22
Personnel Review Union presence, employee relations and high performance work practices Carol Gill Denny Meyer Article information: To cite this document: Carol Gill Denny Meyer, (2013),"Union presence, employee relations and high performance work practices", Personnel Review, Vol. 42 Iss 5 pp. 508 - 528 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PR-07-2011-0117 Downloaded on: 06 November 2014, At: 01:28 (PT) References: this document contains references to 89 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2506 times since 2013* Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: Roberto Luna#Arocas, Joaquín Camps, (2007),"A model of high performance work practices and turnover intentions", Personnel Review, Vol. 37 Iss 1 pp. 26-46 Patrick Flood, Thomas Turner, (1993),"Human Resource Strategy and the Non#union Phenomenon", Employee Relations, Vol. 15 Iss 6 pp. 54-66 David Lewin, Bruce E. Kaufman, (2006),"Introduction", Advances in Industrial & Labor Relations, Vol. 15 pp. ix-xv Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 234603 [] For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download. Downloaded by University of Vermont At 01:28 06 November 2014 (PT)

Union presence, employee relations and high performance work practices

  • Upload
    denny

  • View
    220

  • Download
    4

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Union presence, employee relations and high performance work practices

Personnel ReviewUnion presence, employee relations and high performance work practicesCarol Gill Denny Meyer

Article information:To cite this document:Carol Gill Denny Meyer, (2013),"Union presence, employee relations and high performance work practices", PersonnelReview, Vol. 42 Iss 5 pp. 508 - 528Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PR-07-2011-0117

Downloaded on: 06 November 2014, At: 01:28 (PT)References: this document contains references to 89 other documents.To copy this document: [email protected] fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2506 times since 2013*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Roberto Luna#Arocas, Joaquín Camps, (2007),"A model of high performance work practices and turnover intentions",Personnel Review, Vol. 37 Iss 1 pp. 26-46Patrick Flood, Thomas Turner, (1993),"Human Resource Strategy and the Non#union Phenomenon", Employee Relations,Vol. 15 Iss 6 pp. 54-66David Lewin, Bruce E. Kaufman, (2006),"Introduction", Advances in Industrial & Labor Relations, Vol. 15 pp. ix-xv

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 234603 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors serviceinformation about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Pleasevisit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio ofmore than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of onlineproducts and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on PublicationEthics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Ver

mon

t At 0

1:28

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Page 2: Union presence, employee relations and high performance work practices

Union presence, employeerelations and high performance

work practicesCarol Gill

Melbourne Business School, Carlton, Australia

Denny MeyerFaculty of Life and Social Science, Swinburne University of Technology,

Hawthorn, Australia

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between unions, employeerelations and the adoption of high performance work practices (HPWP).

Design/methodology/approach – This study uses survey data collected from the senior membersof the human resource management (HRM) function in 189 large Australian organisations.

Findings – It was found that unions, when coupled with good employee relations, facilitate theadoption of HPWP and consequently have a positive impact on organisational competitiveness,contradicting the simplistic notion that unions are “bad for business”.

Research limitations/implications – This study used cross-sectional survey data from HRMmanagers, who while being the best single source of information, may have distorted their responses.Further research is required to confirm these results using several data sources collected from a largersample over more than one time period.

Practical implications – This research has implications for Government and organisationapproaches to union presence and management in organisations.

Social implications – This research contributes to HRM and organisational competitiveness, whichhas implications for GDP.

Originality/value – This paper contributes to the debate on whether the individual and direct voiceprovided by HPWP is a substitute for union collective voice, with the associated implication thatunions are unnecessary and even destructive to organisation competitive advantage.

Keywords Human resource management, Trade unions, Employee relations,High performance work practices, Competitive advantage, Australia, Large enterprises

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionThere is some evidence that managers regard unions as hindrances to workplaceperformance and this has resulted in union avoidance, suppression and substitution(Bryson, 2005; Chen, 2007; Kochan et al., 1986). However, there is also research evidencethat indicates that unions can play a significant and positive role in enhancingorganisation competitiveness through facilitating the implementation of HighPerformance Work Practices (HPWP) (Gill, 2009). In particular, unions can play animportant role in removing many of the barriers to the adoption of HPWP byadvocating long-term investment in change that is positive for the organisation(Freeman and Medoff, 1984). They can provide the communication infrastructure that

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm

PR42,5

508

Received 31 July 2011Revised 9 July 2012Accepted 14 September2012

Personnel ReviewVol. 42 No. 5, 2013pp. 508-528q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0048-3486DOI 10.1108/PR-07-2011-0117

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Ver

mon

t At 0

1:28

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Page 3: Union presence, employee relations and high performance work practices

facilitates the introduction of HPWP (Rubinstein, 2000). Finally, unions can help createemployee trust, co-operation and job security that HPWP need to be introducedeffectively (Bryson, 2001; Delery et al., 2000; Deery et al., 1994; Freeman and Medoff,1984; Miller and Mulvey, 1993). It has also been argued that HPWP are a unionsubstitute because they introduce direct employee individual voice which negates theneed for collective employee voice (Galang, 1999). However, some evidence indicatesthat direct individual voice is not a substitute for collective and indirect voice thatallows employees to initiate issues and articulate grievances (McLoughlin andGourlay, 1992; Rubinstein, 2001). It has been proposed that employee relationsmoderate the impact that unions have on the adoption of productive work practices.Co-operation is critical to the successful introduction of HPWP and where there arepoor employee relations, employees and unions can prevent management fromintroducing HPWP and negatively impact on organisational competitiveness (Freemanand Medoff, 1984). In this research we test this proposition by investigating therelationship between unions, employee relations and the adoption of HPWP. Wechallenge prevailing Government and organisation attitudes towards unions byproposing that employee relations are important to the adoption of HPWP. Based onextant theory and empirical research we anticipate that union workplaces with goodemployee relations will have a more positive impact than union workplaces with pooremployee relations and workplaces without a union. To test this proposition, weanalysed a national survey of human resource managers working in large publiccompanies. The following section of this paper incorporates a review of the literatureand develops the study’s hypotheses. We then provide a Methods section that outlinesthe sample and analysis procedures and describes the measures used, their validityand reliability. The Results section provides the outcomes of the hypothesis testing.Finally, the Conclusions section summarises the results of the study, describes thelimitations of the study and the need for future research, and then discusses theimplications of the results for theory as well as practice.

Theory and hypothesesOrganisations can choose the low or high road to competitive advantage. On the “lowroad” organisations use traditional work practices to achieve limited and replicablecompetitive advantage through cost minimisation. This is achieved through amechanistic work design that focuses on reducing individual jobs to a set of simpletasks managed through supervisory control. On the “high road” organisations useHPWP that focus on the synergistic application of practices that enhance employeeskills and increase their involvement[1] (Gephardt and Van Buren, 1996; Wright andSnell, 1998). It is argued that these practices create sustainable competitive advantagethrough ambiguous processes that are difficult to imitate, such as co-operation amongmanagement, labour and co-workers (Collins and Smith, 2006; Goshal and Nahapiet,1998; Swart and Kinnie, 2003; Whitener, 2001; Whitener et al., 1998). Despite somemethodological issues, there is substantial research linking HPWP with organisationalcompetitiveness (Combs et al., 2006). In particular, a landmark study by Huselid (1995)found that they diminish employee turnover and increase productivity and corporatefinancial performance through practices that improve intermediate employeeoutcomes, such as the knowledge, skills, abilities motivation and engagement ofemployees. However, some commentators have argued that while HPWP have a

Union presenceand HPWP

509

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Ver

mon

t At 0

1:28

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Page 4: Union presence, employee relations and high performance work practices

positive impact on employers, they have had a negative impact on employees andunions. It has been argued that the positive effects of HPWP on competitiveness areobtained at the expense of employees through intensification of the work process andmanagement by stress (Godard and Delaney, 2001; Rinehart et al., 1997; Turnbull,1988) and that HPWP have been used as a strategy to replace unions (Keenoy, 1991;Turnbull, 1992). This explains initial union resistance to some aspects of HPWP(Godard and Delaney, 2001).

Given research supporting the link between HPWP and organisation performance,it is not clear why many organisations have failed to adopt a full suite of thesepractices, especially when there is evidence that these practices are most effective whenthey are implemented together as a system or bundle of complementary, highly-relatedand overlapping practices (Pfeffer and Veiga, 1999). A number of reasons for this havebeen considered in the extant literature.

First, managers and others who will lose power through the devolved decisionmaking and flattened hierarchies of HPWP may resist the adoption of HPWP (Kochanet al., 1986). Organisations with unskilled and less educated managers may focus onthe “low road” of work organisation, including longer working hours, workintensification and increased surveillance of workers, while better qualified managersseek “high road” competitive advantage through the quality of their products andservices (Erickson and Jacoby, 2003).

Second, company ownership and corporate governance is geared towardsshort-term results. Investors in organisations demand an immediate return andorganisations prefer to distribute profits as dividends rather than invest in long-terminitiatives like HPWP. Shares are frequently traded on stock markets because they aremore diffusely owned and held for a shorter time, with the mechanism for holdingmanagement accountable being the hostile takeover. Management responds bymaximising short-term shareholder returns rather than adding long-term value.Managers introducing HPWP must invest in a bundle of reforms that are costly toimplement and then wait for results because there is a lagged effect. Because HPWPtake time to implement and register results, change initiatives may be abandoned afterlimited implementation fails to deliver measurable results (Appelbaum and Batt, 1995).

Third, long histories of labour management conflict and mistrust inhibit theimplementation of HPWP. It is argued that the levels of trust and co-operation requiredby HPWP may be difficult to achieve and maintain. Employees must be willing to learnnew skills, offer ideas and suggestions based on their knowledge and commit to qualityand productivity. To get this commitment, employers must offer a quid pro quo of jobsecurity (Clarke and Payne, 1997). If organisations are forced to restructure and layoffemployees it will impact on employee trust and the stability of team membershipwhich are important to the success of HPWP (Osterman, 2000).

Finally, Appelbaum and Batt (1995) argue that an institutional framework geared tooutmoded management approaches, associated with mass production, does notadequately support organisations to implement HPWP. Government policies shape notonly what employers do but also the nature of the employment relationship and therights and obligations of all parties involved. In particular, Government has an indirectrole in helping to create a business environment that encourages organisations to adoptHPWP.

PR42,5

510

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Ver

mon

t At 0

1:28

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Page 5: Union presence, employee relations and high performance work practices

It has been proposed that a co-operative, rather than adversarial, relationship withunions can address many of these barriers (Appelbaum and Batt, 1995). The followingsection will examine how unions impact on the adoption of HPWP before examiningmanagement’s prevailing attitude towards unions.

Union impact on HPWP adoptionClassic research by Freeman and Medoff (1984) indicates that unions can have both apositive and negative impact on productivity. Unions can have a negative impact byusing their monopoly position to drive up wages and to introduce restrictive workpractices that inhibit management’s ability to introduce productive work practicessuch as HPWP. Unions can also encourage management to introduce more productivework practices so they can stay competitive despite higher wages. Finally, theypropose that “unionism per se is neither a plus nor a minus to productivity: whatmatters is how unions and management interact at the organisation” (p. 179),concluding that productivity depends not on what unions and management doseparately but on their relationship with one another. Cooperative industrial relationspromote the positive aspects of unionism and adversarial industrial relations increasethe negative aspects of unionism (see Figure 1). When management sees a positive rolefor unions they can ensure effective changes are introduced and facilitate theintroduction of change in general and HPWP in particular (Bryson et al., 2006).

To leverage the positive aspects of unionism, management must replace thepluralist perspective that has dominated traditional industrial relations with apartnership approach that places less emphasis on conflict of interests betweenemployers and employees and more emphasis on mutual gain (Godard and Delaney,2001). This also ensures that the implementation of HPWP benefits all stakeholdersincluding employees who are critical to the successful implementation of HPWP.

There is some evidence that supports the negative impact of unions (Denny, 1997;Miller and Mulvey, 1993; Pantuosco et al., 2001; Vedder and Gallaway, 2002). Severalresearch studies show that HPWP are less likely to exist in highly unionised

Figure 1.The impact of unions on

productivity

Union presenceand HPWP

511

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Ver

mon

t At 0

1:28

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Page 6: Union presence, employee relations and high performance work practices

organisations (Cohen and Pfeffer, 1986; Lincoln and Kalleberg, 1990) however,contradictory studies show that union presence has a neutral impact (Black and Lynch,2001; Galang, 1999; Moreton, 1999) and a positive impact (Armstrong et al., 1998; Blackand Lynch, 2001; Freeman and Rogers, 1999; Gregg and Machin, 1988; Marginson,1992; Pil and Macduffie, 1996; Sisson, 1993; Wood and Fenton-O’creevy, 2005) onHPWP adoption. There are also studies that find that unions moderate the relationshipbetween HPWP and outcomes (Lloyd, 2001; Rubinstein, 2001; Voos, 1987) There issome indication that the quality of industrial relations moderates union impact withresearch proposing that HPWP are less likely in organisations characterised by unionmilitancy (Wells, 1993).

Extant research indicates that there are a number of ways in which unions mayovercome many of the barriers to implementing HPWP and facilitate HPWP adoption.First, unions promote a long-term and organisation wide perspective. Systems ofCorporate Governance that impose a short-term time frame are not conducive to theimplementation of HPWP which require longer time horizons. It has been argued thatunions counter management predisposition towards unilateral, short-term decisionmaking which market pressures promote (Freeman and Medoff, 1984). Unions take anorganisation wide perspective when contributing to decisions while management canmake poorer decisions based on their own interests and incentives (Freeman andRogers, 1999). The independence of unions allows unions to challenge decisions thatare not in the best interest of their membership and to challenge the logic ofmanagement proposals. Union representatives are able to take a longer-termperspective because their career paths are not tied to the organisation. It has beenfound that conflict is not detrimental to decision making processes because differentperspectives often result in better quality decisions that are more likely to be acceptedby employees, subsequently improving the speed of implementation (Rubinstein et al.,1993).

Second, unions enhance collective and individual voice. It has been argued thatHRM provides avenues for direct and individual employee voice which negates theneed for collective employee voice through unions. However, evidence indicates thatindividual voice is not a substitute for collective voice, which allows employees toinitiate issues and articulate grievances (Bryson et al., 2007). There are distinctivedifferences between collective and individual employee voice. Individual voice throughHRM is direct through management and part of the work process, while collectivevoice is indirect through union leadership and not part of the work process[2](Rubinstein, 2001). Direct voice mechanisms that are incorporated into themanagement chain make it difficult for employees to provide genuine input withoutfearing reprisals (McLoughlin and Gourlay, 1992). In particular, it is difficult forindividual workers to have an impact on managerial policy or action if it represents adirect challenge to managerial authority (Freeman and Medoff, 1984).

There is substantial research evidence that indicates that union organisations havemore effective individual and collective voice because unions extend voicemechanisms; make direct voice more effective; and provide a collective voice whichdelivers different outcomes to individual and management sponsored voice (Benson,2000; Haynes et al., 2005; Millward et al., 1992). Research has shown that individual andcollective voice can coexist and have a synergistic effect when introducing HPWP(Kessler and Purcell, 1995; Frohlich and Pekruhl, 1996; Lloyd, 2001; Sisson, 1993).

PR42,5

512

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Ver

mon

t At 0

1:28

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Page 7: Union presence, employee relations and high performance work practices

Third, union networks provide an effective communication infrastructure. It hasbeen proposed that unions can add value by providing an efficient way ofcommunicating and negotiating with employees. In particular, union networks have aninfrastructure that facilitates lateral communication and coordination; unionrepresentatives act as a “lubricant”; and negotiations are also less expensive if theorganisation only has to deal with union specialists (Black and Lynch, 2001; Bryson,2005; Cutcher-Gershenfeld et al., 1989; Eaton and Voos, 1989; Rubinstein, 2000, 2001).

More specifically, there is evidence that union communication infrastructurefacilitates the introduction of HPWP. It has been demonstrated that effectivecommunication is required to introduce HPWP because they require the involvementand commitment of employees (Cooke, 1990, 1992; Eaton and Voos, 1994; Levine andTyson, 1990; Rubinstein, 2000).

Fourth, unions increase employee trust and commitment. Rubinstein (2001)proposes that employees trust unions because they are independent and union leaders,unlike appointed managers, are elected to represent the interests of employees. There isevidence that employees see a positive role for unions in protecting their interests whenchange is introduced (Kochan and Osterman, 1994; Levine, 1995; Marshall, 1992).However, the strength of unions and the quality of the relationship between unions andmanagement seem to moderate the ability of unions to create employee trust inmanagement and commitment to management (Bryson, 2001; Deery et al., 1994;Moreton, 1999; Ramirez et al., 2007).

Finally, unions reduce employee withdrawal. Research has demonstrated that thecollective voice of unionism leads to lower probabilities of quitting, longer job tenureand a lower lay-off rate which reduces the costs of training and recruitment andincreases productivity (Delery et al., 2000; Freeman and Medoff, 1984; Miller andMulvey, 1993). More specifically, Osterman’s (2000) research found that the presence ofa union reduced the probability that HPWP were associated with layoffs. Unionscontribute to the effective implementation of HPWP because job tenure contributes tostable team membership, which is important to team effectiveness, and employees aremore prepared to participate in employee involvement programs when they feel theunion will protect their employment security (Black and Lynch, 2001; Levine andTyson, 1990).

In this research we investigate the relationship between unions, employee relationsand the adoption of HPWP. We propose that employee relations are important to theadoption of HPWP and that workplaces with a union presence and good employeerelations would be more successful in this regard than union workplaces with pooremployee relations and workplaces without a union. Specifically, we will test thefollowing hypotheses:

(1) Non-union workplaces are more likely to adopt HPWP than union workplaceswith poor employee relations.

(2) Union workplaces with good employee relations are more likely to adopt HPWPthan non-union workplaces.

(3) Union workplaces with good employee relations are more likely to adopt HPWPthan union workplaces with poor employee relations.

Union presenceand HPWP

513

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Ver

mon

t At 0

1:28

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Page 8: Union presence, employee relations and high performance work practices

MethodologySample and survey procedureA total of 179 HR managers from large private sector Australian organisations (500 þemployees) in multiple industries participated in a paper survey conducted in 2000.This sample of workplaces was obtained by sending a survey addressing the HumanResource (HR) Manager in a population of 896 large organisations identified in the Dun& Bradstreet (1999) Business Who’s Who online data base. The respondents selectedthemselves into the sample by returning the anonymous and confidential survey. Theaccompanying letter assured anonymity and offered an executive summary of theresults of the research to respondents. The request for an executive summary wassubmitted in a separate document to maintain respondent anonymity.

The data collection focused on large organisations because they were most likely tohave well-established HR functions managed by experienced professionals.Respondents were asked to consider the overall management of the majority ofemployees in the workplace for which they had HRM responsibility. This could havebeen the entire organisation or part of an organisation.

There was a 20 per cent response rate delivering a sample of respondents from mostindustry groups. Most of the respondents (84.8 per cent) were the most senior HRMmanager or a senior member of HRM.

A wide range of industries was represented in the sample with the largest numbersfor manufacturing (28 per cent), services (11 per cent), transport and communication(10 per cent) and construction (9 per cent). In our survey a union presence was reportedby 81 per cent of respondents while 19 per cent of respondents reported no unionpresence in their workplace. The percentages are not dissimilar to those found in the1995 Australian Workplace Industrial Relations Survey (AWIRS), which, to ourknowledge, is the last publically available census of union workplaces in Australia.The AWIRS survey found that approximately one quarter of all workplaces with morethan 20 employees have no union (Deery et al., 2001). In our sample 41 per cent of theworkplaces agreed that they had good employee relations, scoring 5 and above (agreeresponses) on this 7 point scale. Two of the managers did not respond to the questionregarding a union presence in their company, while 145 managers answered positivelyand 32 managers answered negatively. Of these177 respondents (82 per cent) werefrom workplaces with a union presence and 32 (18 per cent) were from workplaceswithout a union presence.

MeasuresThe survey covered questions about employee relations, union presence and theadoption of HPWP. In particular, the HPWP and Employee Relations items were basedon the work of Walton (1985). All survey items were rated on a seven-point Likert scaleanchored with “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7). The testing of thehypotheses required the construction of scales which have validity, reliability andunidimensionality (Green et al., 2006). An exploratory factor analysis was performedusing the maximum likelihood method and an oblimin rotation in order to identify thelatent constructs underlying HPWP and employee relations. The analysis (see Table I)produced four factors explaining 62 per cent of the variation in 16 of a possible 24 itemsincluded in the questionnaire. The remaining eight items were removed in order to

PR42,5

514

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Ver

mon

t At 0

1:28

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Page 9: Union presence, employee relations and high performance work practices

ensure adequate loadings and discriminant validity[3]. The constructs suggested bythis analysis were as follows.

. Factor 1: Employee security with two items.

. Factor 2: Employee relations with eight items.

. Factor 3: Employee voice with three items.

. Factor 4: Employee empowerment with three items.

Factor1 2 3 4

Retraining, redeployment and employability take precedenceover downsizing 1.009 0.031 0.060 20.020

This work place is committed to avoiding downsizing wherepossible 0.595 20.013 20.100 0.009

Management treats employees as its most important assetand a source of competitive advantage 0.085 0.776 20.062 0.010

In this work place coordination and control are based more onshared goals, values and traditions than monitoring andsanctions 20.046 0.725 20.063 0.104

Supervisors facilitate rather than direct the workforcethrough their interpersonal and conceptual ability 20.035 0.710 20.113 0.108

This work place uses amicable planning and problem solvingrather than adversarial employee relations 0.208 0.590 0.069 0.097

The overall workplace relationship between managers andemployees is excellent 0.055 0.525 20.022 0.346

Management does not treat employees as an expense of doingbusiness 0.008 0.440 20.103 0.076

Management does not believe that employees must becontrolled by external sanctions 20.005 0.425 0.061 20.018

All employees in this workplace are managed in the sameway 0.003 0.310 20.118 20.082

In this work place information is shared widely at all levels 0.057 20.020 20.862 0.066

In this work place employee participation is encouraged on awide range of issues 0.102 0.093 20.767 0.070

Employee views are actively sought through processes suchas attitude surveys 0.010 0.342 20.343 20.045

Management believes that employees are primarily self-motivated and self-controlled 20.062 0.051 20.145 0.633

This work place puts greater emphasis on hiring employeesbased on cultural fit than on hiring for specific job-relevantskills 0.049 20.031 0.038 0.466

This workplace reduces status distinctions to de-emphasisehierarchy 20.004 0.237 20.062 0.416

Table I.Exploratory factor

analysis for HPWP andemployee relations

Union presenceand HPWP

515

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Ver

mon

t At 0

1:28

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Page 10: Union presence, employee relations and high performance work practices

The validity of these constructs was tested using confirmatory factor analysis withAMOS version 7, producing adequate goodness of fit statistics (Byrne, 2001,CMIN/DF , 3. RMSEA , 0.10, GFI . 0.90, CFI . 0.90) in all cases. Scales wereconstructed for each of the previous four constructs from which the descriptivestatistics shown in Table II were calculated. The Cronbach alpha measures ofreliability are close to or above the 0.60 level required by Hair et al. (2010).

The initial analysis concerned a comparison of organisations with and without aunion presence in terms of these scales. The scales were reasonably normal indistribution for each of these groups so a MANOVA test was conducted. Structuralequation modelling (SEM) with an invariance test was used to compare the relationshipbetween employee relations and HPWP adoption for workplaces with and without aunion presence. Hair et al. (2010) claim that for SEM at least five observations arerequired for each correlation, so there was sufficient data to fit a model with four scales,even in the case of the small sample of workplaces without a union. A bootstrapanalysis was used in order to obtain 90 per cent confidence intervals for thestandardised weights and R-square values. Finally, workplaces were classified ashaving good or not good employee relations. Workplaces were categorised as having“good” employee relations if they had a score of 5 or above (agree responses).Workplaces were categorised as having “not good” employee relations if they scoredbelow 5 (neutral or disagree responses). The hypotheses were then tested usingsuitable contrasts, making special 3-group MANOVAs unnecessary.

Limitations of data collectionData were collected from the single source of the human resource professional. The fearwith a single source is that it may cause common method bias for the independent anddependent variables, producing inflated estimates of the relationships between thevariables (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). However, the four dimensions derived from thedata in the factor analysis shown in Table I suggest that this is not the case andsurveys filled out by a single well-informed informant are a common procedure whensample size and costs may become prohibitive (Klassen and Whybark, 1999).

This research examines workplaces across multiple industries. Whilst singleindustry research can provide greater validity by controlling for industry conditions itcan eliminate environmental and technological sources of variation which have been

Employeerelations (ER)

Employeevoice (EV)

Employeesecurity (ES)

Employeeempowerment(EE)

Means 4.56 4.53 4.54 3.97Standard deviation 1.04 1.41 1.59 1.13Cronbach’s alpha 0.842 0.799 0.759 0.584

CorrelationsEmployee relations 1.000 0.661 * * 0.339 * * 0.499 * *

Employee voice 0.661 * * 1.000 0.307 * * 0.376 * *

Employee security 0.339 * * 0.307 * * 1.00 0.203 *

Employee empowerment 0.499 * * 0.376 * * 0.203 * 1.00

Notes: *p , 0.01, * *p , 0.001

Table II.Descriptive statistics andcorrelations

PR42,5

516

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Ver

mon

t At 0

1:28

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Page 11: Union presence, employee relations and high performance work practices

cited as key antecedents of the adoption of HPWP (Pfeffer, 1998). Becker and Huselid(1998) propose that both industry specific and multiple industry research are importantto the development of empirical research in this area.

The data sample was collected in 2000 and a case needs to be made for theapplicability of the findings of this paper in 2012. Since 2000 there has been a continueddecline in union membership from 24.7 per cent in 2000 to 18 per cent in 2012(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2012a, b). There has also been a decline in the numberof industrial disputes which is likely to be associated with a change in the legal termsunder which industrial action can take place and a sustained period of prosperitycharacterised by strong employment growth and decline in unemployment despiterecent global financial events that which have affected employment in other countries(Branberry, 2008). However, we argue that this research is of significant value in thecurrent context. In particular, as cited previously, a significant proportion of theAustralian workforce continue to be union members and unions are unlikely todisappear any time soon. Second, the effective implementation of change is asignificant current management concern and the role of human resources is critical toachieving this outcome (Australian Human Resources Institute, 2012). Third, from timeto time Australian Governments launch significant attacks on unions and the rights ofworkers as demonstrated by the introduction of “Work Choices” legislation in 2006(Stewart, 2011). Consequently, while calling for more research, it is argued that thefindings of this article are robust and relevant in 2012 and make a contribution to theway that unions are positioned and viewed in the current Australian context.

ResultsA MANOVA test on the previous scales showed significant differences depending onunion presence (Wilk’s Lambda ¼ 0.928, Fð4; 172Þ ¼ 3:350; p ¼ 0:011, partial etasquared ¼ 0.072). In particular, there was a significant difference in employee relationsin union and non-union workplaces (Fð1; 175Þ ¼ 6:123; p ¼ 0:014, partial etasquared ¼ 0.034). It seems that employee relations are better when there is no unionpresence (Mean ¼ 4.96, SD ¼ 1.06) than when there is a union presence (Mean ¼ 4.47,SD ¼ 1.03). However, there were no significant differences for employee voice(Fð1; 175Þ ¼ 0:006; p ¼ 0:940), employee security (Fð1; 175Þ ¼ 3:42; p ¼ 0:066) oremployee empowerment (Fð1; 175Þ ¼ 1:303; p ¼ 0:255).

Using structural equation modelling the effect of employee relations on HPWPadoption was tested, showing an excellent fit (Chi-square ¼ 0.716, df ¼ 2, p ¼ 0.699).However, a test of invariance showed that different weights were required forworkplaces with and without a union presence (Chi-square ¼ 17.8, df ¼ 3, p , 0.001).Figure 2 shows how the weights change when a union presence is introduced.However, a comparison of 90 per cent bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals forworkplaces with and without unions showed that only in the case of EmployeeSecurity was there no overlap, suggesting a significant difference in the loadings foronly this variable.

It therefore appears that HPWP adoption is measured differently depending on theexistence of a union presence. Employee security is an important element of HPWPadoption only when there is a union presence. There is also some indication thatemployee voice becomes a more important aspect of HPWP adoption when there is nounion presence, suggesting that employee voice acts as a substitute for union voice.

Union presenceand HPWP

517

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Ver

mon

t At 0

1:28

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Page 12: Union presence, employee relations and high performance work practices

Interestingly, however, there is also some indication that employee empowerment is amore important component of HPWP in the case of union workplaces than non-unionworkplaces.

Employee relations explained 80 per cent of the variation in HPWP adoption (with a90 per cent confidence interval of 66 to 98 per cent) when there is a union presence and70 per cent of the variation in HPWP adoption (with a wide 90 per cent confidenceinterval of 24 to 100 per cent due to the sample size) when there is no union presence.Figure 2 suggests that workplaces with better employee relations are more likely toimplement HPWP regardless of union presence although employee relations seemedslightly more important to the adoption of HPWP in workplaces with union presence,as evidenced by the R-Square values. This result indicates that employee relations isimportant to the adoption of HPWP and suggests support for all three hypotheses.

Finally, a MANOVA test is used to test the hypotheses explicitly with employeerelations scores of at least five characterised as “good” and scores below thiscategorised as “not good” because of a neutral or poor evaluative response from surveyparticipants. As expected from previous results, workplaces without a union presencewere significantly (Chi-square ¼ 5.659, df ¼ 1, p ¼ 0.017) more likely to have goodemployee relations (59 per cent) than those with a union (37 per cent).

Table III shows mean values for the HPWP of employee security, voice andempowerment for workplaces with and without a union presence and with and without“good” employee relations. The MANOVA test shows significant differences between

Figure 2.The effect of employeerelations on HPWPadoption withstandardised weightsshown for workplaceswith and without a unionpresence

PR42,5

518

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Ver

mon

t At 0

1:28

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Page 13: Union presence, employee relations and high performance work practices

Mea

nS

DE

mp

loy

eere

lati

ons

Not

goo

dG

ood

AN

OV

Ate

sts

Un

ion

pre

sen

ceN

oa

Yes

bN

oc

Yes

dF

(3,1

73)

p-v

alu

eP

arti

alh

2H

yp

oth

eses

sup

por

ted

(a)

Em

plo

yee

voi

ce3.

281.

654.

091.

285.

370.

965.

331.

0919

.002

,0.

001

0.24

82,

3E

mp

loy

eese

curi

ty5.

081.

414.

121.

664.

951.

234.

961.

474.

525

0.00

40.

073

1,3

Em

plo

yee

emp

ower

men

t4.

001.

013.

521.

004.

281.

314.

600.

9713

.218

,.0

010.

186

1,2,

3S

amp

lesi

ze13

9219

53

Notes

:aC

ontr

asts

:(a

+c-

2b)

forH1

,(2

d-a

-c)

forH2

,(d

-b)

forH3

Table III.HPWP adoption

according to employeerelations and union

presence

Union presenceand HPWP

519

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Ver

mon

t At 0

1:28

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Page 14: Union presence, employee relations and high performance work practices

these four groups (Wilks Lambda ¼ 0.640, Fð9; 416Þ ¼ 9:32; p , 0:001, partialh 2 ¼ 0:138). As shown in Table III there was a moderate effect size (h 2 ¼ 0:073) inthe case of employee security with larger effect sizes in the case of employeeempowerment (h 2 ¼ 0:186) and employee voice (h2 ¼ 0:248).

Contrast tests showed support for H1 in terms of employee security(tð173Þ ¼ 2:769; p ¼ 0:006) and in terms of employee empowerment(tð173Þ ¼ 2:910; p ¼ 0:004) but not in terms of employee voice(tð173Þ ¼ 0:834; p ¼ 0:411). Non-union workplaces were more likely to implementemployee security and employee empowerment than union workplaces with pooremployee relations.

However, there is support for the second hypothesis in terms of employee voice(tð173Þ ¼ 3:410; p , 0:001) and employee empowerment (tð173Þ ¼ 1:991; p ¼ 0:048)but no support for this hypothesis in the case of employee security(tð173Þ ¼ 0:142; p ¼ 0:887). Union workplaces with good employee relations weremore likely to introduce employee voice and employee empowerment than non-unionworkplaces.

Finally there is support for H3 in the case of employee voice(tð173Þ ¼ 6:209; p , 0:001), employee security (tð173Þ ¼ 3:153; p ¼ 0:002) andemployee empowerment (tð173Þ ¼ 6:124; p , 0:001). Union workplaces with goodemployee relations were more likely to implement employee voice, security andempowerment than union workplaces with poor employee relations.

In summary H1 is supported in the case of employee security and employeeempowerment with non-union workplaces more likely to implement employee securityand employee empowerment than union workplaces with poorer employee relations.

However, contrary to expectation, there is no support for this hypothesis in the caseof employee voice. Also contrary to expectation, the second hypothesis is supportedonly in the case of employee voice and empowerment with significantly higheremployee voice and empowerment for workplaces with a union presence and goodemployee relations than for workplaces without a union presence. Employee securitylevels were very similar for non-union workplaces and union workplaces with goodemployee relations. Finally there is support for the third hypothesis for all three HPWPvariables, in that workplaces with a union presence are more likely to adopt HPWP ifthey have good employee relations.

DiscussionIn this section we interpret some of the more important and unexpected findings,mention the limitations of our study, make recommendations for future research andconsider the practical implications of our findings.

Overall we found that unions can have a positive impact on organisationalcompetitiveness by facilitating the adoption of HPWP and that this impact ismoderated by the quality of employee relations.

First, employee relations had a significant impact on HPWP adoption in both unionand non-union workplaces. We also found a relationship between union presence andthe adoption of HPWP with differences in the nature of HPWP in union versusnon-union workplaces. We found that employee voice is more likely to be a componentof HPWP in non-union workplaces, supporting the proposition that individual voicemay be used as a substitute for collective voice in non-union workplaces because they

PR42,5

520

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Ver

mon

t At 0

1:28

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Page 15: Union presence, employee relations and high performance work practices

do not have the benefits of collective voice or the communication infrastructure thatunions provide. It has been proposed that HPWP, which use direct and online voicethrough management, is inferior to union voice because employees do not feel they canprovide genuine input without management reprisal. Without genuine voice, barriersto effective implementation of HPWP are more likely as management resists its loss ofpower, focuses on initiatives that deliver results in the short-term and is instrumentalin its management of employees, resulting in lack of trust and the co-operationessential to HPWP success. We were not able to investigate whether HPWP voice wasas effective as union voice in this study but propose that this is an important avenuefor future research.

We also found that HPWP focused on employee security were more likely to beadopted in workplaces with a union presence. The greater focus on employee securitymay reflect union priorities and bargaining power. Whilst numerical flexibility may bepositive for workplaces using traditional work practices to achieve competitiveadvantage through cost minimisation, HPWP need employment security to ensure theeffective implementation of other practices in the HPWP system. Employee voice andempowerment need employee commitment are discretionary and can be withdrawn ifemployees do not trust management and feel they may lose their jobs. Consequently,non-union workplaces may fail to effectively implement HPWP because they offer pooremployment security. Again, without outcome data we were unable to test thisproposition but suggest it be addressed in future research.

In addition to this, union workplaces were more likely to focus on employeeempowerment than non-union workplaces when implementing HPWP, stressing aflatter workplaces structure, more flexible employees and management that believeemployees are self-motivated and controlled. The greater emphasis on empowermentin HPWP in union workplaces is interesting given initial union resistance to theelimination of seniority rights and job classifications (Godard and Delaney, 2001).However, it may be that empowerment is more easily implemented in unionworkplaces that provide trust, commitment, security and voice. In particular it hasbeen asserted that empowerment must be coupled with job security to be effective sohigh performance work systems that fail to include this vital component may be morelikely to fail. This result contradicts the assumption that unions introduce restrictivework practices and supports the proposition that unions can facilitate the introductionof HPWP.

Second, the results indicated that workplaces without a union presence had betteremployee relations. There are two possible explanations for this result in that employeerelations could be an antecedent and/or consequence of union presence. Poor employeerelations may encourage employees to join a union or union presence may agitate therelationship between employees and management. Only future research using timeseries data can provide a definitive conclusion on this issue.

We specifically hypothesised that employee relations would be important to theadoption of HPWP and that union workplaces with good employee relations wouldhave a more positive impact on HPWP than union workplaces with poor employeerelations and workplaces without a union presence. Our findings provided somesupport for all three hypotheses, with employee relations being important to theimplementation of HPWP in both union and non-union workplaces.

Union presenceand HPWP

521

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Ver

mon

t At 0

1:28

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Page 16: Union presence, employee relations and high performance work practices

H1 proposed that non-union workplaces would be more likely to implement HPWPthan union workplaces with poor employee relations. This hypothesis is based onextant theory that proposes that unions with poor employee relations will introducerestrictive work practices that inhibit the introduction of HPWP. This hypothesis waspartially supported. We found that workplaces with a union presence and pooremployee relations were less likely to implement employee security and empowermentthan non-union workplaces. However, contrary to expectation, there is no support forthis hypothesis in the case of employee voice. This may be because these workplacesintroduce individual and direct employee voice as a substitute for union collective voiceto minimize the impact of unions or to replace unions, rather than as part of an HPWPsystem.

H2 proposed that union workplaces with good employee relations are more likely tointroduce HPWP than non-union workplaces. This hypothesis is based on extanttheory that proposes that unions with positive employee relations encouragemanagement to introduce more productive work practices and facilitate theimplementation of productive work practices. This hypothesis was partiallysupported. We found that union workplaces with good employee relations weremore likely to introduce employee voice and employee empowerment than non-unionworkplaces. However, the level of employee security was similar for non-unionworkplaces and for union workplaces with good employee relations. It is difficult toexplain this result. Could it be that, in the interest of maintaining good employeerelations, unions “side with management” at the expense of their membership? In thiscase the “partnership” approach is not one of mutual gains for employers andemployees, especially if, as some authors have suggested, employee voice is a poorsubstitute for collective voice (McLoughlin and Gourlay, 1992; Rubinstein, 2001) andemployee empowerment leads to work intensification and increased employee stress(Sisson (1993). Clearly, this result points to the need for further research to confirm thisresult and examine the impact of HPWP adoption on employer and employeeoutcomes.

H3 proposed that union workplaces with good employee relations would be morelikely to implement HPWP than union workplaces with poor employee relations basedon the proposition that employee relations moderate the impact that unions have on theadoption of productive work practices. This hypothesis was supported. Unionworkplaces with good employee relations were more likely to introduce employeevoice, employee security and employee empowerment, supporting the proposition thatemployee relations moderate the impact that unions have on HPWP adoption.

In conclusion, this study found that while unions can have a negative impact on theadoption of HPWP when employee relations are poor, a union presence was valuable tothe adoption of HPWP when employee relations are good. Given HPWP have beenlinked to competitive advantage, workplaces would do well to perceive unions ashaving the potential to have a positive impact on employer outcomes. However, goodemployee relations, which moderate the impact of unions on HPWP adoption, are lesslikely in union workplaces and management needs to concern itself with developingthis essential success factor.

This study has identified some interesting results that require further investigation.It also has several limitations which could be addressed in future research. First, alarger sample with a substantial proportion of union workplaces would be difficult, yet

PR42,5

522

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Ver

mon

t At 0

1:28

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Page 17: Union presence, employee relations and high performance work practices

valuable, to obtain. Research based on time-series and multiple source data would alsoenhance the validity of the research findings. Finally, more complex research thatexplored both the antecedents and consequents of HPWP adoption would answer someof the questions raised in this discussion. In particular, future research could examinethe impact of individual HPWP on employer and employee outcomes.

There are several key theoretical and practical implications of these findings. Weinvestigated the nature of HPWP in union and non-union workplaces. In doing so wecontributed to the debate on whether HPWP individual and direct voice are asubstitute for collective voice by finding that non-union workplaces focus on voicepractices in HPWP adoption and suggesting they do this because they lack the voicemechanisms provided by unions. Second, we found that non-union workplaces wereless likely to introduce employee security in their suite of HPWP which may haveimplications for the effectiveness of HPWP. Third, we found that employeeempowerment was a less likely HPWP component in non-union workplaces,contradicting the assumption that unions introduce restrictive work practices. Mostsignificantly, our research supported the proposition that employee relations moderatethe relationship between union presence and HPWP adoption, which have been linkedto superior organisation performance, contradicting the simplistic notion that unionsare ‘bad for business’. Overall, we have demonstrated that unions, when coupled withgood employee relations, facilitate the adoption of HPWP and consequently have apositive impact on organisational competitiveness. This has implications forGovernment and organisation approaches to union presence and management inorganisations. In particular, given that Bryson and his colleagues (Bryson, 2004;Bryson et al., 2006) have demonstrated that management is crucial in determining theoutcomes from union and employer interactions, this research stresses the importanceof focussing on management attitudes to unions.

Notes

1. Boxall and Purcell (2008) propose that HPWP are drawn from three sources: Walton (1985)concept of the High Commitment Work Practice focused on winning employee commitmentto organisation goals through positive incentives and identification with company culturerather than trying to control behaviour through routine, short-cycle jobs and directsupervision. Lawler (1986) focused on High Involvement Practices which had an emphasison redesigning jobs to involve employees more fully in decision making and on skill andmotivational practices that support this. High Performance Work Practices based on aninfluential US public report involving reforms to work practices to increase employeeinvolvement in decision making and companion investments in employee skills andperformance incentives to ensure they can undertake these greater responsibilities and aremotivated to do so.

2. The mechanisms of collective voice are management-union negotiations, collectivenegotiations and collective industrial action. Individual voice mechanisms includeindividual employee negotiations; employee consultation through quality circles,suggestion schemes, employee surveys; performance appraisals; grievance anddisciplinary procedures; committees including joint consultative committees, health andsafety committees, task force or ad hoc joint committees; and employee representatives ie.Health and safety and employee board representatives. Some researchers include individualacts of dissent such as absences from work and shirking as mechanisms of individual voice(Kochan and Osterman, 1994; Lawler et al., 1995).

Union presenceand HPWP

523

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Ver

mon

t At 0

1:28

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Page 18: Union presence, employee relations and high performance work practices

3. The discarded items were: It is common for employees to look beyond their individual jobs toaddress system problems/improvements. Accountability focuses on the team rather than theindividual. Decision making is decentralised. Jobs are designed to empower employees.Work has not intensified and/or working hours have decreased. Training focuses on theoverall development of the employee and is not confined to the current job role. In thisworkplace rewards are based more on group achievement than individual pay geared to jobevaluation. This work place has a principle of equality of salary sacrifice in hard times. Thisworkplace has a profit sharing or share ownership scheme so people are rewarded whenbusiness is doing well.

References

Appelbaum, E. and Batt, R. (1995), “Worker participation in diverse settings: does the form affectthe outcome, and, if so, who benefits?”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 33 No. 3,pp. 353-378.

Armstrong, P., Marginson, P., Edwards, P. and Purcell, J. (1998), “Divisionalization in the UK:diversity, size and the devolution of bargaining”, Organization Studies, Vol. 19 No. 1,pp. 1-22.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2012a), ABS 6310.0 - Employee Earnings, Benefits and TradeUnion Membership, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, March 30 2001, available at:ABS web site: www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/CE8F52DF98E29B2ACA256A1F00073CC0/$File/63100_aug%202000.pdf (accessed July 8, 2012).

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2012b), ABS 6310.0 - Employee Earnings, Benefits and TradeUnion Membership, August 2011, available at: ABS web site: www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Latestproducts/6310.0Main%20Features2August%202011?opendocument&tabname¼Summary&prodno¼6310.0&issueequals;August%202011&num¼&view¼(accessed July 8, 2012).

Australian Human Resources Institute (2012), The Future of Work and the Changing Workplace:Challenges and Issues for Australian HR Practitioners 2010, available at:www.ahri.com.au/MMSDocuments/profdevelopment/research/research_papers/fow_white_ paper.pdf (accessed July 8, 2012).

Becker, G. and Huselid, M. (1998), “High performance work systems and firm performance:a synthesis of research and managerial implications”, Research in Personnel and HumanResource Management, Vol. 16, pp. 53-101.

Benson, J. (2000), “Employee voice in union and non-union Australian workplaces”, BritishJournal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 453-459.

Black, S.E. and Lynch, L.M. (2001), “How to compete: the impact of workplace practices andinformation technology on productivity”, Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 83 No. 3,pp. 434-445.

Boxall, P. and Purcell, J. (2008), Management, Work and Organisations, Palgrave Macmillan,Basingstoke.

Branberry, L. (2008), “Propensity to join and maintain membership of unions amongst casualschool teachers in NSW”, RMIT Working Paper Series No. 3, pp. 1-17.

Bryson, A. (2001), “The foundation of ‘partnership’? union effects on employee trust inmanagement”, National Institute Economic Review, Vol. 76, pp. 91-104.

Bryson, A. (2004), “Managerial responsiveness to union and nonunion worker voice in Britain”,Industrial Relations, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 213-241.

Bryson, A. (2005), “Union effects on employee relations in Britain”, Human Relations, Vol. 58No. 9, pp. 1111-1139.

PR42,5

524

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Ver

mon

t At 0

1:28

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Page 19: Union presence, employee relations and high performance work practices

Bryson, A., Charlwood, A. and Forth, J. (2006), “Worker voice, managerial response and labourproductivity: an empirical investigation”, Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 37 No. 5,pp. 438-455.

Bryson, A., Gomez, R. and Willman, P. (2007), “The diffusion of workplace voice andhigh-commitment human resource management practices in Britain, 1984-1998”, Industrialand Corporate Change, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 395-426.

Byrne, B.M. (2001), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS – Basic Concepts, Applications,and Programming, Lawrence Erlbaum, London.

Chen, S. (2007), “Human resource strategy and unionization: evidence from Taiwan”,International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 1116-1131.

Clarke, M.C. and Payne, R.L. (1997), “The nature and structure of workers’ trust in management”,Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 205-224.

Cohen, Y. and Pfeffer, J. (1986), “Employment practices in the dual economy”, AdministrativeScience Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 1-23.

Collins, C. and Smith, K. (2006), “Knowledge exchange and combination: the role of humanresource paractices in the performance of high-technology firms”, Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 544-560.

Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A. and Ketchen, D. (2006), “How much do high-performance workpractices matter? A meta-analysis of their effects on organizational performance”,Personnel Psychology, Vol. 59, pp. 501-528.

Cooke, W.N. (1990), “Factors influencing the effects of joint union-management programs onemployee-supervisor relations”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 43 No. 5,pp. 587-603.

Cooke, W.N. (1992), “Product quality improvement through employee participation: the effects ofunionization and joint union-management administration”, Industrial and Labor RelationsReview, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 119-134.

Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J., McKersie, R. and Walton, R. (1989), “Dispute resolution and thetransformation of US industrial relations: a negotiations perspective”, Labor Law Journal,Vol. 40 No. 8, pp. 475-483.

Deery, S., Walsh, J. and Knox, A. (2001), “The non-union workplace in Australia: bleak house orhuman resource innovator?”, International Journal of Human Resource Management,Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 669-683.

Deery, S.J., Iverson, R.D. and Erwin, P.J. (1994), “Predicting organizational and unioncommitment: the effect of industrial relations climate”, British Journal of IndustrialRelations, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 581-597.

Delery, J.E., Gupta, N., Shaw, J.D., Jenkins, J.R. and Ganster, M.L. (2000), “Unionization,compensation, and voice effects on quits and retention”, Industrial Relations, Vol. 39 No. 4,pp. 625-645.

Denny, K. (1997), “Productivity and trade unions in British manufacturing industry 1973-1985”,Applied Economics, Vol. 29 No. 10, pp. 1403-1409.

Eaton, A.E. and Voos, P. (1989), “The ability of unions to adapt to innovative workplacearrangements”, American Economic Review, Vol. 79 No. 2, pp. 172-176.

Eaton, A.E. and Voos, P. (1994), “Productivity-enhancing innovations in work organization,compensations and employee participation in the union versus the non-union sectors’”, inLewin, D. and Sockell, D. (Eds), Advances in Industrial and Labor Relations, JAI Press,Greenwich, CT.

Union presenceand HPWP

525

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Ver

mon

t At 0

1:28

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Page 20: Union presence, employee relations and high performance work practices

Erickson, C.L. and Jacoby, S.M. (2003), “The effect of employer networks on workplaceinnovation and training”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 203-223.

Freeman, R.B. and Medoff, J.L. (1984), What Do Unions Do?, Basic Books, New York, NY.

Freeman, R.B. and Rogers, J. (1999), What Workers Want, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.

Frohlich, D. and Pekruhl, U. (1996), Direct Participation and Organisational Change –Fashionable but Misunderstood? An Analysis of Recent Research in Europe, Japan and theUSA, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

Galang, M.C. (1999), “Stakeholders in high-performance work systems”, The InternationalJournal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 287-305.

Gephardt, M. and Van Buren, M. (1996), “Building synergy: the power of high performance worksystems”, Training and Development Journal, Vol. 50, pp. 22-36.

Gill, C. (2009), “Union impact on the effective adoption of high performance work practices”,Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 19, pp. 39-50.

Godard, J. and Delaney, J.T. (2001), “An industrial relations perspective on the high-performanceparadigm”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 11, pp. 395-429.

Goshal, A. and Nahapiet, J. (1998), “Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage”, Journal of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-262.

Green, K.W., Wu, C., Whitten, D. and Medlin, B. (2006), “The impact of strategic human resourcemanagement on firm performance and HR professionals’ work attitude and workperformance”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 17, pp. 559-579.

Gregg, P.A. and Machin, S.J. (1988), “Unions and the incidence of performance linked payschemes in Britain”, International Journal of Industrial Organization, Vol. 6 No. 1,pp. 91-107.

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.,Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Haynes, P.B., Boxall, P. and Macky, K. (2005), “Non-union voice and the effectiveness of jointconsultation in New Zealand”, Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 26 No. 2,pp. 229-256.

Huselid, M.A. (1995), “The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,productivity, and corporate financial performance”, Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 38, pp. 635-672.

Keenoy, T. (1991), “The roots of metaphor in the old and the new industrial relations”, BritishJournal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 313-328.

Kessler, I. and Purcell, J. (1995), “Strategic choice and new forms of employment relations in thepublic service sector: developing an analytical framework”, International Journal ofHuman Resource Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 206-229.

Klassen, R. and Whybark, D. (1999), “The impact of environmental technologies onmanufacturing performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42, pp. 599-615.

Kochan, T.A. and Osterman, P. (1994), Mutual Gains Bargaining, Harvard Business School Press,Boston, MA.

Kochan, T.A., Katz, H.C. and McKersie, R.B. (1986), The Transformation of American IndustrialRelations, Basic Books, New York, NY.

Lawler, E. (1986), High-Involvement Management, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Lawler, E.E., Mohrman, S. and Ledford, G. (1995), Creating High-performance Organizations,Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Levine, D.I. (1995), Reinventing the Workplace, Brookings, Washington, DC.

PR42,5

526

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Ver

mon

t At 0

1:28

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Page 21: Union presence, employee relations and high performance work practices

Levine, D.I. and Tyson, L. (1990), “Participation, productivity and the firm’s environment”, cited2001 in Godard, J. and Delaney, J.T., “An industrial relations perspective on thehigh-performance paradigm”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 11, pp. 395-429.

Lincoln, J.R. and Kalleberg, A.L. (1990), Culture, Control and Commitment, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Lloyd, C. (2001), “What do employee councils do? The impact of non-union forms ofrepresentation on trade union organisation”, Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 32 No. 4,pp. 313-327.

McLoughlin, I. and Gourlay, S. (1992), “Enterprise without unions: the management of employeerelations in non-union firms”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 669-691.

Marginson, P. (1992), “European integration and transnational management-union relations inthe enterprise”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 529-545.

Marshall, R. (1992), “The future role of government in industrial relations”, Industrial Relations,Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 31-49.

Miller, P. and Mulvey, C. (1993), “What do Australian unions do?”, Economic Record, Vol. 69No. 206, pp. 315-342.

Millward, N., Stevens, M., Smart, D. and Hawes, W.R. (1992), Workplace Industrial Relations inTransition, Dartmouth, Aldershot.

Moreton, D. (1999), “A model of labour productivity and union density in British private sectorunionised establishments”, Oxford Economic Papers, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 322-344.

Osterman, P. (2000), “Work reorganization in an era of restructuring: trends in diffusion andeffects on employee welfare”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 53, pp. 179-196.

Pantuosco, L., Parker, D. and Stone, G. (2001), “The effect of unions on labor markets andeconomic growth: an analysis of state data”, Journal of Labor Research, Vol. 22 No. 1,pp. 195-205.

Pfeffer, J. (1998), The Human Equation, Harvard University Press, Boston, MA.

Pfeffer, J. and Veiga, J.F. (1999), “Putting people first for organisational success”, Academy ofManagement Executive, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 37-48.

Pil, F.K. and Macduffie, J.P. (1996), “The adoption of high-involvement work practices”,Industrial Relations, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 423-455.

Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self reports in organizational research: problems andprospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12, pp. 531-544.

Ramirez, M., Guy, F. and Beale, D. (2007), “Contested resources: unions, employers, and theadoption of new work practices in US and UK Telecommunications”, British Journal ofIndustrial Relations, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 495-517.

Rinehart, J., Huxley, C. and Robertson, D. (1997), Just Another Car Factory? Lean Production andits Discontents, ILR Press, Ithaca, NY.

Rubinstein, S.A. (2000), “The impact of co-management on quality performance: the case of theSaturn Corporation”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 53, pp. 197-218.

Rubinstein, S.A. (2001), “Unions as value-adding networks: possibilities for the future of USunionism”, Journal of Labor Research, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 581-598.

Rubinstein, S.A., Bennett, M. and Kochan, T. (1993), “The Saturn Partnership: Co-Managementand the Reinvention of the Local Union”, in Kaufman, B. and Kleiner, M. (Eds), EmployeeRepresentation: Alternatives and Future Directions, IRRA Press, Madison, WI, pp. 339-370.

Sisson, K. (1993), “In search of HRM?”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 32 No. 2,pp. 201-210.

Union presenceand HPWP

527

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Ver

mon

t At 0

1:28

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Page 22: Union presence, employee relations and high performance work practices

Stewart, A. (2011), Stewart’s Guide to Employment Law, 3rd ed., The Federation Press, Sydney.

Swart, J. and Kinnie, N. (2003), “HRM and knowledge workers’”, in Boxall, P. (Ed.), The OxfordHandbook of Human Resource Management, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Turnbull, P.J. (1988), “The economic theory of trade union behaviour: a critique”, British Journalof Industrial Relations, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 99-118.

Turnbull, P.J. (1992), “Employment regulation, state intervention and the economic performanceof European ports”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 385-404.

Vedder, R. and Gallaway, L. (2002), “The economic effects of labor unions revisited”, Journal ofLabor Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 105-130.

Voos, P. (1987), “Managerial perceptions of the economic impact of labor relations programs”,Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 195-208.

Walton, R. (1985), “From control to commitment in the workplace”, Harvard Business Review,Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 77-84.

Wells, D. (1993), “Are strong unions compatible with the new human resource management?”,Relations Industrielles, Vol. 48, pp. 56-85.

Whitener, E. (2001), “Do ‘high commitment’ human resource practices affect employeecommitment? A cross-level analysis using hierarchical linear modeling”, Journal ofManagement, Vol. 27, pp. 515-535.

Whitener, E., Brodt, S., Korsgarrd, M. and Werner, J. (1998), “Managers as initiators of trust: andexchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behaviour”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 513-530.

Wood, S.J. and Fenton-O’creevy, M.P. (2005), “Direct involvement, representation and employeevoice in UK multinationals in Europe”, European Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 11No. 1, pp. 27-50.

Wright, P. and Snell, S. (1998), “Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibility instrategic human resource management”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23No. 4, pp. 756-772.

Further reading

Drago, R. (1996), “Workplace transformation and the disposable workplace: employeeinvolvement in Australia”, Industrial Relations, Vol. 35, pp. 334-355.

Guest, D.E. and Peccei, R. (2001), “Partnership at work: mutuality and the balance of advantage”,British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 207-236.

Kochan, T. (1980), Collective Bargaining and Industrial Relations; From Theory to Policy andPractice, Irwin, Homewood, IL.

Marginson, P., Edwards, P.K., Purcell, J. and Sisson, K. (1988), “What do corporate offices reallydo?”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 229-245.

Corresponding authorCarol Gill can be contacted at: [email protected]

PR42,5

528

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Ver

mon

t At 0

1:28

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)