See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/48911095

What's the point of industrial relations?

Article  in  International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations · January 2011
Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS
20 1,718

6 authors, including:

Linda Clarke Eddy Donnelly

University of Westminster The London School of Economics and Political Science
83 PUBLICATIONS   1,688 CITATIONS    23 PUBLICATIONS   73 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sonia Mckay Sian Moore

London Metropolitan University University of the West of England, Bristol
38 PUBLICATIONS   435 CITATIONS    16 PUBLICATIONS   266 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Just Green Transitions and Global Labour Organisations (2018-2019) View project

working title: 'South Africa's Tripartite alliance: end of the road? View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Linda Clarke on 12 November 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 What’s the Point of Industrial Relations?

Linda CLARKE, Eddy DONNELLY, Richard HYMAN,

John KELLY, Sonia MCKAY and Sian MOORE

What is the point of industrial relations? Research in the field has existed in Britain for well over a century,
and university teaching in the subject dates back to the 1930s. Yet, in recent years, its relevance has been
increasingly questioned by policymakers, with moves towards a form of ‘disciplinary cleansing’. In this
article, we demonstrate why the critical, cross-disciplinary, multilevel analysis that is of central importance to
the industrial relations tradition remains both intellectually and ethically essential.

1. INTRODUCTION

What is the point of industrial relations? The term (which was long a peculiarity of the
English-speaking world) denotes both an area of social relations and the academic subject
(some, but not all, consider it a discipline) that analyses the world of work. We wrote the
article that follows in 2008 in order to reassert the importance of the study of industrial
relations for the future of work and employment, research, and teaching. The original
stimulus was the crisis at Keele University, where management announced that it would
close the prestigious Centre for Industrial Relations in order to create a ‘reconfigured’
business school, making many staff redundant. This was described by many of those
involved as ‘disciplinary cleansing’. However, our purpose was not merely to defend our
subject against philistine attacks by policymakers in some academic institutions. Important
as it is to respond to such challenges, our aim, more positively, was and is to explain in far
broader terms the value of our approach to the study of the employment relationship.
Following a vigorous national and international campaign alongside industrial action
by the academics’ union, the University and College Union (UCU), industrial relations
survive at Keele.1 However, the climate in which it survives has become even more hostile.
The policies of the current Conservative-Liberal Democrat (hereinafter ‘ConDem’) gov-
ernment in the United Kingdom threaten the viability of the public university.


Clarke Linda, University of Westminster; Eddy Donnelly & Richard Hyman, London School of Economics;
John Kelly, Birkbeck, University of London; Sonia McKay & Sian Moore, London Metropolitan University. As London-
based members of the British Universities Industrial Relations Association (BUIRA), we drafted this statement for
presentation to its July 2008 conference. We revised it for publication in pamphlet form in the light of a number of
helpful comments (in particular from Steve Brawley, John Budd, Ralph Darlington, Paul Edwards, Mike Emmott, Helen
Rainbird, Ian Roper, and Ed Sweeney, none of whom can be held responsible for the statement). For publication in this
journal, we have added a new introduction.
1
An updated account of the UK situation is given in Ralph Darlington (ed.), What’s the Point of Industrial Relations?
In Defence of Critical Social Science (Manchester: BUIRA, 2009).

Clarke, Linda, Eddy Donnelly, Richard Hyman, John Kelly, Sonia McKay & Sian Moore. ‘What’s the
Point of Industrial Relations?’. The International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial
Relations 27, no. 3 (2011): 239–253.
Ó 2011 Kluwer Law International BV, The Netherlands
240 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE LABOUR LAW

The redirection of higher education funding to science, technology, engineering, and

mathematics (STEM) subjects and the emphasis on ‘employability’ as the main purpose
of education threaten to marginalize the arts, humanities, and social sciences – the main
arena of critical thinking – in many British universities. The creation of a market for student
places and the introduction of fees of up to GBP 9,000 per year for undergraduates (against
a current maximum of GBP 3,290) threaten to introduce a two-tier higher education
system, with working class students (in particular, black and minority ethnic and mature
students), in particular, suffering exclusion. This process is reinforced by the ending of the
Educational Maintenance Allowance, which enabled 16–18 year olds on lower incomes to
stay in full-time education, holding out the possibility of higher education. It is now clear
that the majority of universities intend to charge the upper limit of GBP 9,000, meaning
that most students will now be forced to choose courses for primarily employment-oriented
reasons. One of the few that has set fees lower – London Metropolitan University (which
has the highest concentration of minority ethnic students in the United Kingdom) – has
announced the closure of 70% of its courses, largely in the arts and humanities and
including history.
In response to this attack, there has been a resurgence of student activism and some
signs of union militancy, as part of opposition to the wider cuts in public services and jobs.
This, alongside the weakness of the coalition government, suggests more possibilities for
political resistance than in recent decades. The General Secretary of the UCU, Sally Hunt,
has described the situation for union members in higher education as ‘the fight of our lives’.
For UK academics, this involves a struggle over both values and jobs, and the outcome is
still indeterminate. Understanding and engaging with industrial relations is thereby critical
to those working within the universities. The closing off of existing educational opportu-
nities for most workers could lead to new alliances with the trade unions and new models
of trade union and/or workers’ education. We, in industrial relations, are well positioned to
facilitate this. We may engage in campaigns for a renewed system of public universities – a
new Université Populaire or Workers’ University – based on critical education and liberated
from the market. In addition, through our research and teaching, we are also well placed to
understand the dramatic changes in employment relations (ER) that are taking place
following the 2008 crisis.
The current global crisis points to another paradox. Debasing the academic value of
industrial relations comes at a time when there is growing discontent internationally with
many of the measures governments have taken to restore financial stability, stimulate
economic recovery, and, in the case of undemocratic regimes, maintain political power.
Such unrest manifests itself in a variety of ways, ranging from social network campaigning
to organized demonstrations and strikes and including spontaneous street protests and
occupations. The focus for this discontent varies. Within Europe, it is the social and
economic impact of labour market reforms and public sector cuts on workers in terms of
their pay, jobs, and pensions, on younger people in terms of unemployment (including
graduate unemployment) and the precariousness of available work, and on welfare reci-
pients in terms of access to benefits. Even more dramatic is the Arab Spring, involving a
 WHAT’S THE POINT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS? 241

fight for democracy and against totalitarianism across North Africa and the Middle East.
One constant driver for political emancipation has been growing levels of economic
deprivation and unemployment.
These developments serve as a constant reminder of how industrial relations, in its
broadest sense, is omnipresent and can swiftly become central in any policy discourse. Yet
how well equipped will subsequent generations of workers, managers, opinion formers, and
decision-makers be to engage with debates within their workplaces and communities on
the policy dilemma raised by conflicts over social justice, political democratization, and
sustainable economic development? The arguments running throughout the following
statement are even more relevant than when we first wrote. The current crisis points to
the need for a wide-ranging, critical intellectual analysis of work and of the political,
economic, and social framework within which it takes place.

2. THE STUDY OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN BRITAIN

Industrial relations have been a subject of scholarly analysis (and also public policy debate)
since the end of the nineteenth century, when the Webbs published their classic studies of
the regulation of employment in Britain.2 The first British university professorships in the
subject were created in 1930, with an endowment by the industrialist Montague Burton.
The British Universities Industrial Relations Association (BUIRA) was founded in 1950
and subsequent decades saw a rapid expansion in departments and courses in the subject.
However, some critics argue that academic industrial relations are now outdated; either the
problems of the ‘human factor’ in work have all been solved or they are better addressed
by new approaches such as ‘Human Resource Management’ (HRM) or Organizational
Behaviour (OB). We strongly disagree; in this article, we explain the intellectual, moral,
and policy arguments for our distinctive approach to work and employment and the
reasons why our research and teaching are indeed more important than ever in the
twenty-first century.
Teaching and research in industrial relations involve the study of work and employ-
ment relationships in all their forms. These relationships involve managements and employ-
ees but are shaped by forces well beyond the individual workplace: for example, the
policies of the state, the patterns of international trade, the dynamics of capital markets,
and the linkages between paid work and other aspects of people’s life experiences.
The study of industrial relations entails a wide-ranging analysis of the past, the present,
and the future of work. ‘It seeks to hold a mirror up to what goes on in the world of
work’,3 providing an understanding that the direct participants may sometimes find
uncomfortable.

2
Sidney Webb & Beatrice Webb, History of Trade Unionism (London: Longmans, 1894); Industrial Democracy
(London: Longmans, 1897).
3
Keith Sisson, ‘Responding to Mike Emmott: What ‘‘Industrial Relations’’ Suggests Should Be at the Heart of
‘‘Employee Relations’’’, <http://buira.org.uk/index.php?option¼com_docman&task¼doc_view&gid¼26>, 2007, 2.
242 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE LABOUR LAW

The environment of employment has become more complex than in the past, with an
increasingly diverse labour force, radical changes in the technology and organization of
work, the shift towards a ‘service economy’, new contractual arrangements and patterns of
working, and the pressures of intensified global competition economy. However, as Lord
Wedderburn insists, these economic and social transformations do not mean ‘that the
sociological, comparative and industrial relations ‘‘discourse’’ should be abandoned’.4
Rather, a wide-ranging, systematic, and questioning study of industrial relations becomes
more than ever crucial for an adequate understanding of the policy dilemmas in the modern
world of work. Hence, though we insist that the intellectual agenda should not be driven
by narrow practicality (an attempt to convert universities into businesses delivering mere
technical instruction rather than encouraging independent analysis is not only a disservice
to students but also a threat to the whole rationale of higher education as a means of
expanding human knowledge and understanding), we would also stress that many sensitive
practitioners appreciate the benefits of the industrial relations approach to research and
teaching.
Though the traditional field of industrial relations may have been transformed, our
teaching and research have adapted to the new realities, as we explain below. Indeed,
industrial relations scholars are at the forefront of making sense of the changing nature of
work and employment relationships, in the process often challenging the oversimplified
accounts prevalent in popular discourse and in some management textbooks. To give just
one example, the account by Deakin and Koukiadaki5 of the industrial relations processes
involved in the building of Heathrow Terminal 5 is not a prescriptive text, but its analysis
of the reasons for success (completion to schedule) and failure (the baggage handling fiasco)
provides much food for thought for any practising manager. As in all areas of scholarship,
there are legitimate debates about the thematic focus and analytical perspectives appropriate
for the study of work and employment, and the very diversity of approaches within
industrial relations, we argue below, is one of its strengths.6

3. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, WORK, AND LABOUR

The focus of industrial relations is on the regulation, control, and – in the currently
fashionable term – governance7 of work and the employment relationship. It is a multi-
disciplinary (or, ideally, interdisciplinary) field of study, drawing on economics, law, sociol-
ogy, psychology, political science, and history. It provides a multilevel understanding of
relationships at work, analysing the interconnections between the workplace, the company,

4
Lord Wedderburn, ‘Labour Law 2008: 40 Years on’, Industrial Law Journal 36, no. 4 (2007): 402.
5
Simon F. Deakin & Aristea Koukiadaki, ‘Governance Processes, Labour Management Partnership and Employee
Voice in the Construction of Heathrow Terminal 5’, Industrial Law Journal 38, no. 4 (2009): 365–389.
6
For a good example of the richness and diversity of current industrial relations scholarship, as well as its
contemporary relevance, see Paul Blyton et al. (eds), The SAGE Handbook of Industrial Relations (London: Sage, 2008).
7
Keith Sisson, ‘Revitalising Industrial Relations: Making the Most of the ‘‘Institutional Turn’’’, Warwick Papers
in Industrial Relations 85 (July 2007), <www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wbs/research/irru/wpir/wpir_85.pdf>.
 WHAT’S THE POINT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS? 243

the sector, the national regulatory framework, and – increasingly – the European and global
levels. It views the employment relationship as one involving multiple stakeholders with
contrasting and at times conflicting priorities and interests, as we explain below.
In addition, as a policy-oriented field of study, it is concerned with multiple and competing
goals: defined in one recent study8 as efficiency, equity, and voice and in another study9 as
productivity and workplace justice.
There are some who argue that industrial relations are premised on conflict, whereas
the employment relationship today involves a cooperative pursuit of ‘win-win’ solutions.
Yet a simple consensus view of the current world of work is as misleading as the image of
the ‘old’ industrial relations as a form of trench warfare.10 Thus, Mike Emmott, who has
questioned the continuing relevance of academic industrial relations, writes that ‘although
workplace conflict is no longer reflected in high levels of industrial action, the ability to
manage conflict remains a key issue for many organisations’.11 Strikes are indeed far less
frequent today than a couple of decades ago – though they have certainly not disappeared –
but other manifestations of conflict are pervasive. In the ‘bad old days’ of conflictual
industrial relations before the Thatcher era, roughly 40,000 claims a year were submitted
to Employment Tribunals. In 2007 – despite legislative changes to make the process more
difficult – the number was 140,000 and rising fast. Absenteeism is typically seen as an index
of ‘unorganized’ conflict; according to a study by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and
Development (CIPD), in 2007 employees were absent from work for 8.4 days on average,
a far higher figure than days lost in strikes even at the peak in the 1970s.12 The analytical
framework of industrial relations teaching and research provides the necessary basis for
making sense of such features of the current nature of work in Britain.
Why is it necessary to view the goals and interests involved in the employment
relationship as at least potentially conflictual? First, because the employment relationship
is in part an economic exchange (hence the concept of the labour market) and yet at one
and the same time, as the founding conference of the International Labour Organization
declared, ‘labour is not a commodity’. Employees are a factor of production but are also
human beings whose work performance is shaped by their own experience and their
subjective aspirations and expectations, which often differ from those of the employer.
Second, the employment contract is always incomplete and open-ended,13 for the precise
tasks to be performed and the nature of acceptable performance can never be fully specified

8
John Budd, Employment with a Human Face: Balancing Efficiency, Equity and Voice (Ithaca: Cornell University Press,
2004).
9
Paul Edwards, Justice in the Workplace: Why It Is Important and Why a New Public Policy Initiative Is Needed (London:
The Work Foundation, 2007), <www.theworkfoundation.com/products/publications/azpublications/justiceinthework
place.aspx>.
10
This characterization of the ‘old industrial relations’ was made by Stephen Dunn, ‘Root Metaphor in the Old
and New Industrial Relations’, British Journal of Industrial Relations 28, no. 1 (1990).
11
Mike Emmott, What is Employee Relations? (London: CIPD, 2007), 14, <http://buira.org.uk/
index.php?option¼com_docman&task¼doc_view&gid¼32>.
12
CIPD, ‘Absence Management: Annual Survey Report 2007’ (London: CIPD, 2007), <www.cipd.co.uk/NR/
rdonlyres/6D10534D-A175–4376-88A6-52153CDFB84C/0/4122AbMansurveyPROOF.pdf>.
13
Paul Edwards, ‘The Employment Relationship and the Field of Industrial Relations’, in Industrial Relations:
Theory and Practice in Britain, 2nd edn, ed. Paul Edwards (Oxford: Blackwell, 2003).
244 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE LABOUR LAW

in advance. Indeed, to varying degrees, the employer depends on employees’ willingness to

exercise initiative and discretion rather than simply following rules (which is why ‘working
to rule’ has often proved a highly effective form of industrial action). Hence, the actual
terms of the employer-employee relationship are always a matter of negotiation, sometimes
formal and institutionalized but more often informal and individual. Third, and in con-
sequence, power is inherent in the employment relationship. Typically, the individual
employee is at a disadvantage, which is why in all countries the law prescribes a range of
rights and protections that limit managerial authority. Yet no employee is totally powerless,
and intelligent employers are therefore concerned to harness employees’ motivation and
commitment. The discipline of economics has always found it difficult to come to terms
with these features of the employment relationship. The dynamics of these power relation-
ships and negotiation processes, often involving a tension between managerial efforts to
control, on the one hand, and motivate, on the other, are highly complex – which makes
industrial relations a difficult but fascinating field of study.
In the past, central themes in the study of industrial relations were trade unions,
collective bargaining, and strikes. In the British context in particular, union membership,
bargaining coverage, and strike activity have all fallen sharply in the past three decades
(though we should note that legal prescription, another important element in employ-
ment regulation, has expanded substantially). However, it is obvious from any modern
industrial relations textbook that the subject has a far broader compass.14 It is concerned
with the experience of work, both individual and collective, and with all sources of the
rules that govern the employment relationship – though industrial relations scholars insist
that the boundaries between individual and collective are fluid15 and that distinctive
national institutional frameworks significantly affect (by intent or by default) the workplace
level.16
The shrinking coverage of some of the traditional institutions regulating work and
employment has led certain writers to argue that industrial relations as a field of study is
now outmoded.17 Certainly, courses and departments that once used the ‘industrial rela-
tions’ title have increasingly been rebranded as ER or HRM. ER is simply a reformulation
of the original conception of industrial relations, with its focus on the employment
relationship; indeed, since most employment today is outside the industrial sector (if
defined as manufacturing), it is arguably a more appropriate term.
However, the relationship between industrial relations and HRM is more proble-
matic. In one sense, the latter can be seen as one element in industrial relations, understood
as the regulation of the employment relationship. It has long been recognized that manage-
ment is a key actor in industrial relations and that the policies and practices of managers

14
Again, see the SAGE Handbook, noted above.
15
See John Kelly, Rethinking Industrial Relations: Mobilisation, Collectivism and Long Waves (London: Routledge,
1998).
16
This insight is reflected in considerable attention in the recent industrial relations literature to the arguments of
‘varieties of capitalism’ theorists.
17
See, for example, the practitioner perspective offered by Mike Emmott, What is Employee Relations?
 WHAT’S THE POINT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS? 245

must, therefore, be investigated and explained.18 However, while some courses and texts
that adopt the HRM label sustain the critical, multidisciplinary approach characteristic of
industrial relations, the focus of HRM as a field of teaching and research is often signifi-
cantly narrower. The very title ‘HRM’ implies this: Literally, HRM is one facet of the
managerial function. Too often, HRM teaching accepts management’s objectives uncriti-
cally, concentrates on activities at company level without exploring the societal and
institutional environment, and has its disciplinary basis primarily in psychology and orga-
nizational sociology rather than the social sciences more broadly. It thus lacks the multilevel
and multidisciplinary character of industrial relations. Particularly as taught in business
schools, it is often understood as a prescriptive toolkit for managers. In this respect,
HRM can differ radically from the multi-stakeholder orientation of industrial relations
and its insistence that, even were there consensus on the goals of the employment relation-
ship, its dynamics are so complex that there are no easy recipes for managing its tensions.

4. THE CHANGING ACTORS AND INSTITUTIONS

There can have been few times when it has been a greater challenge to understand the
changing nature of the employment relationship. The old conception of the typical employee
as a male, manual ‘breadwinner’ has long been outdated. ‘Craft’ and ‘trade’ are no longer
meaningful categories, and distinctions between manual and non-manual, white and blue
collar, and even between ‘services’ and ‘industry’ have become largely redundant. ‘Skill’, a
peculiarly English term related to a job rather than a person, is increasingly too narrow for the
range of ‘competences’ required today. ‘Training’ is now an inadequate concept, given the
changing nature of work, which necessitates a deeper and broader ‘vocational education’, and
‘skilled labour’ becomes ‘qualified’ labour. Indeed, it is often unclear who is even to count as
an employee, in the face of the blurring of distinctions between employee, independent
contractor, self-employed, and autonomous worker and the spread of ‘triangular’ relation-
ships mediated by employment agencies. Labour lawyers are struggling to develop new
concepts that can comprehend – and help regulate – the situation of workers who are
dependent on, but not technically employed by, the organization for which they work.19
In its 2006 Green Paper Modernising Labour Law, the European Commission pointed
out that ‘fixed term contracts, part-time contracts, on-call contracts, zero-hour contracts,
contracts for workers hired through temporary employment agencies, freelance contracts,
etc. have become an established feature of European labour markets’, with ‘non-standard’
contracts now covering 40% of the EU25 workforce.20 The Commission’s advocacy of

18
For an early statement of this view, see Richard Hyman, ‘Strategy or Structure? Capital, Labour and Control’,
Work, Employment and Society 1, no. 1 (1987).
19
Mark Freedland, The Personal Employment Contract (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003); Simon Deakin,
‘Does the ‘‘Personal Employment Contract’’ Provide a Basis for the Reunification of Employment Law?’, Industrial Law
Journal 36, no. 1 (2007).
20
European Commission, ‘Modernising Labour Law to Meet the Challenges of the 21st Century’, COM(2006)
708 final (2006), 7, <http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/news/2006/nov/green_paper_en.pdf>.
246 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE LABOUR LAW

‘flexicurity’ – a combination of flexibility and employment security – has introduced new

terminology into the industrial relations debate but has also encouraged a shift in public
policy in much of Europe that is likely to reinforce the trends it analyses.
In other ways, the locus of analytical attention is shifting, following growing concerns
with the impact of ‘globalization’, the dramatic effects of the collapse of the former socialist
states, and the rapid change in production relations in countries such as China and those of
Latin America. Academic industrial relations today have enlarged its approaches and frame-
works to interpret and understand such changes. Its focus is increasingly international:
Courses today typically cover such issues as ER in multinational companies, labour migra-
tion, the growth of the ‘informal economy’ and the prevalence of child labour, and the
possibilities of transnational regulation through such instruments as international labour
standards. Closely related to this, much industrial relations scholarship today is comparative
and international, seeking to understand and interpret the similarities and differences in
institutions, processes, and outcomes across countries. As part of this process, industrial
relations scholars have drawn on – but also contributed to – analytical innovations in such
fields as international business and international political economy.
Systems of employee representation have changed radically in recent years. In the face
of falling membership, trade unions have restructured almost beyond recognition. Today,
two products of this consolidation, Unite and Unison, account for over 40% of total UK
union membership, and a similar process has occurred in many other countries. To respond
to the growing internationalization of the economic environment, unions have strength-
ened their own international linkages, and in many other respects, their policy orientations
have been transformed.21 While some employers have attempted to fill the representation
gap with their own structures of ‘direct participation’ by employees, institutional changes
derived from European law have also created new collective channels independent of the
employer: European Works Councils and, more recently, statutory mechanisms for the
information and consultation of employees. Moreover, employees with workplace pro-
blems but without union representation have been turning in growing numbers to volun-
tary organizations such as the Citizens Advice Bureaux and local community groups.
Not only have the policies and practices of employers been transformed but also their
very identities. The internationalization of product markets, production organization, and
supply chains, together with the liberalization of cross-national capital flows, has made it
increasingly difficult to identify the owner of capital or productive assets and of companies
as employers of labour. Shareholding, as the dominant form of ownership, has turned into
a jungle of equity ownership relations in funds and funds of funds, making it virtually
impossible to know what is owned by whom and making every company – large or
small – vulnerable to takeover.22 While ‘human resources’, perhaps even separated out as a

21
Carola M. Frege & John E. Kelly (eds), Varieties of Unionism: Strategies for Union Revitalization in a Globalizing
Economy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
22
Jörn Janssen, ‘Employees without Employers, a New Status’, CLR News, no. 3 (2007), <www.clr-news.org/
CLR-News/CLR%20News%203–2007%20ISSN.pdf>.
 WHAT’S THE POINT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS? 247

special unit or subcontracted, may sign the employment contract, it becomes increasingly
difficult to make out who is really the employer, especially if the contract is mediated by a
labour-supply agency. In consequence, ‘the balance of power between labour and capital
arrived at in the course of the twentieth century has now been changed to the benefit of
capital’.23 Likewise, just as employee representation has changed, so too has that of
employers, whose federations have also lost membership and experienced a declining
mandate to conclude agreements with unions. With such changes in the identity of
employers and employees, industrial relations as a field of study has to be redefined
according to the new and complex relations between the various actors involved, includ-
ing the collective shareholder.
In assessing the development of labour law over forty years, Wedderburn concludes
that ‘what we underrated was. . . the power of emergent globalised capital’.24 In place of
collective bargaining, what has emerged at European level is ‘social dialogue’ and the
recognition of a growing body of fundamental social rights, embodied in primary and
secondary labour legislation. At the same time, the needs for worldwide labour standards
irrespective of the employment contract become ever more apparent. This change in the
focus of industrial relations, from collective bargaining to labour rights, has gone together
with attempts to address glaring inequalities and discrimination, including those affecting
ethnic minorities and women: one reason, in Britain, for the explosion of Employment
Tribunal cases. Again, a survey of industrial relations journals and textbooks shows clearly
the extent to which scholars in the subject are highlighting such developments. We would
argue, indeed, that they have made the most important contributions to understanding the
trends and developments in the changing world of work, precisely because our multilevel
and multidisciplinary character is such a fertile intellectual foundation for analysis of these
issues.

5. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND DEMOCRATIC CITIZENSHIP

As we have argued above, industrial relations analysis insists that the management-employee
relationship in the workplace cannot be adequately understood in isolation from its wider
economic, political, social, and historical context. Conversely, changes in the nature of work
underpin broader social and political processes. The study of industrial relations is thus an
integral element in the broader agenda of social science. The workplace is generally absent
from considerations of citizenship, yet is central to the lives of most people.
It is often argued that economic restructuring and deindustrialization, as well as
resulting in poverty, inequality, and ‘social exclusion’, have undermined social identity
based on occupation. In response, the UK government seeks to counteract these trends by
reconstructing a concept of citizenship and ‘social inclusion’ that is largely based on work.

23
Paul O’Higgins, ‘The End of Labour Law as We Have Known It?’, in The Future of Labour Law: Liber Amicorum
Sir Bob Hepple QC, ed. Catherine Barnard, Simon Deakin & Gillian S. Morris (Oxford: Hart, 2004), 292.
24
Wedderburn, ‘Labour Law 2008’, 404.
248 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE LABOUR LAW

Its policies aim to bring more people into the employment relationship, to increase the
employment rate, and to extend working lives. According to the Leitch Review, ‘the best
form of welfare will be to ensure people can find their next job, staying in the labour
market.. . . Achieving world class skills is the key to achieving economic success and social
justice in the new global economy’ and will influence ‘wider social outcomes, such as
health, crime and social cohesion’.25
Learning, from the government’s perspective, is increasingly defined as a means to
employability, productivity, and competitiveness.26 For Leitch, the ‘mission’ for world-class
skills requires ‘a culture of learning to be fully embedded across society’.27 However, if we
accept the literal meaning of education, as the drawing out of human potential, then the
‘culture of learning’ needs to extend beyond labour market outcomes, as important as these
undoubtedly are. A decade ago, the Fryer Report identified lifelong learning as a means of
progressing social justice and ‘active citizenship’: ‘a culture of lifelong learning can act as a
resource in the midst of change, helping people both to cope with change and in their
strivings to shape it to their own devices, as active citizens’.28 Sisson develops this insight in
his defence of industrial relations:
work is not just a means to a livelihood. Work and the quality of working life are fundamentally
important in defining our place in society and in providing status, dignity and, perhaps above all, the
opportunity for personal development. The workplace is the most important ‘learning organisation’
most of us experience. But skills and abilities are of little consequence if we are not given a chance to
use them. The same is true of our opinions if they are not valued.

He continues by stressing that:

the democratic engagement and sense of involvement in local communities that most political parties
wish to promote is also likely to be more successful if the concept of citizenship is carried over into
the workplace and into preparation for the occupational career. Furthermore, it would go some way
towards minimising the dissatisfaction and demoralisation that spills over into and negatively impacts
on family and community life. These arguments are intrinsic to the industrial relations tradition and
are long-standing – the Webbs in the UK and Commons in the USA voiced them a century
ago. . .The emphasis has to shift from treating employees as a commodity bought and sold in ‘markets’
to human beings with the capacity to grow, develop and contribute.29

This highlights a key democratic aspect of both the practice and the theory of industrial
relations. Some commentators have suggested that the growth of individualism and con-
sumerism has weakened the salience of collective identities at work, reducing the appeal of
trade unionism.30 Historically, involvement in trade unions within the workplace provided
an important means of ensuring wider democratic participation outside the workplace. This

25
Lord Leitch, ‘Leitch Review of Skills: Prosperity for All in the Global Economy – World Class Skills’, HMSO
(2006): 9, <www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/leitch>.
26
Department for Education and Skills, Skills: Getting on in Business, Getting on at Work (London: DfES, 2005).
27
Leitch, Review of Skills, 22.
28
Robert H. Fryer (Chair), ‘Learning for the Twenty-First Century: First Report of the National Advisory Group
for Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning’ (1997), para. 1.2, <www.lifelonglearning.co.uk/nagcell/part1.htm>.
29
Sisson, ‘Responding to Mike Emmott’, 30–31.
30
Ulrich Beck, Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity (London: Sage, 1992).
 WHAT’S THE POINT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS? 249

was recognized by the present government when it launched the Union Learning Fund in
1998. However, whether or not through trade union organization, employees inevitably
act collectively at work: Production is not a purely individual activity. By acting together at
work, employees engage in processes of collective learning, which constitute a potential
channel for citizen engagement. The new mechanisms of collective employee voice created
under EU legislation will enhance this potential.
Over half a century ago, the sociologist T.H. Marshall explored the evolution of
institutions linking rights, status, and responsibilities in British society. Marshall saw the key
achievement of the previous two centuries as the rise, at national level, of universal
citizenship. This process, he argued, occurred in three stages. The first, largely accom-
plished in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, established the civil basis of
citizenship: ‘the rights necessary for individual freedom – liberty of the person, freedom
of speech, thought and faith, the right to own property and to conclude valid contracts, and
the right to justice’. The second, roughly a hundred years later, saw the extension of
political citizenship through the democratic extension of the franchise: ‘the right to
participate in the exercise of political power’. The third, a project of the twentieth century,
was the creation of ‘social citizenship’: the right to ‘economic welfare and security’. An
important aspect of this third development was the emergence of an industrial relations
system based on trade union representation and collective bargaining, creating ‘a secondary
system of industrial citizenship, parallel with and supplementary to the system of political
citizenship’.31 No longer were employees obliged to suspend their democratic citizenship
rights when they entered the workplace; through collective voice, they were able to shape
the conditions of their employment.
The shrinking coverage of collective, institutionalized industrial relations entails a
weakening of employee voice and, hence, of industrial citizenship. It should be no surprise
that these trends seem associated with a more general erosion of the culture of active
citizenship. Currently, there are concerns across Europe about the decline in democratic
cultures and political engagement, and this is often regarded as linked to changes in the
world of work. For Sennett, the growth in employment insecurity has led to a decline in
social participation and active citizenship.32 One suggestion is that the transformation of the
labour market and the intensification of work ‘crowds out the time and energy needed to
develop, maintain and exercise the capacities of competent, democratic citizenship’ and
that this ultimately undermines the quality of democratic life.33 An indicator of this
weakening of social and political participation is falling membership not only in trade
unions but also in organizations such as political parties and women’s groups.
The agenda of industrial relations research and teaching thus has fundamental moral
and practical importance. Finding new means to provide empowerment – a term often

31
T.H. Marshall, Citizenship and Social Class (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950), 44.
32
Richard Sennett, The Corrosion of Character: The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism (New York:
Norton, 1998).
33
Stuart White, ‘Markets, Time and Citizenship’, Renewal: A Journal of Labour Politics 12, no. 3 (2004): 50–63.
250 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE LABOUR LAW

used mendaciously in the management literature to imply increased accountability without

increased control – is a vital task if democratic citizenship is to be preserved. Industrial
relations scholarship, with its roots in critical social science, can contribute to the achieve-
ment of this goal, by encouraging reflective thinking on employees’ experiences and the
forces that shape the changing work environment.

6. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ACADEMIC FREEDOM, AND THE NEED FOR CRITICAL,

REFLECTIVE THINKING

Those of us who research and teach industrial relations take it as axiomatic that we need to
raise questions before we can suggest answers. Problems and solutions are not predefined
but derive from our interrogation of complex social realities. Given the multiplicity of
goals, interests, and actors in industrial relations, there are legitimate differences of opinion
on what should be the major policy concerns – whether at company or at national (or
indeed international) level – and what should be the appropriate responses. Rather than
offering pre-packaged solutions, industrial relations teachers encourage students to think
through the issues for themselves. In this respect, we reflect a much broader tradition of
critical thinking in the humanities and social sciences.
Most of our students have a (current or prospective) professional interest in the
subject, but we would short-change them if our courses were designed to offer simple
practitioner recipes. To be qualified to respond to as yet unforeseeable trends in employ-
ment and the labour market, it is necessary to be able to appreciate the underlying structural
dynamics, and this is the essence of industrial relations teaching. This pedagogic dividend
applies whether we are talking about specialist, in some cases professionally accredited
Masters programmes, undergraduate industrial relations-focused degrees, or stand-alone
modules at any level or mode of study. Studying industrial relations provides, in the current
fashionable discourse, a ‘transferable skill’ of critical, reflective thinking. Students are
enabled to comprehend the complexities of relationships and the implications for policy
and practice and to think through the consequences of various courses of action (or
inaction) – that is, to view the bigger picture.
Encouraging students to question what transpires in the world of work enhances their
sense-making capacity and, hence, their ability to make reasoned judgments and can thus
be the precursor to more considered policymaking. Being rooted in the broader social
science tradition, industrial relations teaching and learning caution students against
approaching the world of work solely from the perception of the atomized individual;
the ‘actors’ have to be understood as bearers of social forces and identities. For example, a
typical industrial relations course today will address such problems as structured inequalities
of gender and ethnicity and will engage with such concepts as ideology, power, and justice.
Such issues are unlikely to be broached explicitly elsewhere within business or management
studies, for example, by mainstream organizational psychology, and are often neglected in
HRM teaching. To do this well requires our teaching to bring disparate ways of thinking to
 WHAT’S THE POINT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS? 251

bear on the employment relationship. In developing the ‘questioning observer’,34 industrial

relations teaching helps produce the ‘thinking performer’, so emblematic of CIPD Educa-
tional Standards. In a world of constant change, one might expect employers to welcome
forms of education that enable individuals to make informed judgments rather than relying
on techniques with a limited shelf-life – and indeed, many employers do value the
approach to education that industrial relations teaching embodies.
Because industrial relations as a field of study is firmly rooted in a tradition of critical
social science, those who teach, research, and practise industrial relations have a distinct set
of advantages over those trained in less critical or more prescriptive approaches. First, as
we have seen, the field of enquiry is broadly defined as the study of the employment
relationship. It is not confined to the study of workers and trade unions but is also
concerned with the other groups implicated in the employment relationship and affected
by it. These groups include all levels of management, from front-line supervisors through
middle management and up to boards of directors; the executive, legislative, and judicial
branches of the state; the consumers of goods and services, sometimes referred to as ‘the
public interest’; and the many organizations in civil society such as religious, community,
and advocacy groups. While some academics are more interested in management and
others in employees and trade unions, it is one of the hallmarks of industrial relations that
none of these groups is assumed a priori to be more worthy of study than any other.
The experiences of migrant workers in low-paid service jobs are potentially as interesting
and as valuable a research topic as the impact of HRM practices on corporate
performance.
A second attribute of industrial relations as a critical social science, as already indicated,
is a recognition of the many overlapping and competing interests that are pursued by the
different parties in employment. Students are encouraged to be sceptical of simplistic claims
about the interests of the parties in employment, whether those claims are framed in terms
of a shared interest in competitive success, to take one example, or a purely worker interest
in resisting employer initiatives, for another. Education in critical social science encourages
people to question all ‘common-sense’ propositions connected with the employment
relationship, regardless of their origins. It also encourages them to probe the explicit and
sometimes implicit meanings of terms such as ‘flexibility’ and ‘work-life balance’, and it
emphasizes the overriding importance of empirical evidence and rigorous research.
For example, in the face of HRM policy initiatives presented as being in the interests of
all parties to the employment relationship, the critical social scientist will ask whose interests
are actually being served by such measures and will seek out appropriate evidence.
Third, critical social science encourages and values dissent and disagreement, in
research, in teaching, and in the world of policymaking. As Mill insisted, only if ideas
and theories are open to challenge and prove robust enough to withstand criticism do they
deserve credence; only if society permits, indeed encourages heterodox lines of argument is

34
Paul Edwards & Judy Wajcman, The Politics of Working Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 10–11,
42–44.
252 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE LABOUR LAW

scientific progress possible.35 This is true of social science, in general, and industrial
relations, in particular. Asking critical questions about the goals of employer initiatives,
union campaigns, or government policy may not always be popular with those in positions
of power and authority. However, unless critical questions are asked, then serious and
negative consequences can quickly ensue. Research can end up in blind alleys or reinforce
taken-for-granted ideas and myths about work and employment. Policymakers will waste
time, money, and energy on inappropriate or counterproductive change strategies – trying
to do the wrong things better, as Sisson puts it36 – because people fail to ask critical
questions at the early stages of policy formation.
Any form of scholarship that embraces a critical perspective is necessarily pluralistic,
for the theoretical and methodological foundations of the subject and its underlying
disciplines are themselves open to question. As we noted above, this is certainly the case
with industrial relations, where the clash of interpretations has always been regarded as an
index of vitality. It has also contributed to analytical dynamism. For example, in recent
decades, our subject has been very receptive to the contributions of feminist analysis, with
teaching and research explicitly addressing the gendered nature of work and the inter-
connections between waged and domestic labour, the distinctive issues concerning the
representation of women’s interests within trade unions (but also within management), and
the need for gender-sensitive research methodologies.37 Similarly, there is an increasing
literature about racial and ethnic divisions in the UK labour market and their impact on
social identities and collective organization in the workplace.38
The tradition of critical social science has benefits for many groups in society and for
the different parties to the employment relationship – and, as we argue above, for the
survival of a healthy democratic life. These benefits are not always valued by policymakers,
either because they see no short-term, instrumental gains from critical thought or because
critical thought is unsettling and disruptive of the status quo. Critical thinking, and critical
thinkers, may therefore attract hostility from those in positions of power, whether in
government, colleges, firms, or unions. It follows that a tradition of critical social science
may be at risk if heads of government and educational institutions lack a very strong
commitment to academic freedom and to employment security for those who question
received wisdom.
In sum, teaching industrial relations challenges students over questions that remain
unaired elsewhere within the milieu of a business or management school, acting as a
counterweight to the prescriptive and technocratic approach of much current business
and management ‘education’. Perhaps this explains, in part, a growing intolerance from

35
John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive (London: John W. Parker, 1843).
36
Sisson, ‘Responding to Mike Emmott’, 24.
37
See, for example, Judy Wajcman, ‘Feminism Facing Industrial Relations in Britain’, British Journal of Industrial
Relations 38, no. 2 (2000); Geraldine Healy, Lise Lotte Hansen & Sue Ledwith, ‘Editorial: Still Uncovering Gender in
Industrial Relations’, Industrial Relations Journal 37, no. 4 (2006).
38
See, for example, Avtar Brah, Cartographies of Diaspora: Contesting Identities (London: Routledge, 1996); Patrick
McGovern, ‘Immigration, Labour Markets and Employment Relations: Problems and Prospects’, British Journal of
Industrial Relations 45, no. 2 (2007).
 WHAT’S THE POINT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS? 253

those who conceive such teaching in terms of technical solutions to predefined business
problems and who are anxious to avoid pedagogical approaches that may be unsettling to
their premium-fee ‘customers’. However, in our view, this is to subvert the values that
underlie the very concept of a university education. Perhaps paradoxically, it is also not in
employers’ own interests: graduates hired to manage employment situations who bring a
rose-tinted view of the nature of the underlying relationships are unlikely to succeed.
The mission of universities was once unambiguously to act as bastions of critical
thought, and in democratic societies, they were valued as such. Though valuable in its own
right, academic freedom was recognized as the practical foundation of intellectual progress.
In Britain, as elsewhere, this critical role is under threat: from politicians who resent their
policies being subject to informed scrutiny; from employers who insist on simple solutions
to short-term problems; and increasingly from a new breed of university ‘managers’ who
regard education as a marketable commodity to be driven not by an intellectual rationale
but by the demands of ‘customers’. Critical social science is also threatened by systems of
research assessment and peer review that privilege established orthodoxy and marginalize
the heterodox and unfashionable.
Where critical social science is under attack, industrial relations are likely to be on the
front line, precisely because of the centrality and sensitivity of employment issues in
contemporary society. Yet ironically, the growing complexity of the world of work, the
intense debates concerning its role and purpose in modern society, the emergence of new
institutions and processes of regulation, and the evident limitations to the explanatory
power of single disciplines in making sense of modern ER give industrial relations analysis
a strong practical as well as theoretical advantage. To dismiss industrial relations as outdated is
to display the narrow-mindedness and short-sightedness that has so long bedevilled British
economic performance. Fortunately, this perspective is not universally shared. For example,
industrial relations scholars remain widely respected as advisors and consultants to govern-
ment, employers, and trade unions, at national and European levels. If we can effectively
convey the message that our insights are of both analytical value and practical relevance,
industrial relations scholarship retains a challenging but promising future.39

39
Paul Edwards, ‘The Challenging but Promising Future of Industrial Relations: Developing Theory and Method
in Context-Sensitive Research’, Industrial Relations Journal 36, no. 4 (2005).

View publication stats

INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL "INDUSTRY 4.0" WEB ISSN 2534-997X; PRINT ISSN 2534-8582

Changes of human resource management in the context of impact of the fourth industrial
revolution
Diana Puhovichova1, *, Nadežda Jankelova2
University of Economics in Bratislava, Bratislava, Slovak Republic1
University of Economics in Bratislava, Bratislava, Slovak Republic2
diana.puhovichova@gmail.com, nada.jankelova@gmail.com

Abstract: Fourth industrial revolution also called Industry 4.0, is considered as the most discussed topics among experts nowadays. The
excitement for the Industry 4.0 goes two ways. First says that the fourth industrial revolution deals with the question of “a priori” and not
“ex-post”. Organizations and research institutions gain opportunities for active building and forming of the future. Secondly, it has
significant economic impact, which promises much higher operational efficiency, as well as development of brand-new business models,
services and products. At the moment, organizations are able to run without elements of the Industry 4.0, but only for a limited time. They
have to look for a path of further development, and that is digitalization in each field of business. With help of human resource management,
organizations are able to form skills, abilities, behaviour and attitude of employees in order to achieve the targets of organization. Human
resources represent significant factor for competitive advantage in the knowledge economy. In the Industry 4.0 considering human resource
management, managers have to mainly focus on supporting of innovation and learning in the organization. The main goal of this article is to
identify changes in methods and techniques during realization of human resource management in the context of the impact of fourth
industrial revolution in theory, based on research of available scientific literature. Attention is mainly focused on selected functions of
human resource management like job design, staffing, training and performance appraisal.
Keywords: FOURTH INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION, HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, INNOVATION, AUTOMATIZATION,
DIGITALIZATION

1. Introduction
The dynamic development of the fourth industry revolution is
the result of several processes. It was mainly influenced by
internationalization, the development of information technologies
and also by hypercompetition. The fourth industrial revolution
describes the growing digitization of the value chain and the
resulting interconnection of subjects, objects and systems through
real-time data exchange. [1] The term fourth industrial revolution is
often referred to as Industry 4.0. This period expanded the
possibilities of digital transformation, and also emphasized its
importance for business. Industry 4.0 connects and combines digital
and physical technologies - artificial intelligence, the internet of
things, robotics, cloud computing and more, with a view of more
flexible and efficient management, and the interconnection of
companies, that are able to make decisions based on more detailed
information. [2]
Nowadays, Industry 4.0 is considered as a heart of today´s
discussions of modern business. It is considered to be a socio-
technical system that organizes the relationship among human
capital, companies, technologies, production systems, production
and consumption, thus creating a newly created relationship
between industry and society in the process of digitalization. [3]
The effects of Industry 4.0 are expected to reflect in all areas of
scientific progress. Although, it is very difficult to predict certain
facts, there are assumptions that human resource management
theories will need to rely on building stronger environment, social
responsibility and ethical dimensions, as communities and workers
demand, that companies increasingly respond to these global
challenges more strategically. In the evolving "fight" for talent,
companies, that do not respond to a changing environment will have
difficulty competing, because branding of employers becomes an
essential part of selecting a young generation of workers. Human
resource professionals will need to focus more intensively on
proactive human resource planning, global and local environmental
problem-solving, which will transfer many traditional functions to
managers, external service providers using artificial intelligence and
robotic technologies. The growing interest in "big data" and a more
sophisticated human resource information management system will
become an essential part of modern business, as well as greater
responsibility for individual strategies, processes and results. [4]
The aim of this presented article is to identify, at a theoretical
level, changes in human resource management in the context of the
impact of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, through the available
scientific literature.
2. The Fourth Industrial Revolution
The Fourth Industrial Revolution brings endless and unlimited
opportunities for technological investment. Companies during the
digital transformation should consider several questions: "What
would they like to transform thanks to digitalisation?"; "Where to
invest resources?"; "What advanced technologies to use to improve
strategic needs?" During answering these questions, it is important
to realize, that a real digital transformation has significant
implications for companies. It influences the company's strategy,
talents, business models, and even the way the company is
organized. [2]
We share the view of PwC director Kumar Krishnamurthy, that
while the Third Industrial Revolution focused on the automation of
individual machines and processes, the Fourth Industrial Revolution
focuses mainly on the digitization of all physical assets and the
integration of digital ecosystems with value chain partners. [5]
Industry 4.0 is thus surrounded by a diverse network of
advanced technologies throughout the value chain. Services,
automation, artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things and
additive manufacturing bring a whole new era of production
processes. The boundaries between the real world and virtual reality
are blurring and causing a phenomenon known as cyber-physical
production systems. [6]
Advanced digital technology has been used in industry for a
long time, but thanks to Industry 4.0 it can transform the entire
production. This will ensure greater efficiency and change the
traditional relations in production among suppliers, manufacturers
and customers. Technological trends, which form the building
blocks of Industry 4.0, play an important role. [8] According to the
mentioned technological trends, the Boston Consulting Group
proposes following trends: simulation, autonomous robots, internet
of things, cyber-physical systems, cloud computing, virtual reality,
communication among machines and cyber security. [7]
Companies face major challenges in adopting and implementing
these new technologies. In order to build and keep leading position,
they need to broaden and deepen their practical knowledge about
digital technologies and the way, how to use them. [7]
Subsequently, they need to develop and implement customized
digital production strategies. With the implementation of new
technologies in companies, mechanical industries have been
transformed into highly automated industries. These industries are
sensitively adapting to changing environmental conditions, and
customer requirements. When implementing Industry 4.0
techniques, it should be borne in mind, that companies may face
several challenges [9], which are listed in the following table.

138 YEAR V, ISSUE 3, P.P. 138-141 (2020)

INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL "INDUSTRY 4.0"
Table 1: Overview of Industry 4.0 challenges
Number Challenges
1. Modernization of existing elements
2. Capital requirements
3. Errors in data processing
4. Compatibility of workers with new technology
5. Cyber-attacks – data sensitivity
Low availability of standard and comparison
6.
processes
High accuracy of data collected from systems without
7.
loss of quality
Automation as a substitute for shortcomings cheap
8.
labor
Impact of automation on faster depletion of non-
9.
renewable resources
10. The need for new business models
Improving the quality of Industry 4.0 can be achieved by
properly integrating existing new technologies. With more
advanced technologies, such as cyber-physical systems and
industrial information integration, it builds on the overall quality of
Industry 4.0, as it is based on interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary
integration, including industrial information integration. In recent
years, there have been significant developments in technology, as
well as actual and potential applications in various industries.
However, the development of advanced methodologies, in
particular formal methods and system approaches, must be aligned
with rapid technological developments. [10] As Weber said,
Industry 4.0 is primarily about the application of advanced
manufacturing technologies. [5] The US National Science
Foundation has noted, that significant advances have been made in
cyber-physical systems, however, we still have insufficiently
advanced science to support the system engineering of highly
confidential cyber-physical systems. [11] Despite progress in
Industry 4.0, new challenges are still emerging in academia and
industry. Sufficient attention needs to be paid to them, in order to
realize the full potential of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. [10]
We can come to the conclusion that today technological
development and innovation play an important role in every
company. This is reflected mainly in increasing the competitiveness
of the business. It is the Fourth Industrial Revolution that seeks to
lead to possible profound changes in a number of areas that go
beyond the industrial sector. Industry 4.0 blurs the line among
people and technology.
3. Human Resource Management
Human resources are a term used for employees, company
managers, and possibly for some external collaborators. It is an
awareness of the importance of the workforce compared to other
resources (land, capital). In the scientific literature, we also meet the
term human capital. Thus, human resources constitute significant
assets for any business, or a significant loss. [12]
Recently, it has been pointed out that we consider human
resources to be the basic and primary sources of a company's
competitive advantage. Based on them, the goals of the company
are determined, the strategy is formulated and subsequently
implemented. The challenge of recent years is to focus on key
successful progress, meaning it focuses on the quality of human
resource management. The intention of the newer view is to point
out, that combining the efforts of both stakeholders (employee -
company) into a compact unit is very important and significant.
There is mutual satisfaction, under what we understand, that the
139
WEB ISSN 2534-997X; PRINT ISSN 2534-8582
company is a place to meet the needs of the employee, and the
employee represents an effective benefit for the company. [13]
Given this fact, human resource management can be defined as
a strategic and logically thought-out approach for managing the
most valuable thing a company has - people who work in the
company, who individually and collectively contribute in achieving
business goals. [14]
We consider human resources management as a strategic and
active integrated system approach in management, focused on
achieving a match among personnel needs and the real potential of
human resources. By personnel needs we understand the required
number of employees of individual categories, that are
characterized by the required skills, knowledge and competencies.
The real potential of human resources can be activated in fulfilling
the company's goals. Employees must be adequately motivated and
willing to do their job for the company. [15]
The role of human resource management is to ensure that
people in the company - human resources - are used in a way that
brings the employer the greatest benefit from their abilities, and
consequently, employees receive material and psychological
rewards for their work. The importance of human resource
management lies in addressing the consequences of organizational
decisions for productivity and the conditions under which the
company's employees work. We can therefore conclude, that the
main importance and purpose of human resource management is to
realize the potential of employees, and to state, that employees are
not only necessary expenses and costs in business, but are the most
important assets, a source of competitive advantage and thus an
investment producing significant added value. [16]
The basic functions of human resource management include:
personnel planning, job analysis and job design, recruitment, staff
selection, staff adaptation, staff training, career management and
planning, performance appraisal and management, employee
remuneration, working conditions and employment relationships,
redundancies employees and termination of employment. In the
article we will focus only on selected functions, which will be
mentioned in the next part of article.
From the above, we come to a conclusion, that human resources
are an integral part of any business. They are a source of
competitive advantage and contribute to the achievement of
business goals.
4. Results and discussion
The Fourth Industrial Revolution obscures the boundaries
between human capital and technology. The resulting changes
affect people, as well as the value produced by companies, and
redefine the future of work. An impetus is being created for
transformation in human resource management. Thus, human
resources are not immune to the situation, that has arisen, and they
must also adapt to the modern phenomenon. The following part
draws attention to the importance of intelligent human resource
management, the so-called "Smart HR 4.0". There is pressure on
existing companies to align personnel processes with the changing
technological environment.
Smart human resources 4.0 is a new concept that is evolving as
part of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and features innovations in
digital technologies such as the Internet of Things, big data,
artificial intelligence and fast data networks such as 4G and 5G to
effectively manage next-generation employees. [17]
Smart HR 4.0 has its own set of implementation challenges, and
a set of benefits based on the customization of individual
companies. Implementation challenges include:
 Choosing the right set of new technological tools;
 Transformation of the existing organizational structure;
 Managing the expectations of multiple generations of
employees.
The implementation of Smart HR 4.0 brings many benefits.
Among the most important we can include:
 Attracting, developing, retaining new talent;
 Slimmer human resources departments;
YEAR V, ISSUE 3, P.P. 138-141 (2020)
INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL "INDUSTRY 4.0"
 More efficient and faster processes within human resources.
[18]
The human resource department is responsible for managing all
aspects related to the employee's life cycle, from recruitment to
termination of employment. While the role of human resources is
the key to organizational growth, most human resources
departments in various companies perform mainly operational
activities due to highly inefficient processes caused by insufficient
and outdated technological infrastructure. However, it should be
noted, that technology is undergoing rapid change. New
technologies, such as the Internet of Things, allow physical things
to connect to the digital world, causing a huge amount of "real-
time" organizational data to be generated and stored on cloud
technology. Not only major changes have happened in field of
technology, but Industry 4.0 is also affecting generations of
employees. In 2020, half of the workforce is expected to be made
up of "millennials" or Generation Y (born among 1980 and 2000).
Generations Y and Z (born after 2000) grew up and are growing up
in the period of the Internet, social media, smartphones and are
characterized by different expectations from employers. These
include: cooperation, which is possible anytime and anywhere;
immediate feedback, open culture and data-based decisions.
Powered by new technologies and next-generation employees,
Smart HR 4.0 has the potential to transform end-to-end human
resource processes covering all aspects of emerging talent. [18]
Recruitment of talents into the company
The spreading of smartphones has led to the development of
intelligent applications. Generations Y and Z are increasingly being
approached by job advertisements in their mobile applications based
on the individual profile and preferences selected in the settings of
these applications. [18]
Big Data and artificial intelligence help automate the search for
a candidate's resumes and job preferences. This is a high probability
for meeting the requirements of the job. As a result, the amount of
time and manual effort currently expended is reduced. [18]
Interview techniques may include automated and customized
testing, instead of generic testing procedures that predict better
workplace performance in the future. The faster data network (4G /
5G) enables distance conversations via real-time remote video,
which helps to shorten the overall recruitment cycle. AI chat robots
can help interpret and verify candidates' reactions in real time,
reducing the number of candidates invited to the interview. [18]
After recruiting, it is recommended that induction programs will
be adapted to individuals, instead of traditional universal programs.
Augmented Reality / Virtual Reality (AR / VR) could help new
employees with different processes in the company and monitor
whether they are productive from day one. [18]
Talent development in the company
After starting working, increasing knowledge and skills is a
necessary requirement for success in today's competitive
environment. Artificial intelligence helps to identify knowledge
gaps for each employee, based on market requirements. [18]
Generations Y and Z are characterized by the fact, that they
want to do career planning themselves. They only want to undergo
training, that would help them achieve their professional goals.
Again, faster networks enable virtual training that can be done from
anywhere, anytime. [18]
As with training, performance goals should be set on an
individual basis, instead of setting the same goals for each
employee in the group, using artificial intelligence. Feedback would
be an ongoing activity in providing information on employee
performance. [18]
The structure of benefits and compensation should be derived
from the supply and demand for skills analyzed from employee
databases. [18]
In addition to compensation, employee health is an important
aspect of a company's productivity. Through health-oriented
applications, employees are able to monitor their fitness parameters
140
WEB ISSN 2534-997X; PRINT ISSN 2534-8582
in real time, which helps to reduce the number of days of incapacity
for work. [18]
Evaluation of employee performance
A performance appraisal system that is appropriate for Industry
4.0 should focus on employee development. In particular, it is a
results-based approach and a behavior-based approach, as these
approaches support education and innovation. It is recommended
that employees receive feedback on their performance. [19]
The goal-based approach (MBO) is becoming increasingly
popular. The MBO is characterized by specific objectives, where
the objectives are brief statements of expected results. Managers
and employees set goals and ways to achieve them through mutual
discussion and consensus. An integral part of the MBO is also
feedback, which allows managers and employees to monitor
activities and take corrective action accordingly. MBO is a suitable
approach to performance evaluation, so that the company's
compatibility with Industry 4.0 is again ensured. [19]
Termination of employment
The employee's intention to leave the organization can be
predicted by analyzing the employee's profile. The human resources
department might take proactive steps to prevent high-performing
employees from leaving the company by providing better internal
opportunities. [18]
Low-performing employees can be identified on the basis of
ongoing annual evaluations instead of evaluations from their
superiors. Programs designed to enhance employee performance are
recommended to be automatically adjusted to employee deficiencies
within abilities, skills, knowledge. [18]
Although the prospects for implementing the Smart HR 4.0
concept seem to be optimal, HR departments should also pay
sufficient attention to changes in organizational structures and
management styles. [18]
Organizational structure and leadership styles
The flat agile organizational structure creates a suitable
environment for the implementation of Smart HR 4.0. A flat
hierarchy will reduce communication levels and speed up decision-
making. Decentralization of power will force project teams to work
more autonomously and will have to adapt immediately to project
requirements. [20]
Leadership styles need to be more open, help manage education
and innovation culture, focus on improving knowledge and reward
innovative thinking. Leadership is expected to have to initiate
changes in organizational culture in such a way as to avoid conflicts
among different generational groups. [20]
Smart HR 4.0 is required to modernize technology in line with
the company's long-term goals, in order to attract the most talented
human capital of the Y and Z generations. Automation of many
human resources processes is expected to reduce HR team size and
give HR departments more time to perform tasks in the company.
[20]
New concept - SMART HR 4.0
Emerging technologies such as the Internet of Things, big data
analytics, artificial intelligence and augmented reality, together with
changes in the generations of employees, where especially in
generations Y and Z dominates IT and the priority is "only me",
affect the new concept of SMART HR 4.0.
According to the previous statements, we can summarize the
basic facts, that create the new concept of SMART HR 4.0:
Recruitment of talents to the company:
• Intelligent job search applications
• Automatic search for CVs using AI
• Automated and customized testing
• Interview via video chat
• Induction programs via AR / VR
YEAR V, ISSUE 3, P.P. 138-141 (2020)
INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL "INDUSTRY 4.0"
Talent development in the company
• Identification of gaps in AI capability
• Virtual training anytime, anywhere
• Continuous performance feedback
• Data-compensated compensation
• Applications for the welfare of employees
Evaluation of employee performance
• Evaluation system focused on employee development
• A behavioral approach
• Performance feedback
• Management by objectives – MBO
Termination of employment
• Reduction of wear and tear caused by analytics
• Data-oriented identification of persons
Organizational structure and leadership styles
• Slimming the hierarchy
• Agile and decentralized teams
• Multi-generation employee management
• Open and data-based styles
5. Conclusion
With digital conversion, all processes and customer
expectations change. With the widespread introduction of robots,
technological unemployment will emerge. Technological
developments will change the structure of the workforce in the short
term and partly cause unemployment. In the long run, the quantity
and quality of the workforce will increase. The strong hand of past
decisions will be replaced by thinking. Intelligence will increase the
level and quality of education. In the long run, highly qualified
individuals will be employed. Humans and robots will work
together in harmony. [21] It is up to each business to deal with the
situation. It has two options: either it will adapt to the reality and
move forward with time, in order to gain a competitive advantage in
its business, or it will succumb to situations, and sooner or later it
will disappear.
From the individual statements of this article, we can conclude,
that in order for companies to be able to cope with the
transformational challenges of Industry 4.0, it is essential, that they
develop a successful Smart HR 4.0 strategy. New technologies such
as Big Data and artificial intelligence will automate most processes
in the human resources department, leading to more efficient and
leaner HR teams. Intelligent mobile applications, along with virtual
and augmented reality will attract the next generation of talent to
businesses, and enable distance interactions between them. Changes
in organizational structures and leadership styles will be necessary
for the effective implementation of Smart HR 4.0, which will allow
it to play a more strategic role in the overall growth of the company.
[18]
6. Acknowledgement
This article is a partial output of research project VEGA no.
1/0017/20 entitled Changes in the application of managerial
functions in the context of the fourth industrial revolution and the
adaptation processes of enterprises in Slovakia.
141
WEB ISSN 2534-997X; PRINT ISSN 2534-8582
7. References
[1] W. Dorst. Umsetzungsstrategie Industrie 4.0. https://www.its-
owl.de/fileadmin/PDF/Industrie_4.0/2015-
0410_Umsetzungsstrategie_Industrie_4.0_Plattform_Industrie_4.0.
pdf.
[2] T. Hanley, A. Daecher, M. Cotteleer, B. Sniderman. The Industry
4.0 paradox.
https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/focus/industry-4-
0/challenges-on-path-to-digital
[3] T. Mazali. From Industry 4.0 to Society 4.0, there and back.
Springer, 33, 2017.
[4] A. Nankervis, M.Baird, J.Coffey, J.Shields. Human resource
management. Strategy and practise. 2019
[5] A. Weber, T. Assembly. Industry 4.0: Myths vs.reality.
https://search-1proquest-1com
158yblet906ab.hanproxy.cvtisr.sk/docview/1865427034?accountid=
59680
[6] A. Schumacher, S. Erol, W.Sihn. A maturity model for assessing
Industry 4.0 readiness and maturity of manufacturing enterprises.
ScienceDirect, 52, 2016.
[7] Boston Consulting Group. Industry 4.0 – the nine technologies
tramsforming industrial production.
https://www.bcg.com/capabilities/operations/embracing-
industry-4.0-rediscovering-growth.aspx
[8] A.Moeuf, S. Lamouri, R. Pellerin, S. Tamayo-Giraldo, E. Tobon-
Valencia, R. Ebudry. Identification of critical success factors,
risks and opportunities of Industry 4.0 in SMEs. Scopus, 58,
2020.
[9] D.Sanghavi, S.Parikh, A.Raj. Industry 4.0: Tools and
implementation. Researchgate, 2019.
[10] L.D.Xu, L.E. Xu, L. Li. . Industry 4.0: state of the art and
future trends. 2018.
[11] NSF. Cyber-Physical systems (CPS).
https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=503286
[12] V. Hřebíček. Řízení lidských zdroju.
https://is.muni.cz/el/1456/jaro2007/PHRLIZ/um/DSO_RLZ_10
_4_07.pdf
[13] B. Mihalčová. Riadenie ľudských zdrojov. 2007.
[14] M. Armstrong. Řízení lidských zdroju. Nejnovější trendy
a postupy. 2007.
[15] M. Majtán. Manažment. 2016.
[16] R. Salzbrunn, M. Pobořil. Řízení lidských zdroju. 2015.
[17] F. Hecklau, M. Galeitzke, S. Flachs, H.Kohl. Holistic approach
for human resource management in industry 4.0. ScienceDirect,
54, 2016.
[18] B. Sivathanu, R. Pillai. Smart HR 4.0 -how industry 4.0 is
disrupting HR. Researchgate, 26, 2018.
[19] S. Shamim. Management approaches for Industry 4.0:
A human resource management perspective. Researchgate,
2016.
[20] M. Stuart, D. Angrave, A. Charlwood, I. Kiekpatrick, M.
Lawrence. HR and Analytics: Why HR is set to fail the big data
Challenge. Researchgate, 26,2016.
[21] O. Bayraktar, C. Atac. The effects of Industry 4.0 on Human
resources management. Researchgate, 2018.
YEAR V, ISSUE 3, P.P. 138-141 (2020)
Review Jurnal Internasional Hubungan Industrial

Judul Artikel Jurnal 1 : What’s the Point of Industrial Relations?

Jurnal 2 : Changes of Human Resource Management in the Context of Impact
of the Fourth Industrial Revolution
Penulis Jurnal 1 : Linda Clarke, Eddy Donnelly, Richard Hyman, John Kelly, Sonia
McKay, Sian Moore
Jurnal 2 : Diana Puhovichova, Nadezda Jankelova
Nama Jurnal Jurnal 1 : International Journal of Comparative Labour Law
Jurnal 2 : Education Quarterly Reviews
Garis Besar Jurnal 1 : Sering dikatakan bahwa restrukturisasi ekonomi dan industrialisasi
mengakibatkan kemiskinan, ketidaksetaraan, dan pengecualian sosial. Hal
tersebut telah merusak identitas sosial berdasarkan pekerjaan. Sebagai
tanggapan, pemerintah Inggris berusaha untuk melawan tren ini dengan
merekonstruksi konsep kewarganegaraan dan inklusi sosial yang sebagian
besar didasarkan pada pekerjaan. Kebijakannya bertujuan untuk membawa
lebih banyak orang ke dalam hubungan kerja, untuk meningkatkan tingkat
pekerjaan, dan untuk memperpanjang masa kerja. Bentuk kesejahteraan
terbaik adalah memastikan seseorang dapat menemukan pekerjaan mana
berikutnya, dan tetap berada di pasar tenaga kerja. Mencapai keterampilan
kelas dunia adalah kunci untuk mencapai keberhasilan ekonomi dan keadilan
sosial dalam ekonomi global baru yang akan berpengaruj terhadap bidang
soosial yang lebih luas seperti kesehatan, kejahatan, dan kohesi sosial.

Jurnal 2 : Perkembangan Era Industri menjadi 4.0 dapat menjadi sebuah

peluang sekaligus ancaman bagi sebuah industri. Era ini menghadapkan
sebuah industri terhadap dua pilihan yaitu apakah akan beradaptasi dan
bergerak maju ke depannya untuk mendapatkan keunggulan kompetitif
dalam bisnisnya, atau akan menyerah pada situasi karena tidak dapat
mengimbangi. Perkembangan teknologi akan mengubah struktur
angkatan kerja dalam jangka pendek dan mengakibatkan terjadinya
pengangguran. Para karyawan yang sesuai kualifikasi akan dipekerjakan.
Dalam jangka panjangnya manusia dan robot akan bekerja sama secara
 harmonis.
Teori yang Jurnal 1 :
digunakan a. Teori yang dikemukakan oleh Kumar Krishnamurthy, bahwa Industri
4.0 dikelilingi oleh beragam jaringan teknologi canggih di seluruh
rantai nilai. Layanan, otomatisasi, kecerdasan buatan, Internet of
Things, dan manufaktur aditif menghadirkan era baru dalam proses
produksi. Batas – batas antara dunia nyata dan realitas virtual
menjadi kabur dan menimbulkan fenomena yang dikenal sebagai
sistem produksi fiber fisik.
b. Teori yang dikemukakan oleh Weber yaitu dalam beberapa tahun
terakhir, telah telah terjadi perkembangan teknologi yang signifikan
serta aplikasi aktual dan potensial di berbagai industri. Namun,
perkembagan metodologi yang maju harus diselaraskan dengan
teknologi yang pesat.
Jurnal 2 :
a. Teori Lord Wedderburn yaitu lingkungan kerja telah menjadi lebih
kompleks daripada masa lalu, dengan angkatan kerja yang semakin
beragam, perubahan radikal dalam teknologi dan organisasi kerja,
pergeseran menuju ekonomi jasa, pengaturan kontrak dan pola kerja
baru, dan tatanan persaingan ekonomi global yang semakin intensif.
b. Teori Keith Sisson yaitu fokus hubugan industrial adalah pada
regulasi, kontrol, dan dalam istilah modern pemerintahan, pekerjaan,
dan hubungan kerja. Hubungan industrial menyediakan berbagai
pemahaman tentang hubungan di tempat kerja, menganalisis
interkoneksi antara tempat kerja, perusahaan, dan kerangka
peraturan di tingkat Eropa dan global.
Perbandingan Kedua juranal ini memiliki kesamaan antara satu sama lain dan saling
melengkapi. Keduanya membahas permasalahan tentang dampak kemajuan
teknologi terhadap hubungan industrial. Jurnal pertama menyorot dampak
perubahan pada hubungan industrial di wilayah Eropa, sedangkan jurnal
kedua menyorot dampaknya di wilayah Tiongkok.
Hasil Hasil penelitian kedua jurnal tersebut sejalan dengan teori hubungan
Penelitian industrial di wilayah Indonesia. Hubungan industrial yang dimasuki kemajuan
teknologi memuat dilema antara pekerja dan pengusaha. Di satu sisi dengan
 adanya kemajuan teknologi pekerjaan dapat dilakukan oleh mesin yang
akaan menjadi lebih cepat dan efisien, namun kebutuhan pekerja untuk
menyambung hidup harus tergantikan oleh robot atau mesin tersebut.
Sebagai HRD seharusnya dalam menyikapi kondisi ini adalah
mempertimbangkan kebutuhan proses produksi perusahaan dengan sumber
daya yang dimiliki, tidak seharusnya semua proses produksi dalam suatu
industri semuanya dilakukan oleh mesin, namun juga perlu dukungan dari
manusia, sebaiknya memprosentasekan penggunaan sumber daya manusia
dan mesin dengan perbandingan 60% : 40% yang mana pekerjaan sebanyak
60% dilakukan oleh manusia dan sisanya dilakukan oleh mesin.
Rekomendasi Rekomendasi untuk penelitian yang akan datang yaitu menambahkan
untuk pembahasan tentang dampak dari kemajuan tekonologi selain terhadap
penelitian pengusaha dan pekerjaan, akan tetapi terhadap kebijakan pemerintahan
yang akan dengan perusahaan. Karena pada dasarnya secara garis besar pihak yang
datang terlibat dalam sebua hubungan industrial adalah pengusaha, pekerja, dan
pemerintahan.