Employers prove to be cool lovers of social dialogue

“Trade unions are important, but not in my company”

Employers are convinced trade unions are useful and meaningful in society at large. But in their own companies, they are mostly inconvenient and disruptive. This is the conclusion of research conducted by Ghent University student Lieselot Rosselle as part of her master’s thesis, in collaboration with professor Stan De Spiegelaere and the journal HR Square.

260 employers, managers and executives were involved in the research, which gives important insights into the perception of social dialogue. “Very little information was available on this topic,” Rosselle explains the reason of her research. “Social dialogue has been embedded in legislation and traditions in our country for decades. Employees are democratically legitimised in quadrennial elections to represent their colleagues to their employers in discussions about pay and working conditions. But we didn’t know how employers, managers and executives viewed this dialogue in their companies. This survey aims to change that.”

What are the main findings?

Rosselle: “Firstly, a large majority of respondents believe that employers and employees generally have parallel as well as opposing interests in society at large. But very few employers feel the same when it comes to their own organisation. More than half replied that they and the employees in their own company mainly share the same interests. This is a remarkable difference, from which the different perception about advocacy for that group results. The largest group of executives believes that trade unions represent employees’ interests well in society at large. But in their own companies, suddenly only 12% was convinced by this idea. The vast majority claims that employee interests are sufficiently represented in their company by management.”

How should we understand this remarkable difference?

Rosselle: “It might be related to how employers and managers perceive conflict. The survey shows that they think that conflicts between employers and employees are completely normal outside of their own organisation. After all, both groups have opposing interests. But they are much less understanding if these conflicts take place in their own organisations. They attribute disagreements to miscommunication. They assume that employees don’t sufficiently understand the need for certain measures, such as restructuring, because they as employers may not have communicated it clearly enough. So, in their own companies, it’s not these structurally different interests, but the imperfect understanding of their necessity that is the main reason for conflict.”

And how to they perceive trade unions in that context? Do they provide a better understanding?

Rosselle: “No, certainly not, according to the majority of the managers surveyed. On the contrary: 37 per cent of respondents view trade unions as unnecessary and disruptive in their own organisation. Another 26 per cent think they cause conflicts that really shouldn’t exist. In short, Flemish executives think trade unions are necessary, but not in their own companies. Everything would run more smoothly there without trade unions and social dialogue. At least, that is the opinion of a majority.”

How should we feel about these results? Do all those managers and employers hate trade unions?

De Spiegelaere: “Unfortunately, there is no simple and verifiable explanation. One potential explanation is what psychologists call the ‘optimism bias’. This means that you lose sight of the objective reality and are quick to think that in your own life, or in this case, your own company, things are going pretty well and will continue to go well. That wrong decisions or wrong judgements are made elsewhere. If that is a manager’s starting point, then it’s easy to think that the other side has misunderstood the information communicated. Or, even worse, you might start accusing the other side of incompetence or deliberately conflicting behaviour. This bias makes managers genuinely believe that these are the only causes for the conflict. They don’t realise the conflict may also be caused by genuinely opposing interests or completely wrong decisions.”

Do employee representatives also suffer from this optimism bias?

De Spiegelaere: “That could well be the case. Sometimes, I’m surprised by how some employee representative really don’t realise that an HR manager, for example, genuinely has the best interests of the people on the shop floor at heart. They think this manager is deliberately trying to mislead them to get their business done. And thus, misunderstanding and frustration ensue. Also because this manager sometimes doesn’t understand the employee representative’s attitude and views. This mutual misunderstanding and lack of empathy are, unfortunately, also only reinforced by the other.”

How do we change this? The social elections are coming up. We want to start with clean slate afterwards.

De Spiegelaere: “It’s not easy. Many managers and employee representatives, who, by the way, take on this social dialogue voluntarily, work under pressure and stress. Sometimes, managers need to meet tough economic targets. Employee representatives feel the pressure of the employees to defend their interests as well as possible. Sometimes, they both feel the short-term pressure in what is hopefully a long-term relationship. It isn’t always easy (laughs). But it is possible. Let’s start brushing up on this optimism bias and its consequences in practice. And let’s try our hardest to respect each other’s role with the necessary empathy. Really listening helps. Truly!”

Never Work Alone 2024 | Author: Vic Van Kerrebroeck | Photo: Daniël Rys