Mediation, Discourse and Change

1. Mediation, Discourse and Change Louise McArdle Richard Saundry PeteThomas

2. Introduction • Research on mediation typically empirical • Reflects the tendency in industrial, relations research whereby theoretical aspects are not made explicit (Edwards, 2011) • Critical Discourse Analysis • (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999) • Used to explore the discursive processes involved in the development of a mediation scheme • Focus on the meaning of mediation in the context of antagonistic articulations by individuals and groups involved • Change • Changing workplace relations depends upon changing the interpretation of the meaning of mediation

3. Critical Discourse Analysis as a Framework for Analysis • Discourse as an important aspect of social practice • Role in constituting social practices • Allows understanding of the ways in which meaning is generated and how meanings become fixed (albeit temporarily) • Social practices involve a struggle to fix meanings through political processes and articulation • Politicized view of social organization reflects antagonism of workplace relations (Edwards 1990) • Goes beyond usual class or relations of production explanations of conflict • Process of antagonism is played out in struggles over the articulation within organizations

4. Research • Introduction of mediation in a Primary Care Trust • PCT = conjuncture • 3 main groups involved in political processes to try and fix discursive meaning of mediation • Senior HR managers • Operational managers • Union reps (staff side) • Grievance Culture Discourse – Partnership Discourse

5. The ‘Grievance Culture’ Discourse • Dominant discourse within the conjuncture • Discourse of conflict permeated relations between management and union representatives • Lack of opportunity to articulate members’ interests • Formal procedures used to articulate interests • Discourse influences the meaning of mediation • HR Management – mediation interpreted as a solution to problem of conflict • Union Reps - Deliberate attempt at incorporation and threat to their role • Operational managers – threat to authority

6. The Partnership Discourse • New HR Director brought partnership working to the organization • ‘investment’ in partnership – more active role for union reps • More opportunity for dialogue between operational managers and ‘staff-side’ • High trust social relations • Better shared understanding of the corrosive grievance culture • New interpretation for the meaning of mediation • Partnership as a ‘label’ to ‘real’ partnership between management and unions reps • Hostile antagonism to ‘co-operative’ struggle

7. Change • Changing workplace relations dependent upon changing meaning (of mediation) in relationship to the partnership discourse • Roles of managers and trade union officials needs to be contextualised within the conjuncture of social and power relations • Meaning plays a central part in the development of the mediation scheme • Grievance culture to partnership • Change represents a shift in abilities to articulate interests and thereby build trust and confidence

8. CDA allows appreciation of the political processes at play in social organizations through struggles between discourses and beyond the structures and processes of workplace relations • Specific actors are significant in shaping the meaning of mediation and in fixing that meaning with other social actors • Implications • Mediation cannot be simply ‘dropped in’ as a solution to problematic workplace relations • Meaning of mediation is fluid and therefore transitory

9. References • Edwards P (2011) Message from the Editor-in Chief Human Relations 65(1):3-4 • Edwards P (1990) ‘Understanding conflict in the Labour Process: The logic and autonomy of struggle’ in Knights D & Willmott H (eds) Labour Process Theory London: Macmillan • Chouliaraki L & Fairclough N (1999) Discourse in Late Modernity, Edinburgh:Edinburgh University press