Introduction

The term "partnership" is now used so much in the fields of public management and labour relations that some have suggested that its meaning is unclear. In the workplace context, it means that employees become systematically involved in making decisions about how their organisation operates. That can be a contentious issue. Some managers see it as threatening their authority, while some unions see it as a trap for their members. However, there is also plenty of experience showing that partnership approaches can bring mutual benefits.

This study looked at workplace partnerships in a mature collective bargaining environment, in which employees are organised in unions, and found that unionised workplaces are better suited to effective partnerships. It found that, typically, partnership involves some combination of formal communication process and changes in work organisation to enable team-working, and increased task discretion and responsibility. This is frequently combined with increased functional flexibility. These characteristics also appear to align well with empirical evidence about conditions for effective employee involvement in productivity improvement.

Organisational Arrangements and Attitudes in Partnership

There are many forms of workplace partnership in the public sector but the aims, values and attitudes of the participants can be more important than the organisational arrangements in shaping the outcomes. It requires different mindsets than the more traditional forms of management and industrial relations; while partnership requires a cooperative approach, traditional collective bargaining is adversarial by nature.

Specific organisational arrangements are required, but can be either on-going or ad hoc. Whether or not these arrangements are separate from pre-existing collective bargaining machinery also varies, and there are strengths and weaknesses either way. Some experience and evaluations suggest that it is a weakness if the partners are able to retreat back into established collective bargaining machinery if the partnership process hits problems, while others suggest the ability to do so is a necessary safety net.

Partnership takes time to develop and usually begins as a result of some catalytic challenge, such as an external threat, requiring broader cooperation or joint discussion outside of normal bargaining. Some evidence suggests that, while national union leadership can positively affect outcomes, workplace partnership is usually the product of local decisions, often to deal with a crisis and following leadership changes. But sustaining partnership requires institutionalisation of the process; when an individual champion leaves, innovation often dies.

The literature suggests that most partnership models and agreements settle for vague formulations that emphasise a broad unity of purpose and mutual commitment to making all possible efforts to understand and accommodate each other's needs, while recognising the legitimacy of the separate interests of employees and employers.

Processes and Purposes of Partnerships

The literature suggests that a key to effective partnership is that both sides learn to take responsibility for issues that are traditionally the responsibility of only one of them. In particular, public sector employers need to develop more commitment to the quality of their employees' work life, while public sector unions need to take a corresponding interest in improving service quality. Both theoretical and practical evidence suggests that improvements to productivity and quality of working life are necessary conditions of each other, and that each party must be willing to learn about the other's culture and leadership pressures.

While partnership is normally used in processes of operational or organisational change, it often stops short of involving staff and unions in strategic decision-making. Indeed, there are few cases in which there has been any significant movement away from traditional patterns of decision-making, and management tends to retain the right to decide what issues are subject to the partnership process. This may help to explain the gaps revealed in the literature between the stated intentions and actual implementation of partnership in some cases, and the disappointments experienced in others.

Previous | Contents | Next