Counterpoising Collectivism: Performance‐related Pay and Industrial Relations in Greenfield Sites

Abstract

This paper addresses some of the industrial relations ramifications of performance-related pay (PRP) using empirical data from both new and longer established firms in the Republic of Ireland. Particular emphasis is placed on the adoption of PRP systems based on performance appraisal and the implications of such systems for collectivism in industrial relations. The paper concludes that the diffusion of such systems is indicative of increasing employer attempts to individualize the employment relationship and exclude union penetration.It is further argued that such PRP systems, irrespective of the motivation for their establishment, undermine the essence of collectivism and solidarity in industrial relations.

Human Resource Practices in Multinational Companies in Ireland: A Large-Scale Survey

“…Mooney, 1989;Flood et al, 2005) and performance management/ performance-related pay systems (cf. Gunnigle, et al, 1998). Comparisons between foreign-owned and indigenous firms point to a significantly greater uptake of 'sophisticated' HR practices among foreign-owned companies (cf.…”

“…National influences stem from the characteristics of the parent-country business system: the US, for instance, has had a long history of pay innovation. This can be traced to the attempts of firms to deter unionisation by providing innovative terms and conditions to employees, and by linking pay to individual performance (Foulkes, 1980;Jacoby, 1997;Gunnigle et al, 1998;Roche and Turner, 1998). By contrast, in many European countries, such as Germany and the Netherlands, sectoral pay bargaining and company-level employee representation through works councils have traditionally limited the scope for individually-focused forms of pay and appraisal systems.…”

Involvement, Participation and Partnership: A Review of the Debate and Reflections on the Irish Context

“…However, this is not occurring at the expense of traditional collective lines of communication through representative bodies (generally trade unions). While larger organisations were more likely to increase all mechanisms, private sector companies were more likely to have increased direct communications, when compared with their public sector counterparts (see Gunnigle, Morley, Clifford & Turner 1997). Furthermore, the increase in direct communication mechanisms appears to be occurring at a faster pace among unionised private sector organisations.…”

“…Differences in organisational approaches to communications tend to focus on the nature and content of management-employee communications and the range of mechanisms used to facilitate such communications. The Cranfield-University of Limerick (CUL) study, carried out in 1992, 1995 and 1999, focused on two key aspects of the debate on management-employee communications: (i) the communications fora used by management in communicating with employees and (ii) the type of information communicated to employees using such fora (see Gunnigle, Morley, Clifford & Turner 1997).…”

Between Home and Host Country: Multinationals and Employment Relations in Europe

“…Turning to their impact on IR and HRM, we find a broad consensus that MNCs, particularly from the US and Japan, have been an important source of innovation in areas such as work organisation, performance related pay and the role of the specialist HR function (Ferner, forthcoming;Gunnigle, 1998;Gunnigle, Turner and D'Art, 1998;Muller, 1998). Several examples suggest that MNCs have continued to play an innovative role in 2000.…”