Alan Fox's unitarist ideology provided a useful categorisation of managerial perspectives on managing employees and the nature of organisation. However, it was an intuitive framework, developed as part of a reformist argument for a pluralist system of industrial relations. It was not based on a systematic, empirical study of managers and, while applied to research, there has been little testing of the construct. The primary research question addressed in this thesis is whether managers in contemporary SMEs exhibit unitarist characteristics. A number of subsidiary questions follow. The first set explores managers' attitudes towards managerial prerogative, conflict, collective workplace relations and trade unions. Analysis of the data produced 11 unitarist dimensions. The second addresses whether organisational and personal characteristics and managers' perceptions of the limitations on management are significant for SME managers' ideological frameworks. The third identifies whether consultative, participative and collective practices are employed in work organisations. The definition of managerial ideology, including both managers' beliefs and values and also their workplace behaviour and practices, led to testing the relationship between the unitarist dimensions and managerial practice, and managers' satisfaction with employees. Finally, the thesis investigated whether there were any significant links between managerial practices and managers' satisfaction with employee performance. The methodology included a mail survey of SME managers in Eastern Australia with 206 respondents, and an interview programme of 20 SME managers in Brisbane, Queensland. The significant findings of this research are, first, that consultative or participative managerial practices do not necessarily reflect a pluralist ideology or orientation. SME managers limit the scope of decisions for involving employees, and usually shopfloor employees, utilising practices that do not compromise managerial power or managerial prerogative. Second, organisational and personal characteristics are relatively unimportant contextual variables in management behaviour in SMEs, unless it was described as a family business. Third, this thesis provides an alternative to the conclusions of some industrial relations scholars that managers employ a mix of unitarist and pluralist strategies. The adoption of apparently pluralist management practices in consultation and employee participation are revealed in this research as being predominantly non-threatening to managerial prerogative and organisational power structures in workplaces in terms of who is involved or excluded, and about what matters employees are consulted or involved. The overall results of managers' attitudes to collective workplace arrangements and trade unions confirm a general unitarist orientation in Australian SMEs. Fourth, the evidence does not suggest any clear binding of values and beliefs with managerial behaviour. Underpinning normative perspectives on management is an underlying commitment to protecting managers' power in the work organisation. It is this fundamental political commitment that both guides and constrains strategic choice in managing employees in SMEs. Unitarist ideology is thus central to the norms of management, and goes to the core of managerial prerogative. Finally, the results indicated that SME managers in the study usually did not demonstrate strong attachments to their views on the issues presented to them.

Yes / Prominent writers in industrial relations (IR) have concluded the field is in significant decline, partly because of a failed theory base. The theory problem is deepened because other writers conclude developing a theory foundation for industrial relations is neither possible nor desirable. We believe advancing IR theory is both needed and possible, and take up the challenge in this paper. A long-standing problem in theorizing industrial relations has been the lack of agreement on the field’s core analytical construct. However, in the last two decades writers have increasingly agreed the field is centred on the employment relationship. Another long-standing problem is that writers have theorized industrial relations using different theoretical frames of reference, including pluralist and radical-Marxist; different disciplinary perspectives, such as economics, sociology, history, and politics; and from different national traditions, such as British, French, and American. In this paper, we seek to advance IR theory and better integrate paradigms and national traditions. We do this by developing an analytical explanation for four core features of the employment relationship—generation of an economic surplus, cooperation-conflict dialectic, indeterminate nature of the employment contract, and asymmetric authority and power in the firm—using an integrative mix of ideas and concepts from the pluralist and radical-Marxist streams presented in a multi-part diagram constructed with marginalist tools from conventional economics. The diagram includes central IR system components, such as labour market, hierarchical firm, macro-economy, and nation state government. The model is used to explain the four features of the employment relationship and derive implications for IR theory and practice. Examples include the diagrammatic representation of the size and distribution of the economic surplus, a new analytical representation of labour exploitation, identification of labour supply conditions that encourage, respectively, cooperation versus conflict, and demonstration of how inequality of bargaining power in labour markets contributes to macroeconomic stagnation and unemployment.