The Impact Of A Unitary Regulatory And Hrm Framework: Managerial And Worker Views From The New Zealand Workplace

Yıl 2007, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1, 55 - 83, 01.03.2007

Alan Geare İan Mcandrew Fiona Edgar

Öz

This study reports views of managers and workers about employment relationships and Human Resource Management (HRM) practice. Drawing on both qualitative and quantitative data collected in 2005, this paper specifically seeks to examine how a unitary legislative framework, along with the influence of HRM with its unitary underpinnings, has impacted on manager and worker views of employment relations in the New Zealand context. Data analysis revealed current views on employment relations closely paralleled the literature on best practice HRM, and insights provided by this group of managers and workers highlight what are considered to be the important employment relations issues being faced today

Anahtar Kelimeler

Human Resource Management, Best Practice, Ideology, Unions, Managers, Workers

Kaynakça

• Ackers, P., C. Smith and P. Smith. (1996). The new workplace and trade unionism, London, Routledge.
• Adams, R. (1989). North American industrial relations: Divergent trends in Canada and the United States, International Labour review, 128(1): 47-64.
• Adams, R. (1999). Why statutory union recognition is bad labour policy: the North American experience. Industrial Relations Journal, 30(2): 96-100.
• Adams, R. (2002). The Wagner Act Model: A Toxic System beyond Repair. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 40(1): 122-127.
• Arthur, J. (1994). Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3):670-687.
• Boselie, P., G. Dietz, and C. Boon, (2005). Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and performance research. Human Resource Management Journal, 15(3):67-94.
• Boselie, P., J. Paauwe, and R. Richardson. (2003). Human resource management, institutionalization and organizational performance: a comparison of hospitals, hotels and local government. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(8):1407-1429.
• Brown, W., S. Deakin, D. Nash and S. Oxenbridge. (2000). The Employment Contract: From Collective Procedures to Individual Rights. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38(4): 611-629.
• Browning, V. and F. Edgar. (2004). Reactions to HRM: An Employee Perspective from South Africa and New Zealand. Journal of the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management (JANZAM). 10(2):1-13.
• Delery, J. and D. Doty, D.(1996). Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management: Tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance predictions. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4): 802.
• Easterby-Smith, M., R. Thorpe, and A. Lowe. (1991). Management Research: An Introduction. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
• Eaton, A. and P. Voos. (1989). The ability of unions to adapt to innovative workplace arrangements, The American Economic Review. 79(2):172-176.
• Edwards, P. and M. Wright. (2001). High-Involvement Work Systems and Performance Outcomes: The Strength of Variable, Contingent and ContextBound Relationships’. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(4):568-585.
• Flick, U. (2002). An Introduction to Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, London, UK.
• Geare, A. (1986). An Examination of certain aspects of Industrial Relations ideologies: A theoretical analysis and an empirical Study, PhD thesis - 87 30270, University of Otago, New Zealand.
• Geare, A. Edgar, F. and McAndrew, I., (2006). Employment Relationships: Ideology and HRM Practice, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(7):1190-1208.
• Godard, J. and J. Delaney. (2000). Reflections on the “high performance” paradigm’s implications for Industrial Relations as a field. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 53(3): 482-502.
• Guest, D. (1995). Human resource management, trade unions and industrial relations. In J. Storey (Ed.), Human resource management: A critical text (pp. 110-141). London ; New York: Routledge.
• Guest, David E., (1999). Human Resource Management – The Worker’s Verdict, Human Resource Management Journal, 9(3):5-25.
• Guest, David. E., (2001). Human Resource Management: When Research Confronts Theory, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(7):1092-1106.
• Haynes, P., P. Boxall and K. Mackay. (2006). Union reach, the ‘representation gap’ and the prospects for unionism in New Zealand, Journal of Industrial Relations, 48(2):193-216.
• Holgate, J., E. Hebson, and A. McBride. (2006). Why gender and ‘difference’ matters: A critical appraisal of industrial relations research, Industrial Relations Journal, 37(4):310-328.
• Legge, K. (1995). Human Resource Management: Rhetorics and Realities. London: Macmillan.
• Mowday, R., M. Steers, and L. Porter. (1979). The measurement of organisational commitment, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14:224-247.
• New Zealand Business Who’s Who. (2004), Auckland: New Zealand Financial Press Ltd.
• Paul, A and R. Anantharaman. (2004). Influence of HRM Practices on Organisational Commitment: a study among software professionals in India. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15 (1):77-88.
• Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive Advantage Through People: Unleashing the Power of the Work Force. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
• Sommers, M. (1995). Organisational commitment, turnover and absenteeism : an examination of direct and interaction effects. Journal of Organisational Behavior, 16, 49-58.
• Tsui, A. (1990). A multiple-constituency model of effectiveness: An empirical examination at the human resource subunit level, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(3):458-484.
• Ulrich, D. (1997). Human Resource Champions: The next agenda for adding value and deliver results. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
• Walton, R.E. (1985). From Control to Commitment in the Workplace. Harvard Business Review, 63 (2):76-85.
• Whitfield, K. and M. Poole. (1997). Organizing employment for high performance: Theories, evidence and policy, Organization Studies, 18(5):745- 764.