The second major concern expressed by critics of HRM is that it promotes a
unitarist system which reduces workers’ collective voice. Evidence from the UK
Workplace Employee Relations Survey (Guest and Conway 2004 b) and from the
annual surveys of the psychological contract (Guest and Conway 1999 ) shows that
trade union membership and trade union recognition is associated with lower
levels of satisfaction with work, after controlling for a range of individual and
organizational factors. Guest and Conway ( 1999 ) compared the impact of union
membership and a set of high-commitment HR practices on work satisfaction and
other outcomes and found that the positive impact on outcomes such as satisfac-
tion was derived from the HR practices rather than the union presence. The most
positive workers were those reporting high levels of HR practices and no union
membership while the most negative workers were those with low levels of HR
practices and trade union membership rather than those without both. This
suggests that a union presence may provide voice but often this voice will not be
associated with work satisfaction.
Despite the absence in these surveys of any association between a union presence
and positive worker satisfaction and well-being, there is evidence from other
sources that a mutual-gains (Kochan and Osterman 1995 ) or partnership model
(Guest and Peccei 2001 ) may beneWt both the organization and its employees.
Where there is an established trade union presence and a climate of cooperation,
this may be an appropriate means of promoting the link between HRM and worker
satisfaction and well-being while also providing the kind of safeguards that are
sometimes necessary to ensure that individual managers do not seek to bypass the
spirit of trust that partnership can help to promote. If the psychological contract
operates at the individual level, then the mutual-gains or partnership model oVers
a more collective equivalent. In terms of Bowen and OstroV’s ( 2004 ) analysis, it
helps to promote the strength of the HR system. To date, there are few reported
cases of the eVective implementation of this kind of working arrangement.
The third broad criticism of HRM is that it is a form of deceit, promising one
thing and delivering another, using subtle approaches to incorporate workers into
an organizational way of thinking and in eVect brainwashing them to become
‘willing slaves’ (Scott 1994 ). This concern has been voiced in the UK by Legge ( 1995 ,
2000 ) and Keenoy ( 1990 ) and has been addressed in some detail elsewhere (Guest
1999 ). Essentially, it boils down to the issue of whether we take workers’ accounts of
their experiences seriously. The case for taking workers’ accounts seriously is
compelling; and as the workforce becomes increasingly well educated and well
informed, it becomes even stronger. The available accounts generally do not
support the view that they feel deceived or exploited by HRM.
In summary, there is some evidence that HRM, in whatever form, increases the
demands of the job, either by providing greater autonomy or through externally
shaped controls, and can be associated with slightly higher stress. However,
there are powerful mediating and moderating factors, including the psychological
hrm: towards a new psychological contract? 141