The research register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this

e of this journal is available at

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregisters http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm

``Working together ± ``Working

together ±
involving staff'' involving staff''

Partnership working in the NHS

Anne Munro 277
School of Management, Napier University, Edinburgh, UK
Keywords Employee involvement, Partnering, National Health Service, Collectivism,
Case studies
Abstract Contributes to debates about employee involvement and social partnership by
exploring the ways in which individualist and collectivist aspects interrelate in a single initiative in
the National Health Service. Identifies a particular form of employee involvement in which
partnership is integral. Draws on a case study of one NHS Trust over a period of 18 months,
using individual and group interviews with senior and line managers, union officials, shop
stewards and staff. Argues that tension between collectivism and individualism becomes more
acute lower down the organisation where line managers are responsible for implementing change.
Highlights how understanding of involvement and partnership change over time and how a
climate that is more amenable to union organisation can be created.

Introduction
The National Health Service (NHS) has presented dual concerns for successive
governments. Quality of health provision is central to the political agenda, yet
the cost of funding the service, particularly staffing costs, has escalated since
the formation of the NHS in 1948. In the early 1990s, Conservative governments
sought efficiencies through the introduction of market relationships. A
distinction was established between purchasers (health authorities and general
practitioners) and providers (the newly formed NHS trusts). Trusts, run by
boards of directors, were given the freedom to determine their own terms and
conditions of employment outside of the national system of Whitley Councils
and pay review bodies (Lloyd and Seifert, 1995). This represented a shift from
the notion of the public sector as the ``good employer'' and established private
sector practices as central to efficiency in the public sector (Stuart and Martinez
Lucio, 2000). At local level trusts pursued a range of human resource
management practices but found it harder to move away from the Whitley
machinery and the tradition of working with trade unions (IRS, 1993). With its
election in 1997, the Labour Government removed the purchaser/provider
divide and began a new process of modernisation of the NHS with partnership
as a central element.
In this context a taskforce was set up to explore the concept of employee
involvement in the NHS and to make recommendations to ministers on actions
This research has been made possible by the access provided by the project management team.
The author would like to thank them, as well as all the staff, managers and union Employee Relations,
Vol. 24 No. 3, 2002, pp. 277-289.
representatives who took part in the research. They would also like to thank Iain Henderson # MCB UP Limited, 0142-5455
and the referees for their detailed comments. DOI 10.1108/01425450210428444
Employee needed to ensure that the NHS would be equipped to deliver these changes. The
Relations Department of Health published the Report of the NHS Taskforce on Staff
24,3 Involvement in 1999, in which it is argued that ``involvement can improve
patient care, enable the efficient management of change and lead to a healthier,
better motivated workforce with reduced staff turnover'' (Department of
Health, 1999, pp. 3-4). Staff involvement was described as being ``about making
278 sure that staff are involved in all decisions that affect them; from big change
programmes, to the day-to-day decisions on how services are delivered. It is
about effective partnership working, good communications and, above all, real
team-working'' (Department of Health, 1999, p. 3). The report presents a
particular model of employee involvement (EI) in which partnership with trade
unions is a central principle. All NHS Trusts are now required to adopt this
approach and are monitored on their progress (Mahony, 2000). This research is
based on a case study of one NHS trust as it attempts to implement the
proposals set out in the taskforce report.
Definitions of both EI and partnership are somewhat elusive. There is a
range of approaches to EI which have varied significantly over time.
Marchington and Wilkinson (2000, p. 344) advance the notion of waves of EI,
which are driven by a variety of forces, including relations within management
as well as relations between managers and workers. They describe EI as
reflecting ``a management agenda concerned primarily with employee
motivation and commitment to organizational objectives'' (Marchington and
Wilkinson, 2000, p. 340). EI is aimed at individuals or small groups and is
described as ``fundamentally different from industrial democracy and indirect
participation schemes such as consultative committees which are collectivist
and representative in form . . . or forms of `social partnership''' (Marchington
and Wilkinson, 2000, p. 340). To the extent that EI prioritises relationships
between the employer and worker, it can be regarded as unitarist and
individualistic, although Bacon and Storey (1996) characterise the use of EI to
foster commitment to the aims of the organisation as ``new collectivism''. In
contrast, although partnership too has many different meanings and
interpretations, it is essentially pluralist and collectivist in its reaffirmation of
the role of trade unions (Cave and Coats, 1999; Guest and Peccei, 1998a, b, 2001;
TUC, 1999). Ackers and Payne (1998, p. 530) develop this argument, suggesting
that while partnership ``cohabits'' with EI in many publications, partnership
fosters ``long-term relationships of trust between stakeholders in the
enterprise''. This appears to fit with the model being promulgated in the NHS,
with trade unions having a central role, and contrasts with most EI initiatives
of the 1980s (Ackers and Payne, 1998, p. 530).
The central research question for this research is to what extent are there
tensions in practice between the development of the collectivism of partnership
and the individualism of employee involvement when part of a single initiative?
This concern is not new and reflects the contributions on the relationship
between human resource management and collective bargaining during the
1980s and 1990s. Guest (1989, p. 54) argues that ``there is an incompatibility
between the essentially unitarist HRM and pluralist tradition of industrial ``Working
relations in the UK''. However, HRM practices have been most common in together ±
organisations with recognised trade unions (Millward, 1994, p. 90). Storey involving staff''
(1992, p. 242) identified four potential routes for the accommodation between
the two paradigms:
(1) an outright assault on trade unions;
279
(2) simply ignoring trade unions;
(3) running the established and new approaches in parallel; or
(4) integrating joint arrangements into the overall new approach.
He concluded that most companies followed the third approach, downplaying
the status and significance of trade unions and marginalising their role (Storey
1992, p. 258). Such neglect of collectivist structures may have been possible in
the hostile political and economic climate of the 1980s and 1990s, but present
attempts to extend partnership working in the public sector involve an
increased union role alongside a greater use of employee involvement, which
more resembles Storey's fourth route of integration or Guest and Peccei's (2001)
hybrid model of partnership.
The main argument developed in this paper is that tension develops between
EI and partnership when partnership policies are followed at corporate or trust
level while EI strategies dominate relationships in the workplace. Taylor and
Ramsay (1988, p. 138) argue that there is a ``danger that temporary pluralism
negotiated at the top of the organisation proves impotent to tackle a more
oppressive unitarism at local level, and indeed, makes things worse for union
representatives and lay representatives''. Similarly, Marks et al. (1998, p. 220)
have suggested that the ``paradox of the mutual gains workplace is that it
extends the scope of union influence inside corporate decision-making
processes as it renders the authority of the shop-floor union delegate more
precarious''. Thus, senior union officers and officials may gain access to
information and decision making (IRS, 1999; Jacks et al., 2000), while workplace
organisation is weakened (Kelly, 1996), and change to working practices is
facilitated (Marks et al., 1998; Taylor and Ramsay, 1998).
In this context, the meanings that middle managers attach to EI and
partnership become particularly significant. As Marchington and Wilkinson
(2000) point out, line managers often do not believe in the principles of EI, lack
the skills and training to implement it, give primacy to service delivery
demands and may feel undermined by EI. They argue that ``jobs at the interface
between managers and managed are likely to alter most, but equally these
individuals are also required to play a critical change agent role'' (Marchington
and Wilkinson, 2000, p. 356). The case study highlights the attitudes of middle
managers and considers how their understanding of EI changes.
Linked to this, an additional argument is made that the meanings attached
to EI and partnership are not static, but evolve over time. This is demonstrated
by following the development of one EI project over 18 months. In the case
Employee study organisation two phases were identified in the development of
Relations partnership. In the first phase, this tension between the corporate and
24,3 workplace level was evident, where partnership with trade unions was
emphasised at trust level and staff involvement was emphasised lower down
the organisation. However, during the second phase there was some evidence of
an adaptation of EI in the workplace that accommodated collectivism to some
280 extent and enhanced the role of workplace shop stewards. This case contrasts
somewhat with Bacon and Story's (2000, p. 423) research, in which managers
wanted to move toward more individualistic approaches to labour
management, but for pragmatic reasons maintained collective relations with
trade unions. However, the case study also highlights the fragility of
interpretations of EI and partnership, being affected by both external factors
and organisational restructuring (Martinez Lucio and Stuart, 2000) and by the
extent to which internal trade union structures can be sustained.

The research
The arguments developed here draw on research carried out in a number of
NHS Trusts over the last four years, although the main focus is on one case
study of a community health trust in England ± Midtown Care NHS Trust. A
group comprising representatives from Unison, Midtown's senior management
and the NHS Executive had successfully applied for funding for a project under
the Department of Trade and Industry's Partnership Fund. The funding was to
support a project to implement ``Working together, involving staff'', with four
linked parts:
(1) getting the right approach;
(2) involving staff, learning together;
(3) working together, finding solutions; and
(4) spreading the word.
The first phase of this research was commissioned under part (1), with a view
to providing an overview of existing employee relations and an insight into
views within the Trust on the development of partnership working. This phase
of research was conducted during June, July and August 2000. Six one-to-one
interviews, each lasting one to two hours, were conducted with senior
managers and senior union officers and officials. Six group interviews, each
lasting one to two hours, were carried out. There was one group interview with
union representatives (total three participants), two with line managers (total
20 participants) and three with staff (total 37 participants) from a wide range of
occupations within the Trust. The report from the research was used as a
resource to inform developments in parts (2) and (3) of the project.
An impact assessment was commissioned under part (4) of the project and
carried out during November and December 2001, repeating interviews with as
many of the original interviewees as possible. A total of 13 one-to-one
interviews were carried with managers, union officers and staff, and a
telephone interview was conducted with the external facilitator employed ``Working
during parts (2) and (3). Three group interviews were completed with union together ±
representatives (total 12), staff (total six) and first line managers (total three). involving staff''
There is always a need for caution in generalising from case study evidence,
but this work has highlighted a number of significant features concerning
involvement and partnership as well as raising issues for methodology. The
research particularly demonstrates the importance of study across time to an 281
understanding of how employee involvement initiatives evolve. Furthermore,
the project on which the research is based is being publicised by the project
team as a model for employee relations throughout the NHS. In this context, the
research has a potentially wider importance to emerging policy and practice in
the health service.
The research also points to a need for caution about treating managers,
employees and union officers and officials as homogeneous groups. The
meaning and significance of the involvement initiative was different for senior
and middle managers, various groups of staff, and for union officials and
workplace shop stewards. Where studies have sought the views of unions on
partnership, they have tended to be those of senior stewards or officials (IRS,
2000, p. 6). Here there was less distance between senior managers and union
officials than between senior and middle managers or senior and workplace
stewards. The senior management team and the senior union representatives
had both invested considerable time and energy in involvement and
partnership working and had similar interests in its success.

Working together and partnership in Midtown Care NHS Trust:

case study findings
Background and context
Midtown is a community trust and had approximately 1,500 staff in 2000,
spread across more than 30 sites. In line with the modernisation proposals
outlined in The NHS Plan (Department of Health, 2000), there were proposals
for a reorganisation of health care services in Midtown to be completed by
April 2002. In 2000 health provision in Midtown included one acute hospital
trust, one health authority, Midtown Care NHS Trust and three primary care
groups (PCGs), which included GPs and clinics. Various options were being
considered for the reorganisation of community and primary health services
into one or more primary care Trusts (PCTs). One option was to merge the
PCGs with Midtown Care Trust to form one PCT, another was to split the town
between two PCTs. For most staff their employer would change, although the
nature and location of their jobs would not. During 2001, the Secretary of State
for Health brought forward plans for the abolition of local health authorities,
which threw reorganisation plans into further uncertainty as the health
authority now had to be contained within the new structures.
Formal industrial relations structures at Midtown Trust included a Trust
Negotiating Committee and Directorate Consultative Committees. Staff side
comprised seven recognised trade unions, the largest being Unison and the
Employee Royal College of Nursing (RCN). Relations between management and unions
Relations during the mid-1990s had been confrontational but by 2000 there had been a
24,3 number of changes to the senior management team and an attempt by the new
team to transform relationships. During 1999 a place was established on the
Trust board for a trade union representative, and subsequently a union seat
had been included on all senior committees and groups. A policy was adopted
282 to make all Trust information, including financial information, available to the
relevant union representative.
Senior managers had a sophisticated understanding of the existence of
competing agendas and the possibility of conflict between parties. They had
retained a pluralist approach but had shifted the process of negotiation to a
problem-solving focus. The key driver for change was the need to respond to
government strategy. However, management identified their motivations for
moving toward partnership and staff involvement in expectations of more
efficient decision making and implementation of change, which in turn were
expected to result in an improved quality of care. Motivations for senior trade
union officers were based on hopes of achieving improved working conditions,
better relationships with management and, most importantly, an increase in
union membership. This was seen as an opportunity to expand the sphere of
influence and had already been successful to a degree at trust level. Union
officers were aware of potential difficulties if members thought they had
become too close to management and recognised that there were increasing
pressures for time off for additional union work. Both managers and union
officers identified potential barriers to partnership and involvement as lying
with middle mangers, clinical staff and senior professionals. These groups
were expected to find the changes threatening to their traditional roles, power
base and professional autonomy, in what has always been a very hierarchical
service (Fenton-O'Creevy, 2001). In addition, some resistance was expected
from some lower grade staff who interpreted involvement as ``being expected to
do management's job for them''.
During the first phase of research there were some optimistic interpretations
by the project champions, senior managers and union officers, that the
initiative had already created a better working environment leading to
improved staff retention and declining absenteeism. However, there had been a
specific separate initiative directly addressing absenteeism, and it is unlikely
that reduced rates of absenteeism were linked to the partnership and
involvement project. Indeed, there was considerable cynicism among staff
about involvement, which was seen as just another senior management fad
which would ``come and go, like so many before it''. On the one hand, staff did
welcome the idea of having a greater say at work, but for a range of reasons
believed that the involvement initiative was cosmetic. There was a view that
external pressures were dictating NHS practice which left little scope for real
staff involvement; there was a fear that it would create more work in a context
in which staff were already overstretched; there was a belief that, with no
additional resources, there was little point in making suggestions; there was an
expectation that staff were only asked their opinion on superficial issues and ``Working
that nothing had ever happened when they had made suggestions; and there together ±
was also concern about being seen as a troublemaker if negative issues were involving staff''
raised.
While union involvement at trust level had developed a clear pattern, first
line managers were confused about their role in the involvement process. Some
thought that they had to negotiate with shop stewards but were unsure about 283
when they should involve the stewards in a discussion. Their main concern
was that the involvement of stewards at the workplace level might limit their
ability to achieve changes to work organisation. However, some clearly saw the
involvement initiative to mean that they should involve all staff rather than
consult the union stewards, and identified it as an opportunity to move from
union to staff representatives. One manager claimed to have used the
involvement initiative to achieve a change to shifts despite the resistance of the
shop steward.
Senior union stewards had gained access to information and decision-
making processes from which they were previously excluded, and senior
management welcomed the extension of union membership within the Trust.
However, the pressure of work and the increasing workload involved in
attending meetings left most shop stewards feeling overwhelmed and the
agenda continued to be management-led. Staff were generally positive that
having some say about their working lives was better than no involvement and
that senior managers were sincere in their motives; although according the
accounts of staff the involvement aspect of the initiative had less impact than
senior managers claimed. As a result any negative implications were minimal
at this stage. However, while middle managers saw partnership working as a
route to achieving their objectives more easily, there was a potential danger of
the process being seen as a means to achieve change to work organisation,
bypassing workplace stewards. There was little to counter this approach at the
workplace level where there were so few union representatives. Thus, the
tensions between the collectivist and individualist elements of the initiative
became most stark at the level of the workplace, where line managers were
trying to cope with involving staff and working with unions. The people with
the least knowledge about the initiative were being expected to handle the most
difficult aspects of it (Marchington and Wilkinson, 2000). This evidence seems
to reflect the findings of Taylor and Ramsay (1998) and Marks et al. (1998).
While there were opportunities for extending union influence at trust level,
stewards were finding it increasingly difficult to deal with immediate
workplace issues.

Implementation of partnership
This section charts the second phase of the partnership and involvement
initiative over 18 months, between the summer of 2000 and November 2001.
Heightened debate between the health authority, Midtown Trust and the PCGs
over the planned PCT during the summer of 2001 affected the activities and
Employee progress on partnership and involvement. Both management and union time
Relations and effort had been focussed on negotiations concerning the structure of the
24,3 new Trust, and staff concerns about what would happen to their jobs
dominated thoughts. Nevertheless, considerable effort by all parties continued
to be devoted to the development of staff involvement and partnership working
throughout the organisation.
284 Communications were regarded by management and unions as crucial to the
development of staff involvement and had undergone significant change since
summer 2000. An annual staff opinion survey had been introduced, there had
been a number of central initiatives and managers had been encouraged to
develop their own communications plans. A communications group was set up
in the autumn of 2000 to develop this area, involving a cross-section of staff. No
one felt that the communications process was finished or perfect. As one
interviewee commented, ``there are still times when you hear about a decision
and you think, `where did that come from?''' Nonetheless, all interviewees
considered that there had been an improvement in communications. A system
of corporate notice boards had been established, with boards in areas where
staff would be likely to see them. Key contacts were identified in each area to
take responsibility for keeping the boards up-to-date. Briefing bulletins were
set up in March 2001 ± produced every two weeks with a maximum of two
pages, conveying key information in a brief format. These were displayed on
the notice boards, with every item including details about where further
information could be gained and giving a relevant contact person.
A ``hot line'' had been introduced ± a confidential telephone number through
which staff could raise issues or ask questions if they were unable or unwilling
to discuss the matter with their line manager. A total of 35 enquiries had been
made between October and December 2001. A list of dates of staff meetings
held throughout the Trust was compiled. This was intended to raise awareness
among managers of the importance of holding staff meetings and to provide
senior managers with information about when and where they could contact
groups of staff. Staff from a number of work groups commented that they now
had meetings and felt more informed about issues. One senior manager had
carried out a number of ``back to the floor'' sessions, which involved working
alongside staff, for example cleaning beds. He described this experience as
valuable for enabling him to understand how issues that seem minor to senior
managers can actually be very important to front line staff.
Running parallel to the developments in communications was a series of
joint workshops with an external facilitator for managers, trade union
representatives and staff. The aim of these workshops was to ``spread the
word'' about the organisation's approach to partnership and to consider any
potential problems or issues, and included a discussion of the report from the
first phase of research. While many participants found the selection process for
inclusion in the workshops somewhat opaque and did not fully understand the
purpose of them, opportunity to meet people with very different positions
within the Trust had a considerable impact on their attitudes. Many first line
managers had their first real exposure to union officers, and workplace ``Working
stewards found themselves involved in group work with the chief executive. together ±
This process challenged a number of preconceptions and stereotypes about involving staff''
both unions and management, and served to raise the confidence of line
managers and workplace stewards.
A more tangible product of the initial workshops was a model or procedure,
based on a partnership approach, for dealing with issues or concerns within the 285
trust. It is not particularly revolutionary, but in a straightforward way lays out
the steps for following an approach to issues which involves staff and union
stewards with a problem-solving approach ± a template for all parties to follow,
including middle and first line managers who previously appeared to be
finding the most difficulty with partnership working. Rather than managers
presenting staff with a decision, the first stage of the procedure is to establish
and agree jointly the nature of the problem. The procedure indicates that both
trade union and human resource department advice should be sought at the
first stage ± i.e. at the point of ``clarification of the problem'' or ``as soon as
possible''. This avoids any potential fears from a trade union perspective of
staff involvement being used as a means to exclude or marginalise unions. The
importance placed on involving a union representative emphasises the need to
have shop stewards in all departments. All interviewees who had contact with
the procedure praised it. The benefits were described as providing a framework
for common practice and a route to ``better'' outcomes ± outcomes which might
not suit everyone, but which appeared to be more acceptable insofar as
everyone would be able to understand how and why a particular decision was
made. Managers thought that decision making and problem resolution had
become faster and less stressful. Not all staff knew about the new procedure,
but were aware that the ``way things are done had changed''.
The procedure had been used to address a range of issues, such as
developing a car parking policy and finding a response to the winter fuel crisis.
After the initial period of research in 2000, it was argued that the closer issues
are to the workplace, the more difficult it is to use a staff involvement approach,
but there was evidence of the procedure being used to address a range of
workplace issues. One example involved changing shift patterns, which did not
reflect the peaks in patient demand. It was jointly agreed to identify changes
that would be acceptable to all. Previously any proposals to change shift
patterns would have been resisted by the shop stewards. This contrasted with
the example from the first phase of research, discussed above, where a manager
had tried to use staff involvement to bypass the union on such an issue.
There are a number of unresolved issues relating to the use of the problem-
solving procedure. There was not total agreement concerning which issues
should be addressed using the procedure or who should be involved at what
stage. However, these issues are key to assessing how far the approach
represents a more profound change to decision making in the workplace, or is
merely a more sophisticated route for management to achieve change.
Questions concerning who sets the agenda are closely linked to the choice of
Employee issues to be addressed through the problem-solving procedure. However,
Relations responses to questions about this issue cut across the management/union
24,3 divide. Some interviewees made the case that there was no issue that could not
be addressed through the problem-solving procedure, although the point was
made that for small problems it might be a little too formal and cumbersome.
As one member of staff put it, ``it should be applied to more weighty matters,
286 there isn't time to apply it to every little thing''. Most of the examples of using
the procedure so far are what might be described as management-led concerns,
rather than staff or union initiated concerns. The strongest defence of this
situation came from a union official who argued that staff issues should be
dealt with before getting to the stage of the procedure and therefore we would
expect to see more management-initiated examples. Linked to this is the
question of who sets the boundaries of a problem. For example, if management
always says, ``this is a problem, there is no more money, what can we do about
it?'', the approach begins to look like conventional problem-solving groups or
quality circles which have tended to have a relatively short life.
An issue of central concern during the first period of research was that some
first line managers saw staff involvement as enabling them to negotiate change
in the workplace without involving the unions. A key feature of the problem-
solving procedure is that it specifies that shop stewards should be involved at
the earliest stage. This offers the potential to prevent the marginalisation of
workplace stewards and creates a setting in which an expansion of the number
of stewards is required. During the second period of research there were still
some differences of view about exactly when a union steward should be
involved. However, first line managers were more likely to say they needed
more union representatives in their departments, that they actively encouraged
staff to talk with their shop stewards and even encouraged staff to consider
becoming stewards. While the problem-solving procedure could be seen as a
means to facilitate management-led change, it was also contributing to the
creation of a climate in which the expansion of the union base was positively
encouraged. This marks a significant change from the earlier research and
other research in the sector (Martinez Lucio and Stuart, 2001, p. 23).
Although fewer staff were interviewed in the second phase of research, there
was agreement that workers generally were becoming more confident about
expressing their views and questioning management decisions. Expectations
had changed and one maintenance worker spoke of not ``feeling any more that
we have to do this because it came from above''. However, some occupational
groups remain suspicious about management's intentions and interviewees
could all identify staff who would ``claim that nothing has changed and that
they are not consulted and involved''. This was particularly the case for
non-qualified staff and some of the more isolated staff who work in the
community. Where there is greater hierarchy in the immediate work group, or
clear division such as between the qualified and non-qualified, the barriers and
distrust are more significant.
 A result of these developments has been extra work for union ``Working
representatives, who often lack the time to take part in all of the activities. In together ±
the context of the health service it may be difficult for some representatives to involving staff''
take time out of work because of commitments to patients and colleagues.
Nonetheless, Unison had achieved an increase in the number of shop stewards
across the Trust, along with an increase in membership, although there was
some disagreement among officers as to whether this could be directly 287
attributed to the partnership initiative. Union stewards spoke of feeling more
confident and of gaining influence within the Trust. One specific example given
of gaining influence was on the issue of suspensions ± previously a manager
could immediately suspend a member of staff and now a union representative,
a member of the HR team and the relevant manager must be involved. From a
union perspective a number of potential difficulties identified during the first
phase of research had not emerged. The partnership initiative is formally
linked to Unison, although one of its ``champions'' is from another union. If the
project is seen to benefit particular trade unions, there could be increased
tension between unions although this does not appear to have been a problem
to date (Heaton et al., 2000). Earlier staff concerns about senior stewards getting
too close to management had declined and there had been no problems
concerning the involvement of non-union members.

Discussion
The case study material has described the development of a model of EI in
which partnership and collectivism are integral. This contrasts with previous
versions of EI that have emphasised individual relations between mangers and
workers and have tended to marginalise trade unions. During the first phase of
research tension between the individualistic and collectivist aspects became
most evident lower down the organisation. Here, middle and line managers
were expected to transform their ways of dealing with staff and unions, yet
were sceptical about the value of such changes. At this level many mangers did
not understand existing collective bargaining structures let alone how
involvement and partnership could be implemented. Alongside this there were
too few shop stewards to cover all departments and little trust between line
managers and shop stewards.
This situation changed considerably over the following 18 months. The
problem-solving procedure provided a practical guide to dealing with issues or
problems in the workplace and line managers had a clearer understanding of
how they were expected to behave. In addition, the workshops provided a
setting in which managers and shop stewards could meet, work together and
understand each other. Involvement in the workshops led to increasing
confidence amongst both groups and a greater willingness to deal with each
other on workplace issues and use the problem-solving procedure. The number
of shop stewards increased and a clear message was reaching staff that they
have a right to receive information and express opinions. This case clearly
Employee demonstrates how perceptions of EI and partnership within one organisation
Relations can change over time.
24,3 It is, however, difficult to establish the extent of these changes. There are
enormous problems of showing a causal or quantifiable relationship between
EI and partnership and general staff morale and quality of service, or
measurable indices such as sickness and absenteeism rates. It is also difficult to
288 assess such developments in the context of major organisational change. The
project had continued throughout a difficult period of negotiations concerning
the reconfiguration of health services in Midtown. Any new trust is likely to
have a new senior management team and there are no guarantees that existing
policies will be pursued.
There is a delicate balance for unions where management sets the
partnership agenda and the parameters of discussion. Danford et al. (2000,
p. 20) point to a detached union leadership style, where ``senior steward activity
focused solely on the time-consuming partnership process of reactive
bargaining and consultation without linking this to the needs and discontents
of members''. This, they suggest, may result in disillusion and membership
decline. During the first period of research there was an indication of this.
However, by the second period of research a climate had been created that was
favourable to the expansion of membership, representative base and influence.
Whether the new steward organisation will be sufficiently robust to satisfy the
demands for independent representation remains to be seen. The growing
demands on union representatives of participation in the problem-solving
procedure does raise the danger of union activities being channelled away from
organising to managing the organisation. Nonetheless, this example also
demonstrates the potential of partnership to provide opportunities for trade
unions rather than the ``pseudo-partnership'' used as a means to undermine
unions (Bacon and Storey, 2000).

References
Ackers, S. and Payne, J. (1998), ``British trade unions and social partnership: rhetoric, reality and
strategy'', The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 9 No. 3,
pp. 529-50.
Bacon, N. and Storey, J. (1996), ``Individualism and collectivism and the changing role of trade
unions'', in Ackers, P., Smith, C. and Smith, P. (Eds), The New Workplace and Trade
Unionism, Routledge, London.
Bacon, N. and Storey, J. (2000), ``New employee relations strategies in Britain: towards
individualism or partnership?'', British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 38 No. 3,
pp. 407-27.
Cave, A. and Coats D. (1999), ``Partnership: the challenges and opportunities'', Tomorrow's
Unions, Unions 21, London.
Danford, D., Richardson, M. and Upchurch, M. (2000), ```New unionism', organising and
partnership: a comparative analysis of union renewal strategies in the public sector'', paper
presented to the 18th Labour Process Conference, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow,
April.
Department of Health (1999), Report of the Task Force on Staff Involvement, Department of ``Working
Health, London.
Department of Health (2000), The NHS Plan, Department of Health, London.
together ±
Fenton-O'Creevy, M. (2001), ``Employee involvement and the middle manager: saboteur or
involving staff''
scapegoat?'', Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 24-40.
Guest, D. (1989), ``Human resource management: its implications for industrial relations and
trade unions'', in Storey, J. (Ed.), New Perspectives on Human Resource Management, 289
Routledge, London.
Guest, D. and Peccei, R. (1998a), The Partnership Company: Benchmarks for the Future,
Involvement and Participation Association, London.
Guest, D. and Peccei, R. (1998b), ``The partnership company: bench marks for the future ± report
of the IPA survey'', Industrial Relations Services, No. 655, May.
Guest, D. and Peccei, R. (2001), ``Partnership at work: mutuality and the balance of advantage'',
British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 207-36.
Heaton, N., Mason, B. and Morgan, J. (2000), ``Trade unions and partnership in the NHS'',
Employee Relations, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 315-33.
IRS (1993), ``Local bargaining in the NHS: a survey of first- and second-wave trusts'', IRS
Employment Review, 537, June, pp. 7-16.
IRS (1999), ``Partnership delivers the goods at Tesco'', IRS Employment Review, 686, August.
IRS (2000), ``Buy in or sell out?'', IRS Employment Review, 716, November, pp. 6-11.
Jacks, D., Pullinger D. and Reilly, P. (2000), ``Keeping watch'', People Management, Vol. 6, p. 18,
September.
Kelly, J. (1996), ``Union militancy and social partnership'', in Ackers, P., Smith, C. and Smith, P.
(Eds), The New Workplace and Trade Unionism, Routledge, London.
Lloyd, C. and Seifert, R. (1995), ``Restructuring in the NHS: the impact of the 1990 reforms on the
management of labour'', Work, Employment & Society, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 359-78.
Mahony, C. (2000), ``Consulting room'', People Management, Vol. 6 No. 18, September, pp. 46-8.
Marchington, M. and Wilkinson, A. (2000), ``Direct participation'', in Bach, S. and Sissons, K.
(Eds), Personnel Management ± A Comprehensive Guide to Theory and Practice,
3rd ed., Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Marks, A., Findlay, P., Hine, J., McKinlay, A. and Thompson, P. (1998), ``The politics of
partnership? Innovation in employment relations in the Scottish spirits industry'', British
Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 36, pp. 209-26.
Martinez Lucio, M. and Stuart, M. (2000), ``Swimming against the tide: social partnership, mutual
gains and the revival of `tired' HRM'', paper presented to the Employment Research Unit's
15th Annual Conference, Cardiff Business School, 6-7 September.
Martinez Lucio, M. and Stuart, M. (2001), In Search of Partnership? Report of a Survey of MSF
Representatives, MSF, London.
Millward, N. (1994), The New Industrial Relations, Policy Studies Institute, London.
Storey, J. (1992), Developments in the Management of Human Resources, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Stuart, M. and Martinez Lucio, M. (2000), ``Renewing the model employer. Changing employment
relations and `partnership' in the health and private sectors'', Journal of Management in
Medicine, Vol. 14 No. 5/6, pp. 310-25.
Taylor, P. and Ramsay, H. (1998), ``Unions, partnership and HRM: sleeping with the enemy?'',
International Journal of Employment Studies, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 115-43.
TUC (1999), Partners for Progress: New Unionism in the Workplace, TUC, London.