Ireland's competitive performance is significantly restrained by the poor diffusion of advanced forms of work organisation, according to research published in 1998 by the Graduate School of Business, University College Dublin.
Findings from a recent national workplace survey of workplace change in Ireland stand in stark contrast to popular claims of the widespread diffusion of new working practices and initiatives which facilitate employee "empowerment". The findings suggest that new work structures are very much a minority practice in Irish companies. In comparison to other European countries, Ireland lags some way behind and, as a consequence, many Irish companies are not reaping the economic benefits which accompany the introduction of these new initiatives.
The research - "New work structures and the diffusion of teamworking arrangements in Ireland", John Geary, CEROP Working Paper, No. 25, Graduate School of Business, University College Dublin (1998) - stems from a recent national workplace survey conducted at the Graduate School of Business, University College Dublin (UCD). New work practices, particularly of an advanced form, are found not to be widely diffused in Ireland. Although it is often thought that new work practices are more likely to be found in new "greenfield" companies, the UCD survey found no evidence to support this claim. Older "brownfield" sites were as likely to be as innovative in this area as new start-ups.
The survey data did show, however, that new work practices were most apparent in the financial services sector and in high-technology industries, and in companies that competed in international markets.
Workplace change and its consequences for employees
As to what the above findings mean for employees in their daily working lives, the evidence would suggest that even where employers have been experimenting with new work practices, particularly around teamworking, their form and significance would appear to be modest and limited. It is not the case, for example, that employees are being granted full autonomy to make decisions in the workplace for themselves - traditional forms of supervision remain deeply embedded in the Irish workplace.
On the negative side, these new work practices often place new demands and pressures on employees. Nonetheless, where they have been introduced, the evidence would suggest that: they are often welcomed by employees; levels of cooperation between employees and employer increase; and a more favourable view of management is often acquired. Such improvements in management-employee relations are unlikely, however, to lead to a transformation in employees' trust in management. Much more likely is a pragmatic adjustment on the part of employees, where acceptance of new working arrangements is seen to be necessary in difficult economic circumstances.
Partnership in the workplace?
There are some grounds for concern for trade unions. In unionised companies, only 28% of firms surveyed reported that union representatives were involved in the introduction of teamworking. This finding would suggest significant marginalisation of union influence at workplace level.
However, where unions were involved, employers confirmed the importance of their participation and the contribution they made to the change process.
Commentary
The prognosis for a wider diffusion of new work practices in Ireland is not very bright. Significant transition costs are associated with a move towards transforming work structures. For "Ireland Inc" to move towards a more participative workplace - both at the level of the work task and in management decision-making - is likely to require, the report argues, not only some fundamental changes in the attitudes of employers and trade unions but also in the policy emphasis of "supporting institutions".
Part of the problem in Ireland is that responsibility for innovation in industrial relations and work organisation remains fragmented and divided across a number of public agencies, such as theLabour Relations Commission (LRC),Irish Productivity Centre (IPC), and Forbairt (the state job-creation agency). The LRC, for example, has a long history and a high level of expertise in managing industrial relations and in proposing alternative and progressive models of new industrial relations. On the other hand, it has little expertise in innovations in new production or service-delivery systems or in new forms of work organisation. Some of the responsibilities and roles of the new National Centre for Partnership (IE9706202N) have and are being pursued by the LRC. Such replication and duplication of roles and lack of clarity of purpose lead to predictable problems: competition for scarce resources; a lack of strategic direction and focus in public agencies' actions; "institutional deadlock"; and the unattractive, yet understandable, process of each body defending its "territory" and claiming success for each of its endeavours. Plainly, what is required is for such structural complexity to be reduced, and for the social partners to take stock and move towards the formation of a single agency with responsibility for developing an expertise in industrial relations, human resource management and work organisation.
In sum, although Irish employers' interest in new forms of work organisation and in teamworking in particular has increased in recent years, their practice, especially of an advanced form, remains relatively isolated. To see a wider diffusion of such innovations would require specific support structures to be put in place. Amongst the most pressing requirements are the adoption of workplace partnership arrangements between employers and trade unions, more investment in training and the establishment of " learning forums" to identify and to support the diffusion of "best practice". Such shifts are not likely to be easily secured. (John Geary, UCD)