‘Beyond the clash?’: Union–management partnership through social dialogue on sustainable HRM. Lessons from Belgium

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to explore the concept of intended versus real partnerships between unions and management in relation to social dialogue on sustainable HRM within a historically grown institutional context of dominant conflict thinking in Belgium. In-depth qualitative data was retrieved from unions and managers within leading companies in the Belgian chemistry and the life sciences sector. The central goal was to examine how sustainable HR issues can strengthen the partnership relationship between unions and management and what kind of paradoxical tensions they face in this regard. The data supports the idea of a hybrid, (neo)pluralistic approach, within which any polarizing ‘we are against them’ mindset cannot be fully ruled out and may even be fruitful in achieving win-win solutions.

Keywords

Paradoxical tensions social dialogue sustainable HRM trade unions union-management partnership

Introduction

In various national contexts, management, trade unions and government authorities are increasingly in favour of the concept of ‘union–management partnership’ which, in simple terms, refers to the deal of ‘working together to the same end’ (Bray et al., 2020). Recently, EU trade unions and employers, for example, called on the EU to help strengthen Europe’s sustainable industrial base. Union–management partnership was seen as an important lever in this respect: ‘Europe’s future is intertwined with the future of our industry. We have a tremendous responsibility in building industrial policies that reconcile innovation for sustainability, investment, skills and competitiveness. We truly believe that union-management partnership is the best instrument for this transformation’.¹

Although the aim of union–management partnership may be clear, the conditions of its day-to-day implementation remain subject to debate. Intensive workplace-based studies point to a complex picture involving micro-political social processes working through both cooperative and oppositional channels. Samuel (2007), for example, noted the micro-politics of industrial relations between managers and union representatives as key to understanding partnership. Cook et al. (2020) demonstrated how oppositional activity rather than mutual cooperation enabled the effective policing of HRM and a reduction in its variation. They revealed a more nuanced story showing how unions are good for HRM. This article addresses this debate by providing new insights into the complexities of intended versus real union–management partnership within a historically grown institutional context of dominant conflict thinking in Belgium, a context which differs from the dominant British or Irish perspectives.

Within the two Anglo-Saxon countries, there is a rich tradition of research investigating the circumstances under which employers and trade unions realize a win under the name of ‘union–management partnership’ (e.g. Ackers et al., 2003; Dobbins and Dundon, 2017). However, the concept is also relevant and topical in other countries and institutional contexts. In Germany, for example, it is reflected in the concept of ‘co-determination’ (‘Mitbestimmung’), while in the Netherlands, it has traditionally been addressed in terms of the ‘polder model’. This article focuses on the Belgian situation, which has a social dialogue model that is of interest insofar as it combines institutional features of both a cooperative and polarizing model. In addition, in Belgium, union membership and collective bargaining coverage remain among the highest in the industrialized world (Van Gyes, 2015). These factors make Belgium a relevant case for research in the domain of social dialogue and partnership.

The empirical research took place within the context of the Demographic Fund. In 2016, unions and the federation for Belgium’s chemistry and life sciences sector reached an agreement on improving working conditions for older workers in the light of rising retirement ages. The fund aims to finance local projects in companies ‘in order to maintain and improve employment in the sector in the face of the demographic changes and the consequences of prolonging the working period’. This fund is financed by a levy of 0.15% on the sector’s gross salary bill. In practice, the local union representatives and managers must agree – through union–management partnership and dialogue – on the details of the content and implementation of their demographic plan before they can make any financial claim on the fund. Examples of actions within demographic plans include: investing in age-conscious HRM, adjustments to the shift system, extra holiday days, investing in training and development and enabling mentorship.²

The Demographic Fund is the first of its kind in the country. In some other European countries there is a longer tradition of approaching age management and demographic challenges among social partners (e.g. Flynn et al., 2013). The Belgian initiative is innovative because part of the available wage margin is not converted into a direct increase in purchasing power but is invested in long-term sustainable HRM projects. In this way, the Demographic Fund aspires to realize the decisiveness of a constructive social dialogue within a union–management partnership model, where a balance between sector and company level leaves room for the necessary customisation. At least theoretically, the fund has the potential to revitalize the partnership between employers and unions through social dialogue on sustainable HRM at both the sectoral and local level. Ultimately, the aim is to achieve win-win situations.

This article aims, firstly, to enrich research into the complexities of intended versus real union–management partnership by offering insights from practice-based paradox theory (Bednarek et al., 2017; Jarzabkowski and Lê, 2017). As mentioned above, in theory, the intentions of the Demographic Fund correspond to assumptions of a union–management partnership. The question remains whether these intentions are reflected in reality. We assume that given the Belgian institutional legacy of the conflict model many paradoxical tensions remain.

Secondly, we aim to enrich employment relations research by offering insights drawn from the sustainable HRM literature, which provides a framework for managing people that is designed to achieve positive financial, social or human and ecological outcomes in the short and long term (Ehnert, 2014; Kramar, 2014). These outcomes are ‘ends’ in themselves (De Prins et al., 2014; Kramar, 2014). Sustainable HRM recognizes that these three types of outcomes are inter-related and interdependent and that there are tensions between them (Ehnert, 2014; Keegan et al., 2019). Thus far, there are few studies linking union–management partnerships and sustainable HRM themes. Therefore, this study aims to fill this gap by investigating the extent to which sustainable HRM themes increase the likelihood of partnership relationships between employers and employee representatives, the tensions that may arise and how they are addressed.

Below, we will first elaborate on the concept of union–management partnership and its link with sustainable HRM and practice-based paradox theory. We will formulate our research questions before presenting the methodology, followed by a discussion of the results of the qualitative research. Finally, the paper provides some general conclusions before indicating research limitations and some future research avenues.

Theoretical framing

Although definitions may vary, union–management partnership is regarded as a set of collaborative initiatives that seek to foster the reconciliation of employer and employee interests through social dialogue and consultative systems (Bélanger and Edwards, 2007). A number of studies have highlighted workplace partnership as a mechanism for improving relationships between management and the trade unions (e.g. Valizade et al., 2016).

Conflict versus partnership

The opposite of union–management partnership is union–management conflict. Huzzard et al. (2004) uses a clarifying metaphor in this context, talking of ‘a boxing versus dancing culture’ (see Figure 1). While a boxing culture mainly consists of divergent interests and zero-sum outcomes, on the ‘dance floor’ there are shared or overlapping interests and positive-sum outcomes. In the boxing ring, the stakeholders are bearers of class interests, while in a dance culture they are value-adding partners (Huzzard et al., 2004).

Figure 1.

Conflict versus partnership model within the theoretical framing.

Parallel to the distinction between partnership (‘dancing’) and conflict (‘boxing’), different theoretical perspectives on the union–management relationship can be outlined. For many years, classical Industrial Relation (IR) scholars have focused on the differences between employees and employers, often in terms of power relationships, conflicts and a competitive social climate (Boselie, 2010; Klerck, 2009). Within this IR view, conflict is a consequence of the structure and basis of the employment relationship. Within the radical IR view, such conflict is inescapable insofar it is class-based and the result of an unequal distribution of power between those who buy labour and those who sell it (Bingham, 2016).

Today, scholars are increasingly calling for cooperation and partnership rather than hostility in the employer–employee relationship, as a necessary condition for constructive conflict resolution and reduction of employee harm (see e.g. Ackers, 2002). This is what is called a ‘neo-pluralistic point of view’ within IR. Within the HR discipline, scholars are also increasingly calling for pluralism instead of unitarism, where everyone has the same values and beliefs and is working towards the same goals. Certainly, those authors who take a critical, balanced, stakeholder and/or sustainability viewpoint will abandon the unitarist approach. They acknowledge that employers and employees have shared interests in some situations, but also point out the often conflicting interests between the two (Boselie, 2010; De Prins et al., 2020). The relationship between employers and employees is therefore best described in terms of a partnership or coalition rather than being in harmony or a conflict.

Another theoretical parallel to the conflict (‘boxing’) versus partnership (‘dancing’) model can be found in the perspectives on managing contradictions in organisations. While paradox research depicts tensions between contradictory elements as irreconcilable and best managed through acceptance and synergy, the dialectical perspective portrays the relationship of such elements as adversarial and transformed through conflict (Hargrave and Van de Ven, 2017). Paradox scholars portray actors as responding to contradictions by employing synergy to establish practices and arrangements which are advantageous to both contradictory elements (e.g. Ehnert, 2014). In contrast, according to the dialectical perspective, actors seek to defeat proponents of contradictory elements rather than accepting coexistence with them (Hargrave and Van de Ven, 2017).

Translated into the Belgian industrial relations situation, the two models of conflict (‘boxing’) versus partnership (‘dancing’) are historically intertwined. The Belgian model of industrial relations is difficult to typify because it seems to combine institutional features of both the North (partnership) and the South (conflict) (Van Gyes, 2015). In particular, Belgian trade unions combine the language and culture of a grassroots (class) movement with consultative bodies on social and economic issues at sectoral and intersectoral levels (Van Ruysseveldt and Visser, 1996; Pulignano and Doerflinger, 2015). In general, however, the climate of conflict dominates, certainly in comparison with countries such as Germany and the Netherlands. Altmeyer (2005) also distinguishes Germany and the Netherlands from Belgium, arguing that the latter fits into the ‘French cluster’ of countries, in which worker representation bodies are dominated by active and politicized trade unions. Also, according to the large-scale NEIRE study (García et al., 2015), countries such as Germany and the Netherlands exhibit a more cooperative pattern (relatively high on cooperation, and relatively low on competition), while Belgium and France tend towards a more competitive pattern, with competitive behavior more prevalent than cooperative behavior. This makes the Demographic Fund project particularly interesting.

Sustainable HR as a possible game changer

There is also an assumption that social dialogue on issues other than those subject to traditional bargaining (e.g. pay and incentive schemes, performance targets) has a greater chance of occurring in partnership rather than entailing conflict (Bryson et al., 2012; Cutcher-Gershenfeld and Kochan, 2004; De Prins et al., 2020). Using the classical distinction between distributive and integrative bargaining (Walton and McKersie, 1991), this means that HR issues such as sustainable jobs and careers are more aligned with the integrative model, in which each side attempts to reach a compromise such that neither loses and both can be seen to have gained. In contrast, the conflict model corresponds to distributive bargaining, referring to situations in which gain by one side is necessarily a loss for the other.

Some authors explicitly assert that sustainable HRM should be oriented towards a partnership with unions (e.g. Aust et al., 2020). A mutual gains HR approach requires an organisational atmosphere of workplace partnership enabling employee participation in decision-making processes and space for employees’ perspectives and expectations (Valizade et al., 2016). This may be considered a way to guarantee, in practice, the real incorporation of employees’ interests in the design and implementation of corporate strategy (Gutiérrez Crocco and Martin, 2019).

In comparison with other countries, it may be less straightforward for Belgian trade unions to consider themes such as job quality and careers. In the general historical compromise and social dialogue framework, such themes are reserved for management (the management prerogative), while social dialogue focuses on themes such as remuneration: how one bakes the cake is determined by management; how the cake (wage) is distributed must be negotiated with the unions (Hermans and Lamberts, 2018). We therefore assume that, within the Belgian institutional context, partnership agreements will not be evident and will be accompanied by paradoxical tensions. Fairhurst et al. (2002: 506) view paradoxical tensions as ‘the clash of ideas, principles and actions as well as any subsequent feelings of discomfort’. According to scholars such as Ehnert (2014), these tensions can be managed but will never disappear. Consequently, unions and managers constantly need to balance, or constantly ‘move’ between, the two poles of a paradox, in order to accommodate it.

Practice-based perspective on paradoxical tensions

The focus of our research is on the day-to-day implementation of the union–management partnership concept and on the paradoxical tensions that go hand in hand with this. Within the practice-based perspective, these tensions are reflected in the micro-practices of individuals in everyday situations (Jarzabkowski and Lê, 2017). In each context, the identification of paradoxes depends on what the actors perceive as contradictory but interrelated elements (Putnam et al., 2016). While the responses to paradoxes identified in the literature may entail large decisive actions, the practice perspective suggests that responses may also be constructed at the micro level in everyday actions. Thus, many of the responses may be formulated as micro-level social constructions that have been obscured by the focus on more overt decisions or responses at the organisational level. These everyday interactions bring paradoxes into being, giving them salience and invoking responses (Dameron and Torset, 2014).

Paradox scholars focus on both proactive and defensive responses when handling tensions in daily life. Proactive responses are linked with a willingness and ability to rethink existing polarities, while defensive responses suppress tensions rather than resolve them. Opposing something, for example, is a defensive response that involves parties supporting contradictory elements of a paradox and engaging in active confrontation and conflict that polarize paradoxical elements (Keegan et al., 2019).

In line with the distinction between proactive and defensive responses, we formulated our research questions:

(1) What are the paradoxical tensions in the daily experience of Belgian trade unions and employers when dealing with more partnership in social dialogue on sustainable HRM?

(2) What are the proactive responses in the daily experience of unions and managers in relation to these paradoxical tensions?

(3) What are the defensive responses in the daily experience of unions and managers in relation to these paradoxical tensions?

Methodology

A qualitative research methodology (see Table 1) was used to answer these questions. The aim was to use ‘real life’ storytelling by the different stakeholders on the themes of partnership, paradoxical tensions and sustainable HRM. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 individuals: 20 employee representatives³ and 10 HR managers within six companies (see Table 2). These companies and individuals were selected by members of the Demographic Fund’s expert group (see below). They mobilized their members within the organisation and discussed who should take part in the interviews. All of the companies that took part had recently successfully submitted a demographic plan.

Table 1.

Research methodology.

Level	Research method	Role of the researcher	Timing
Sector	Participative observation/action research	Academic partner of the ‘expert group’	Augustus 2016–August 2018
Company	Participative observation/action research	Facilitator of the kick off and brainstorm session of the Demography Fund	June 2017
Company	Semi-structured interviews	Interviewer	January 2017–August 2018

Table 2.

Interview-cases.

Case number	Case size (number of employees)	Case core business	Number of respondents
#1.	3100	Chemical plant	1 HR, 6 ER
#2.	130	Pharmaceutical company	2 HR, 2 ER
#3.	5000	Pharmaceutical company	2 HR, 4 ER
#4.	770	Pharmaceutical company	2 HR, 4 ER
#5.	700	Research institute actively working on innovative applications of radioactivity	1 HR, 2 ER
#6.	240	Production company of vegetable and recyclable wine corks	2 HR, 2 ER

Some interviews were organized one to one, while other interviews were carried out with employee representatives on a group basis. Interviews were recorded with informed consent, transcribed and thematically analysed. Management interviews lasted between 1 and 1.5 hours, while group interviews with employee representatives lasted between 1 and 2 hours, producing almost 20 hours of data. The questions mainly concerned the content of the demographic plan and the process leading to its submission. For example, how did the respondents experience this process, what were the strengths, what specific aspects stood out, were there areas of tension and conflict, etc.?

In addition to semi-structured interviews undertaken during the primary research stage, an element of ethnographic participant observation was also possible, which further reinforced the interview findings. As the researcher (author of this article) formally acted as an academic partner of the ‘expert group’ of the Demographic Fund over a period of 2 years, she could attend all kinds of meetings with various stakeholders. This enabled her to collect relevant data, not only at company level but also at a more abstract sector level from respondents with a broader overview. The expert group included representatives of the various trade unions (socialist, liberal and Christian) and the employers’ federation. They met several times a month with the aim of actually translating the intentions of the Demographic Fund into everyday practice, and they were in direct contact with the employees’ and employers’ representatives in the companies.

In addition, the researcher was also involved in the initial launch of the social dialogue on the Demographic Fund in one of the six companies. Here, she was able to set up experiments with different forms of dialogue and co-creation between the employer and trade unions. In this way, she actively witnessed and intervened in the partnership process that led to a final demographic plan. This facilitated her understanding and critical reflection on the day-to-day practice of partnership within the organisations. The data thus consists of interview reports, observation reports and meeting reports, among other observational data.

This study was not driven by a fully deductive logic, nor did it follow a strict grounded theory approach. The researcher moved between the data and literature to compare the incidents of paradoxical tension with those previously mentioned in the literature. Initially, ‘daily life’ concepts relevant to sustainable union–management partnership and paradoxical tensions were identified. In the next step, proactive versus reactive responses were analysed and identified within these categories. The resulting superordinate themes are detailed in Figure 2 and explored in the following empirical analyses, which include quotations to illustrate the interview data on the organisational level.

Figure 2.

Data structure.

For the data on sector level, we also refer to Table 3 (see Appendix I). This table summarizes the data from participant observations of the meetings as a member (academic partner) of the expert group. The observations are based on the reports of the meetings. In order to increase readability and comprehensibility, the descriptions have been stripped of all technical background information and describe the daily situation and events within the expert group at sector level as objectively as possible. Some descriptions refer to a longer period of time, others to a rather short period of time or are only ad-hoc events.

Findings

Figure 2 illustrates the emerging data structure, with the first-order categories and second-order themes which underpin the findings presented in this article. The analysis revealed three main domains in which paradoxical tensions are present when trade unions and employers strive for more partnership in social dialogue: (1) the relationship, (2) the content and (3) the process. In daily conversations, these tensions were respectively labelled as (1) ‘we are together’ versus ‘we are against them’, (2) ‘win-win deals’ versus ‘calculative deals’ and (3) ‘common ground’ versus ‘own truth’. How trade unions and employers subsequently anticipated these tensions, depended on the context, the degree of maturity and the dynamics of social dialogue. In proactive responses, the tension is accepted and/or there is a striving for both/and behaviour and/or there is special emphasis on the partnership pole within the paradoxical tension. In defensive responses, the tension is ignored and/or there is a striving for an either/or decision and/or there is a special emphasis on the pole of conflict within the paradoxical tension.

Relationship: ‘We are together’ versus ‘we are against them’

A first paradoxical area of tension relates to the relationship. During the interviews and in the observations, it became clear that the daily relationship between management and trade unions still moves between two poles: Do the actors see each other more as partners (‘we are together’) than opponents (‘we are against them’)? In the proactive responses to this tension, managers and trade unions accept this paradoxical tension in the employment relationship, while in the defensive responses, we see the opposite.

Proactive responses: Shared mindset of ‘mutual respect’ and ‘critical friendship’

When asked about the success factors within a partnership, the respondents invariably referred to the concepts of ‘mutual respect’ and ‘reciprocity’, taking into account each other’s interests, positions, expectations and possibilities. During the dozens of meetings of the expert group at the sector level (see also Table 3, Appendix I), a great deal of effort was put into being transparent about the various life worlds and realms of meaning of the employers and employees. Trade union representatives expressed the voice of the employees and attempted to translate the input of their members as concretely and authentically as possible, while the employers’ organisation representatives did this on behalf of their members. By making the different meanings, emotions, expectations and sensitivities explicit, a lasting commitment was made to a shared mindset of mutual respect and understanding. This joint efforts led, among other things, to the creation of a mutually supported text containing the fully elaborated content of the framework for the Demographic Fund (see below Table 4). The text is the result of the shared efforts of the social partners and the researcher in her role as academic partner of the expert group. Finding a common language was a very important milestone in making the principle of mutual respect tangible.

Table 4.

Sustainable HR themes in the context of the demographic fund.

Work	Health	Competences	Careers
Working time and leave scheme • Adjusting working time(s) • Adjusting leave arrangements • Adjusting the overtime regime • Introducing/adjusting teleworking Shift system and work schedule • Adjusting the shiftwork system • Adjusting the work schedule Job content • (Re)balancing job demands and job control • Improving fit between individual strengths/work ability and job content Labour organisation • Introducing/adjusting self-managing teams • Introducing/adjusting systems of work consultation, participation, shared leadership Motivating leadership and team climate • Investing in qualitative dialogue and conversation cycle • Investing in people management skills • Investing in a supportive collegial climate	Health promotion and lifestyle behaviour • Health information and education • Medical guidance and check-ups • Stimulating and facilitating a healthy lifestyle: (more) exercise, (quitting) smoking, (moderate use of) alcohol, (healthy) nutrition and (sufficient) relaxation. Ergonomics • Workplace adaptations • Purchase of ergonomic tools Prevention • Removing physical and psychosocial barriers to staying safe, healthy and vital at work (see also lever ‘Work’) Illness • Investing in return policy after (long-term) illness	Training and development • Investing in the detection of training and development needs • Drawing up training and development plans • Strengthening the training offer with a focus on competence retention and innovation Learning in the workplace • Investing in knowledge and experience exchange • Strengthening development and coaching culture • Support managers/mentors in their role of coach • Facilitating self-management in own growth process • Recognition of external acquired competencies	Career support • Drawing up career paths • Investing in career coaching and career talks • Investing in peer/meter/mentor systems • Strengthening career competences • Supporting managers/mentors in their role of career facilitator Mobility • Stimulating horizontal mobility • Stimulating internal promotion/demotion initiatives Life-phase/Age-conscious policy • Stimulating work–life balance initiatives • Stimulating initiatives for specific target groups (young starters, older workers, different generations, etc.) • Promoting (age) diversity and inclusion

Source: Demografiefonds (2018).

In addition to mutual respect, the importance of healthy conflict in the working relationship was also pointed out on several occasions. Both trade unions and managers emphasized that a cooperative climate does not necessarily have to be absolute. Within this vision, a polarizing mindset cannot be ruled out and may also be fruitful in moving from contradiction to common ground.

In that sense, it’s a bit “we are against them”. If you don’t recognize different interests, you don’t enter into consultation. It comes down to understanding what the other’s interests are and what your own interests are. Then you have to find room to say: here we can all go [in this direction] together. (Interview union leader)

Also, at the company level, investing in ‘mutual respect’ turned out to be an important key to success. Concretely, reference was made to the importance of ‘listening to each other’, ‘investing in social dialogue’ and ‘showing mutual empathy’. It was emphasized several times that the common goal of striving for ‘sustainable careers’ and ‘sustainable work’ has a strongly connective force and promotes a mindset of mutual respect and understanding.

The demographic plan was a great opportunity to work with the social partners towards a goal that concerns us all: to provide employees with healthy and workable work. (Interview HR manager, #3)

Thus, a common goal is important in establishing connections. However, as the next quotation shows, sufficient common ground may not be found, meaning that some of the proposals by the parties fail to materialize.

From both sides, employers’ and employees’ representatives (. . .), there were proposals that did not make it. The trade union representatives initially proposed to introduce extra seniority days, but due to the relatively high number of leave days in our organization, we did not consider this a good option. On the other hand, we made a proposal to improve ergonomics, but the trade union representatives thought this was part of the employer’s permanent task and therefore not a subject for the demographic plan. By working together constructively, we eventually came to a compromise with measures that we all support. (Interview HR manager, #5)

Ultimately, mutual respect does not exclude critical feedback provided it is given in a constructive manner. The term ‘critical friendship’ was used several times for this purpose and offers a powerful framework. By structurally embedding contradiction and connectivity within the DNA of the organisation, fear can be removed, allowing employees to not only function as executives but also as sparring partners and ‘critical friends’ of the management.

Defensive responses: Clashing mindset of ‘power play’

In addition to transparency and commonality, reciprocity also requires a balance in the mutual perception of each other’s power. As also observed by Van der Brempt (2014), if an equal balance of power is reciprocally perceived, this will promote a constructive dialogue. If this is not the case, this feeling of imbalance gives rise to what is called ‘power play’.

At the sector level, the balance of power was closely monitored by the various stakeholders involved. Everything that was discussed in the expert group was meticulously fed back to the political manager of his or her own interest group (the ‘political spokespersons’). These political spokespersons put a lot of pressure on the functioning of the expert group. Given that their field of action and influence was much broader than that of the Demographic Fund, on several occasions other political agendas unexpectedly thwarted those of the Demographic Fund.

Despite the very good informal relationships between the members of the expert group, such interference often undermined the atmosphere of mutual understanding and trust, for a longer or shorter period of time. The discussions and quarrels were often full of tension. The atmosphere became grim and the political power game prevailed, which also explains the reluctance of the experts to use words such as ‘together’ or ‘partners’ publicly. Both the trade union and the employers’ organisation representatives wanted to maintain the necessary caution in the use of language in relation to its affect on their supporters.

At the company level, on several occasions historically based political agendas or power imbalances at the local level also hampered dialogue or blunted the relationship. In some of the organisations, this led to a situation where no demographic plan could be agreed upon. Once in fighting mode, common interest was lost and gave way to what is sometimes referred to as ‘competitive interaction’ (Giebels and Euwema, 2010), where friendliness between the social partners is lacking or not genuine, no open hands are played and power differences are used at the expense of the other party. Such interaction readily results in escalation and strengthens the competitive climate that is already present. This creates a vicious circle.

Content: ‘Win-win deal’ versus ‘calculative deal’

A second paradoxical area of tension relates to the content of social dialogue. When it comes to themes such as sustainable careers and sustainable work, do both parties benefit equally, or does one stakeholder benefit more than the other? In the proactive responses, win-win deals predominate and are also made explicitly, while in the defensive responses, calculative deals gain the upper hand.

Proactive responses: Shared ‘win-win’ perspective on HR content

Within the Demographic Fund, the social partners could choose from a range of sustainable HR initiatives, from work-related, health-related, competence-related to career-related projects (see Table 4).

It took the expert group 18 months – with the help of the academic partner – to draw up a mutually supported document in which all action domains and parts of the action domains in the field of sustainable HRM were clarified, concretized and illustrated. The drafting of the document was an intense process, with every sentence and every nuance checked and double-checked. The importance of this document cannot be underestimated. It helped the social partners in the field translate theoretical concepts and ambitions into concrete actions and interpretations. By offering an accessible and straightforward discussion framework, it made complex HR matters a lot more digestible and accessible. Emphasizing the win-win character of sustainable HR initiatives was crucial here. For each area of action, the win-win for both the employer and the employee was explicitly stated. Below, we give a few examples:

An innovative view of the work organization can be useful to make and keep jobs more workable and to meet current customer demands better and faster. A win-win, so to speak, in which a higher level of decisiveness of the organization is aimed at together with more satisfaction and satisfaction on the work floor. (Demografiefonds, 2018)

Whatever the motive of the desire for flexibility and/or reality, it is important to always pursue and respect its ‘win-win’ character. After all, the flexibility requirement of the employer and the desire of employees to own as much of their time as possible do not have to stand in each other’s way. They can also be allies. (Demografiefonds, 2018)

This ‘win-win’ goal was also mentioned several times in the interviews with the stakeholders involved at the company level. The importance of taking action in the field of sustainable work and careers to the benefit of both the individual employee and the employer was emphasized. The responsibility and ownership of these issues was considered to lie with both parties.

Commitment to workable work is a win-win for both management and employees. (. . .) After all, we will all have to work longer, and this is better done in a healthy and workable way, from the very beginning of our careers. (Interview employee representative, #4)

We ask a lot of our employees and are happy to give something back. Caring for the health, satisfaction and commitment of our employees is part of our mission and is therefore the goal of our demographic plan. (Interview HR manager, #2)

Furthermore, it was emphasized that the choice of actions aligned best with existing traditions. This would increase the consistency of the entire HR policy within the organisation. It was considered wrong to believe that the demographic plan could bring about a sudden turnaround with respect to sustainable work. Rather, it was thought that these smaller initiatives could strengthen and/or accelerate existing initiatives or ideas.

The actions in the demographic plan are not always very big. There are also smaller things that all together can make a difference. (Interview employee representative, #6)

Defensive responses: Clashing hierarchy in HR content

The common perspective on sustainable HRM did not exclude the possibility of the different parties having different preferences in terms of content and actions. One trade union specifically chose more tangible or transactional benefits (e.g. an extra day off, collective reduction of working hours, extra recruitment). Their discourse was therefore still very much in line with a calculative deal: a sustainable career can only be achieved through additional rewards or supplementary measures. For this trade union, sustainable work mainly had the connotation of less work with retention of salary. In contrast, other trade unions had specific preferences for softer HR investments, such as employee development, work–life balance initiatives and leadership initiatives. This meant that the discussion between trade unions themselves was often fraught with controversy. A lot of time and negotiation were necessary to reach consensus on the preferred hierarchy in HR content.

Frequently, there were also tensions between unions and employers at both the organisational and sector levels. While trade unions mainly monitored the actions to ensure they benefited the employees, the focus of the employer was more on cost control and the practical implications of the actions. These tensions did not prevent both parties from ultimately arriving at a substantive proposal, which was often the result of much calculation and negotiation.

For us, it was important that the demographic plan would be sufficient to meet the concrete needs of the employees. Moreover, it was clear to us that we wanted the actions in the demographic plan to be sufficiently new, rather than a mere repetition of actions that were already taking place. (Interview employee representative, #1)

In the choice of measures, however, it is important that the organizational aspects of the company, as well as the costs for the company, are taken into account. For example, you may be able to offer some measures, such as switching from shift systems to day shifts, only for certain employees. You have to take these practical limitations into account if you want to draw up a package of actions. (Interview HR manager, #4)

Another area of tension was between investing solely in the older generation or investing in both the older and younger generations. To work longer, both younger and older employees need support in their workability. However, it is possible to discuss who will be given priority. This sometimes gave rise to tensions and discussions, both internally and between the trade unions and employers.

Additional measures are needed not only to keep older employees in work longer in a physically and psychologically healthy way, but also to prevent young employees from burning out quickly. (Interview employee representative, #1)

Process: ‘Common ground’ versus ‘own truth’

A third paradoxical area of tension relates to the process of social dialogue. How do managers and trade unions deal with each other in daily consultations? How do they reach a decision? How does the process of finalizing a demographic plan proceed? The field of tension here moves between finding common ground through co-creation or dialogue, versus maintaining one’s own truth through negotiation or debate.

Proactive responses: Shared mindset of ‘co-creation’ and ‘dialogue’

It was assumed that a sustainable partnership model relies primarily on an integrative, co-creative social dialogue, where nobody has a monopoly on the truth. Co-creative work involves all participants sharing knowledge and experiences on the basis of their own ‘experience of truth’ in order to find common ground, generate concrete opportunities for improvement and arrive at solutions shared by all. At the sector level, ‘rounds’ were regularly held in the various meetings with the experts, in which deliberate ‘thinking out loud’ was used. Everyone could add information, opinions and points of view from their own perspective, with the aim of reconciling employer logic with employee logic. Investments on the sector level could also be made by organizing a joint training programme or a colloquium.

At the local level, the companies very often held broad brainstorming sessions, or worked with idea boxes or employee surveys. The aim was to set up a collective participation process aiming to gather as many innovative ideas as possible.

We organized a brainstorming session with mixed tables, after which we came up with an extensive list of ideas. Making choices and formulating priorities in this list was a big challenge. (Interview HR manager, #3)

In addition, we wanted to involve the entire organization, see what is going on among the employees. That’s why an idea box was opened and ideas for the demographic plan were collected by e-mail. (Interview HR manager, #2)

One company experimented with co-creative off-sites. The assumption here was that informal or thematic consultation outside the formally foreseen consultation bodies can have a positive effect on the relationship between trade unions and employer. In addition to the personnel and management representatives who sat on the formal social dialogue bodies, other stakeholders in the company were invited, such as line managers, project managers, the company doctor and external experts. By analogy with the world cafe methodology (a working method to create lively dialogue around questions that really matter), a family party was simulated. The participants were invited to sit at thematic party tables, the themes of which were derived from the suggestions made by the participants in advance.

Talking about constructive projects, focusing on what is going well, a different setting in the meeting room, discussing in small groups, etc. (. . .) All this gives a very different and positive dynamic to the dialogue with social partners. (Interview HR manager, #3)

There was a striking dynamic at the various party tables. At some there was a lot of laughing and joking, at others the tone was very professional and serious, while at others there was a lot of emotion. At the latter, the role of the pater or mater familias (the table’s moderator) was sometimes intense. They often mediated and attempted to contribute constructively to the dialogue. The best result, however, was when participants managed to develop their own mediation attitude, using their own mediation skills and energy to deal constructively with their mutual differences, quarrels and conflicts.

Defensive responses: Clashing mindset of ‘negotiation’ and ‘debate’

The path of co-creative dialogue was regularly abandoned at both the sector and company levels. At the sector level, there were regular high-profile discussions, arguments and tensions in the air, with different parties attempting to dominate, resulting in long and intense debates. Various positions were taken, arguments defended and, above all, the different parties wanted to convince each other of their own truth. Certainly, as far as the administrative side was concerned (submission of supporting documents, recovery of invoices), there were many negotiations and associated quarrels.

As a result, there were delays and procrastination in relation to difficult dossiers and choices, among other issues. A good example here was the organisation of a survey. The aim was to conduct an employee survey within companies that had recently submitted a plan so that benchmark material could be collected. Despite all efforts to prepare this process in detail, the survey was not sent out, partly because of the politically sensitive nature of such an instrument.

At the local level, there was also a clashing mindset of ‘negotiation’ and ‘debate’. Because the different parties put forward different substantive priorities, it was logical that they often entered into a negotiation mode. Many organisations indicated that they entered the learning process rather uncomfortably but ultimately learned a great deal.

We see the first demographic plan as a good start, from which we learned a lot about how we would like to draw up such a plan in the future. We are convinced that by working together with the employer from the beginning, we will be able to create a stronger demographic plan in the future. (Interview employee representative, #1)

Conclusions and discussion

EU trade unions and employers want to help strengthen Europe’s sustainable industrial base for the future. Union–management partnership is regarded as a key factor in this aim. Inspired by this premise, this study addressed the conditions for the day-to-day implementation of such a ‘union–management partnership’ and can offer new insights into the complexities of such partnerships – intended versus real.

Our data generally reflect the theoretical models we found in the literature on conflict versus partnership models. In addition, the results indicate a more finely meshed structure (relationship, content, process) within which paradoxical tensions and responses to them can be detected. The interviews also provide a practical and day-to-day translation of the theoretical concepts of the model presented. In this final section, we will discuss these insights further by systematically returning to the research questions, reflecting on the research results, as well as expectations from the literature, and the implications of these for future research.

The first research question concerned the paradoxical tensions in the daily experience of Belgian trade unions and employers when dealing with each other in a partnership mode involving social dialogue. As the qualitative study confirmed, it would be naive to assume that sustainable HR themes can avoid the sphere of conflict and negotiation – at least in a Belgian context with its historical ‘boxing’ rather than ‘dancing’ culture. Tensions were detected in terms of the relationship itself, the content and the process of social dialogue. The data supports the idea of a hybrid, pluralistic approach, as previously theoretically assumed from the (neo-)pluralist perspective within IR and HRM. Within such an approach, any clashing mindset cannot be fully ruled out and – as also assumed by authors such as Sippola (2019) – may even be fruitful when aiming to arrive at win-win solutions supported by all. In this sense, Dobbins and Dundon’s (2017) claim that ‘sustained partnership is a chimera’ is too extreme and needs to be nuanced.

Our data confirmed that in a partnership model there is a high probability that a latent boxing culture (Huzzard et al., 2004) will remain present and that proactive and defensive responses go hand in hand. To this end, scholars such as Hargrave and Van de Ven (2017: 334) have advocated the further integration of the paradox and the dialectic perspectives: ‘We have proposed that acceptance and synergy may be more productive when preceded and fuelled by the energy of conflict. The integrated model extends the paradox perspective by suggesting that conflict can be a generative force. (. . .). Conflict can play an instrumental role in the management of contradictions, and does not always precipitate destructive vicious cycles’.

The second research question concerned proactive responses to the daily experience of paradoxical tensions by unions and managers. As far as the relationship is concerned, we found confirmation of the relevance of classical concepts such as ‘mutual respect’ and ‘reciprocity’, on the one hand, but also the introduction of newer concepts, such as ‘common ground’ and ‘critical friendship’, on the other hand. The latter concept offers many opportunities to further explore and connect with the (neo-)pluralist perspective within IR and HRM literature and with the above-mentioned model integrating the paradox and dialectic perspectives. The concept of ‘critical friendship’ originated in the pedagogical sciences (e.g. Costa and Kallick, 1993; Schuck and Russell, 2005), where it was used in learning situations in which coaching and encouragement were combined with asking critical, provocative questions and giving difficult, often emotionally charged feedback. The concept thus combines two dynamics. Further conceptual refinement of the concept within the tradition of IR and HRM, combined with further empirical exploration of the concept, could be topics of future research.

In terms of process, our data indicated the increasing importance of co-creative brainstorming sessions, new dialogue formats such as ‘world cafes’, and dialogue skills rather than negotiation skills, among other factors. Further action or other research is also needed in this regard to investigate the impact of these process innovations on the quality and results of social dialogue and union–management partnership.

In terms of content, we found confirmation of the importance of a shared ‘win-win’ perspective on sustainable HR content within a union–management partnership. Dawkins (2012) also found similar results suggesting that the social responsibility of labour unions (e.g. focusing on sustainable HR issues) can enhance union attachment and inform union strategy. It may also allow employee representatives to ‘stretch’ their roles and broaden their impact (Lucio et al., 2012). This insight contributes to the literature on sustainable HRM and on employee relations. Further research is needed to connect these traditions and to clarify their roles in and impact on union–management partnership, as other researchers have found contradictory signs, albeit not in the domain of sustainable HRM, but in the broader domain of CSR.

For example, our insights are inconsistent with research showing that labour unions may also play an antagonistic role with respect to broader CSR initiatives, particularly in cases where they appear to undermine the core objectives of unions of raising employment and wages. More generally, unions perceive CSR as a threat when they see the voluntary development of specific social and environmental performance targets by companies in a trade-off with employees’ interests, or when they believe that the company considers unions to be stakeholders like any other internal or external actors, thus not recognizing their self-attributed specificity (Van Buren and Greenwood, 2011).

The third research question concerned defensive responses. As mentioned above, the classical oppositional (or conflict) attitude between unions and employers clashes with the partnership, dialogue and co-creation attitude which is assumed to be necessary for any agreement on a demographic plan. The ‘great’ ambition of the Demographic Fund to move from a model of less conflict to a model of more partnership thus does not appear to be achievable in a ‘pure’ sense. This confirms earlier findings from a practice-based perspective on paradox theory. As Jarzabkowski et al. (2013) stated, working through tensions is not something that takes place once, by which a grand solution ‘resolves’ these tensions, but rather in cyclical episodes of tension-handling that fuel future tension cycles and may prompt tensions to (re)surface at different levels and different times.

It is also important to mention several drawbacks to this study. Overall, this study did not attempt to generalize but rather to draw conclusions about the implementation of the Demographic Fund in the chemistry and life sciences sector in Belgium. The main aim of the study was to present a particular case in detail and not to attempt to generalize. Thus, in order to draw more general conclusions, further research is required, such as a large-scale quantitative survey of various, relevant stakeholders. Further comparative research is also needed. As indicated above, the balance between boxing and dancing is very fragile and also highly contextual. Comparative country, sector and organisational research could provide further insight into this. Finally, we should also point out that the interviews were only conducted in companies where the trade unions and the employer had successfully negotiated a demographic plan. Research in companies where they were not successful might also provide equally valuable and complementary insights.

Footnotes

Appendix I

Table 3.

Summary of the data from the participating observations.

	Proactive responses	Defensive responses
Relationship	• Parties listen to each other carefully and there is interest in each other’s points of view and worlds of life. • In addition to formal meetings, there is also investment in informal contact • There is an active search for solutions, compromises, balances, . . . one way of doing this is ‘thinking out loud’ and being each other’s ‘critical friend’. • Humour is used to relieve the tense atmosphere and give oxygen to the group feeling. • Ways are being sought to give feedback in a healthy way. • The importance of healthy conflict is stressed • It is explicitly stated that tuition is paid in building the relationship.	• There are tense discussions, quarrels • The atmosphere is grim, acrid • Conversations are difficult • One of the members no longer shows up • One hides behind his or her political spokesperson • Defensive reactions and feedback are given • There is a deadlock • There is power struggle, defence of interests, political behaviour
Content	• A search is being made for a common language and a common balance with regard to the themes of sustainable work and sustainable careers. • After 1.5 years, consensus is found on all substantive aspects relating to sustainable work and sustainable careers, resulting in the brochure (see Table 4). • It is accepted and respected that each party thinks differently and puts forward different priorities with regard to the sustainable HR themes. • Win-win thinking is widely supported and made explicit • There is an eagerness to learn from all parties in the field of sustainable HRM and a curiosity about how this can be put into practice.	• Themes that play a wider role than at sector level, infiltrating choices and priorities within the framework of the Demographic Fund • Trade unions give priority to the ‘hard’ aspects (more leave, more compensation, more staff, etc.); for employers, sustainable work also has to do, for example, with a motivating team climate and leadership. • There are differences in substantive priorities between trade unions. For example, one trade union mainly wants to focus on extra leave and reducing working hours. Another trade union also considers work life balance and career coaching to be priorities. • The content and weight of this substantive domain are negotiated on the basis of a win-lose and calculated approach. • The reimbursement of the costs of the demographic plans is the subject of disagreement and negotiation.
Process	• The common ground is that everyone wants the Demographic Fund to continue on a sustainable basis. • The focus is on brainstorming and ‘thinking out loud’ in order to achieve support and compromise. • Informal consultations are taking place • Openings are sought and scenarios are proposed in the event of deadlocks or other difficulties or imbalances. • Investment are made in joint training and a colloquium.	• Each party defends its points of view and wants its truth to dominate. • Delays and procrastination arise around difficult dossiers, choices, . . . • There is a lack of transparency, only part of the reality is visible to the other party. • It is not a question of a definitive position during the meeting, but of providing feedback to the political spokesperson. • There is a duplication of communication with the supporters. Each party sends communication to its own members separately. There is also joint communication from the Demographic Fund.

ORCID iD

Peggy De Prins

Notes

References

Ackers

(2002) Reframing employment relations: The case for neo-pluralism. Industrial Relations Journal 33(1): 2–19.

Ackers

Marchington

Wilkinson

, et al. (2003) Partnership and Voice, With or Without Trade Unions: Changing UK Management Approaches to Organisational Participation. Loughborough: Loughborough University.

Altmeyer

(2005) Betriebsräte in Westeuropa. Zu den Strukturen der betrieblichen Interessenvertretungen. Der Betriebsrat 1(4): 19–25.

Aust

Matthews

Muller-Camen

(2020) Common good HRM: A paradigm shift in Sustainable HRM? Human Resource Management Review 30(3): 1–11.

Bednarek

Paroutis

Sillince

(2017) Transcendence through rhetorical practices: Responding to paradox in the science sector. Organization Studies 38(1): 77–101.

Bélanger

Edwards

(2007) The conditions promoting compromise in the workplace. British Journal of Industrial Relations 45(4): 713–734.

Bingham

(2016) Employment Relations: Fairness and Trust in the Workplace. London: Sage.

Boselie

(2010) Strategic Human Resource Management: A Balanced Approach. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Education.

Bray

Budd

Macneil

(2020) The many meanings of co-operation in the employment relationship and their implications. British Journal of Industrial Relations 58(1): 114–141.

10.

Bryson

Forth

George

and European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (2012) Workplace Employee Representation in Europe. Dublin: Eurofound.

11.

Cook

MacKenzie

Forde

(2020) Union partnership as a facilitator to HRM: Improving implementation through oppositional engagement. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 31(10): 1262–1284.

12.

Costa

Kallick

(1993) Through the lens of a critical friend. Educational leadership 51: 49–51.

13.

Cutcher-Gershenfeld

Kochan

(2004) Taking stock: Collective bargaining at the turn of the century. ILR Review 58(1): 3–26.

14.

Dameron

Torset

(2014) The discursive construction of strategists’ subjectivities: Towards a paradox lens on strategy. Journal of Management Studies 51(2): 291–319.

15.

Dawkins

(2012) A test of labor union social responsibility: Effects on member attachment. Business and Society 55(2): 214–245.

16.

Demografiefonds (2018) Inspiratiegids. Werkbaar werk & duurzame loopbanen in de sector van de chemie, kunststoffen en life sciences. Available at: https://www.accg.be/sites/default/files/sectors/pc-116/accg-pc-116-tool-inspiratiegids-demografiefonds.pdf (accessed 5 January 2021)

17.

De Prins

Stuer

Gielens

(2020). Revitalizing social dialogue in the workplace: The impact of a cooperative industrial relations climate and sustainable HR practices on reducing employee harm. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 31(13): 1684–1704.

18.

De Prins

Van Beirendonck

De Vos

, et al. (2014) Sustainable HRM: Bridging theory and practice through the ‘Respect Openness Continuity (ROC)’-model. Management Revue 25(4): 263–284.

19.

Dobbins

Dundon

(2017) The chimera of sustainable labour–management partnership. British Journal of Management 28(3): 519–533.

20.

Ehnert

(2014) Paradox as a lens for theorizing sustainable HRM. In: Ehnert

Harry

Zink

(eds) Sustainability and Human Resource Management. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp.247–271.

21.

Fairhurst

Cooren

Cahill

(2002) Discursiveness, contradiction, and unintended consequences in successive downsizings. Management Communication Quarterly 15(4): 501–540.

22.

Flynn

Upchurch

Muller-Camen

, et al (2013) Trade union responses to ageing workforces in the UK and Germany. Human Relations 66(1): 45–64.

23.

García

Pender

Elgoibar

, et al. (2015) The tower of power: Building innovative organizations through social dialogue. In: Euwema

Munduate

Elgoibar

, et al. Promoting Social Dialogue in European Organizations: Human Resources Management and Constructive Conflict Management. New York, NY: Springer International Publishing, pp.179–196.

24.

Giebels

Euwema

(2010) Conflictmanagement: Analyse, diagnostiek en interventie. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.

25.

Gutiérrez Crocco

Martin

(2019) Towards a sustainable HRM in Latin America? Union-management relationship in Chile. Employee Relations: The International Journal. Epub ahead of print 9 December 2019. DOI: 10.1108/ER-01-2019-0036

26.

Hargrave

Van de Ven

(2017) Integrating dialectical and paradox perspectives on managing contradictions in organizations. Organization Studies 38(3–4): 319–339.

27.

Hermans

Lamberts

(2018) Naar het winkelpersoneel van de toekomst: literatuurstudie naar knelpunten in de retailsector. Leuven: Hiva.

28.

Huzzard

Gregory

Scott

(eds) (2004) Strategic Unionism and Partnership: Boxing or Dancing? London: Palgrave Macmillan.

29.

Jarzabkowski

Lê

(2017) We have to do this and that? You must be joking: Constructing and responding to paradox through humor. Organization Studies 38(3–4): 433–462.

30.

Jarzabkowski

Lê

Van de Ven

(2013) Responding to competing strategic demands: How organizing, belonging, and performing paradoxes coevolve. Strategic Organization 11(3): 245–280.

31.

Keegan

Brandl

Aust

(2019) Handling tensions in human resource management: Insights from paradox theory. German Journal of Human Resource Management 33(2): 79–95.

32.

Klerck

(2009) Industrial relations and human resource management. In: Collings

Wood

(eds) Human Resource Management A Critical Approach. London: Roudledge, pp.237–258.

33.

Kramar

(2014) Beyond strategic human resource management: Is sustainable human resource management the next approach? The International Journal of Human Resource Management 25(8): 1069–1089.

34.

Lucio

Pulignano

Whittal

, et al. (2012) Corporate social responsability: Not only a fashion trend. In: Munduate

Euwema

Elgoibar

(eds) Ten Steps for Empowering Employee Representatives in the New European Relations. Madrid: McGraw-Hill, pp.29–38.

35.

Pulignano

Doerflinger

(2015) Management perceptions of social dialogue at the company level. In: Euwema

Munduate

Elgoibar

, et al. (eds) Promoting Social Dialogue in European Organizations: Human Resources Management and Constructive Conflict Management. New York, NY: Springer International Publishing, pp.19–37.

36.

Putnam

Fairhurst

Banghart

(2016) Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. Academy of Management Annals 10(1): 65–171.

37.

Samuel

(2007) Partnership consultation and employer domination in two British life and pension firms. Work, Employment and Society 21(3): 459–477.

38.

Schuck

Russell

(2005) Self-study, critical friendship, and the complexities of teacher education. Studying Teacher Education 1(2): 107–121.

39.

Sippola

(2019) Dancing to the tune of the employer? Union–management relationships at Nordic subsidiaries in Russia. Economic and Industrial Democracy 40(4): 913–931.

40.

Valizade

Ogbonnaya

Tregaskis

, et al. (2016) A mutual gains perspective on workplace partnership: Employee outcomes and the mediating role of the employment relations climate. Human Resource Management Journal 26(3): 351–368.

41.

Van Buren

H J

Greenwood

(2011) Bringing stakeholder theory to industrial relations. Employee Relations 33(1): 5–21.

42.

Van der Brempt

(2014) Opening the black box of works council effectiveness: The role of group composition, trust and perceived influence. PhD dissertation, University of Antwerp, Antwerpen.

43.

Van Gyes

(2015) Het Belgische beleidskader gepositioneerd in de Europese traditie. In: Van Gyes

De Spiegelaere

Lamberts

(eds) De onderneming is van ons allemaal: de Belgische werknemersinspraak innoveren. Leuven: Acco, pp.21–45.

44.

Van Ruysseveldt

Visser

(1996) Industrial Relations in Europe: Traditions and Transitions. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

45.

Walton

McKersie

(1991) A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations: An Analysis of a Social Interaction System. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.