Improving Productivity and Quality Through Collaboration

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-232X.1989.tb00870.x
• Author: WILLIAM N. COOKE
• Published date: 01 March 1989
• Date: 01 March 1989

Improving Productivity and Quality

Through Collaboration

WILLIAM

N.

COOKE*

This study examines the impact

of

joint labor-management activities on

perceived changes in productivity and quality, while controlling

for

the

exercise

of

relative power options. Ordered probit estimates yield general

support

for

the central proposition that the greater the intensity

of

joint

activities, the greater the productivity and quality improvements. Mixed

results are obtained regarding the impact

of

capital substitution, subcontract-

ing, and concession bargaining on performance in collaborative settings.

ONE IMPORTANT DIMENSION

of the enormous adjustment experi-

enced by the unionized manufacturing sector throughout the late seventies

and into the eighties has been widespread experimentation with union-

management collaboration. These joint efforts typically seek

to

enhance

productivity and product quality and improve labor-management relations.

Excluding site-specific cases, there has been surprisingly little empirical

research undertaken to determine the effectiveness of joint union-management

programs on company performance. Recent exceptions include Katz,

Kochan, and Gobeille

(1983),

Schuster

(1984),

and

Voos

(1987).

This paper examines factors that influence the intensity of joint activities

and, in turn, affect company performance. The empirical models tested

here also account for certain noncollaborative management activities (e.g.,

capital substitution, subcontracting, concession bargaining) intended to

improve performance and initiated simultaneously with or sequentially to

collaborative activities.

We begin with

a

brief overview of the type, extent, and purposes of joint

efforts within manufacturing and then outline

a

theory of how the parties

juxtapose relative power and collaborative power options as they attempt to

*

School of Business and Joint Labor-Management Relations Center, University of Michigan.

This research was funded in part by the

W.

E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

and the Institute of Labor

&

Industrial Relations, University

of

Michigan. The author thanks

Lynn Cooke,

William

Greene, and David Meyer for valuable assistance and comments, and

an anonymous referee for constructive criticism.

INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS,

Vol.

28,

No.

2

(Spring

1989).

0

1989

Regents of the University of California

0019/8676/89/5 15/299/$10.00

299

300

/

WILLIAM

N.

COOKE

change their relationship in a way that maximizes the gain for each. Drawing

on this theoretical framework, several general propositions and associated

hypotheses about the impact

of

collaboration on productivity and product

quality are formulated. Finally,

as

constrained by data limitations, models

of

the determinants of those performance outcomes are specified and tested.

The results are necessarily tentative, but they suggest that the more intense

joint labor-management efforts (as depicted by program structure, union

strength, and organizational factors) are, the more likely they are to positively

affect performance. Furthermore, among relative power options exercised

in conjunction with collaborative efforts, it appears that on average

subcontracting jeopardizes performance gains, whereas capital displacement

improves performance.

Type, Extent, and Focus

of

Collaborative Activities

We define joint union-management programs as formalized collaborative

efforts between union representatives and plant management that (a) are

outside traditional contract negotiations and contract administration;

(b)

contain formalized mechanisms for input from union representatives, and/

or

the employees they represent, into plant-level management decisions; and

(c) are intended to improve performance

at

the plant, through direct efforts

aimed

at

improving productivity, quality, efficiency, etc. and/or through

indirect efforts aimed at improving employee well-being and/or the labor-

management relations climate.2

In

1986,

we surveyed a sample of

350

relatively large, unionized

manufacturing facilities in the U.S. and found that over

45

per cent had

engaged in formalized joint labor-management activities, nearly

90

per cent

of which had been initiated since

1980.3

Using the respondents’ descriptions

of the structure and focus

of

their most important joint program, we divided

the programs into two basic types. The first, team-based programs, were

referred to variously as quality circles, work teams,

QWL,

or

employee

involvement programs. All are based on the team concept, where teams of

employees meet

on

a

regular basis to identify and resolve production and

Excluded are integrative or cooperative problem-solving activities that might normally

occur during the negotiation and the day-to-day administration

of

contracts; also excluded

are joint programs in health and safety, substance abuse, apprenticeship training, etc.

In our full sample

of

plants that had established one or more joint programs,

23

per

cent

had terminated one or more joint programs. About

60

per cent of these plants, however,

continued with

or

established other joint programs despite the terminations. Based on the

total number of joint programs established (excluding joint health and safety, substance

abuse, and apprenticeship programs), only

11

per cent were reported as having been

terminated.