Voices from the Shop‐Floor: Dramas of the Employment Relationship

Citation

Newsome, K. (2002), "Voices from the Shop‐Floor: Dramas of the Employment Relationship", Employee Relations, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 237-240. https://doi.org/10.1108/er.2002.24.2.237.4

I had “postponed” writing this review on a number of occasions. This avoidance tactic was in all probability based on the more immediate demands of an academic workload in the middle of term time. However, on the occasions that I glanced through the pages I became unsure about the parameters of the book. This is a book which adopts an ethnographic approach to explore industrial relations change in the lock industry in Britain. In addition, it utilises somebody else’s ethnography of a rayon cotton mill in India to act as a comparator. The concern, the author suggests, is to illustrate the artificial binarism attached to exploring industrial relations change in developing and developed nations. At first glance, it did seem rather strange for the author to advocate the virtues of ethnography, which argues for the researcher to embed themselves in the daily dramas played out in the employment relationship, and then rely so heavily on a workplace that she had not visited as the comparator organisation. Fortunately, after a more careful reading of the entire book, many of my concerns and discomfort appeared to be misplaced. There is much that is valuable, interesting, and engaging within this text.

In overall terms this book aims to demonstrate the benefits of ethnographic research methods in exploring industrial relations change in both the developed and developing world. As such it provides an ethnographic account of an occupational community based around the lock manufacturing industry in the UK, as well as drawing on an ethnographically informed account from the developing world. By adopting such a methodological approach, the aim is to highlight that industrial relations can best be seen as a complex web of social interactions and relationships. The suggestion here is that by “voicing” these relationships, interactions and memories, ethnography enables us to explore the dynamics of employee relations’ change within particular contexts. Moreover, the author suggests that the use of a dramaturgical analysis further enables us to discover how social actors use impression management to create and maintain identities within work. Hence, the book is structured around a series of “dramas” within the employment relationship.

The first “drama” explores paternalism and its impact on management style. The key message here is that our understanding of paternalism needs to be embedded within the specific context of the social relations of production within particular organisations, but is also informed by wider issues of family and community. The second drama explores the impact of gender and family on industrial relations change, thereby exploring industrial relations beyond the factory gate. Again, the depiction of this drama indicates how gendered social relations within lock manufacturing are embedded within traditional and apparently impervious discourses of “men’s” and “women’s” work within the industry. The final drama refers to the drama of employee relations and explores the divergent attitudes towards unionism in the two lock manufacturing industries. Indeed, concerns over the mobilisation of collective support in an increasingly hostile environment appear to be voiced in all three organisations. Yet it is highlighted that trade unionism is not subjected to the same degree of government oppression in the developed world. In overall terms this drama highlights the importance of exploring the dynamics of the employment relationship in its widest sense, whereby an ethnographic analysis necessarily enables us explore aspects of conflict, co‐operation and consent concurrently.

In highlighting what is of value within this text we are provided with a number of key points. Primarily, an understanding of industrial relations change, which draws on ethnography, is to be welcomed. It is refreshing to construct an analysis of industrial relations beyond the pre‐occupation with quantitative survey methods, into an arena that is rich in illustrative data depicting working lives. This account provides some valuable insights into industrial relations change in terms of a series of social interactions within the workplace and consequentially bypasses an understanding of employee relations predicated almost entirely on an exploration of structures, institutions and procedures. Indeed, exploring industrial relations change through the voices of the actors enables us to unpack a wider and more in‐depth range of workplace issues. Moreover, such an approach necessarily draws on understandings from the past, as well as exploring how this collective memory informs and impacts on the future direction of workplace change. I would argue that the gender chapter works particularly well in this regard. We are offered a valuable insight into the necessity of highlighting the distinctions within labour resulting from industrial relations change. Indeed, an account that questions the stubborn persistence of gender‐neutrality within much industrial relations research raises important issues. The utilisation of an ethnographic approach enables us to explore how gender segregation is perpetuated through workplace discourses, gendered social spaces, and gendered workplace roles, as well as drawing on wider ideologies of family. I would, however, fall short of agreeing with the suggestion that it is this tension between family‐life and working life, rather than battles over the frontier of control per se, that will be the territory on which the new industrial relations is played out.

However, despite the thorough reading of this account dispelling many of my concerns, a few doubts with this text do remain. Primarily, my concern is based on the appropriateness of the overall research methodology. The case for ethnography is well made and the construction of the text, which weaves in accounts directly from workers, operates successfully. I remain, however, less convinced by the utilisation of an ethnographic account of an Indian rayon spinning factory as a comparator. I fully understand and concur with the argument that the separation of our understanding of workplace change into developed and developing nations operates along an artificial binarism. However, the evidence from Ramaswamy’s account operates at a rather remote level, it clearly does not reflect the same research questions of the main study (particularly in relation to gender) and is as a result not fully integrated into the main arguments of the text.

Second, on a more theoretical point, the adoption of a dramaturgical analysis, which operates to frame the text around key dramas, is interesting and does enable the reader to engage with industrial relations change in terms of a series of social interactions. However, while it is helpful to understand industrial relations through the drama attached to the social relations of production, my concern is that this can downplay the particularity of the employment relationship. The danger here becomes that the employment relationship, as a fundamentally important and distinctive relationship within the labour process, is almost reduced to scenery. I would argue that the dynamics of this relationship should necessarily remain in a starring role. Nevertheless, despite these concerns, this is an interesting and engaging account, which does bring life and “voice” to industrial relations change. I would foresee that it could be used on both undergraduate and postgraduate courses in employee relations, as well as being a wonderful example of the virtues of ethnography on more specialist research method courses.