|
|
 |
Research and Information
Key themes - Partnership - Definition of partnershipPrior to 1999 the debate over the concept of partnership had been exacerbated by a lack of coherence in the definition of what actually constitutes partnership at work. While everyone from the New Labour government to the Transport and General Workers' union and even the Institute of Directors has advocated some form of partnership, the competing interpretations suggest a church so broad that, to some in the congregation, it seems happy to welcome heretics, atheists and apostates.
Among the articulated definitions there are the following:
- The original IPA model, first developed in 1992
- That of Larry Adams for ACAS (1993)
- New Labour's aspirational definition of partnership at work
- The EC's aspirational definition of social partnership
- The TUC's six-point definition (formally adopted in 1998)
- The varying interpretations among different trade unions, with some such as the AEEU happy for an agreement containing a no-strike clause to be called a partnership, while others such as the T&G have criticised this line vehemently (1997-99)
- The CBI's, the Institute of Directors' and the CIPD's preference for direct relations (1997-99)
Many of these definitions are summarised in Partnership-at-work.com our good practice database - search under authors.
Academics have been reluctant to offer their own models, although Guest and Peccei have sought to develop an HRM-style "bundle" of policies and practices which constitute partnership. Others have been content to discuss existing models, notably those of the IPA and the TUC.
Partnership generally refers to relations between employees and employers, or between trade unions and management teams at the level of the organisation or individual workplace (an organisation's intra-relations). In most of the existing definitions a model is presented for managing an organisation's employee relations with a bundle of specific HR practices.
Partnership definitions straddle the unitarist-pluralist divide. Commentators with a unitarist perspective refuse to acknowledge the potential for conflict between employer and employee; what conflict does occur is the product either of "mischief or misunderstanding". Pluralists, on the other hand, accept that employers and employees have separate interests, but believe that these can be managed in order to avoid outright conflict. In the unitarist camp there is the CBI which does not regard third parties as either desirable, or in their more belligerent moments, necessary, and cites only a joint commitment to success and staff training as explicit elements of any official model of partnership.
The CIPD is similarly reluctant to endorse the need for unions, and remains non-committal about specific components, stressing the behavioural aspects of a psychological contract. Paul Suff of IRS concludes his Management Review (1999) with the opinion that partnership is, ultimately, unitarist. The IPA, and ACAS, side with the unions in seeing the need for independent representation of employees, although the IPA does not believe that trade unions are the only means possible to achieve this. The unions, unsurprisingly, disagree.
The unitarist camp has not, it must be said, vigorously fought its case in the public debate about definitions. (However, in backroom dealings over the Employment Relations Act the CBI was determined to limit the impact of union recognition procedures, while the IoD and, to a lesser extent, the CIPD issued dire warnings about the return of the unions.) Most pronouncements have tended to be reactive, seeking to wrestle the idea of joint working away from the unions' exclusive claim to being its rightful custodians. Partnership is not a model of working that is promoted by any of these bodies, which prefer instead to focus on individualised "psychological contracts" rather than formal models of consultation.
Roger Undy, of Oxford University, resorted to inferring that, in the absence of "a clearer statement", New Labour's understanding of the term probably concurred with that of the IPA's. Certainly, New Labour's emphasis on shared success and building trust is in line with IPA thinking, and in its Fairness at work white paper it suggested that unions need not be present. And it did not endorse consultative forums, or independent representation of employees.
Seven of the more prevalent conceptualisations are represented in the table of definitions. The heart symbol denotes a stated principle or commitment, such as the wording in a mission statement or partnership agreement, but the diamond represents an observable and operating HR practice. For example, one may state a determination to "maximise employment security", but to be robust there must be supporting policies or practices in place such as a no-compulsory redundancy agreement, or methods for redeployment or retraining.
Convergence of agreement is developing on a number of key components that partnership arrangements ought to feature:
- Joint commitment to the success of the enterprise
- Efforts to build trust
- An attempt to address the issue of employment security in exchange for flexibility
- Provision of quality training programmes
- Information sharing and joint problem-solving with managers and employees together, whether in formal consultation or not.
The confusion over the definition of partnership remains an obstacle to its greater dissemination throughout British workplaces. However, many commentators are now referring to the IPA as the foremost independent centre of expertise on partnership-style of working.
Willy Coupar, the IPA Director, was invited by the government to chair the Partnership Fund committee, and Cherie Booth QC, speaking at ACAS' 25th anniversary conference, used the IPA model as her standard definition. The Dti report by John Knell drew largely upon the IPA's definition, as did IRS in its recent issue of Management Review (albeit coming to rather different conclusions). The TUC's six principles of partnership are virtually identical to those of the IPA original.
|
|