ABSTRACT
While various definitions or ‘models’ of partnership have been offered (Marks et al. 1998; Guest and Peccei 1999; Danford et al. 2000; Grugulis et al. 2000) there has been a tendency to distil these down to a definition that identifies partnership as a system of organisational governance bringing ‘mutual gains’ to both sides of the employment relationship (Kochan and Osterman 1994). If this type of partnership exists then it represents no less than a redefinition of the social relations of labour, as social partnership will see organisational governance taking a non-adversarial pluralist, even neo-corporatist, style. Presumably, this is the type of partnership the trade union full time official (FTO) quoted at the beginning of the chapter describes as ‘genuine’. The use of the word ‘genuine’ is a commonly used defining term when talking to FTOs about partnership. It should be noted, however, that the use of the term ‘genuine’, in relation to partnership in the workplace, suggests that ‘counterfeit’ partnerships may also exist. The problem in distinguishing between the ‘genuine’ and the ‘counterfeit’, and central to an accurate definition of partnership, is that very little is known of partnership in practice (Guest and Peccei 1999). The true test must reside in how far the reality of partnership relates to the rhetoric; in how much of a Voice’ employees have in the governance of the organisations for which they work; in how far the new relationship provides ‘mutual gains’; and perhaps most importantly how, and for whose benefit, the structures of partnership are operationalised.
