Sabrina Weber

Practices and processes in European sectoral social dialogue

Sabrina Weber, Pforzheim University
Barbara Bechter, Durham University Business School
Manuela Galetto, University of Warwick
Bengt Larsson, University of Gothenburg
Tom Prosser, Cardiff University

Background

Research on the European sectoral social dialogue (ESSD) has highlighted two aspects. First, that there is a huge variance between the existing 43 sectoral social dialogue committees (SSDC) (Degryse, 2015; Keller and Sörries, 1998) which is often attributed to certain sector-specific characteristics (de Boer et al., 2005; Leisink, 2002). Second, ESSD has been characterized as a multilevel setting where coordination efforts not only between social partners, but also within the respective organisations with a wide range of (national) actors must be achieved (Keller and Weber, 2011; Keune and Marginson, 2013). However, where and how exactly “the sector” makes a difference in this multilevel setting is largely unclear.

We open up the black box of sectoral practices and processes by investigating two SSDCs in more depth, namely Hospital (HOSP) and Metal (MET). The two SSDCs share a number of similarities – such as the establishment date of SSDC or the number and kind of European organizations involved (one single trade union, one single employer (not: business) organisation). Moreover, the two SSDCs have also managed to reach a similar number of joint texts. However, the focus of these joint texts differs: whereas the SSDC MET concentrates on industrial policy, the SSDC HOSP more closely considers  working conditions. Our paper therefore takes a micro perspective and investigates the practices and processes within the SSDCs, such as topic selection.

Argument

Our argument is twofold. First, we argue that it is useful to analyze SSDCs as a multilevel ‘network of organisations’ (Metcalfe, 1976; 1994) (represented by national and EU actors in SSDCs) that must ensure that the organisations participating in SSDCs develop capacities for working together effectively to produce desired outcomes. Modes of management/coordination in such networks may imply rules and procedures and the specification of output, or may be characterised by the formation of task forces and teams. Second, we advance the argument that such practices of coordination to achieve a desired outcome are shaped by (key) actors (Brass et al., 2004). In particular, in the multilevel setting of ESSD, national key actors define “the sector” and the sectoral practices by involving themselves in SSDCs.

Findings

We find that the management/coordination capacity of both SSDCs is high. However, the variance in output (focus) is reflected in different sectoral practices. Whereas the practices to reach the desired outcome in SSDC HOSP are characterized by horizontal coordination leading to a ‘problem-solving oriented social dialogue structure’, SSDC MET instead shows a rather hierarchical coordination approach (‘political management structure’). These differing SSDC practices are shaped by key national actors and we identify a very similar set of key actors (countries) in the two SSDCs.

Methodology

The paper draws on a range of qualitative data including interview and documentary sources at the national, EU and sectoral levels. First, qualitative data from interviews with social partner representatives and Commission representatives at the EU level in the sectors HOSP and MET.  A second source of data are selected joint SSDC texts, such as rules of procedure and working programmes. This data is completed by observations of SSDC meetings and, whenever appropriate, by national level interview data (e. g. where topic selection is mentioned).

References

• Brass DJ, Galaskiewicz J, Greve HR and Tsai W (2004) Taking stock of networks and organizations: a multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal 47: 795–817.
• De Boer R, Benedictus H. and Van Der Meer M. (2005) Broadening without intensification: The added value of the European social and sectoral dialogue. European Journal of Industrial Relations 11: 51–70.
• Degryse C (2015) The European sectoral social dialogue: an uneven record of achievement? ETUI Working Paper 2015.02. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2628064 [Accessed 4 May 2018].
• Keller B and Sörries B (1998) The sectoral social dialogue and European social policy - more fantasy, fewer facts. European Journal of Industrial Relations 4: 331–347.
• Keller B and Weber S (2011) Sectoral social dialogue at EU level: Problems and prospects of implementation. European Journal of Industrial Relations 17: 227–243.
• Keune M and Marginson P (2013) Transnational industrial relations as multi-level governance: interdependencies in European social dialogue. British Journal of Industrial Relations 51: 473–497.
• Leisink P (2002) The European Sectoral Social Dialogue and the Graphical Industry. European Journal of Industrial Relations 8: 101–17.
• Metcalfe L (1976) Organizational strategies and interorganizational networks. Human Relations 29: 327–343.
• Metcalfe L (1994) International policy co-ordination and public management reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences 60: 271–290.

Acknowledgement

The research for this paper was financially supported by the European Commission, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion. Call for proposals: Improving expertise in the field of industrial relations. Project VP/2016/0092 (2016-2018).

impacts on leadership and HRM practices

Sabrina Weber, Pforzheim University

Background

In recent years, new forms of organization and work have gained ground in the context of in many companies digitalization (Jürgens et al., 2018). A prominent keyword in this context is ‘agility’. Agile principles of organization and work, including self-organized, collaborative forms and team-based methods, have spilled over from the world of software engineering and smaller companies including start-ups to companies in other fields and of other size. With new forms of organization and work, roles and responsibilities of individuals change (Pfeiffer et al., 2014). These changes also challenge established instruments and practices of human resource management (HRM) and leadership (BMAS, 2017).

Research question

What does agility mean in companies and what impact does it have on the organization’s established leadership and HRM instruments and practices?

Findings

An explorative study including 15 companies based in Germany reveals that there are – although there is some variety in the concrete meaning and implementation of ‘agility’ – significant challenges for established leadership models and HRM instruments and practices. Whereas some companies have redesigned their instruments and practices, others are still about to do so. For instance, personal development and career development (have to) change. Classical hierarchical career paths are no longer feasible in agile organizations with new roles instead of positions. Specific roles furthermore tend to be of temporary nature. Personal development in agile organizations is regarded as an individual, employee-driven process.

Agility furthermore implies changing roles for managers/leaders and for HR. HR’s role is mostly described as a coach or companion, in some companies also as a driver of agility. Managers/leaders often struggle with a re-definition of their own role and new forms of leadership, such as ‘empowering leadership’ (Amundsen and Martinsen, 2014). In this context, new tasks in executive development arise for HR.

Finally, our study reveals both perceived advantages, but also disadvantages of agile forms of organization and work. Respondents acknowledge a (positive) increase in autonomy and responsibility of individuals and highlight positive effects of social collaboration, which are both said to lead to job satisfaction. However, some of our respondents also notice (potential) stress at the workplace due to increased autonomy, responsibility, and transparency.

Methodology

Findings are based on qualitative interviews conducted in 2016 in 15 companies in Germany in the context of an explorative study. In sum, 45 face-to-face interviews had been conducted with mainly managers and leaders (executive board members, HR, and other departments such as research and development).

References

• Amundsen, Stein; Martinsen, Øyvind L. (2014): Empowering leadership: Construct clarification, conceptualization, and validation of a new scale. The Leadership Quarterly 25(3), 487–511.
• BMAS (Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs) (2017): White Paper Work 4.0. Re- imagining work. Berlin: BMAS.
• Jürgens, Kerstin; Hoffmann, Reiner; Schildmann, Christina (2018): Let’s transform work!
• Recommendations and proposals form the commission on the work of the future. Hans Böckler Foundation’s Study series No. 376. Düsseldorf.
• Pfeiffer, Sabine; Sauer, Stefan; Ritter, Tobias (2014): Agile Methoden als Werkzeug des Belastungsmanagements? Eine arbeitsvermögensbasierte Perspektive. Arbeit 23(2), 119–132.

The role of `shared values‘

Sabrina Weber, Pforzheim University
Barbara Bechter, Durham University Business School
Manuela Galetto, University of Warwick
Bengt Larsson, University of Gothenburg
Tom Prosser, Cardiff University

Background

We investigate the reasons behind engagement and cooperation in European sectoral social dialogue. By taking a closer look at two most similar cases of sectoral social dialogue committees (SSDC) with most different outcomes, we outline the role of ‘shared values’ to overcome diverging interests between trade unions and employer organisations, but also within these social partner organisations.

Argument

We argue that the intention to engage in SSDC depends on the relevance or importance of topics to (most) affiliates. When actors identify relevant topics of common interest and goal congruence (e. g. solving problems) within and between social partners, this increases the motivation to influence and tackle a certain topic in the SSDC and produce joint outcomes. Goal congruence is more likely when trade unions and employers are able to articulate their goals in terms of (shared) ‘values’ rather than conflicting ‘interests’ (Provis, 1996). We therefore argue that collaborative problem solving and consensus building is more likely if shared values are identified in a certain SSDC.

Methodology

We use secondary data and primary data in the context of our two cases, the hospital SSDC and the metal SSDC. Our secondary data includes joint social partner texts, work programmes, and meeting minutes. Primary data is made up of interviews with social partners at the national and the European level and observation of SSDC meetings. Where appropriate, we also include quantitative data (on the economic sector, on the 43 SSDCs) to inform our analysis.

Findings

Our findings support the assumption that cooperation is more likely to occur in more homogenous SSDCs with ‘shared values’. In the hospital sector, ‘patient safety’ and ‘quality of care’ represent such shared values that allow trade unions and employer organisations to work together to find solutions to staffing problems, high workloads, and stress at work. Values such as ‘quality of services/care’ are supportive of patient safety as well as the reasonable workloads and if workforce is sufficiently well-trained (EPSU, 2017). In the metal sector, ‘digitalisation’ (Ceemet and industriAll, 2016) has to some extent a similar standing, since it connects to both working conditions and competitiveness. However, in comparison with the quality of care in the hospital sector, digitalisation does not (yet) seems to have as strong relevance for all affiliates. Even more, by some digitalisation is seen as a bit of ‘advanced’ topic pushed for by pro-active organizations, large businesses from members states in which this is most topical.

References

• Ceemet; industriAll (2016) “The impact of digitalisation on the world of work in the metal, engineering and technology-based industries, by European sector social partners”. Available from: https://www.ceemet.org/sites/default/files/joint_statement_digitalisatio... [Accessed 17 December 2018].
• EPSU (2017) HOSPEEM-EPSU EU-funded project “Promoting effective recruitment and retention policies for health workers in the EU by ensuring access to CPD and healthy and safe workplaces supportive of patient safety and quality care” (2017–2018). Available from: https://www.epsu.org/sites/default/files/article/files/Summary-Informati... [Accessed 17 December 2018].
• Provis, C. (1996) Unitarism, pluralism, interest and values. British Journal of Industrial Relations 34(4), 473–495.