularly in regard to making suggestionsfor improving work processes (90 per cent) and responsibility for the quality of work(71 per cent). But the evidence would suggest that signi� cantly less discretion ispermitted to teams in dealing with problems which are shared by, or arise between, anumber of teams. In only a third of cases were employees said to be given control inthis area. Similarly, in only a third of workplaces did teams exercise a signi� cant sayin dealings with external customers. In sum, the evidence here would accord with thealready considerable evidence that teamworking places new demands on employees,particularly around managerial expectations that employees are required to use theirinitiative to resolve workplace problems and improve quality, but that such involvementis con� ned to the immediate work task in most instances.

The management of attendance and working time Arguably, this dimension ofteamworking and the items listed under the next head represent a critical litmus test ofthe level of autonomy management has been prepared to permit to employees. Where

Table 2 Levels of autonomy permitted to team members

% of workplaces whereteam members play theleading role

The organization of workAllocation of work 41Scheduling of work 47Pace of work 53

Quality management and continuous improvementDealing with customers and suppliers outside this establishment 33Addressing/resolving problems with other teams 36Responsibility for the quality of work 71Making suggestions for improving work processes 90

Management of attendance and working timeControl of absence/attendance 32Control of time keeping 51

Control of team boundaries and team compositionSelection of team members 15Selection of the team leader 24

Source : Production/Operations Management SurveyNoteN (unweighted) 5 273.


management are prepared to grant employees a say in de� ning and policing acceptablestandards of time keeping and attendance, this might be reasonably taken as asigni� cant departure from traditional practice. Of course, much of this resonates withnotions of ‘self-discipline’ or, perhaps its harsher side, peer surveillance. Interestingly,in over half of companies team members controlled the management of time keeping.Control of attendance rested with employees in about a third of workplaces. From thisevidence, the management of discipline around two key aspects of work – whether onecomes to work and at what time – is vested in work teams in a surprisingly high numberof workplaces.

Control of team boundaries and team composition In contrast to the level ofcontrol exercised by teams over time keeping and attendance, employees were givenvery little discretion over the selection of team members and team leaders. In these twoareas, control rested very � rmly with management. In only 15 per cent of cases wereemployees allowed to select team members, and in a little under a quarter of workplaceswere teams in a position to choose their own team leader.

Another � nding that merits attention is that teamworking was associated with areduction in the number of supervisors in 45 per cent of workplaces, an indicationperhaps that employees were acquiring tasks and responsibilities once performed bytheir immediate superiors. That 47 per cent of respondents reported that there was nosuch reduction does illustrate, though, that, in many Irish workplaces, teams operatealongside traditional hierarchical relations. The continued presence of supervisors andthe limited discretion permitted to team members in most instances would suggest thatconventional forms of supervisory in� uence and authority relations continue to persistin many organizations, even where teamworking has been introduced.

It would seem, then, that the ‘new workplace order’ contains many elements, someof which a priori might not have been expected, especially in regard to the managementof attendance and time keeping. Yet, alongside this, management would seem toexercise more control in areas like work organization where it might not have beenanticipated. Are such � ndings contradictory? Not entirely. Empowerment and controlare not self-contained categories, but this is to make a point familiar to most studentsof shop� oor employment relations: that is, employers have an interest in releasingemployees’ inventiveness and imagination as well as regulating them closely (cf.Cressey and MacInness, 1980; Edwards et al., 1997). It is not the case, then, thatanything like full autonomy is being granted or ceded to employees.

One of the most novel features of the EPOC survey was its attempt to measure theintensity of teamworking. Two indicators were used: the � rst was the ‘scope’ ofteamworking which measured the number of rights of employees to make decisions onhow they performed their work without reference to immediate management in areaslike scheduling and allocation of work. The second was the degree of autonomypermitted to employees to choose their own team members and to decide which issuesthe group might address. Where high levels of discretion are allowed to employees thisform of teamworking would approximate closely with what has often been referred toas ‘semi-autonomous work groups’. Of those Irish enterprises using teamworking only17 per cent were found to have a high level of intensity of group delegation; most (51per cent) had a medium level and a third had a low level of intensity.

In yet another attempt to distinguish between forms of teamworking the EPOC teammade a distinction between two forms: the � rst a ‘Scandinavian’ model, the other, a‘Toyota’ or lean production model. The former permits more autonomy to teammembers; team members come from a variety of skill groupings and there is


considerable emphasis on training. The latter, in contrast, places strict limits on teams’autonomy, and employees’ skills would be largely of a generalist or routine kind. Thisdistinction proved to be very illuminating in accounting for the different economiceffects of teamworking. Organizations which used teams which came close to theScandinavian model were considerably more likely to report improvements inorganizational performance, including reductions in costs and through-put times,improvements in quality and, most strikingly, in increases in total output. They werealso more likely to indicate a decrease in sickness and absenteeism levels andreductions in the number of employees and managers employed.

In Ireland, the more advanced Scandinavian model was a very rare occurrence. Only0.3 per cent of companies had adopted it, compared with a ten-country average of 1.4per cent and, not surprisingly, a high of 4.6 per cent in Sweden. It would seem then that,while teamworking is as widely diffused in Ireland as elsewhere in Europe, it ispredominantly of a form that comes close to the Toyota model.

In summary, then, the data reported in this section would demonstrate that theproportion of Irish workplaces experimenting with new work practices is impressiveand compares favourably with other countries. Nonetheless, when one probes behindthe distribution of practices, which have heretofore relied for their measurement on theuse of popular and highly ‘elastic’ labels, a signi� cantly different picture emerges. Withtheir more rigorous sampling designs and the construction of more sensitive andmultiple measures of workplace innovation, the UCD and EPOC surveys provide amore reliable and convincing picture of the form and depth of change. While change isevident it is of a form which is less radical and less fundamental than claimed byprevious studies. Indeed, if Ireland stands out, it is in a direction not identi� ed oranticipated by others: new work practices, particularly of an advanced form, are aminority practice.

The diffusion of teamworking: examining potential in� uences

In this section of the paper an explanation is provided as to why some workplaces havegone further in reorganizing work than others. The case of teamworking is again chosenfor examination. Three models are estimated using alternative dependent variables asmeasures of the extensiveness and depth of teamworking. A range of possible factorsidenti� ed in the international academic literature as being likely in� uences areexamined.

Markets and market competition It is commonly suggested in the literature that,when workplaces are exposed to international competition or when they seek to sellgoods or services in international markets, that they are more likely to adopt innovativework practices (e.g. Locke et al., 1995). The assumption is derived from twoconsiderations: � rst, the sheer intensity of competitive pressures forces organizations toseek out more ef� cient work practices; and, second, that operating in internationalmarkets exposes establishments to new ways of organizing work in a manner whichwould be unlikely if they con� ned themselves to producing goods solely for domesticmarkets. Similarly, in facing common competitive pressures, there may be a tendencyfor international � rms to learn from one another or from common models of ‘bestpractice’: a process referred to as ‘isomorphic mimicry’ (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983).We might, therefore, reasonably expect organizations which produce goods or servicesfor international markets or who encounter stiff international competition to be morelikely to use teamworking. On the other hand, the assumption that new competitive


pressures or a presence in international markets will necessarily encourage or forcemanagement to adopt new work structures may be overdrawn as the costs of suchinnovations are considerable (cf. Osterman, 1994). It could well be then that � rms needsome ‘space’ before they can dedicate suf� cient time and resources to experimentingwith introducing teamworking. Thus, as � rms’ competitive circumstances differ so, too,may their desire for innovation. The variables measuring the intensity of competitivepressures and whether an establishment operates in international markets are COM-PETITIVE INTENSITY and INTERNATIONAL MARKETS respectively.

Competitive strategy Closely related to the nature and location of competitivepressures is how an organization seeks to compete in the marketplace. Here it is oftenthought that where management produces standardized goods or services it is less likelyto use teamworking. Conversely, where management seeks to compete on the basis ofproducing customized goods and services the requirement to introduce work structureswhich permit employees more � exibility and autonomy to respond to the particularconcerns of customers may be compelling (cf. Piore and Sabel, 1984). This variable isnamed PRODUCT/SERVICE CUSTOMIZATION.

Green� eld sites The introduction of new work structures has often been associatedwith foreign-owned companies establishing operations on ‘green� eld’ sites (Locke etal., 1995; Sisson, 1995). The task of transforming work structures in older ‘brown� eld’sites with more deeply embedded organizational cultures and industrial relationsprocesses would seem to be signi� cantly more problematic. Innovations are pursuedmore often than not in an incremental fashion and very often when the need for changehas become incontrovertible. In contrast, a ‘green� eld’ site provides management witha signi� cant window of opportunity to contemplate, design and successfully introducenew forms of work organization. The variable name here is GREENFIELD SITE.

Nationality Foreign-owned enterprises are often thought to be in the vanguard ofexperimentation with new work structures (Gunnigle et al., 1997). These � rms, it isoften alleged, have the resources and expertise to implement teamworking. In contrast,Irish indigenous companies are less likely to be endowed with the necessary expertiseand resources to reorganize work. This variable is named NATIONALITY.

Technology and the nature of the labour process A priori, one would expect ‘high-tech’ companies to be more likely to introduce innovative work practices. Wheretechnologies and production processes are conventional in design and layout one mightanticipate a traditionally con� gured labour process where tasks are fragmented andemployees enjoy little discretion. The requirement to introduce work organizationpractices designed to win over employees’ active commitment and � exibility maytherefore be less compelling. Certainly there is evidence to suggest that, in labourintensive industries, where work is organized around an assembly line or is relativelyroutine, it is often dif� cult for concepts of empowerment to take root (Edwards et al.,1997). The in� uence of these factors is measured in two ways: � rst, the variable HIGH-TECH measures whether high-tech � rms are more likely to use teamworking and thedummy variable SKILL takes the value of ‘1’ where the largest occupational group iscomprised of managerial, higher administrative or skilled employees.

Sector Notwithstanding the common association between concepts of employeeempowerment and new production concepts and manufacturing methodologies (e.g.


TQM and lean production), one might also expect teamworking to be associated withthe services sector and, in particular, where employees come in close contact withcustomers. Much research to date, however, on new forms of work organization hasbeen sector blind (Edwards et al., 1997). Teamwork, for example, has long beenpractised in the services sector without attracting the attention and, indeed, the labelsassociated with similar practices in manufacturing. These effects are investigatedthrough two variables: SERVICES and FINANCIAL SERVICES. The inclusion of the� nancial services sector might prove to be particularly instructive, as perhaps uniquelyit combines many of the in� uences associated with innovation in the workplace. Takethe example of retail banking. It has encountered intensi� ed competition, in many casesfrom overseas competitors and other entrants to the marketplace (e.g. building societiesare now permitted to provide a wide range of banking services); new technologies andmanagement information systems have been introduced and there have been increasingdemands from customers for a better and more personal service. In response Irish bankshave moved to develop new product offerings and delivery strategies with the formationof so-called ‘sales-units’ at branch level. One might assume, therefore, that theconditions for the introduction of teamworking are ripe in this sector of theeconomy.

Union organization It is dif� cult to predict a priori the possible in� uence exerted bythe presence of a trade union. Certainly, evidence from the UK would suggest thattechnological and organizational change as well as innovations in the wider domain ofHRM have not been inhibited by the presence of trade unions (Daniel, 1987; Sisson,1993; Wood and de Menezes, 1998). On the other hand, one might expect managementin non-union workplaces to introduce ‘replacement’ or ‘substitute’ voice mechanisms inthe absence of independent representation. Teamwork might be seen to provide justsuch an alternative. Certainly, anecdotal evidence would suggest that non-unioncompanies, particularly in the electronics sector, are at the forefront in introducing newemployee involvement practices. The presence and direction of a union effect,therefore, remains to be examined. The variable name is UNION.

Workplace size Workplace size is also likely to be an important determinant of thepresence of teamworking, but whether large or small workplaces are more likely toexercise a greater in� uence is dif� cult to predict. Small workplaces might be conduciveto the formation of so-called ‘natural work groups’, whereas larger workplaces may betoo ‘structured’ to allow an easy experimentation with teams. But whatever thedirection of the effect, it would be surprising not to � nd any effect given that much ofprevious research has found size to be an important determinant of industrial relationsand human resource practices (cf. Marginson, 1998: 368; Osterman, 1994). Thisvariable is named WORKFORCE SIZE.

Table 3 contains details in respect of the independent variables’ construction andmean values.

Analysis of results

Using different de� nitions or aspects of teamworking three regression models wereestimated. The results for each are reported in turn. The � rst column (Model 1) in Table4 refers to the presence of teamworking; the second (Model 2), the intensiveness


Table 3 Variable names, de� nitions, means and standard deviations (SD)

Variable name De� nition Mean S.D.

Financialservices

1 5 workplaces in the � nancialservices sector; otherwise 5 0.

.161 .368

Product/servicecustomization

1 5 50% or more of aworkplace’s products/serviceswere totally or partiallycustomized; otherwise 5 0.

.536 .499

High-tech 1 5 workplaces in high-techindustries; otherwise 5 0.

.116 .321

Services 1 5 service sectorestablishments; otherwise 5 0.

.597 .491

Competitive intensity1 (1) ‘competition is cut-throat inthis sector’;

1.74 .86

(2) ‘anything that onecompetitor can offer, others caneasily match’;

2.36 1.04

(3) ‘price competition is ahallmark of this sector’;

2.21 1.01

(4) ‘new competition moves arenow more frequent than ever’;

2.13 .93

(5) ‘our competitors arerelatively weak’.2

2.01 .83

Scale statistics3 10.48 3.21Nationality 1 5 workplaces of Irish-owned

companies; otherwise 5 0..679 .467

Internationalmarkets

1 5 , 50% of a workplace’sturnover accounted for bynational markets; otherwise 50.

.3 .459

Workforce size 1 5 workplaces with 20 to, 100 employees; otherwise 50.

.382 .486

Skill 1 5 managerial, higheradministrative and skilledemployees; otherwise 5 0.

.727 .446

Green� eld site 1 5 workplaces establishedbetween 1986 and 1997;otherwise 5 0.

.185 .389

Union 1 5 workplaces in whichunions are recognized;otherwise 5 0.

.468 .50

Source : Production/Operations Management SurveyNotesN (unweighted) 5 1774.1 A � ve-point scale, adapted from Jaworski and Kohli (1993), measuring various dimensions

of competitive intensity was used. The items were scored from ‘strongly agree’ (coded 1)to ‘strongly disagree’ (coded 5).

2 Scores for this item represent that of the statement in reverse.3 A reliability analysis of this scale returned an alpha score of .72.4 For this table and Table 4 the number of cases is reduced from 273 to 177 as only those

workplaces which answered all the items under examination could be included in theanalysis.


Tabl

e 4

Exa

min

ing

pote

ntia

l in

�uen

ces

on t

he p

rese

nce,

int

ensi

vene

ss a

nd f

orm

s of

tea

mw

orki

ng

Vari

able

nam

eM

odel

1Lo

gist

ic r

egre

ssio

nTh

e pr

esen

ce o

fte

amw

orki

ng

Mod

el 2

OLS

reg

ress

ion

Inte

nsiv

enes

s of

team

wor

king

Mod

el 3

OLS

reg

ress

ion

(i)

Org

aniz

atio

n of

wor

k(i

i) A

ttend

ance

&tim

e(i

ii)

Qua

lity

man

agem

ent

(iv)

Tea

m b

ound

arie

s&

com

posi

tion

Fina

ncia

l se

rvic

es1.

684*

**0.

212*

0.13

00.

230*

*0.

316*

**2

0.22

9**

Prod

uct

cust

omiz

atio

n0.

008*

*0.

167*

0.15

9*0.

153*

0.00

90.

014

Hig

h-te

ch0.

2480

0.25

9**

0.25

6**

0.24

6**

0.03

80.

108

Serv

ices

20.

492

0.14

42

0.02

40.

126

20.

064

0.39

7***

Com

petit

ive

inte

nsity

0.00

20.

129

20.

160*

0.05

90.

339*

**0.

032

Nat

iona

lity

1.31

5***

20.

104

20.

107

20.

056

20.

144

0.16

0†

Inte

rnat

iona

l m

arke

ts0.

009†

20.

081

20.

184*

20.

101

0.03

20.

172†

Wor

kfor

ce s

ize

20.

185

20.

034

0.07

32

0.10

82

0.15

0†0.

022

Skill

20.

331

0.05

20.

112

0.00

72

0.07

70.

044

Gre

en�e

ld s

ite

20.

1337

20.

005

20.

111

0.01

42

0.00

70.

134†

Uni

on0.

1030

20.

038

20.

014

20.

102

20.

862

0.05

9

Chi

squ

are

39.8

1**

Goo

dnes

s of

�t

5

294.

205

Adj

uste

d R

25

0.06

3F

52.

043*

Adj

uste

d R

25

0.11

6F

53.

140*

*A

djus

ted

R2

50.

084

F 5

2.48

9**

Adj

uste

d R

25

0.13

9F

53.

621*

*A

djus

ted

R2

50.

091

F 5

2.63

2**

Sour

ce:

Prod

ucti

on/O

pera

tion

s M

anag

emen

t S

urve

yN

otes

N (

unw

eigh

ted)

517

7.1

5po

siti

ve c

oef�

cien

t; 2

5ne

gati

ve c

oef�

cien

t.† p,

.10;

*p,

.05;

**p

,.0

1; *

**p,

.001

.


of teamworking; and the � nal section of the table (Model 3) is subdivided into fourto illustrate the four different components of teamworking (identi� ed in Table 2).10

Model 1: The presence of teamworking In the � rst model some of the elevenindependent variables identi� ed above do help to explain the presence of teamworking.In brief, teamworking was associated with � nancial services, Irish-owned establish-ments, product/service customization and with establishments operating in internationalmarkets.

Model 2: The intensiveness of teamworking In contrast to the � rst model, whichinvolved a straightforward examination of the factors associated with the presence orabsence of teamworking, the second model sought to examine the in� uences associatedwith the intensiveness of teamworking. An index was constructed by expressing thenumber of times team members played the leading role in decision making as aproportion of the items listed in the questionnaire. The values of the index range from0 where no item was decided upon by team members, to 11 where team membersplayed the leading role on all issues. The analysis is con� ned to those establishmentsthat had introduced teamworking. The model found that the intensiveness ofteamworking was positively associated with high-tech workplaces, establishmentsoperating in the � nancial services industry and the production of customized goods orservices.

Model 3: Dimensions of teamworking Separate equations were estimated for eachof the four aspects of teamworking identi� ed in Table 2. Several factors appearimportant. Most impressive is the � nancial services sector, followed by high-techindustries and product/service customization. Also worthy of note is the mixedin� uence of intense competitive pressures and operating in international markets: in onecase exercising a positive effect and in another a negative one.

In brief, several conclusions can be made from these models’ estimates. Mostnoteworthy is the importance of the � nancial services sector as a predictor of theexistence of teamworking in its various forms. In � ve of the six equations the effect wassigni� cant and in all but one equation was the coef� cient positive. Other variables thatproduce consistently robust results, particularly in explaining teamworking of anadvanced form, are establishments that produce customized products or services andworkplaces that operate in high-tech sectors. Contrary to expectations, factors such asexposure to intense market pressures, nationality and workplace size register weak and/or inconclusive results. Perhaps most surprisingly, there is little or no evidence tosupport a union, green� eld site, workforce size or skilled workforce effect. Thesigni� cance of these results will be considered in some more detail below by drawingon wider sources of evidence.

Conditions supporting work reorganization

Commentators and practitioners commonly assume it is competition, and in particularinternational competition, which is the spur for employers to introduce innovative workpractices. Further, where that competition is based on quality and innovation, and whereprice is less a consideration, the pressure to adapt existing work structures byempowering employees would seem to be more pressing. Evidence from UCD and theEPOC surveys would suggest, however, that the position is much more complicated. Inthe latter study, the need to improve quality, to reduce costs and lower throughput times


were the dominant motives for the introduction of various forms of participation. Yetthe overall incidence of employee participation and the incidence of its various forms inthe countries surveyed hardly varied with the level of competition. It was only in thecase of the scope of participation that the picture was more in line with the expectationsand even here the differences were marginal (Edwards et al., 1997). The results fromthe multivariate statistical techniques used in the UCD survey also reveal a complexpicture. Intense market competition was found not to be associated with the presence orintensity of teamworking, although some in� uence was identi� ed in respect of teamswhich focused on quality management and continuous improvement. There was also aninverse relationship between teams where members had responsibility for workorganization and market competition. The absence of a clear, robust associationbetween teamworking and intense market competition is surprising. It would seem,then, that � rms, which are insulated from competitive pressures, are as likely tointroduce teams as those organizations which are exposed to such pressures. It may bethat intense exposure to international competition denies management suf� cient spaceto develop teamworking and the room to recoup the up-front costs that such an initiativerequires.

What seems to be crucial in explaining the incidence and intensiveness ofteamworking in Ireland is the degree to which � rms compete on the basis of product/service customization – in four of the six equations the coef� cient was positive and asigni� cant association found. These � ndings are consistent with Osterman’s (1994)research in the US where establishments that pursued the ‘high-road’ to competitiveadvantage were more likely to adopt � exible work practices. In contrast to Osterman’sstudy, however, where it was found that companies’ experience of selling goods ininternational markets was a crucial factor in explaining the presence of new workstructures, the evidence from the UCD survey is more mixed and equivocal.

The UCD survey also identi� ed particular sector and technology effects. In many ofthe equations, but especially in model 2 which examined the intensiveness ofteamworking, consistently strong results are produced for high-tech industries and� nancial services. That the skill variable did not record signi� cant results is surprising.It would seem to demonstrate that the level of technological sophistication is a greaterin� uence than the level of employees’ skills. It may then be that in these high-techsectors the opportunity to work in teams is shared equally among skilled and routineemployees.

Another revealing � nding is the absence of an association between teams andwhether a company was newly established or not. Similarly, MNCs are no more likelyto practise teamworking than indigenous workplaces. That there is not a green� eld siteor MNC effect in Ireland is consistent with the EPOC survey results. With the latterstudy, the MNC effect while evident in relation to some aspects of employeeparticipation, was not as strong as one might have anticipated. Likewise, the probabilityof innovation in green� eld sites was no greater than older established plants.Interestingly, however, distinct country differences were identi� ed: in Germany, Italy,The Netherlands and Sweden, the proportion of foreign-owned workplaces with directparticipation was above average and was lower in countries characterized by weakerindustrial relations regimes (Edwards et al., 1997). In the case of Ireland, it wouldappear that a desire or urgency for innovation in work structures among MNCs istempered by an opportunity to gain competitive advantage by other means. In theabsence of a restraining industrial relations regime and without the requirement to offsetcosts associated therewith, it should perhaps not come as a surprise that a variety of


competitive postures and forms of work organization with varying degrees of noveltywould be identi� ed.

Conclusion

At best, it can be claimed that work reorganization is well advanced in only a minorityof workplaces in Ireland. Certainly, change of a kind is evident in many establishments,but to claim, as many accounts have heretofore, that Ireland is equal to, or ahead of,other countries is not only chimerical, but also built on unreliable empiricalfoundations. Had this paper relied on surface measurements of workplace innovationand merely enumerated the existence of new practices, it too might have found itpossible to acclaim Ireland as a place of signi� cant change. As it stands, however, weare obliged to go beyond such an approach and to interrogate in a more conceptuallyrigorous manner the scope, coverage and penetration of new work structures. Combinedwith more reliable and comprehensive data this approach found that work reorganiza-tion was more limited and less radical than assumed by many commentators. That thenew competitiveness of the Irish economy has been achieved without signi� cant workreorganization must now also be acknowledged.

As to accounting for variations in the adoption of new practices three variables werefound to exert considerable in� uence: workplaces that competed by producingcustomized products, high-technology establishments and � nancial services. In thisconcluding section it is interesting to go beyond the data in this study and to consider,if only in a somewhat abbreviated way, the in� uences which may help account for thelevel of innovation in work structures in Irish workplaces.11 To do so, one mustnecessarily turn to a wider analysis of Ireland’s political economy – something whichis notable by its absence in the works of the authors on Ireland examined above. Anumber of lacunae in the institutional support structure are readily identi� able as havingimpeded workplace innovation. These are likely to continue to act as a signi� cant dragon future innovations and are unlikely to be easily overcome.

First, there is what is best termed a coalescence of handicap: on the one hand,employers are inclined to under-invest in training, favouring narrow over broad skills;on the other hand, unions lacking adequate resources, expertise and institutionalsecurity are unable to jolt employers out of a narrow and conservative view of workorganization. Notwithstanding recent efforts by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions tore-orient and realign unions’ approach to work organization and workplace industrialrelations, there remain considerable differences between unions, within unions atdifferent levels of representation and across occupational categories as to how toproceed. Embroiled in a tradition of adversarial industrial relations and a ‘rules-of-the-game’ which permitted leverage through the construction and defence of occupationalidentities and work roles, the introduction of new work structures which seek torecon� gure skills and employees’ responsibilities poses some severe challenges.Lacking an automatic entitlement to a say in management decision making and, veryoften, the resources and expertise to form independent views of change, the opportunityto engage constructively with the prospect of workplace change is very often removedfrom Irish unions.

Furthermore, evidence from the UCD workplace survey would suggest that Irishemployers have not made signi� cant advancements towards the development of‘strategic partnerships’ with unions for the handling of workplace change (Roche andGeary, 1998). Signi� cantly more dominant are ‘exclusionary’ forms of decisionmaking. In the international academic and policy literature there is considerable support


for the view that without the development of joint employee employer bodies thesuccessful implementation of new work structures is made very dif� cult (EuropeanCommission, 1997; Kochan and Osterman, 1994; Locke et al., 1995; Rogers andStreeck, 1995; Wever, 1995).

Finally, with recent attempts by employers, trade unions and government agencies toaddress this weakness in mechanisms of workplace adjustment having attained littlesuccess to date, it is dif� cult to see how workplace innovations might become morediffuse and more systemic.

At the same time, however, while there are a number of systemic factors which inconcert have made the introduction of advanced forms of work organization dif� cultin Ireland, evidence from the UCD survey shows that there are some workplaces, albeitfew in number, which would seem to have excelled in developing new work structures.Why might this be so? One reason is that some companies, particularly those of USorigin in the new high-tech industries, have been able to escape some of the pressuresof short-termism, ‘suspend market rules’ and be innovative in terms of product design,work organization and competitive strategies. Second, such � rms have been able toconstruct social communities within themselves such that provision is made foremployment security, the development of internal labour markets and investment inskills. Crouch and Streeck (1997: 2, 9) refer to these companies as ‘institutional � rms’– to distinguish them from mainstream hierarchical companies. In a way, then, theselarge American companies (and also those in � nancial services) would seem to havebeen able to manufacture an adequate level of organizational loyalty. That thesepractices have been successfully reproduced outside their country-of-origin wouldsuggest that they remain independent of a national ‘exoskeleton of rule-settinginstitutions’.12 In the context of recently arrived US electronics � rms in Ireland, it hasbeen noted that their human resource management strategies bear a closer resemblanceto ‘Californian or Silicon Valley ways’ than ‘Irish ways’ (cf. Roche and Geary,1996).

Alongside these islands of innovation, however, reside many more workplaces whereexperimentation with new forms of work organization remains tentative, and in othersthere is little or any evidence of employer effort to enhance employee participation inwork organization. Quite a sizeable proportion continue to supply relatively stable,homogeneous markets and compete solely or primarily through price competition.13

Whether such organizations would want to be, or see any urgency in being, innovativein the organization of work is perhaps unlikely. At the same time, however, the ‘� exibleweakness’ of the Irish system has certainly enabled well-resourced employers tointroduce innovative work practices. Thus, while the nature of the state and supportingpolitical economy institutions are major factors in explaining the limited diffusion ofworkplace innovation in Ireland, to explain the existence of workplace transformationwe must look more to the nature of markets, � rms’ competitive strategies andcompanies’ ability to move towards ‘institutional � rms’ with their own ‘social policies’.But to have claimed, as Sabel (1996) and McCartney and Teague (1998) have, thatwork reorganization is well advanced and is being ‘pulled’ by an all-embracing shift inmanagement’s product strategies is to represent a distorted picture of the Irishworkplace.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge the � nancial assistance provided by theDepartment of Enterprise, Trade and Employment in support of the � eldwork costs


associated with this study, as well as the help and advice provided by Teresa Brannick.The ideas developed in this paper have bene� ted from participation in joint work withBill Roche at University College, Dublin, and with Paul Edwards and Keith Sisson atthe Industrial Relations Research Unit at Warwick Business School.

Notes

1 We have been critical of McCartney and Teague’s research approach elsewhere (Roche andGeary, 1998). Comments will be kept brief here.

2 These surveys formed part of the Price Waterhouse Cran� eld Project on International StrategicHRM in Europe.

3 That this should have been the chosen size threshold is surprising given that the vast bulk ofcompanies (61 per cent) with more than twenty employees are in the twenty-to-forty-nin eemployee size category (this � gure is derived from data supplied by Brendan Whelan of theESRI). The authors’ admission that the inclusion of smaller workplaces ‘might distort the� ndings of the survey’ would seem a disarmingly honest position to have adopted.

4 Despite the authors’ claims (pp. 23–4), there would seem to be signi� cant disparities betweenthe achieved sample size and the overall distribution of � rms in the population, in particular� rms in the 50–100 size category .

5 This discussion is drawn from Roche and Geary (1998).6 The target respondent for the IR-HRM survey was the designated human resource managers

with responsibility for the area at workplace level. In the great majority of cases the relevantmanagers were located at workplace level, but in some cases, for example in � nancial servicescompanies, they were located at higher levels (regional /national) in the enterprise.

7 In the questionnaires completed by designated production managers and the managers with ageneral brief, questions relating to work organization or industrial relations and humanresource management were con� ned to practices pertaining to the largest occupational groupin the establishment .

8 A highly innovative study, the EPOC survey was conducted in 1996 under the auspices of theEuropean Foundation. The main objective of the study was to examine the nature and extentof ‘direct participation ’. ‘Direct participation ’ was seen to constitute two forms: (1)consultative participatio n – management encourages employees to make their views known onwork-related matters, but reserves the right to take action or not; (2) delegative participatio n– management grants employees increased discretion and responsibility to organize their workwithout the requirement to refer back (for further details, see Geary and Sisson, 1994). Likethe UCD survey, the EPOC survey was not just concerned with measuring incidence, but alsotook into account coverage, scope and penetration of ‘direct participation ’. It was a cross-national survey with the same instrument being used in ten European countries. We are thusin a position to reliably compare the extent of workplace innovation in Ireland with the othercountries surveyed. The workplace general manager was invited to complete the questionnair eor to give it to a colleague who might have been better placed to respond to the questionsasked. The size threshold for the larger countries was � fty employees but was lowered totwenty employees in small and medium-sized countries (including Ireland). For the largercountries (France, Germany, Italy, UK, Spain) the gross sample was 5,000 workplaces; formedium (Denmark, The Netherlands and Sweden) and smaller countries (Ireland andPortugal) it was 2500 and 1000 respectively. Over 32000 workplaces were surveyed. Thestudy covered all areas of the private sector and public services. An overall response rate of17.8 per cent was achieved. In Ireland, the survey achieved a response rate of nearly 39 percent, 382 organizations in all. The study’s � ndings were re-weighted to make adjustments forany distortions in the size and industrial sector of companies. All questions were asked inrespect of the � rm’s largest occupaional group. The only major shortcoming of the study wasthat, while it was designed to survey practice at the level of the workplace, in respect ofIreland at least no such population listing was available. The enterprise was thus the unit ofanalysis.


9 Results from the Production/Operations Management Survey indicate that 57 per cent of Irishworkplaces have teamworking. This � gure is remarkably similar to the one from the combinedIR-HRM and Production/Operations Management Surveys (see Table 1 above).

10 As the dependent variable in model 1 is binary (i.e. whether or not an organization hasteamworking), the statistical technique of logistic regression is used. This modelling techniqueestimates the odds that one outcome is more likely than the other given the presence ofparticular in� uences (i.e. the independent variables). It also estimates the direction, magnitudeand statistical signi� cance of these in� uences. In models 2 and 3 it is not appropriate to usethe same technique as the variables to be modelled now constitute continuous numericalscales. Instead the techniques of ordinary least squares (OLS) is used.

11 These factors are discussed in more detail in Geary (1998).12 The phrase is Streeck’s (1997: 52).13 48.2 per cent of workplaces indicated that 50 per cent or more of their products /services were

totally standardized .

References

Cressey, P. and MacInnes, J. (1980) ‘Voting for Ford’, Capital and Class, 11: 5–33.Crouch, C. and Streeck, W. (1997) ‘Introduction: The Future of Capitalist Diversity’. In Crouch,

C. and Streeck, W. (eds) Political Economy of Modern Capitalism: Mapping Convergence andDiversity . London: Sage.

Daniel, W.W. (1987) Workplace Industrial Relations and Technical Change. London: Pinter.DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983) ‘The Iron Cage Revisited’, American Sociologica l

Review, 48(1): 147–60.Edwards, P., Geary, J.F. and Sisson, K. (1997) ‘Employee Involvement in the Workplace:

Transformative, Exploitative, or Limited and Controlled?’ Paper prepared for the CanadianWorkplace Research Network Conference, University of Laval, Quebec, Canada, 18–20September.

European Commission (1997) Partnership for a New Organization of Work. Brussels: EuropeanCommission.

Geary, J.F. (1998) ‘Managing Work Organization: Moving Towards Task Participation’. InRoche, W.K., Monks, K. and Walsh, J. (eds) Human Resource Strategies: Policy and Practicein Ireland . Dublin: Oak Tree Press.

Geary, J.F. and Sisson, K. (1994) Conceptualising Direct Participation in Organisational Change.Luxembourg: Of� ce for Of� cial Publications of the European Communities.

Gunnigle, P., Flood, P., Morley, M. and Turner, T. (1994) Continuity and Change in IrishEmployee Relations. Dublin: Oak Tree Press.

Gunnigle, P., Morley, M., Clifford, N. and Turner, T. (1997) Human Resource Management inIrish Organizations: Practice in Perspective. Dublin: Oak Tree Press.

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

Jacobsen, D. (1996) ‘New Forms of Work Organization in Ireland’, Research Paper no. 9. DublinCity University Business School.

Jaworski, B.J. and Kohli, A.K. (1993) ‘Market-orientation: Antecedents and Consequences ’,Journal of Marketing, 57 (July): 53–70.

Kochan, T. and Osterman, P. (1994) The Mutual Gains Enterprise: Forging a Winning Partnershipamong Labor, Management and Government, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Locke, R., Kochan, T. and Piore, M. (1995) (eds) Employment Relations in a Changing WorldEconomy. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

McCartney, J. and Teague, P. (1998) ‘Workplace Innovations in the Republic of Ireland’, TheEconomic and Social Review, 28(4): 381–99.

Marginson, P. (1998) ‘The Survey Tradition in British Industrial Relations Research: AnAssessment of the Contribution of Large-Scale Workplace and Enterprise Surveys’, BritishJournal of Industrial Relations, 36(3): 361–88.


Osterman, P. (1994) ‘How Common is Workplace Transformation and How Can We ExplainWho Adopts it?’, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 47(1): 173–87.

Piore, M. and Sabel, C. (1984) The Second Industrial Divide. New York: Basic Books.Roche, W.K. and Geary, J.F. (1996) ‘Multinational Companies in Ireland: Adapting to or

Diverging from National Industrial Relations Practices and Traditions?’, Irish Business andAdministrative Research, 17: 14–31.

Roche, W.K. and Geary, J.F. (1998) ‘“Collaborative Production” and the Irish Boom: WorkOrganization, Partnership and Direct Involvement in Irish Workplaces ’. CEROP Working PaperNo. 26, Graduate School of Business, University College Dublin.

Roche, W.K. and Turner, T. (1998) ‘Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations:Substitution, Dualism and Partnership’. In Roche, W.K., Monks, K. and Walsh, J. (eds) HumanResource Strategies: Policy and Practice in Ireland. Dublin: Oak Tree Press.

Roche, W.K., Geary, J.F., Brannick, T., Ashmore, J. and Fahy, M. (1998) Partnership andInvolvement in Irish Workplaces. Report presented to the National Centre for Partnership,Dublin, Centre for Employment Relations and Organisational Performance, University CollegeDublin.

Rogers, J. and Streeck, W. (eds) (1995) Works Councils: Consultation, Representation and Co-operation in Industrial Relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sabel, C. (1996) Ireland: Local Partnerships and Social Innovation. Paris: Organization forEconomic Co-operation and Development.

Sisson, K. (1993) ‘In Search of HRM’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 31(2): 201–10.Sisson, K. (1995) ‘Change and Continuity in British Industrial Relations: “Strategic Choice” or

Muddling Through?’. In Locke, R., Kochan, T. and Piore, M. (eds) Employment Relations in aChanging World Economy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Weinstein, M. and Kochan, T. (1995) ‘The Limits of Diffusion: Recent Developments inIndustrial Relations and Human Resource Practices’. In Locke, R., Kochan, T. and Piore, M.(eds) Employment Relations in a Changing World Economy. Cambridge, MA: The MITPress.

Wever, K. (1995) Negotiating Competitiveness: Employment Relations and Organizationa lInnovation in Germany and the United States. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Wood, S. and de Menzes, L. (1998) ‘High Commitment Management in the U.K.: Evidence fromthe Workplace Industrial Relations Survey, and Employers’ Manpower and Skills PracticesSurvey’, Human Relations, 51(4): 485–515.


Documents

The new workplace: change at work in Ireland