Search results

This paper contributes to the broad aim of this special issue, reflecting on the relevance of the writing of Alan Fox to the contemporary industrial relations field. It offers an original reflection from a feminist perspective on Fox’s classic insights around frames of reference.

We concentrate on Beyond Contract, Work, Power and Trust Relations (1974a) and Man Mismanagement (1974b, 1985) as the texts setting out Fox’s influential frames of reference theory, before moving on to subsequent literature in the field making use of Fox’s frames. In undertaking this review from a feminist perspective, we specifically look at the extent to which work considers standpoint, gender relations and political engagement. We draw further on wider feminist scholarship within industrial relations, critical race theory and intersectionality perspectives.

Despite the concept of inequality forming the core of Fox’s analyses, there is a lack of attention to gender or to other diversity strands in his work and, notwithstanding the weight of feminist scholarship within the industrial relations field since, this neglect has been carried forward into subsequent use of Fox’s work. We argue there is space for the frames to be interpreted and used in ways that leave space for attention to feminist concerns and call on academics to approach their use of Fox from a more critically-informed perspective.

The paper’s argument has implications for the field of industrial relations in terms of conceptual understanding and methodological approaches. With space, it would have been useful to apply our revised understanding of Fox’s key concepts to empirical cases.

Greater clarity in what constitutes “unitary” and “pluralist” perspectives and categories will help employment relations actors.

We present a novel feminist re-framing of Fox’s work, providing new understandings of the strengths, weaknesses and applicability of the frames of reference within contemporary industrial relations research and practice. We advocate for methodological and scholarly approaches which advance theoretical and empirical justice in the field, moving beyond gender to draw on critical race theory and intersectionality frameworks.

While scholarship has identified the bias that maternal women (Arena et al., 2023; Grandey et al., 2020) and racial minority employees (King et al., in press) endure, few have taken aim at understanding how these identity characteristics might combine to concomitantly shape work experiences. Drawing from stigma theory (Goffman, 1963), the primary purpose of our chapter is to examine how the stereotypes of maternity might interact with race-based stereotypes to shape the experiences of working women. In doing so, we will be able to identify which stereotypes of maternity (i.e., incompetence or disloyalty; Grandey et al., 2020) might be exacerbated or weakened when varying race-based stereotypes are considered. After reviewing the potential for intersecting stereotypes, we then argue that mothers might experience different work and health outcomes – both pre- and postpartum – based on their race. We close by providing insight for future scholars and identify additional identity characteristics that may shape mothers' workplace experiences.

How do participants navigate the sexual politics of multiracial dating and how does this relate to belonging? The results of this study illustrate that the 21 participants interviewed faced internal and external struggles and triumphs due to their mixed-race identity. For participants, trying to situate themselves into just one racial identity when they straddled both became a point of contention with romantic partners and themselves. Moreover, participants struggled with feeling like they were “enough” and if they belonged. Furthermore, mixed-race women and non-binary people were forced to navigate the racial expectations of others as well as the fetishization of their mixed-race identity. In turn, this impacted confidence levels, self-esteem, and sense of belonging and authenticity. The findings contribute to research on desirability and critical mixed-race studies by examining how mixed-race women and non-binary people perceive their own desirability.

The paper reviews Fox’s frames of reference against subsequent changes in the composition of the labour force, shifts in social values and the arrival of the politics of identity.

A close reading of the frames of reference is placed in the context of Fox’s writing on the search for managerial legitimacy. That search is then considered in relation to the subsequent revolution in equal opportunities and contemporary efforts to promote equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI).

At the core of Fox’s frames lies the fundamental question of whether employers accept trade unions as a legitimate expression of employee interests. Changes in the composition of the labour force and the related arrival of identity politics has led to the emergence of a new set of interests based on social identity. These interests exist because of state legislation, social pressure from campaign groups and the awareness of the right to equal treatment regardless of gender, race, sexuality etc. It follows that the emergence of these identity-based interests means that employers are all pluralists now. This new pluralism has the ideological challenge of gaining approval not only from employees but also from the public in a world where errant employers are vulnerable to hashtag activism.

By revisiting Fox’s frames of reference, and emphasizing the role of employee interests, the paper shows that Fox's original insights on managerial authority and the need for “legitimising sentiments” are still relevant even if his frames are now outdated.