Abstract
In this paper we seek to uncover and analyse unitarist ideology within the field of HRM, with particular emphasis on the manner in which what we call ‘new unitarism’ is ideologically performative in HRM scholarship. Originally conceived of as a way of understanding employer ideology with regard to the employment relationship, unitarist frames of reference conceive a workplace that is characterised by shared interests and a single source of authority. This frame has continuously evolved and persistently formed thinking about HRM; however, this influence has been largely covert and unexamined. Using an epistemic analysis informed by theories of knowledge, we examine new unitarism against three types of validity claims—descriptive, normative, and instrumental—in order to understand how it has been ideologically constitutive of HRM scholarship. We consider the implications of this analysis for HRM research and practice and contend that an alternative frame, namely ‘new pluralism’, has potential to offer a more valid account of the employment relationship, to provide a framework for assessing how power affects the pursuit of employee interests, and to allow space for taking up deeply ethical questions related to employment.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In expounding what he means by the neologism ‘governmentality’, Foucault (1991, p. 88) says, somewhat rhetorically, ‘the problem [of government] comes to pose itself with this peculiar intensity, of how to be ruled, how strictly, by whom, to what end, by what methods, etc.
We thank the editors of this special issue for raising this important point.
References
Ackers, P. (2014). Rethinking the employment relationship: A neo-pluralist critique of British industrial relations orthodoxy. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(18), 2608–2625.
Ackers, P., & Payne, J. (1998). British trade unions and social partnership: Rhetoric, reality and strategy. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 9(3), 529–550.
Althusser, L. (1971). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (Notes towards an investigation). Lenin and philosophy and other essays (pp. 127–186). New York: Monthly Review Press.
Arrowsmith, J., & Parker, J. (2013). The meaning of “employee engagement” for the values and roles of the HRM function. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(14), 2692–2712.
Beer, M. (2009). High commitment high performance: How to build a resilient organization for sustained advantage. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639.
Berman, S. L., & Van Buren, H. J, I. I. I. (2015). Mary Parker Follett, managerial responsibility, and the future of capitalism. Futures, 68, 44–56.
Bévort, F., Darmer, P., Mogensen, M., & Muhr, S. L. (2015). ‘Managing the human? Towards diverse, engaged and critical HRM studies’, ephemera theory & politics in organization, cfp submission deadline 1 dec 2015.
Bidwell, M., Briscoe, F., Fernandez-Mateo, I., & Sterling, A. (2013). The employment relationship and inequality: How and why changes in employment practices are reshaping rewards in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 61–121.
Boselie, P., Dietz, G., & Boon, C. (2005). Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and performance research. Human Resource Management Journal, 15(3), 67–94.
Boswell, W. R., Bingham, J. B., & Colvin, A. J. S. (2006). Aligning employees through “line of sight”. Business Horizons, 49(6), 499–509.
Budd, J. W., Gomez, R., & Meltz, N. M. (2004). Why a balance is best: the pluralist industrial relations paradigm of balancing competing interests (pp. 195–227). Theoretical Perspectives on Work and the Employment Relationship, Champaign, IL: Industrial Relations Research Association.
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. London: Heinemann.
Caldwell, R. (2005). ‘Things fall apart? Discourses on agency and change in organizations’, Human Relations, 58(1), 83–114.
Callon, M. (1998). The laws of the markets. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Chreim, S. (2006). Managerial frames and institutional discourses of change: Employee appropriation and resistance. Organization Studies, 27(9), 1261–1287.
Clegg, H. A. (1975). Pluralism in industrial relations. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 13(3), 309–316.
Coase, R. H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 13(16), 386–405.
Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A., & Ketchen, D. (2006). How much do high-performance work practices matter? A meta-analysis of their effects on organizational performance. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 501–528.
Cooke, W. N. (1994). Employee participation programs, group-based incentives, and company performance: A union-nonunion comparison. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 47(4), 594–609.
Cotton, J. L., Vollrath, D. A., Froggatt, K. L., Lengnick-Hall, M. L., & Jennings, K. R. (1988). Employee participation: Diverse forms and different outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 8–22.
Cullinane, N., & Dundon, T. (2014). Unitarism and employer resistance to trade unionism. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(18), 2573–2590.
Delbridge, R., & Keenoy, T. (2010). Beyond managerialism? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(6), 799–817.
Dundon, T., & Gollan, P. J. (2007). Re-conceptualizing voice in the non-union workplace. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(7), 1182–1198.
Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 301–325.
Fiss, P. C., & Hirsch, P. M. (2005). The discourse of globalization: Framing and sensemaking of an emerging concept. American Sociological Review, 70(1), 29–52.
Foucault, M. (1988). Technologies of the self. In L. Martin, H. Gutman, & P. H. Hutton (Eds.), Technologies of the self (pp. 16–49). London: Tavistock.
Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 87–104). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fox, A. (1966). Industrial sociology and industrial relations. London: HMSO.
Fox, A. (1974). Beyond contract: Work, power and trust relations. London: Faber.
Friedman, M. (1962/1982). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gardner, T. M., & Wright, P. M. (2009). Implicit human resource management theory: A potential threat to the internal validity of human resource practice measures. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(1), 57–74.
Geare, A., Edgar, F., & McAndrew, I. (2006). Employment relationships: Ideology and HRM practice. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(7), 1190–1208.
Geare, A., Edgar, F., McAndrew, I., Harney, B., Cafferkey, K., & Dundon, T. (2014). Exploring the ideological undercurrents of HRM: workplace values and beliefs in Ireland and New Zealand. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(16), 2275–2294.
Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75–91.
Greenwood, M. (2002). Ethics and HRM: A review and conceptual analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 36(3), 261–279.
Greenwood, M., & Freeman, R. E. (2011). Ethics and HRM: The contribution of stakeholder theory. Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 30(3/4), 269–292.
Greenwood, M., Holland, P., & Choong, K. (2006). Re-evaluating drug testing: questions of moral and symbolic control. In J. Deckop, B. Giacalone, & C. L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Human resource management ethics (pp. 161–180). Greenwich: Information Age.
Gruman, J. A., & Saks, A. M. (2011). Performance management and employee engagement. Human Resource Management Review, 21(2), 123–136.
Guest, D. E. (1994). Organizational psychology and human resource management: Towards a European approach. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 4(3), 251–270.
Guest, D. E. (1999). Human resource management—the workers’ verdict. Human Resource Management Journal, 9(3), 5–25.
Guest, D. E. (2011). Human resource management and performance: Still searching for some answers. Human Resource Management Journal, 21(1), 3–13.
Guest, D. E., & Peccei, R. (2001). Partnership at work: Mutuality and the balance of advantage. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 39(2), 207–236.
Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and human interests. Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms. (W. Rehg, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (1998). On the pragmatics of communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Heath, J. (1998). What is a validity claim? Philosophy & Social Criticism, 24(4), 23–41.
Hirschman, A. O. (1977). The passions and the interests: Political arguments for capitalism before its triumph. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Horwitz, F. M. (1990). HRM: An ideological perspective. Personnel Review, 19(2), 10–15.
Jack, G., Greenwood, M., & Schapper, J. (2012). Frontiers, intersections and engagements of ethics and HRM. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(1), 1–12.
Janssens, M., & Steyaert, C. (2009). HRM and performance: a plea for reflexivity in HRM studies. Journal of Management Studies, 46(5), 143–155.
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.
Johnson, P., & Duberley, J. (2003). Reflexivity in management research. Journal of Management Studies, 40(5), 1279–1303.
Jones, C., Parker, M., & Ten Bos, R. (2005). For business ethics. Abingdon: Routledge.
Kamoche, K. N. (2001). Understanding human resource management. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Kaufman, B. E. (2008). Paradigms in industrial relations: Original, modern and versions in-between. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 46(2), 314–339.
Keenoy, T. (1990). HRM: A case of the wolf in sheep’s clothing? Personnel Review, 19(2), 3–9.
Keenoy, T. (1999). HRM as hologram: A polemic. Journal of Management Studies, 36(1), 1–23.
Khurana, R. (2007). From higher aims to hired hands: The social transformation of Ameruican business schools and the unfulfilled promise of management as a profession. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kieser, A., & Wellstein, B. (2008). Do activities of consultants and management scientists affect decision making by managers. In G. P. Hodgkinson & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational decision making (pp. 493–516). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Knudsen, H., Busck, O., & Lind, J. (2011). Work environment quality: The role of workplace participation and democracy. Work, Employment & Society, 25(3), 379–396.
Kochan, T. A. (1980). Collective bargaining and industrial relations: From theory to policy and practice. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Kochan, T. A. (2007). Social legitimacy of the HRM profession: A US perspective. In P. Boxall & J. Purcell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of HRM (pp. 599–619). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kochan, T. A. (2012). Collective bargaining: crisis and its consequences for American society. Industrial Relations Journal, 43(4), 302–316.
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2001). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. London: Verso.
Legge, K. (1995). Human resource management: Rhetorics and reality. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lengnick-Hall, M. L., Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Andrade, L. S., & Drake, B. (2009). Strategic human resource management: The evolution of the field. Human Resource Management Review, 19(2), 64–85.
Lyotard, J. F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial civilization. New York: Macmillan.
Miller, R. W. (1975). Knowledge and human interests by Jurgen Habermas. The Philosophical Review, 84(2), 261–266.
Moore, B., & Gardner, S. (2004). HR managers SHRM and the Australian metals mining sector: Embracing the unitarist vision. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 42(3), 274–300.
Nienhueser, W. (2011). Empirical research on Human Resource Management as a production of ideology. Management Revue, 22(4), 367–393.
Oliver, P., & Johnston, H. (2000). What a good idea! Ideologies and frames in social movement research. Mobilization, 5(1), 37–54.
Paauwe, J. (2009). HRM and performance: Achievements, methodological issues and prospects. Journal of Management Studies, 1(46), 127–140.
Provis, C. (1996). Unitarism, pluralism, interests and values. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 34(4), 473–495.
Putnam, H. (2002). The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy and other essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rhodes, C., & Harvey, G. (2012). Agonism and the possibilities of ethics for HRM. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(1), 49–59.
Scherer, A. G., Does, E., & Marti, E. (2015). Epistemology: Philosophical foundations and organizational controversies. In R. Mir, H. Willmott, & M. Greenwood (Eds.), The Routledge companion to philosophy in organization studies. London: Routledge.
Searle, J. R. (1964). How to Derive “Ought” From “Is”. Philosophical Review, 73(1), 43–58.
Sennett, R. (2012). Together: The rituals, pleasures and politics of cooperation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Siebert, S., Martin, G., Bozic, B., & Docherty, I. (2015). Looking “Beyond the Factory Gates”: Towards more pluralist and radical approaches to intraorganizational trust research. Organization Studies,. doi:10.1177/0170840615580010.
Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1(1), 197–217.
Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (2000). Clarifying the relationship between framing and ideology in the study of social movements: A comment on Oliver and Johnston. Mobilization, 5(2), 55–60.
Tapia, M., Ibsen, C. L., & Kochan, T. A. (2015). Mapping the frontier of theory in industrial relations: The contested role of worker representation. Socio-Economic Review, 13(11), 157–184.
Taylor, F. W. (1911). Shop management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Taylor, F. W. (1914). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper.
Therborn, G. (1980). The ideology of power and the power of ideology. London: Verso.
Timming, A. R. (2014). The “reach” of employee participation in decision-making: exploring the Aristotelian roots of workplace democracy. Human Resource Management Journal,. doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12050.
Townley, B. (1994). Reframing human resource management: Power, ethics and the subject at work. London: Sage.
Van Buren III, H. J. (2001). If fairness is the problem, is consent the solution? Integrating ISCT and stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(3), 481–499.
Van Buren III, H. J. (2008). Fairness and the main management theories of the twentieth century: A historical review, 1900–1965. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(3), 633–644.
Van Buren III, H. J., & Greenwood, M. (2011). Bringing stakeholder theory to industrial relations. Employee Relations, 33(1), 5–21.
Walton, R. (1985). From control to commitment in the workplace. Harvard Business Review, March–April, pp. 76–84.
Weick, K. E. (1999). Conclusion: Theory construction as disciplined reflexivity: Tradeoffs in the 90s. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 797–806.
Weiskopf, R., & Munro, I. (2011). Management of human capital: Discipline, security and controlled circulation in HRM. Organization, 19(6), 685–702.
Wilcox, T. (2012). Human resource management in a compartmentalized world: Whither moral agency? Journal of Business Ethics, 111(1), 85–96.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Editors at the Journal of Business Ethics are recused from all decisions relating to submissions with which there is any identified potential conflict of interest. Submissions to the Journal of Business Ethics from editors of the journal are handled by a senior independent editor at the journal and subject to full double blind peer review processes.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Greenwood, M., Van Buren, H.J. Ideology in HRM Scholarship: Interrogating the Ideological Performativity of ‘New Unitarism’. J Bus Ethics 142, 663–678 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3084-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3084-z