theme of movement in management style of particular interest at this particular time .... tive social organization of work involves working in teams, a low divi- sion of labour ..... to install the notion of employee involvement (McKinlay and Starkey,.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 4:3 September 1993
Individualism and collectivism: into the 1990s
John Storey and Nicolas Bacon Abstract New, employer-led initiatives iti the management of human resources are said to have pitched the emphasis towards the 'individualistic' rather than the 'coUectivistic' aspects of the employment relationship. The marginalization of trade unions and collective bargaining which this has entailed are but two (albeit fundamental) facets of a wide-ranging set of issues and rep)ercussions. Individualization of employment policies throws up dilemmas and unresolved challenges for managers, trade unions and employees. In embarking upon a major new empirical research project it has become necessary to revisit and review the utility of the currently available literature. In particular, how well would the traditional approaches to modelling individualism and collectivism cope with the new directions taketi by recent managerial initiatives? The results of this analysis contribute the heart of this article. It is suggested that previous approaches ignore key dimensions of change which managers are currently pursuing. A new set of categories is proposed for understanding the mix of individual and collective elements in current developments. It is argued thai these more accurately reflect current issues and tensions in management strategy.
Introduction The nature of employee relations in Britain is widely (although not universally) acknowledged to have undergone a considerable change in the past decade or so. There are many dimensions to this change, and its character as well as its causal factors have been described in various ways. An underlying common feature, however, appears to be the secular drift towards 'individualistic' aspects such as individual appraisal, individual goal setting, individual pay systems, direct communication with individuals, and, at the same time, a drift away from previously prevailing *collectivistic' aspects such as extended collective bargaining, jointly agreed procedures and reliance upon communication through 665
John Storey and Nicolas Bacon the trade union channel. In the light of these moves it has now become commonplace for textbooks, and commentators generally, to refer frequently to the centrality and importance of the distinction between 'individualism' and 'collectivism' in employment management. Intuitively this appears to be a valid and significant distinction to make. However, despite its popularity in general discourse, the full meaning of the distinction has rarely, if ever, been subjected to critical scrutiny. Given the pivotal place which the distinction has now come to occupy we maintain that the time is well overdue for that close examination to commence. We have no particular brief to project 'individualism" and 'collectivism' as necessarily the incisive way to interpret contemporary employment relations. Our objective is to examine the meaning and utility of these terms. As will become clear later, this means disaggregating the concepts. This article shows how previous contributions to the debate have failed to distinguish between individualism and collectivism in the three important and separate realms of industrial relations, work organization and human resource practices. We then go on to unpack these three categories further and finish by identifying the critical elements within each. Patterns of change While 'drifts' or tendencies towards individualism have been tracked in various accounts (Storey, 1992; Morris and Wood, 1991; Beaumont, 199!) this has not meant that the 'new' individualistically oriented initiatives have entirely displaced the procedure-based collectivist methods and practices. On the contrary, the 'traditional' industrial relations machinery and its related elements have continued to operate to one degree or another in the British context (Millward et al., 1992; Legge, 1988). Although there has evidently not been an outright displacement, there has perhaps been instead a marked shift in emphasis. The myriad of new employer-led initiatives which have set the agenda as well as the pace in recent years have shared the basic feature that they stand outside and independently from the previously prevailing assumption of mutuality. There has not been outright 'transformation' of British industrial relations but there appears to have occurred a considerable turnabout. Trade union recognition and collective bargaining and other collective relations such as agreed procedures have broadly continued albeit in a drastically attenuated form. Under these circumstances the new initiatives have been pursued alongside a circumscribed CO I lectivist/procedu re-based system inherited from previous decades. 666
Individualism and collectivism The new, employer-driven, initiatives have many of the hallmarks of the 'human resource management' model (Guest, 1989; Storey, 1992). In the British context this model has confronted various structural impediments to its full adoption. Detailed case-based research has revealed the dual operation of the new initiatives and abridged maintenance of trade union relations and associated procedures. This 'dualistic' approach has entailed a bolting-on of human resource management-style initiatives to the continuing proceduralized collectivist pattern of relations (Storey, 1992). It is significant to note that the most recent Workplace Industrial Relations Survey (Millward et al., 1992) reveals that most of the new human resource initiatives have in fact been taking place in unionized settings. For reasons which will be explained below, the tension between these two approaches is likely to be central to future developments in management strategy and employee relations. Management are faced with problematical choices. To a considerable extent these seem to present themselves as 'packages' of interrelated approaches, or to use the fashionable and in this instance rather apt terminology, they are faced with 'recipes'. The Donovan-style recipe of 'good and sophisticated industrial relations management' and its associated recipe of 'good and sophisticated personnel management' involved (to paint a broad-brush depiction) jointly agreed procedures and rules, written records, joint regulation of rule administration, fairness, job evaluation, comparability, rate for the job and other similar ingredients. The recipe which began to supplant this in the 1980s was very different. It showed an impatience with rules; in place of standardization it emphasized the virtue of variability to meet market 'needs'; as a corollary it elevated the role of the line and business manager in decision making about human resources and downplayed the role of the personnel specialist; it insisted upon the primacy of direct communication with employees; in this and other ways it marginalized the role of trade unions at all levels; and, not least, from employees it sought not merely conformance with rule but 'commitment'. Given such a catalogue, it should hardly be a matter of surprise that the main underlying characteristic seen as differentiating these two broad approaches has been the contrast between 'collectivism' on the one hand and 'individualism' on the other. The purpose of this paper, and the wider research programme of which it is a part, is to explore the interpretative utility of this conceptualization. Developments in work organization have, if anything, been counter to this trend, emphasizing collective forms of working over the strict division of labour and demarcations between jobs. In practical terms, to explore the utility of this conceptualization would involve an examination of 667
John Storey and Nicolas Bacon the perceptions and practices associated with these competing 'recipes' and a clarification of the outcomes associated with their use. The paper is organized into three main sections. The first section evaluates the attempts to clarify and use the individualistic and coUectivistic dimension in the existing literature. The second section describes our preferred way forward: the 'criteria-based' analysis of individualism and collectivism. Here, we disaggregate the essential elements and hypothesize certain possible patterns that may exist between them. The final section seeks to show how this new way of looking at the problem might be translated into field research.
The existing literature on individualism and collectivism In Britain at least, Purcell has probably contributed most to the exploration of the significance of individualism and collectivism in helping to distinguish between different management approaches to employee relations. In one article Purcell (1986) used the cross-cutting dimensions of individualism and collectivism to draw out four contrasting ideal-types of management style: consultative, constitutionalist, traditional and sophisticated human relations. In a subsequent article (Purcell, 1987) he sought to identify the more subtle range of possibilities open to management using a mix of individualistic and coUectivistic policies. Individualism was defined as 'the extent to which personnel policies are focused on the rights and capabilities of individual workers' (1987: 533). The scale ranged from labour control (low individualism) to paternalism and then employee development (high individualism). Collectivism was defined as 'the extent to which management policy is directed towards inhibiting or encouraging the development of collective representation by employees and allowing employees a collective voice in management decisionmaking' (p. 533). This ran from unitary at the low end to adversarial and then co-operative at the high end. The creation of the 'individualism-collectivism' grid is claimed to allow a plotting of various mixtures of individualist and collectivist strategies. However, there are several problems with the model as it stands. Firstly, there is work to be done in further unpacking the concepts of 'individualism' and 'collectivism'. It is questionable whether 'employee development' necessarily equates with greater 'individualism'. Japanese-style development, for example, is marked by its accent on 'groupism'. To take another example, traditional British craft apprenticeship systems were fully consonant with union collectivism. Conversely, at the opposite end of the spectrum, Tayloristic tight 668
Individualism and collectivism labour control practices based on fragmentation of work can evidently be associated with 'individualization'. Paternalism is itself a complex phenomenon and comes in various forms (Ackers and Black, 1991). Arguably these three concepts simply do not belong on the same scale. Purcell's 'collectivist' dimension runs from 'unitary' at the one end to 'co-operative' at the other - with 'adversarial' in the middle. The logic of this is more self-evident, though again it is clear that Purcell is basically writing about collectivism as equatable with unionization and is in efTect returning to Fox's unitarist versus pluralist framework. There have been attempts to improve upon Purcell's framework. Marchington and Parker (1990) actually suggested dropping individualism and collectivism and substituting 'investment orientation' and 'management attitudes and behaviour towards trade unions in the workplace'. These suggestions may present a useful framework on their own but as it takes the debate away from individualism and collectivism it falls outside the scope of this discussion. McLoughlin and Gourlay (1992) also attempted to contrast management styles among non-union firms in terms of the degree to which individual and collective methods of job regulation are 'mixed'. The absence/presence check-list of fourteen items they use to measure individualism and collectivism excludes many possible measures, such as forms of work organization, and is actually a list to detect the existence of HRM practices and elements of a unionized industrial relations system. Furthermore, the check-list approach they report is also inadequate. Whether the absence/presence of many of these measures indicates individualism or collectivism we are not told, and many could indicate both. For example, profit sharing could be both an aspect of individualism (rewarding individuals for effort) and collectivism (engendering collective identification and applied to all employees in a blanket fashion). When used to explore empirical cases these suggested frameworks have all been used largely to explore just management. Typologies of management 'style' have, however, been criticized for under-emphasizing or even neglecting the influence of employees and unions on the actual patterns of relations in the workplace. What unions do, the roles they play, the policies they adopt and the reaction of individual workers to the mixture of individualistic and collectivistic elements in management strategy are all equally important for understanding the fuller meaning of collectivism and individualism. It is important therefore that any proposed way forward in reconceptualizing individualism and collectivism should clearly pay close regard to perceptions, orientations, frames of reference and actual practices. The degree of fit between these elements remains an open empirical question. 669
John Storey and Nicolas Bacon The difficulties encountered in managing shifts in actual employment relationships are encapsulated in the implementation of human resource management strategies because they involve a reconsideration of the elements of individualism and collectivism. This makes the theme of movement in management style of particular interest at this particular time and it suggests to us the value in preserving and pursuing the individualistic/coliectivistic theme even though, as the above review reveals, current usage is somewhat imprecise.
An alternative analysis 'Individualism' and 'collectivism' are rich, suggestive terms but at the same time they are elusive, abstract and ambiguous. These problematic aspects are compounded by the fact that several separate literatures engage with them and use them in rather different ways. Viewed in this wider light it can be seen that PurcelPs various attempts to map management styles in terms of individualism and collectivism echo the work of Fox (1974) who was in fact largely concerned with only one dimension: pluralism and unitarism. It is hardly surprising therefore that within industrial relations discourse the terms individualism and collectivism are used as near equivalents (if not indeed as interchangeable with) unitarist and pluralist approaches respectively. In effect therefore, collectivism comes to equate with trade unionism and individualism with non-unionism. Elements of work organization had been brought into the debate by Purcell and Sisson (1983) to take account of the difference between unitarist employers who are exploitative and those committed to employee development. However, this insight remains undeveloped as the concern was with ideal-types of industrial relations management. By contrast, in the work organization and labour process literatures individualism is seen as part of the Tayloristic strategy which fragments and deskills work. Collectivism pertains to work teams and participative group methods of working. Work organization and labour process analysts do not suggest these as alternative uses to the pluralist/unitarist meanings of the IR specialists; rather they can be said often simply to ignore the presence or possibility of trade unions altogether. Vice versa, the IR specialists tend to neglect the collective aspects of work which do not pertain to trade unionism. One notable exception is Guest's (1990) analysis which, in demarcating, for example, 'behavioural Taylorism', does manage to incorporate work organization as well as industrial relations considerations. In the main, however, these difTerent facets are not brought into consideration in 670
Individualism and collectivism most frameworks. In his analysis of employer strategies (Gospel (1992) shows certain related facets to be important, using the concepts of 'work relations', 'employment relations' and 'industrial relations' as aspects of sets of decisions which employers have long had to make in governing their enterprises. We suggest that different aspects of these various discourses are worth drawing upon. But none, on its own, provides an adequate basis for understanding what is currently unfolding in labour management. While Purcell's models have carried the analysis within IR a long way forward, they cannot cope with the complexity of recent developments in employment management. Similarly, Guest deals from the human resource perspective, and, while including other elements, the classification remains limited for understanding overall management strategies for employee relations. Where Guest (1989) has sought to relate human resource management to industrial relations the difficulty in reaching any strong conclusions is a further indication that a broader perspective is needed for understanding current developments in management strategies. Gospel's analysis comes closest to our own but we devote rather more direct attention to the interplay and contradictions between developments in industrial relations, human resources and work organization. Because of the nature of recent developments the issues of individualism and collectivism are now ripe for re-evaluation. Current models of good management practice (for example, HRM and Japanese working practices) do not offer simple models but complex bundles of problems and opportunities which impinge directly upon the balance of individualism and collectivism. To demonstrate this complexity in the case of HRM, it might be argued that in most of the dimensions, where companies move f'rom traditional personnel and industrial relations policies to the 'new' HRM policies (see Storey, 1992), there is a shift from collectivism to individualism. However, although we would accept this in most cases, it does not hold true for all dimensions. For example, on a range of dimensions the dynamic appears to operate in the reverse direction: that is, from individualism to collectivism. For example, it involves moving from the division of labour to team working, developing a common culture, and a shift from selective to more general access to training. We suggest that confusion arises because not all HRM initiatives are inherently more individualist than collectivist and inadequate conceptions of 'individualism' and 'collectivism' are often used. In looking for the effects of HRM on industrial relations. Guest (1989) uses a unitarist definition of HRM and a pluralist definition of British industrial relations. But, as some elements of HRM are collectivist, the 671
John Storey and Nicolas Bacon picture is in practice a complex one. Furthermore, there are often competing internal logics of collectivism and individualism. To give just one example, the shift to team working may involve greater collectivism as the team members gain an independent voice and have a greater say in their immediate management. However, they may not use the trade union channel to project this new role which may result in management manipulation of teams against each other. Consequently, initiatives can simultaneously involve greater collectivism in work organization and greater individualism in industrial relations. Ultimately the problem of determining the future trajectories of individualism and collectivism may involve an increasing tension between collective and individual logics within organizations. Thus, the fully flexible firm which depends upon highly trained and committed individual workers needs a sense of the collective to respond as a social unit in order to produce the necessary goods and services. Team work, communication and flexible responsiveness all depend upon collective logics and these are at the heart of the new management agenda. However, so too are attempts to reduce the role played by the collective voice of employees. There are several points which emerge from these observations on the links between HRM and individuahzation. First, the equation between HRM and individualism is revealed as by no means straightforward. There are areas where collective endeavour is positively required. Moreover, the flndings relating to 'dualism' suggest that managers may in fact have reached a sober assessment of the current limitations of HRM in Britain and consequently the maintenance of a management-union relationship at least in 'ticking-over' mode has been judged to be a necessary part of the current package. Rather than a 'failure' of companies to overcome anti-HRM collectivist structures, it may represent a more realistic view of HRM tools in the current context. Second, the situation carries important implications for trade unions. The way they react can, in turn, be expected to iterate with further management action. Management initiatives which induce an 'enterprise' orientation among shop stewards and members would be one case in point (Brown, 1986). Decentralization tendencies among national union bodies in reaction to HRM strategies represent a further example (Beaumont, 1990). Arising out of all of this it can be readily seen that there are divergent meanings to 'collectivism' and to 'individualism' depending upon which literatures one is using. As Figure ! reveals, collectivism can have different faces in the IR, work organization and personnel realms of discourse. 672
Individualism and collectivism COMPARTMENTALIZED JOB DESIGN
NON-UNIONISM
PERFORMANCE-RELATED PAY
Figure 1 Divergent meanings of 'collectivism'
There is no necessary relationship between, say, a shift to (or from) collective bargaining and either of the other two forms of collectivism. Similarly with individualism: Figure 2 again reveals the discontinuity between the different meanings in the IR, work organization and personnel spheres. Hence, a shift from collective pay to individualized PRP is not necessarily associated with any move in unionization. In the past, piece rate systems (arguably an extreme form of individualized pay) were in fact associated with strong unionization. TEAMWORKING
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
HARMONIZATION
Figure 2 Divergent meanings of 'individualism' 673
John Storey and Nicolas Bacon What is notable from the above two figures, however, is the suggestion of a relationship between work organization and personnel approaches even if IR itself stands detached. Thus, team working may well be aided by harmonized terms and conditions, and compartmentalized job design is in turn likely to be underpinned by PRP. All of this suggests that the theme of individualism and collectivism is highly relevant but much more elusive than PurcelPs pioneering work in industrial relations was able to capture. At this point in the argument therefore, we now want to set out an alternative way forward: one which will embrace the three aspects identified above (IR; work organization; and HR). We refer to this as the 'criteria-based approach'. A criteria-based approach Drawing upon the three sets of literatures associated with IR, work organization and HR respectively, we have extracted a set of criteria which should prove to be indicative of individualism and collectivism in practice. The results of this disaggregation of the concepts are shown in Figure 3. Three key points need to be immediately made in relation to this figure. First, while for diagrammatic purposes it is presented as a dichotomy, the criteria listed do not, of course, have to be used in fieldwork in a yes/no or present/absent way. Clearly, while these are 'pure types' in conceptual terms, the check-list when used in the field does allow for subtleties and for degrees of variation along a scale. Second, this configuration has a major comparative advantage over Purcell's. Purcell has long maintained that there can be 'degrees' of both individualism and collectivism and that the two are not related. While this sounds plausible, in fact it is a point which, given the way John Purcell sets out his case, turns out to be rather unhelpful. Reference to our Figure 3 shows that when the three categories of IR, work organization and HR practices are separated out, then the point about the possibility of pursuing individualism in one and collectivism in another becomes much clearer. But, if one fails to disaggregate, then the point only serves to confuse. For example, if just the IR box is taken it does not in fact make a lot of sense to claim that managers can pursue the promotion of unions and collective procedures while also pursuing the demotion or marginalization of unions and retreating from collective procedures (unless one was referring to different sets of employees). What Purcell's model conflates is the collectivism of IR and the collectivism of work organization or HR policies. As 674
Individualism and collectivism our figure makes clear these are different realms of collectivism and individualism. In Purcell's terms it is possible to be scored 'high' on both individualism and collectivism - what our figure makes clearer is that this is almost invariably to slip between different meanings of these terms. This criteria-based approach allows exploration of the multi-dimensional nature of individualism and collectivism in the managementemployee relationship. In the industrial relations area three major indicators appear central management orientations, employee orientations towards trade unions and the nature of collective bargaining. Management orientation clearly relates to the traditional categories of unitarist and pluralist views of conflict and interest. The nature of collective bargaining indicates the extent to which managers recognize the collective basis for industrial relations. A high measure of collectivism, for example, would involve an extensive scope of negotiations occurring on a regular basis. A 'secondary' list of factors associated with collectivized industrial relations would include proceduralized rules and decision making, high union density, active shop stewards, regular joint consultation, high member involvement in the union, the company communicating to employers via the union channel, institutionalized conflict and organized forms of protest. If we turn to the area of work organization, then the three major measures are the technical and social organization of work, control over features of job operation and relationship to authority. A collective social organization of work involves working in teams, a low division of labour and low job segmentation. A collective control of job features would involve group-based joint regulation. Involvement in management decisions would be high, thus providing a collective distribution of authority. In contrast, an individualistic work organization will involve isolated working, a high division of labour into compartmentalized tasks, little job rotation, either complete autonomy and the making of management decisions (for senior and/or white collar staff) or strict supervisory control and low involvement in management decisions (for lower grade staff). Finally, in the area of the human resource aspects of management strategy, particular importance must be attached to the nature of the pay system, terms and conditions, and culture. A collective system would involve a system of pay which valued tenure and rates for the job; high job security; permanence of contract; converging terms and conditions and a high identification with the symbols, myths and values of the workplace. A system characterized by individualistic human 675
John Storey and Nicolas Bacon
ndustrial relations 1. Management orientation
INDIVIDUALISM *
COLLECTIVISM ^
non-unionism non-unionism
pro-unionism
2. Work-force orientation 3. Nature and role of collective bargaining a. Bargaining unit D. Scope of bargaining c. Continuity of bargaining d. Form of bargaining 4. Joint consultation
managers determine rules Individual narrow sporadic tokenistic none
joint procedure group extensive regular real regular
pro-unionism
~~~—-.^ Wnrk Organi7»tinn 5. Technical and social organization of work a. Division of labour b. Comparimentalization of tasks c. Movement between jobs 6. Control over job methods/rules
7. Relation of individual to authority
Personnel/HR Aspects 8. Reward system
9. Terms and conditions a. Labour market b. Contract duration c. Careers d. Job security 10. Culture
Note Symbols A-F are explained in the tex
^^ - "
high high none autonomy/ supervisor determined either strict hierarchical control Of technological control unilaterally decided by managers hierarchical low involvement in managerial decisions
^.^^""^ skills/knowledge based performance based tailored externally exposed temporary no career planning/ individual competition low low identification with symbols, myths and values
'•
^ ^ ^ ^ "
low extensive interaction extensive group based joint regulation
equal status joint decisions „„,—-^ "" ~ - k . ^ tenure/ seniority/rate for job standardized internally ocyiilcf IIDU
permanent standard career progression high high identification with symbols, myths and values
•
Figure 3 Criteria for exploring individualism and collectivism in organizations 676
Individualism and collectivism resources policies would involve performance-related pay decided through appraisal, a high number of temporary workers, divergent terms and conditions and a low identification with common symbols, myths and values. The main purpose and justification for adopting this approach to the study of individualism and collectivism is that it provides a toolkit which can be taken into the field to aid empirical study. It has to be emphasized that, as with any took-kit, this one is open to use and abuse. There is no necessary reason why the separate criteria such as team working or career planning or unionization would end up being handled mechanistically by field researchers. No reason either why the concepts would be reified. The variety and shades of meaning possible for each of the terms can be fully taken into account, providing that the researchers using the framework are alert to practical subtleties. The advantage to be gained by using such a framework is that change in one area of management-employee relations seems likely to have implications for others. As such, the criteria check-list offers a way to draw out the interconnections between the different tools in management strategy while helping to clarify the complexity of factors which affect individualism and collectivism in organizations. It also reflects the many different forms of individualism and collectivism. For example, collectivism can mean the handling of employeremployee relations through the medium of trade unions or staff associations (the 'industrial relations' meaning); it can alternatively or additionally refer to group as opposed to individual forms of work organization (the 'work organization' meaning) and/or it can connote common standards in terms and conditions as opposed to individual variability (the 'personnel/human resource' meaning). It is important to specify the way in which we intend these criteria to be used. We do not suggest that there are any organizations which conform in any pure sense to either collectivism or individualism in all categories. Nor are the scales meant to suggest there are only two options available to management for each decision-making area. Clearly, employers mix individualist and collectivist strategies and an organization may be more collectivist than others on a range of dimensions without being fully collectivist. One can hypothesize various patterns - but, as the figure implicitly indicates, there are likely to be limits. Hence, in the IR category, a strong emphasis on joint rule making seems unlikely to appear alongside an active push for union de-recognition. The framework does allow, however, a distinction to be drawn between, say, managerial preferences/orientations and actual pragmatic behaviour. It is important to realize the value of the possibility (or even likeli677
John Storey and Nicolas Bacon hood) that different types of individualism and collectivism fit together in ways other than in the vertical columns depicted in Figure 3. It enables us to hypothesize possible mixtures of individualism and collectivism. For example, the predominant drift in employee relations strategies has been towards greater individualism in industrial relations (labelled 'A'), greater collectivism in work organization (labelled 'D') and greater individualism in personnel/human resource policies (labelled 'E'). It has been a common pattern in several industries for companies that seek new working practices (a shift towards collective forms of work operation such as in teams) to undermine collective bargaining and organized opposition to change (individualization). In order for the new system to work, consequent changes are needed in human resource strategies to develop the new skills necessary alongside changes in the nature of motivation and reward (individualization). In summary, the advantages that can be claimed for the criteriabased approach are that: (i) it allows the researcher to move beyond general concepts by disaggregating and operationalizing them; (ii) it brings together the three separate literatures of industrial relations, work organization and human resources; (iii) it avoids the conflation of starkly dissimilar approaches which, when viewed in only broad terms, look superficially to have important common elements. For example, without disaggregation there is always the danger of suggesting confusing similarities between firms which 'individualize' the employment relationship: in practice there is not a great deal in common between a sophisticated high-tech white-collar company which offers premium terms and conditions and an exploitative low-tech blue-collar company even though both may apparently be pursuing an 'individualization' approach; (iv) data organized in this way could help to identify trends and highlight possible interconnections and repercussions. None the less, we recognize that essentially the criteria-based approach is simply a check-list and classificatory system. It is not in itself a 'theory' - but could it contain the seeds of a theory of change? The way forward here may be the identification of patterns between the various dimensions. The framework opens up the challenge to researchers to explain whatever patterns are found. The criteria-based approach does not suggest that managers have a coherent approach to individualism and collectivism or that management strategy is static in the way that traditional classifications of management style tend to do. Managers are likely to treat different grades of staff in different ways, and could treat similar grades differentially. Consequently the criteria-based approach is particularly apt at a time of reassessment 678
Individualism and collectivism and movement in management approaches. At minimum, it provides the basis for fieldwork activity around the changing nature of the employment relationship. The tool is sufficiently open to allow the empirical data which will be collected to fall out into patterns which have not been predetermined. At the same time, the framework allows hypotheses to be constructed about possible patterns. As a set of testable propositions there are eight possible combinations: Type ' 1' situations; where management exercises strong control through individualized treatment of all aspects of employee relations (route A-C-E on Figure 3). Type '2' situations: where both industrial relations and work organization are individualized but HR policies are collectivized (route A-C-F). Type '3' situations: where unions are opposed, work organization is coilective and sophisticated HR policies are pursued (route from B towards A, and then to D and E); Type '4' situations: where a non-union stance is harnessed to an enhanced form of work organization while HR policies remain collectively organized (route A-D-F); Type '5' situations: where IR is collectivized yet work organization and HR are dealt with on an individualized basis (route B-C-E); Type '6' situations: where the maintenance of a traditional industrial relations pattern is associated with a high division of labour and standardized terms and conditions (route B-C-F); Type '7' situations: where a collective approach to industrial relations and work organization is combined with an individualized approach to HR (route B-D-E); Type '8' situations: where a collective approach to all aspects of employee relations is pursued (route B-D-F). These eight 'types' are summarized in Figure 4. Of these eight possible types, two are unlikely to exist in reality. The extent of management control through individualized industrial relations and work organization in 'Type 2' makes it unlikely there would be any pressure for a collective approach to HR. In small businesses where there is strong direct management control over the labour process and antiunion attitudes, there is little incentive for the employer to offer strong job security, to pay anything other than pay rates determined by the local labour market or to give all employees standardized terms and conditions. 'Type 5' is also unlikely because the individual organization of work organization and HR makes inappropriate a 679
John Storey and Nicolas Bacon Industrial Relations
Work Organization
HR/ Personnel
Type 1
Individualized
Individuai ized
Individualized
Type 2
Individualized
Individualized
Collectivized
Type 3
Individualized
Collectivized
Individualized
Type 4
Individualized
Collectivized
Collectivized
Type 5
Collectivized
Individualized
Individualized
Type 6
Collectivized
Individualized
Collectivized
Type 7
Collectivized
Collectivized
Individualized
Types
Coliectivized
Coiiectivized
Collectivized
Figure 4 Combinations of individualism and collectivism in employee relations
collective approach to industrial relations. The Co-op Bank has retained a largely rule-based and proceduralized control of work organization while developing increasingly sophisticated and individually targeted HR policies. However, to achieve these changes the collective elements of industrial relations have been reduced, and while still unionized, collective bargaining has been weakened, with managers increasingly taking decisions without agreement. The six remaining types include two where little change is occurring inside companies which conform most closely to them. Type 1' companies predominate in the small business sector where there are no signs of changing employee relations. Despite the growth in interest in HRM there is no evidence of small companies investing in more sophisticated employee relations policies. Given the recent abolition of wages councils, pay is increasingly likely to be driven downwards and subject to arbitrary fluctuations. 'Type 8' companies which subscribe to the co-operative ethos remain small in number. Both Baxi and Scott Bader combine extensive union involvement, a high degree of worker participation and job security with a stable reward and career system. There is no sign that the number of such firms will increase or that other companies wiil seek to emulate them. The remaining four types all represent mixes of individual and collective elements in employee relations strategies. Of these 'Type 3' has probably been the most stable categot^ with companies such as IBM, Digital, Hewlett Packard, Kodak and Marks and Spencer continuing their policies of non-unionization with enhanced work organization and sophisticated human resource policies. Admiration for the success of key proponents of this mixture continues to attract other companies to seek a similar employee relations set-up. For example, 680
Individualism and collectivism employee relations practices at Unipart have been changed as the company sought the total quality systems of Japanese companies, leading to improved training, greater individual responsibility and involvement through quality circles. The Chief Executive of Unipart explained the implications for industrial relations in describing the changes as 'the new style of working, where trade unions no longer have any influence over working practices', leading to de-recognition for the unions {Management Today. May 1992; FT, 3 September 1992). 'Type 4' can be an unstable mixture of elements for companies which have recently moved towards individualizing IR and aspire to the more sophisticated HR policies found in Type 3' companies. Many firms have attained this mixture by developing collective forms of work organization through multi-skilling and team working. Yet the development of these features makes it increasingly important to target HR policies towards individuals. The chemicals and oil industries have companies which have moved away from a collectivized IR framework with unions 'withering on the vine' in the face of work organizational change. In an attempt to change working practices and employee attitudes, managers at BP Chemicals' Plant at Baglan Bay gave process and craft workers staff status thereby ending collective bargaining. Workers were then reshaped into self-regulating work teams and trained as multi-skilled production technicians with the aim of eliminating demarcations. To support this, human resource initiatives were required to change the training policy and increasingly tie individual salary increases to individual performance and contributions {IDS Report, 631, December 1992: 29). Similar changes have taken place at the Mobil Oil Refinery at Corytown where craft employees were given craft status, ending collective bargaining with the craft unions and making their annual salary increases dependent upon a merit-based assessment for PRP {IDS Report, 630, December 1992: 5). Similar moves had been made for tanker drivers at both Shell UK Downstream Oil and Esso, with stafT status, flexible shift patterns and individual contracts all key features {IDS Report, 627, October 1992: 8; IDS Report, 606: 3). The 'Type 6' category contains companies which have sought to move away from individualized forms of work organization within a highly proceduralized context. Ford is a good example of this tension where managers pursued new strategies in a manner resisted by the unions before a new partnership began to emerge. Whereas the *After Japan' campaign foundered as the unions regarded it as an attempt to short circuit collective bargaining, and an 'Employee Involvement and Participative Management Campaign' was rejected as contrary to the nature of workplace trade unionism, the 1988 EDAP scheme managed 681
John Storey and Nicolas Bacon to install the notion of employee involvement (McKinlay and Starkey, 1991) and has helped smooth the way towards work organizational change. Similar new deals have been negotiated at Rolls Royce Motors at Crewe in 1991 and Rover Cars in 1992. But in British Steel, while some plants have achieved major changes quickly, others have adopted a more piecemeal approach. The majority of operations in BR, Royal Mail and the NHS still conform to this mixture of collective IR, individualized work organization and collective HR although all are seeking to change elements of this mix. The companies in 'Type T represent a pattern where individualized HR policies coexist alongside collective IR and work organization. Many of the firms which currently have individualized work organization and collective HR policies seek to emulate these firms. Companies in this category would include the Japanese transplant factories in the UK which have established collective forms of work organization involving flexibility, team working and quality circles to increase worker involvement. This has been supported by sophisticated HR policies. When Toyota established its new factory in Burnaston the 1,100 employees selected out of 20,000 applications had undergone fourteen hours of examinations. Transplant factories have pursued collective industrial relations through single union deals, pendulum arbitration and company advisory boards. Although trade unions do not monopolize employee representation and employees are consulted by individual methods, in many Japanese transplant companies (for example Toyota and Nissan) the approach to industrial relations remains proceduralized. Japanese transplant companies therefore mix elements of strategies which are individualistic and collectivistic. It is against a background of product and labour market turbulence that companies are currently seeking the appropriate balance of individualism and collectivism in the employment relationship. The framework presented provides a map for exploring these changes and their implications. The extent to which managers achieve a new strategic mix of these factors to help deliver successful performance will shape the extent to which newly adopted buman resource initiatives will become structurally integrated into broader employee relations strategies. Conclusion
:
Previous attempts to characterize management strategies for employee relations have a limited use for exploring current developments. As they were static typologies largely concerned with industrial relations 682
Individualism and collectivism they do not incorporate key dimensions of current change. As an alternative way forward we have suggested that the categories of 'individualism' and 'collectivism' are useful for understanding current developments. We have argued, however, that these categories need reformulating because they have competing meanings in the industrial relations, work organization and human resources fields. Consequently, we have proposed that a criteria-based approach structured around these three categories can shed light on current developments. This helped us to construct a new perspective for understanding the current tensions and developments in management strategies, several examples of which were furnished. The extent to which such tensions can be resolved and the outcomes of this process will shape future management strategies and developments in employee relations. John Storey and Nicolas Bacon Loughborough University Business School UK
References Ackers, P. and Black. J. (1991) 'Paternalist Capitalism: An Organisational Cuiture in Transition'. In Cross, M. and Payne, G. (eds) Work and the Enterprise Culture. London: Falmer Press. Beaumont, P.B. (1990) Trade Unions and Human Resource Management", Industrial Relations Journal, 22: 4. Blyton, P., Morris, J., Bacon, N. and Wemer-Franz, H. (forthcoming) Work Organisational Change in the British and German Steel Industries. Anglo German Foundation Report. Brown, W. (1986) The Changing Role of Trade Unions in the Management of Labour', British Journal of Industrial Relations, 24. 2. Delbridge, R., Turnbull, P. and Wilkinson, B. (1992) 'Pushing Back the Frontiers: Management Control and Work Intensification under JIT/TQM Factory Regimes', New Technology. Work and Employment, 7, 2: 97-106. ESRC Award No. ROOO 233263 (1991^) 'Management and Union Perceptions of Individualism and Collectivism in the I990s\ Fox, A. (1974) Beyond Contract: Work Po'wer and Trust Relations. London: Faber. Gospel, H. (1992) Markets. Firms and the Management of Labour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Guest, D. (1989) "Human Resource Management: Its Implications for Industrial Relations and Trade Unions'. In Storey, J. (ed.) New Perspectives on Human Resource Management. London: Routledge. Guest, D. (1990) 'Human Resource Management and the American Dream', Journal of Management Studies, 27, 4: 377-97. Guest, D. and Dewe, P. (1991) 'Company or Trade Union: Which Wins Workers' Allegiance? A Study of Commitment in the UK Electronics Industry', British Journal of Industrial Relations, 29, 1: 75-96. IDS Study (1988) April.
683
John Storey and Nicolas Bacon Kelly, J. and Kelly, C. (1991) ' "Them and Us": Social Psychology and "The New Industrial Relations" ", British Journal of Industrial Relations, 29, 1: 25-48. Legge, K. (1988) 'Personnel Management in Recession and Recovery: A Comparative Analysis of What the Surveys Say', Personnel Review, 17, 2. McKinlay, A. and Starkey, K. (1991) 'Beyond Control and Consent? Corporate Strategy and Employee Involvement in Ford UK'. In Blyton, P. and Morris, J. (eds) A Flexible Future?. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 157-69. McLoughlin, I. and Gourlay, S. (1992) "Enterprise Without the Unions: The Management of Employee Relations in Non-Union Firms', Journal of Management Studies, 29, 5. Marchington, M. and Parker, P. (1990) Changing Patterns of Employee Relations. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Millward, N.. Stevens, M., Smart, D. and Hawes, W. (1992) Workplace Industrial Relations in Transition. Aldershot: Dartmouth. Morris, T. and Wood, S. (1991) 'Testing the Survey Method: Continuity and Change in British Industrial Relations', Work Employment and Society, 4, 2: 259-82. Purcell, J. (1986) 'Employee Relations Autonomy within a Corporate Culture', Personnel Management, February: 39. Purcell, J. (1987) 'Mapping Management Styles in Employee Relations', Journal of Management Studies, 24, 5. Purcell, J. and Sisson, K. (1983) 'Strategies and Practice in the Management of Industrial Relations'. In Bain, G. (ed.) Industrial Relations in Britain. Oxford: Blackwell. Storey, J. (ed.) (1989) New Perspectives on Human Resource Management. London: Routledge. Storey, J. (1992) Developments in Human Resource Management: An Analytical Review. Oxford: Blackwell, Streek, W, (1987) 'The Uncertainties of Management and the Management of Uncertainty: Employers, Labour Relations and Industrial Adjustment in the i980s'. Work Employment and Society, 1, 3: 281-308.
684
