The role of physical space in labour-management cooperation: A microsociological study in Danish retail

Anna Ilsøe* & Jonas Felbo-Kolding**

Abstract: Many studies on labour-management relations have focused on formal cooperation in manufacturing. This calls for further research and theory development on labour-management interactions in private service companies, where cooperation practices appear to be less formal. In this article, a typology of cooperation between managers and employees is developed, based on a microsociological study conducted in Danish retail trade in 2013. Drawing on six in-depth case studies we identify four different physical spaces of labour-management cooperation: open collective, closed collective, open individual and closed individual. The article discusses the potentials and limitations of the four spaces of cooperation for employee influence.

Key words: Cooperation, Microsociology, Retail, Space, Workplace

*Anna Ilsøe is associate professor at the Employment Relations Research Centre (FAOS) at Copenhagen University, Copenhagen, Denmark. Her research interests include collective bargaining, digitalization of work, labour market segmentation and comparative industrial relations.

**Jonas Felbo-Kolding is a PhD Fellow at the Employment Relations Research Centre (FAOS) at University of Copenhagen, Denmark. His research interests include workplace collaboration, labour market segmentation, labour migration and labour market integration of immigrants.

1

Introduction

The tertiarization of the economy in the Western world has moved job creation from the

manufacturing industries to private services. This means that the number of workplaces

is decreasing in well-organized sectors with union presence, collective agreement

coverage and local work councils, whereas it is increasing in less-organized sectors

without the same level of formal institutions representing employees (Bosch &

Lehndorff, 2005; Dølvik, 2001). One of the significant examples in Denmark is retail,

which is the largest sector in private services in terms of number of employees.

Collective agreement coverage is lower and only one in four employees in retail is

covered by a shop steward compared to one in two employees in manufacturing (Larsen

et al., 2010).

Despite all this, we know little about the cooperation practices that

develop between managers and employees in private services. Does an absence of

formal cooperation mean an absence of cooperation as such? Which forms of

cooperation can we observe? Do informal forms of cooperation contribute to employee

influence? Based on an empirical investigation in Danish retail, this article argues that

psychical spaces in the shop play an important role in shaping cooperative practices at

workplace level. The article uses a microsociological approach to develop a typology of

four physical spaces of labour-management cooperation that is useful for the analysis

and discussion of cooperation practices in private services.

2

There are two main theoretical approaches to the study of cooperation

between management and labour. First, the Employment Relations literature, which is

based on the argument that employees can get access to influence on their pay and

working conditions if they organize in unions and/or elect employee representatives that

can negotiate and cooperate with employers (Freeman et al. 2007; Markey and Knudsen

2014; Rogers and Streek 1995). Second, the Human Resource Management literature

focuses on informal labour-management cooperation and has a different perspective on

employee influence (Alfes et al. 2010; Cotton 1993; MacLeod and Clarke 2009). They

are mainly concerned with the effects of employee influence on employee performance

and company results – and less concerned with the gains for the individual employee. In

recent years, it has been argued that we lack a framework for a more detailed study of

the labour-management relations in private services that can grasp different forms of

(informal) cooperation and their potentials and limitations (Barry and Wilkinson 2015;

Marchington and Suter 2013).

The article seeks inspiration in microsociological theory and methods for

an explorative investigation of the cooperation between managers and employees in

Danish retail (Collins, 2005; Goffman, 1959). More specifically the article draws on the

theory of interaction rituals, which addresses the power aspect of social interaction in

different physical spaces (Collins 2005). This is highly relevant for a study on labour-

management relations, which are characterised by an asymmetry of power. Retail is

3

characterized by a number of specific working conditions at shop floor level that might

challenge the cooperation between managers and employees (customer presence, high

personnel turnover, part-time employees etc.) depending on the physical spaces

available. Customer presence might challenge the use of the shop floor as a physical

space for cooperation, which makes the presence of back offices or storage rooms

important. The fact that employees might not be regularly present in the shop at the

same time as managers also puts the physical space of the shop into question as an arena

for the development of cooperation practices. The microsociological perspective allows

us to investigate the various physical spaces in the shop as important contexts for the

development of cooperative practices between managers and employees who possess

different amounts of power. Our work is based upon six in-depth case studies in Danish

shops that combines visits at shop floor level with a total of 45 interviews with

managers and employees at different levels and in different job functions. The article is

structured in the following way; first, the background of the study and the theory used is

presented. After this, we present the methods section and the analysis. Finally, our

typology of cooperative practices is presented and important contexts for - and

implications of our findings discussed.

4

Background

Today, job creation in the Western world primarily takes place within private services.

This is also the case in Denmark, where employment in manufacturing has decreased

over the last 10 years, whereas employment in different parts of the service sector has

increased (Dansk Erhverv, 2009). Most of the literature on labour-management relations

has had a strong focus on the manufacturing industries both empirically and

theoretically (Knudsen, 1995; Walton et al., 1994).

There are important differences between the service sector and

manufacturing that make the application of the methods and concepts developed in

manufacturing on the service sector difficult if not misleading. Private services is often

characterized by lower union density, fewer union representatives and works councils

and less coverage by collective agreements just to mention a few (Bosch and Lehndorff,

2005; Edwards et al., 2006). This means that formal cooperation bodies are more or less

absent, which is also the case in Denmark. However, we do not know which

cooperation practices are in fact used, what managers and employees cooperate about

and whether this cooperation contributes to employee influence. Cooperation is defined

broadly to include all forms of interaction and dialogues between managers and

employees.

The article focuses on cooperation practices in retail as a significant

example of cooperation in private services. Danish retail trade is the largest industry

5

within private services (Dansk Erhverv, 2009). It also represents some of the key

features found in private services in general, when it comes to the actors and structures

that shape labour-management relations.

First, fewer institutions for formal cooperation are found in retail than in

manufacturing. Three in four manufacturing companies are covered by sector-level

agreements, and three in four employees are members of trade unions. Furthermore, half

of the employees in manufacturing have local shop stewards present that are elected

among union members at the workplace, and five in six shop stewards have negotiated

local agreements (Due et al., 2010; Larsen et al., 2010). Retail is a different story.

Available figures on retail, hotels and restaurants reveal that agreement coverage and

union density are somewhat lower in this part of private services than in manufacturing.

Six in ten employers report agreement coverage, and about the same share of employees

report union membership (Due et al., 2010). Other analyses using a segmentation

approach report a union density among sales and postal workers of less than a third

(Toubøl et al. 2015). The biggest difference is perhaps found in the presence of shop

stewards. Only one in four retail workers is represented by a local shop steward, and

only one in four shop stewards have negotiated local agreements (Larsen et al., 2010).

The absence of shop stewards in many shops might result in less formal employee

influence, but possibly also lead to more direct forms of employee influence.

6

Second, retail is characterized by customer presence (Bélanger and

Edwards, 2013; Korczynski et al., 2000). This means that managers and employees

often cooperate in front of customers. Unlike an industrial plant, where customers are

rarely in the room, managers and employees need to reflect on whether the topic and the

wording of their conversation are suitable for customer ears. Customer presence might

therefore limit cooperation practices in retail.

Third, retail in Denmark (and in a number of other Western countries) is

characterized by a preponderance of transitional workers, i.e. young unskilled workers

who work part-time and for a shorter period of time (Alsos and Olberg, 2012; Esbjerg

et al., 2007; Price et al., 2011). This is contrary to manufacturing, where the typical

worker is a middle-aged skilled worker who works full time and has been with the

company for some time (Ilsøe 2009). The number of young people working part-time in

retail has even increased since October 1st 2012, where the Danish Shops Act was

revised to allow all shops to extend their opening hours significantly (Felbo-Kolding

2014). The large number of transitional workers working part-time and unusual hours

challenges the cooperation between managers and employees, in a very practical way

because managers and employees might not be present at the same time.

Fourth, retail shops often experience a high personnel turnover, which is

costly (Booth and Hamer, 2007; Grugulis and Bozkurt, 2011). It is difficult to retain

transitional workers, and it is difficult to recruit other types of employees. This means a

7

less stable work force and limited time and incentive for both employees and managers

to engage in labour-management cooperation. Typically, young people in Denmark take

on jobs in retail, while they study, and leave retail again, when they finish their studies.

Young students do not identify with the sector, because they are on the move, and they

do not join the union that negotiates the collective agreement (Felbo-Kolding 2014;

Konnerup et al., 2011).

Given the characteristics of the actors and structures that shape labour-

management cooperation in Danish retail, not only formal cooperation seems to be

difficult. The conditions might also make it difficult to establish other forms of

cooperation practices on the shop floor. This calls for an investigation of how the

physical space in retail shops facilitates the establishment of cooperative practices

between management and labour.

Employment Relations and Human Resource Management – two theoretical

perspectives on cooperation

The literature that deals with cooperation and management-employee relations draws on

two very different theoretical traditions, which sometimes are used separately and

sometimes in combination (Marchington 2015; Wilkinson and Fay 2011; Wilkinson et

al. 2013). Both traditions rest on the basic assumption of the asymmetry of power

8

between managers and employees due to managers´ right to hire and fire and the

managerial prerogative.

First, there is the Employment Relations (ER) literature that has addressed

cooperation at workplace level in terms like employee representation, employee

participation or employee voice (Freeman et al. 2007; Markey and Knudsen 2014;

Rogers and Streek 1995). The core argument in this approach is that employees can get

access to influence on their pay and working conditions if they organize in unions

and/or elect employee representatives that can negotiate or cooperate with management.

Union and non-union representatives attain a bargaining power that to a smaller or lager

extent can balance the bargaining power of management. In this perspective, employee

influence is understood as a formalized influence and an influence that is to the benefit

of employees. Studies that draw on this tradition often demonstrate that employees gain

influence on their own pay and working conditions at workplaces where employees

have formal representation in the form of union representatives and/or employee

representatives. Methodologically these studies often draw on surveys and/or interviews

with managers and union/employee representatives. Empirically, the ER literature has

first and foremost focused on cooperation in manufacturing and related industries

(Knudsen 1995; Rogers and Streek 1995), but in recent years more studies have

investigated cooperation in the public sector and selected service industries like

telecommunications (Doellgast et al. 2009; Hansen 2015).

9

Second, there is the Human Resource Management (HRM) literature that

has addressed cooperation in terms like employee involvement, employee commitment

or employee engagement (Alfes et al. 2010; Cotton 1993; MacLeod and Clarke 2009).

Here, cooperation is perceived as a tool for management to improve employee

performance and overall company results. Changes in management, work organization

and performance systems are used to spark employees to engage themselves in the work

and the organization and to lift their voice when they spot opportunities for

improvement in performances and results. Employee influence is gained via informal

cooperation between managers and employees and/or informal cooperation between

different (groups) of employees. The cooperation is informal in the sense that it is not

based on the participation of employee representatives or union representatives. Studies

in line with this tradition often argue that employee involvement and commitment

improve employee performance. Empirical investigations are frequently based on

surveys among HR managers, and they include a variety of sectors like manufacturing,

private services and public services (Alfes et al. 2010; Cotton 1993; MacLeod and

Clarke 2009).

To sum up, the ER literature has mainly focused on empirical studies of

formal cooperation in well-organized sectors and whether this has been to the benefit of

employees, whereas the HRM literature has mainly focused on empirical studies of

managements perception of informal cooperation in a broad range of sectors and

10

whether this has been to the benefit of the company. This leaves us with a potential

blind spot. Employment Relations research rarely focuses on less-organized sectors.

These sectors are covered by the HRM literature, however, not with a similar strong

focus on how cooperation can benefit employees. As we are looking at retail, which is a

less-organized sector with little formal cooperation between managers and employees,

we therefore need a different approach to grasp possible employee gains from

cooperation. Here, we seek inspiration in the microsociological approach.

The microsociological approach – a new perspective on labour-management

cooperation?

The impact of physical spaces on social interaction has received increasing attention in

many areas of social science in the last decades including social geography (Halford

2008; Soja 1989) and social psychology (Sundstrom and Sundstrom 1986). This ‘spatial

turn’ has also included a revitalisation of microsociology, which always has had a

strong focus on how the physical space situates social interaction (Collins 2008;

Heinskov and Liebst 2016). In this study, we seek inspiration in microsociology to

investigate how cooperation practices between management and employees are shaped

by the physical space in retail shops (which is challenged by customers, transitional

workers etc.). This allows us to incorporate what Halford (2008) calls a spatial

sensibility to the study of labour-management relations. Furthermore, it allows us to

11

study how all forms of interaction (including informal interaction) between managers

and employees are situated within specific physical spaces (see also Baldry and Hallier

2010). Finally, and more specifically, we draw on the microsociological theory of

interaction rituals, which addresses the power aspect among participants (Collins 2005).

This is a core aspect of the relationship between managers and employees due to the

managerial prerogative and makes microsociology a very relevant choice of analytical

approach.

Microsociology is a tradition within sociology that deals with interaction

among people in everyday life and the roles and rituals that develop here (Collins, 1981;

Jacobsen and Kristiansen, 2002). The research questions are open, and the

methodological approach is often exploratory and involves observations and/or

interviews. The sociologist Erving Goffman can in many ways be described as the

founding father within the microsociological tradition. He perceives social interaction as

a role-play, which takes place on a stage and has very specific rules (Goffman, 1959).

The rules vary according to the stage, which means that social interaction is understood

in a 'situational perspective' (Goffman, 1961, 1967). Goffman distinguishes between a

'frontstage ' and a ' backstage ' (1959). On the frontstage you are among people in the

public sphere (on the train, in the classroom, in the cinema etc.), which means that

certain behavioural rules must be followed. On the backstage, you are among people in

the private sphere (in your family, among friends, with your partner). Here, you are

12

somehow free of the rules in the public sphere, but you must follow the rules of the

private sphere in question.

Applying Goffman’s concepts to the cooperation between managers and

employees in retail, at least one form of frontstage and one form of backstage can be

found. If managers and employees talk together ‘in front of the customer’, they might

be expected to follow one set of rules, whereas if they talk to each other ‘behind the

customer’, they might follow another.

Goffman´s work on frontstage and backstage has inspired numerous

empirical and theoretical studies. The sociologist Randall Collins developed a theory of

interaction rituals in which he adds new details and perspectives to the field of social

interaction – among other things he underlines the power perspective of social

interaction, which we will address later. In his famous work Interaction Ritual Chains

he points out four significant ingredients in interaction rituals (Collins, 2005: 47-48):

1. Bodily co-presence (two or more people are physically present in the same

place)

2. Barriers to outsiders (boundaries make participants aware of who is and who is

not taking part)

3. Mutual focus of attention (people focus on a common object or activity and

communicate about it)

13

4. Shared mood (they share an emotional experience)

The ingredients are perceived as initiating conditions/processes. The processes are

interconnected with feedback loops that reinforce the ritual. Collins mentions tobacco

rituals as significant examples of a ‘relaxation and withdrawal ritual’ (2005: 306). Two

or more people withdraw from a party or a workplace (bodily co-presence; barriers to

outsiders) to enjoy a cigarette (focus on common object and activity). While they light

their cigarettes, smoke and talk, they share an emotional experience of relaxation.

As briefly mentioned earlier, Collins underlines the power aspect of

interaction rituals. Power rituals are defined as interaction rituals between individuals

with unequal resources (Collins, 2005: 112f). Rituals are still characterized by bodily

co-presence, barriers to outsiders, mutual focus of attention and a shared mood.

However, the unequal distribution of resources makes some participants become order-

givers and others order-takers. This can result in conflict or avoidance, but it can also

result in the production of a power ritual that is reproduced and reinforced over time.

The mutual focus of attention in a power ritual is the order-giving process and not the

order itself. Order-givers have a Goffmanian frontstage personality. They are attached

to their frontstage roles as initiators and organizers. Order-takers have a Goffmanian

backstage personality. They can in principle only resist and criticize orders, if they are

out of sight from the order-givers.

14

If these insights are applied to the workplace level in retail, it becomes

evident that customer presence might not be the only factor influencing the cooperation

between managers and employees. Managers are per definition order-givers and

employees order-takers. This means that managers are potentially tied to their frontstage

personality as those who give orders; whereas employees are potentially tied to their

backstage personality as those, who take orders on the frontstage and only disobey

orders on the backstage. It is therefore a relevant question whether employees and

managers in retail are able to establish a common ‘backstage’ at work where employees

and managers can cooperate on issues that are not suited for the frontstage.

The preponderance of transitional workers and the high personnel turnover

in retail might enhance the power asymmetry of labour-management relations on a day-

to-day basis, making it difficult to leave the order-giving and order-taking roles. In

addition, customer presence is connected to frontstage performance and customers are

(potentially) present in most of the shop. This can make it difficult for managers and/or

employees to find a physical space where they can establish a backstage in a retail shop.

However, Collins underlines that the difference between frontstage and backstage is to

be conceived as a continuum (Collins, 2005: 116f). Social density (to which extent

individuals are in other people’s presence) determines where individuals are situated on

that continuum. In this perspective, it might be possible to create a backstage

somewhere in the shop, where customers are more or less absent.

15

With the inspiration from Goffman´s and Collins´ microsociological

theory the article explores the cooperation practices between managers and employees

in Danish retail as interaction rituals. The following explorative research questions

guide our investigation:

Who participate in the cooperation and who do not participate

(bodily co-presence)?

Where do managers and employees cooperate (barriers to

outsiders)?

What is their mutual focus of attention (object or activity)?

Which emotional experiences do they share (shared moods)?

Methodology and methods

The explorative character of our research questions called for the use of qualitative

methods in our empirical investigation of the cooperation between managers and

employees in Danish retail. Goffman´s and Collins´ microsociological studies, based on

observations and interviews in single cases (Goffman, 1959) and audio-visual

recordings and observations of numerous cases inspired the article (Collins, 2008).

However, a limited number of case companies were chosen, as such a design allowed us

to capture both the scope and depth of the field, if cases and methods of data collection

16

were selected carefully (Flyvbjerg, 1996). We decided upon a combination of

observation and interviews to collect relevant data. Observations on the shop floor

contributed to our identification of different forms of cooperation, as well as our

understanding of the interplay between space and forms of cooperation. Interviews with

managers and employees contributed both to the identification of different forms of

cooperation and to the evaluation of their possible contribution to employee influence.

In-depth case studies of local cooperation in six Danish shops were

conducted. Cases were selected to represent a maximum variation among Danish shops

on a number of important characteristics (size, ownership etc.) (see Table 1). This

strategy of maximum variation contributed to the scope of the study (Flyvbjerg, 1996).

Furthermore, the six cases were selected among shops that are known to cooperate with

their employees on issues that are currently on the agenda for local managers and

individual employees in Denmark (working time, further training and

recruitment/retention) to make sure that each case could contribute to findings. This

information-oriented selection strategy added to the depth of the study (Flyvbjerg,

1996). The cases were selected in cooperation with the union and the employers’

organisation that negotiate the sector-level agreement in retail, The Union of

Commercial and Clerical Employees – Retail (HK Handel) and The Danish Chamber of

Commerce (Dansk Erhverv). All shops were covered by the sector-level agreement in

retail, The National Collective Agreement for Shops 2012-2014.

17

Table 1: Overview of the six cases

Case Size Ownership Type of

goods

Opening

hours

Unskilled

workers

Part-time

employees

Geography

I) 2 managers

8 employees

Independent

Family owned

Voluntary chain

Speciality

goods

51

hours/week

87 % 75 % Copenhagen

area

II) 3 managers

15 employees

International

capital chain

Groceries

(discount)

98

hours/week

100 % 73 % Copenhagen

area

III) 2 managers

23 employees

Independent

Family owned

Speciality

goods

59

hours/week

57 % 57 % Province

IV) 15 managers

185

employees

Capital chain Groceries

(warehouse)

80

hours/week

60 % 60 % Province

V) 40 managers

400

employees

International

capital chain

Speciality

goods

(warehouse)

70

hours/week

75 % 67% Province

VI) 4 managers

31 employees

Independent

Voluntary chain

Groceries 80

hours/week

77 % 77 % Province

As previous studies have identified a heterogeneity among managers and

workers in Danish retail (Esbjerg et al., 2007), the study aimed to interview managers at

different levels (shop manager/line manager) and employees (full time/part-time,

skilled/unskilled) at each shop to explore, whether or not cooperation differed among

18

these groups. Interview guides were prepared based on secondary studies of literature

on Danish retail and pilot interviews conducted with a manager and an employee in a

Danish supermarket. Furthermore, three representatives from The Union of Commercial

and Clerical Employees – Retail and three representatives from The Danish Chamber of

Commerce were interviewed to prepare the interview guides. Interview guides for

managers were semi-structured and included background questions (company

background, manager profile, employee profiles, etc.) and questions on cooperative

practices (who cooperate, where they cooperate, on what issues, the quality of the

cooperation and the outcomes in an employer/employee perspective). Interview guides

for employees were kept very similar to be able to compare their answers with the

answers from management.

Inspired by Goffman, all shops were visited and field notes taken, to

include the interplay between space and local cooperation in the study. Furthermore,

two interviewers conducted all interviews in the shops together (one did the interview,

one observed and took notes). Three to 12 persons were interviewed at each shop,

representing not just managers and employees but also different levels of management

as well as different departments and job functions among employees. Additional

interviews at company headquarters in three of the shops were conducted, as these

shops were owned by capital chains. In total 45 persons were interviewed as part of our

study.

19

All interviews were fully transcribed before analysis. As a general

principle, both interviewers conducted separate analyses of the transcriptions that were

then afterwards compared and discussed on the basis of the transcripts. Only in cases of

interpretative agreement citations were included. Our inclusion of several employees

and managers in each case also made it possible to ‘test’ the validity of individual

informants’ statements against the statements of other informants. Specifically this

meant that only in cases where an informant’s statement could be confirmed by other

informants the perspective was included. The concrete strategy of analysis was twofold.

First, we drew a floor plan of each shop and wrote a separate case description (10-15

pages) of local cooperation practices in each shop based on our field notes and the

interview transcriptions. Case descriptions and floor plans were sent back to

interviewees for comments to ensure the truth-value of our interpretations (Pedrosa et

al. 2012). Second, the interviews were coded thematically and a comparative analysis of

local cooperation practices across the six cases based on our field notes and the

interview transcriptions was performed to identify differences and similarities.

Citations used from the interviews were approved by interviewees. Finally, a typology

of cooperation practices based on our analysis was developed.

20

Analysis

As expected, most of the cooperation practices observed on shop floor level and

reported in the interviews were informal interactions during every day work. However,

the comparative analysis displays a strong variation in cooperative practices across the

six cases, different groups of employees and not at least different physical spaces.

Below, these practices are presented and discussed in relation to the research questions.

We here make a distinction between open and closed physical spaces and a distinction

between individual and collective physical spaces. Four significant examples of labour-

management cooperation have been selected, which will structure the first part of our

analysis. These examples have been selected as representative of findings from several

cases. The second part introduces the wider variety of practices and the typology of

labour-management cooperation developed.

Cooperation in open versus closed spaces

The physical space in the shops plays an important role with regard to cooperation

between employees and management. Walls and doors function as barriers to outsiders

and differentiate open rooms from closed rooms. The smaller shops in the sample offer

different physical opportunities for cooperation than the larger shops, because the small

shops provide limited access to rooms where labour and management can exclude

potential audiences to their cooperation. This affects the quality of the interaction.

21

Below a floor plan of one of the case companies is presented, Case I (see Figure 1). In

this small specialty shop the only room, where you can close the door is the toilet. Most

of the walls in this shop are partitions, which are open at the top. The physical layout

means that potentially everybody on the shop floor can hear what is said in the

lunchroom or in the office. When managers and employees talk to each other in the

shop, it takes place in front of customers and/or colleagues. The situation is quite

different in the larger shops. In Case IV, a large supermarket, all managers and

employees have access to several rooms, where it is possible to close the door (see

Figure 2). This allows managers and employees to establish conversations backstage -

behind the customers (for instance in the canteen or the meeting rooms) or behind

customers and colleagues (for instance in the offices).

Figure 1: Illustration of floor plan for small speciality shop (Case I)

22

Figure 2: Illustration of floor plan for large supermarket (Case IV)

Despite the physical differences, most conversations between managers and employees

take place in open space on the shop floor in both small and large shops. The shop floor

is where managers and employees spend most of the time, when they work. In all cases,

both managers and employees strongly emphasize that they have an open and warm

dialogue on the shop floor during opening hours. Many describe their relationship as

family-like or an atmosphere of good vibes including warm feelings, helpfulness and

minor conflicts. However, employees and managers mostly talk about specific work

23

tasks and the social life at work. They also plan social activities, whereas topics that

relate to personal problems are less often on the agenda. The shared mood on the shop

floor includes both potentials and limitations for cooperation and influence. One shop

manager explains:

‘Since it is a small shop, we are socially engaged in one another. Jack and John are

friends, and Bill meets up with some of the young guys outside work. They talk a lot.

Sometimes Jeff has problems with his house, and he calls me if there is water in the

basement. So, I guess we are a family. It is tough if you need to fire someone. It is also

tough for new employees to become part of the group. It is really important for us to tell

new employees that they need to socialize themselves. It does not work if they sit in the

corner and are sad. It is a tough message but that is the workplace you enter. (…) We

had to let workers go because they were not good at that. That is why we prioritize

personal and social competences! We accept differences, we accept handicaps, but we

require that they be on the beat. If they are unable to do that, it is better if they say it

straight away. We are very honest and direct and that is important.’ (Shop manager,

Case I)

The example illustrates how the open space on the shop floor functions as a frontstage

in every meaning of the word. The family-like atmosphere is not a backstage, where you

24

can share individual weaknesses and doubts. Employees in all shops emphasize this

form of cooperation as important for their immediate job satisfaction as they gain

influence on their own work and on social events. The atmosphere makes them

recommend other people to work in the shop. This is why it is also valued and

prioritized by employers. However, it is also a demanding form of cooperation, which

leaves certain topics, emotions and employees out. Employers expect employees to

socialize and get involved.

25

Table 2: Four spaces of cooperation – examples from the interviews

Open collective spaces

‘I think we’re good at talking to each other, even though we have to work. Of course we still think of

the customers, but when there are no customers, and everything is nice and quiet it is possible to

talk.’ (Sales assistant, case V)

‘A lot of it [the cooperation] takes place on the shop floor. I think it should come when it feels

natural. And if we have five minutes out in the storage, we might just sit down on a pallet and talk.

So that’s where we talk.’ (Team leader, case V)

Closed collective spaces

‘If there is something that you’re a bit unhappy with, it is possible to take it up at the staff meetings,

and then it gets fixed. Then you don’t go around and get annoyed. Instead it’s dealt with quickly.’

(Sales assistant, case III)

‘According to the rules, we have to have a staff meeting twice a year. Everyone is invited, also the

ones who are not working that specific day, and they all get paid. It’s typically in the evening.

(…)it’s mostly practical information’ (Shop manager, case II)

Open individual spaces

‘I go out on the shop floor and help them during replenishment. Then we talk and I try to get a feel

for what they think about working in the warehouse and ask them if they could see themselves in the

warehouse more long-term. At the same time I keep an eye on how they work.’ (Warehouse

manager, case III)

‘(…) We have a lot of opportunities during day-to-day work to size up each other. We do not need a

closed off room for that.’ (Owner, case III)

Closed individual spaces

‘We tried to start it [staff development interviews] up, but it all comes back to the fact that I have to

do it all myself. And the workload is just too large for me to do that too.’ (Shop owner, case III)

‘It was almost a year ago, that I told my boss that I considered taking a break from my studies to

work more out here. He said that we of course we could make that work. And then I had a staff

development interview half a year later, where it was officially confirmed.(…) I think these

interviews are really great, because if there is something that you are unhappy with then you can

say it. Maybe you feel a bit more safe or confident in these interviews, because you are alone with

your boss and not out in the middle of everything. It is as if you are allowed to think a bit more in

these situations.’ (Storage assistant, case V)

Conversations between a manager and an employee in closed spaces (behind customers

and colleagues) are less used cooperation practices in the case companies. Staff

development interviews are more or less a systematic practice in the larger shops (Case

26

II, IV and V), whereas it rarely takes place in the smaller shops, where access to closed

rooms is limited (see Table 2 for examples). In the smaller shops, managers and

employees create situational closed spaces around other objects or activities. They

speak over the phone, in the car or during cigarette breaks in the backyard. One shop

managers from a small speciality shop (Case I) invited his employees to a nearby café to

have private conversations with them. This variety of activities offers other barriers to

relevant outsiders than closed doors within the shop. Here, managers and employees

discuss similar topics as managers and employees in closed spaces in the larger shops

(further training, change in job positions etc.). When conversations take place behind

barriers to relevant outsiders, such topics are not only raised by managers but also by

employees. This is illustrated by the following example from Case 1. Similar examples

were found in Cases IV and V.

A couple of years ago the manager in a small speciality shop (Case 1) hired an

employee who had been involved in an accident on a part-time contract. Over time, she

became a key employee in the shop. Recently, she had applied for a job at a shop closer

to home and had received a contract proposal. Just before she gave notice, management

called her in for a staff development interview – something they usually did not do.

Here, the manager and the employee made an agreement about a pay increase, further

27

training and change in contract hours (from part time to full time), which made her stay

in her current job. The employee explains the process:

‘I had a part-time contract, but got a full-time contract just before Christmas. We

agreed on a package that included a significant pay raise. They offered me further

training to become a skilled worker, and I said yes. Actually, I wanted them to

appreciate my work more. Therefore, it was a good deal for all of us. It meant that I

could take up a loan to buy a car, which reduced my time spent on commuting by an

hour and a half per day. Now I spend this time working instead of sitting on the train.

(…) It happened one day, when my manager said: ”Actually, it is too bad that we have

not done a staff development interview”. Then I said, “I also think it is too bad”. Two

days later, I was invited for an interview. I felt like I had to tell them something.

Because I had applied for a job in another city, and I already more or less had an

agreement with them to work there instead.’ (Sales assistant, Case I)

During this conversation in a closed room, the employee dares to tell about her personal

ambitions and problems. The employee has generally been happy with the atmosphere

and the work environment in the shop, but she has held back on her worries in shop

floor conversations even though these worries are quite decisive (she does not feel

appreciated and has found a new job). A number of similar examples are found in the

28

other case companies (Case II, III, IV and VI), where employees do not express their

wishes or dissatisfaction until they meet with management in a closed room (see Table

2). The risk of interruption is lower, and neither managers nor employees are confronted

with the social requirements of having to maintain a family-like atmosphere, which

makes it possible to establish a kind of backstage.

Managers and employees in retail seem to need a closed room to develop a

shared mood different from the family-like atmosphere. The frontstage personality of

managers in open spaces as order-givers might make employees hesitant to initiate talks

about positive/negative critique and career choices. When employees and managers

successfully create a closed room, they enter a space of confidentiality, where they can

distance themselves from the immediate order-giver and order-taker roles.

Cooperation in individual versus collective spaces

The limited access to closed rooms within a retail shop does not mean that individual

conversations between managers and employees as such are limited. However, these

conversations often take place on the shop floor (potentially in front of customers and

colleagues) or in the storage or the canteen (potentially in front of colleagues). Many

conversations are characterized by a bodily co-presence between one manager and one

employee.

29

Individual conversations in such open spaces often deal with specific work tasks.

However, managers sometimes also raise topics like individual changes in contract

hours, managerial training and change in jobs during individual conversations in open

spaces. This is the case in Case III where, the warehouse manager talks about how he

recruits new trainees among young part-time workers on the shop floor (similar

examples are found in Case II, V and VI, see Table 2) :

‘I go out on the shop floor and help them during replenishment. Then we talk and I try

to get a feel for what they think about working in the warehouse and ask them if they

could see themselves in the warehouse more long-term. At the same time I keep an eye

on how they work.’ (Warehouse manager, Case III)

These conversations are often quite short, but the example shows how managers and

employees sometimes coordinate their long-term interests in an open space, mostly on

the initiative of the manager. In this case, the manager succeeds in recruiting a new

trainee and the employee gets a job that she can keep for a longer period. The example

also shows how the manager checks up on the potential trainee during the seemingly

informal conversation, which illustrates the asymmetrical relation between the manager

and the employee. At the same time, the manager stresses the importance of listening to

the wishes of the employees during these talks.

30

However, transitional workers in general seem to participate less in the cooperation with

management than core workers do. This is also true for collective forms of cooperation

in the retail shops. In the large shops (Case IV and V) management organise weekly or

monthly staff meetings, where employees meet with management in meeting

rooms/lunch rooms to inform employees about important changes. At these meetings,

employees have the possibility to raise critique and suggestions for improvement

towards management and their colleagues. Employees and managers alike appreciate

this form of cooperation, because it helps to improve the work environment. However,

mainly full time staff participates in staff meetings, because they like the individual

conversations take place during daytime on weekdays. Transitional workers usually

work outside these hours.

One shop manager has tried to address the challenge of cooperation with transitional

workers by establishing monthly pizza meetings for young part-time workers (Case IV).

Here, the pizza eating activity creates a shared mood among managers and young

workers of being part of a working community. In some of the larger shops (Case IV, V

and VI), management has developed closed groups on Facebook, where young part time

workers can swop shifts and afterwards report it to management, and managers can

disseminate important information to these employees. Managers grant employees

31

flexibility, because they in turn depend on the flexibility of the young staff to work

evenings and weekends and to take extra shifts. The young employees, characterized as

transitional workers, on their part value the cooperation via Facebook very much,

because it allows them to coordinate their working hours to fit with their schedule at

school and to work the same shifts as their friends. This cooperative practice grants the

transitional workers influence on their concrete working hours, which improves their

work-life balance and their social life at work. One manager explains:

‘This year, I created groups on Facebook, and the group for the service department has

74 members. It is a closed forum, and we have rules about, what to write and not to

write. Some write, “I have a shift Sunday morning, can anyone swop?” Or managers

write about a bowling event. It is a mixture of work and social stuff. Or I can write

about new work rules, because Facebook is the only way I can communicate with those,

who work every second Sunday. It works. (…) When you get your work schedule, you

get access to the work schedule of 50 colleagues. If you are invited to a party on Friday,

you can check out ”Okay, these three colleagues do not work on Friday, I will write to

them”. This is what is important for them. That they are well and can get some time off

when they need it. They just swop shifts and inform customer services. It does not have

to be me as long as we know who will take the shift. All I ask is that I want to know who

will work the shift 5 minutes before it begins.’ (Service manager, Case IV)

32

Four spaces of cooperation – a typology of cooperative practices

Above four significant examples of cooperative practices that to varying degrees are

used in all six cases have been presented: A collective dialogue on the shop floor, a staff

development interview in an office, an individual talk on the shop floor and a collective

dialogue in a closed group on Facebook. However, additional examples of cooperative

practices like individual talks at a café or collective conversations at pizza meetings are

also discussed. The complete range of cooperative practices identified in the six cases is

illustrated in the figure below (see figure 2).

Figure 3: Four spaces of cooperation – cooperative practices in the

six cases

33

Talks during replenishingof stock

Collective

SMS/phone

Weekly breakfast meetings

Coffee in the canteen Talks on shop floor

Pizza meetings

Talks by the cash register

Cigarette breaks

Talks on shop floor

Monthly staff meetings

Staff development interviews

Café meetings

Individual

Closed

Open

Facebook groups

Feedback on shop floor

Talks in the storage

Talks in the car

All these cooperative practices vary on two important aspects (whether they take place

in open or closed spaces and whether they take place in individual or collective spaces),

which makes it possible to develop a typology of practices. In sum, four different

physical spaces of cooperation across the cases are identified:

1. Open collective spaces

In these spaces several managers and employees talk together, while customers and/or

colleagues are present (for example talks by the cash register, talks during replenishing

of stock, talks on the shop floor). Open collective spaces are characterized by high

social density and no barriers to outsiders. Managers and employees focus on specific

work tasks and social life and share a family-like atmosphere.

2. Closed collective spaces

In these spaces several managers and employees talk together, without customers and/or

colleagues being present (for example closed groups on Facebook, pizza meetings for

the young staff in the canteen, general staff meetings in a meeting room). Closed

collective spaces are characterized by a high social density and significant barriers to

outsiders. Managers and employees focus on sharing new information regarding the

shop, swopping shifts and planning social events. It creates a sense of being a workplace

34

community.

3. Open individual spaces

In these spaces, one manager and one employee talk, while customers and/or colleagues

are present (for example a talk on the shop floor, a talk in the storage room, a coffee

meeting in the canteen). Open individual spaces are characterized by low social density

and no barriers to outsiders. Managers and employees focus on both specific work-

related issues and issues like further training, change in job positions and/or contract

hours. Managers feel comfortable to raise the latter issues.

4. Closed individual spaces

In these spaces, one manager and one employee talk, without customers and/or

colleagues being present (for example a staff development interview, a meeting at a

café, smoking a cigarette together in the courtyard). Closed individual spaces are

characterized by low social density and significant barriers to outsiders. Managers and

employees focus on both concrete work-related issues and topics like pay, further

training and change in contract hours. Both employers and employees feel confident to

initiate discussions on the latter issues.

35

All four physical spaces of cooperation - open collective, closed collective, open

individual, closed individual – are used in all six cases. However, they are not used in

the same way or to the same extent. It seems that managers and employees in the six

shops mostly cooperate in open spaces, whereas closed spaces are less often used. Most

of the cooperation takes place with no physical barriers to outsiders and potentially in

front of customers and/or colleagues. This is especially true in the smaller shops, where

access to rooms with doors that can be closed is limited. Access to canteens, meeting

rooms and offices in the larger shops allow managers and employees more easily to

establish closed collective spaces or closed individual spaces that can supplement the

cooperation in open spaces. Closed collective spaces are also created on Facebook,

whereas closed individual spaces are created in cars, cafés and on the phone.

The four spaces of cooperation relate to different topics and different

forms of potential employee influence. Collective spaces, open or closed, are used to

deal with specific work tasks, plan social events or swop shifts. This leaves room for

employee influence on topics with short-term effects on working conditions (working

time scheduling, immediate working environment etc.). Cooperation in individual

spaces also includes issues like change in contract hours, participation in training

programmes and recruitment to certain job functions. Here, employees can gain

influence on decisions with long-term effects on their individual pay and working

conditions. However, their potential to gain influence on such topics seems to be larger

36

in closed individual spaces than in open individual spaces. In open individual spaces,

such conversations seem to be initiated by management only, whereas employees feel

more confident to take the initiative to discuss pay, contract hours and further training in

closed individual spaces.

The differences raise the question of whether a closed individual space,

with a physical barrier to outsiders in the form of walls and doors, can be matched by

alternatives. Turning back to the insights of microsociology, Collins introduces the

concept social density to underline that frontstages can function as back stages, if the

frontstages are sparsely populated. Accordingly, it can be argued that managers and

employees can create closed spaces in corners of the shop if only few customers are

present. Shared activities (replenishing of stock) can support this process of creating an

experience of a closed space. However, the cooperative practices found in the six cases

illustrate that the shop floor is not the preferred arena for employees that seek to gain

influence on decisions with long-term individual effects. Employees prefer some sort of

physical barrier to customers and colleagues (office, car, café, phone etc.) when they

take such initiatives. The type of object, activity or shared mood cannot make up for the

importance of talking in private with a physical barrier to outsiders.

This brings us back to the discussion on labour-management relations as a

power ritual between order-givers (management) and order-takers (employees). The

asymmetry of power between managers and employees is never completely erased on

37

the frontstage (on the shop floor). Although managers might feel confident to raise

issues like change in contract hours and further training in open individual spaces,

employees do not feel the same. They need a closed individual space to voice their

concerns on such issues. Confidential conversations between one manager and one

employee in closed individual spaces seem to hold the largest potential for employee

influence in a retail shop, i.e. employee influence on issues with long-term effects on

their own pay and working conditions. Our case studies demonstrate that it is possible to

develop such a backstage with a variety of activities, rules and shared moods off the

shop floor or outside the shop.

Conclusion & discussion

Inspired by Goffman´s and Collins´ microsociological theories this article seeks to

explore the cooperation practices between managers and employees in Danish retail and

discuss their potential contribution to employee influence. The article investigates their

cooperation practices as social interaction and seeks to answer the questions: Who

participate in the cooperation and who do not participate? Where do managers and

employees cooperate? What is their mutual focus of attention and which emotional

experiences do they share? Empirically, the article is based on in-depth case studies in

six very different Danish retail shops including observations and interviews with a

variety of managers and employees.

38

Our empirical contribution relates to how physical space matters, when it comes

to the topics raised and the influence gained in more informal forms of labour-

management cooperation. Inspired by Collins´ theory on interaction rituals the article

develops a typology of cooperation that relates to the physical space in which the

cooperation takes place and to the actors participating. The typology lists four spaces of

cooperation: open collective, closed collective, open individual, closed individual. All

four spaces of cooperation are to varying degrees used in all six cases. However, they

relate to different topics and different forms of employee influence. Our typology can be

of potential use to future studies that seek to differentiate between different forms of

informal cooperation and their contribution to employee influence.

39

Closed individual spaces seem to play a special role with regard to employee

influence in retail. Only here do employees dare to take the initiative themselves to talk

about issues with long-term effects on their individual working conditions like changes

in contracts, contract hours or training programmes. However, further research is

needed to investigate how frequently the different forms of cooperation are used in

different spaces in retail (and other service industries). Additionally, it would be

relevant to investigate how the identified forms of cooperation interact with formal

forms of labour-management cooperation (works councils etc.), where such institutions

exist (see Brøgger 2010). Some studies suggest that a combination of formal and

informal cooperation is the most efficient set-up when it comes to increasing employee

influence (Marchington and Suter, 2013; Markey and Knudsen, 2014). However,

experiences with the implementation of local Staff Councils in British retail do not

support this idea (Badigannavar and Kelly, 2005).

40

This article contributes theoretically and methodologically by including

microsociology in the study of labour-management relations and combining observation

studies and in-depth worker and manager interviews. It is currently debated in the

literature on cooperation, how research traditions that focus on formal labour-

management cooperation and research traditions that focus on informal interaction

between management and labour can be combined (Marchington, 2015; Wilkinson and

Fay, 2011; Wilkinson et al., 2013). Our results suggest that not only the degree of

formality needs to be taken into consideration, when identifying different forms of

cooperation and their contribution to employee influence. The variation in informal

cooperative practices to identify potentials for employee influence is uncovered.

Physical space matters and therefore not all forms of informal cooperation hold the

same potential. Informal cooperation between managers and employees can in many

ways be characterized as a power ritual and physical barriers to outsiders as well as less

social density is necessary to create a backstage, where managers and employees can

take a break from their roles as order-givers and order-takers. This makes the

microsociological approach - and especially Collins theory of interaction rituals -

highly relevant for future studies of labour-management relations at workplace level, as

it integrates the power aspect (which is present in all labour-management relations) and

the spatial focus (which has been less researched in labour market studies at workplace

level).

41

The limitations of our empirical investigations need to be considered, when we

evaluate the findings. Unions and employers organizations supported us in making

contact with relevant cases. This might have contributed to a positive bias in the case

selection with regard to cooperation practices. However, our results cut across a

variation among companies, among employees and among managers, which

demonstrates that our findings are not specific to certain cases. When assessing the

employee influence gained through informal cooperation and its effects this also needs

to be considered. However, as both sides of industry were interviewed it has been

possible to compare statements and only include conclusions that have been confirmed

by both sides of the table.

Funding Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a mutual grant from the union and the employers´

organization that negotiate the sector-level agreement in Danish retail: The Union of

Commercial and Clerical Employees – Retail (HK Handel) and The Danish Chamber of

Commerce (Dansk Erhverv).

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank a number of colleagues who have commented on and

made valuable suggestions to earlier versions of this article. This includes Senior

42

Researcher Frederik Thuesen, SFI, Denmark, Assistant Professor Lasse Liebst,

University of Copenhagen, and our colleagues at The Employment Relations Research

Centre (FAOS), University of Copenhagen. Furthermore, we would like to thank

colleagues participating in conferences, where results have been presented and

discussed. This includes workshop sessions at The 10th European ILERA Conference,

Amsterdam, June 20-22, 2013, The Danish Sociological Conference, Copenhagen,

January 23-24, 2014, The 28th AIRAANZ Conference, Melbourne, February 5-7, 2014

and The 7th Nordic Working Life Conference, Gothenburg, June 11-13 2014. Finally,

we would like to thank the two anonymous referees, who have made fruitful comments

that helped us improve the final manuscript.

References

Alfes, K, Truss, C, Soane, E, Rees, C and Gatenby, M (2010) Creating an Engaged

Workforce. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

Alsos K and Olberg D (2012) Åpningstider og arbeidstid i varehandelen. Oslo: Fafo-

notat 2012:10.

43

Appelbaum E and Schmitt J (2009) Review article: Low wage work in high-income

countries: Labor-market institutions and business strategy in the US and Europe.

Human Relations vol 62 (12): 1907-1934.

Badigannavar V and Kelly J (2005) Labour-management partnership in the non-union

retail sector. International Journal of Human Resource Management vol 16 (8): 1529-

1544.

Baldry C and Hallier J (2010) Welcome to the house of fun: Work space and social

identity. Economic and Industrial Democracy vol 31 (1): 150-172

Barry M & Wilkinson A (2015) Pro-Social or Pro-Management? A Critique of the

Conception of Employee Voice as a Pro-Social Behaviour within Organizational

Behaviour. British Journal of Industrial Relations vol 54 (2): 261-284.

Bélanger J and Edwards P (2013) The nature of front-line service work: distinctive

features and continuity in the employment relationship. Work, Employment & Society

vol 27 (3): 433-450.

44

Booth S and Hamer K (2007) Labour turnover in the retail industry. International

Journal of Retail and Distribution Management vol 35 (4): 289-307.

Bosch G, Lehndorff S (eds.) (2005) Working in the Service Sector. A tale from different

worlds. London: Routledge.

Brøgger B (2010) An innovative approach to employee participation in a Norwegian

retail chain. Economic and Industrial Democracy vol 31 (4): 477-495

Collins R (1981) On the Microfoundations of Macrosociology. American Journal of

Sociology vol 86 (5): 984-1014.

Collins R (2005) Interaction Ritual Chains. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton

University Press.

Collins R (2008) Violence. A Microsociological Theory. Princeton, New Jersey:

Princeton University Press.

Cotton J (1993) Employee Involvement – Methods for Improving Performance and

Work Attitudes. London: SAGE.

45

Dansk Erhverv (2009) Fra industri til service. Betydning, udfordringer, anbefalinger.

Copenhagen: Dansk Erhverv.

Doellgast V, Nohara H and Tchobanian R (2009) Institutional Change and the

Restructuring of Service Work in the French and German Telecommunications

Industries. European Journal of Industrial Relations vol 15 (4): 373-394.

Due J, Madsen JS and Pihl MD (2010) Udviklingen i den faglige organisering: årsager

og konsekvenser for den danske model. LO-dokumentationen 2010: 1. Copenhagen: LO.

Dølvik JE (ed.) (2001) At Your Service? Comparative Perspectives on Employment and

Labour Relations in the European Private Sector Services. Bruxelles: PIE/Peter Lang.

Edwards P, Bélanger J and Wright M (2006) The Bases of Compromise in the

Workplace: A Theoretical Framework. British Journal of Industrial Relations vol 44

(1): 125-145.

Esbjerg L, Grunert K, Buck N and Sonne AM (2007) Working in Danish retailing:

Transitional workers going elsewhere, core employees going nowhere, and career-

46

seekers striving to go some-where. In: Westergaard-Nielsen N (ed.) Low-wage Work in

Denmark. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 140-185.

Felbo-Kolding, J (2014): Detailhandel. Karrieren begynder bag disken. Copenhagen:

Politiken, 11. september.

Flyvbjerg B (1996) Rationalitet og magt. Bind 1: Det konkretes videnskab.

Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.

Freeman RB, Boxall PF and Haynes, P (2007) What workers say: Employee voice in the

Anglo-American workplace. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

Goffman E (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: The Overlook

Press.

Goffman E (1961) Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and

Other Inmates. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Goffman E (1967) Interaction Ritual. Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Chicago:

Aldine Publishing Co.

47

Grugulis I, Bozkurt Ö (eds.) (2011) Retail Work. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Halford S (2008) Sociologies of Space, Work and Organisation: From Fragments to

Spatial Theory. Sociology Compass vol 2 (3): 925-943

Hansen NW (2015) Kollektivt samarbejde under kommunernes effektivisering.

Copenhagen: DJØF Publishing.

Heinskou MB, Liebst LS (2016) Sensation Seeking in Street Violence : A Micro-

Sociological Reassessment. Paper presented at ASA: American Sociological

Association, Seattle, USA.

Ilsøe A (2009) Decentralisering i praksis: En spørgeskemaundersøgelse af lokalaftaler

om løn og arbejdsvilkår i industrien. FAOS Research Report No 103. Copenhagen:

Department of Sociology, University of Copenhagen.

Jacobsen MH and Kristiansen S (2002) Erving Goffman. Sociologien om det

elementære livs sociale former. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag.

48

Knudsen H (1995) Employee participation in Europe. London: SAGE.

Konnerup LD, Katznelson N and Nielsen, JC (2011) Unge i detailhandlen.

Forventninger og forestillinger om den gode og attraktive uddannelse. Copenhagen:

Center for Ungdomsforskning, Aarhus Universitet.

Korczynski M, Shire K, Frenkel S, et al. (2000) Service Workers in Consumer

Capitalism: Customers, Control and Contradictions. Work, Employment & Society vol

14 (4): 669-687.

Larsen TP, Navrbjerg SE and Johansen, MM (2010) Tillidsrepræsentanten og

arbejdspladsen. Copenhagen: LO.

MacLeod D, Clarke N (2009) Engaging for success. Enhancing performance through

employee engagement. A report to Government.

Marchington M (2015) Analysing the forces shaping employee involvement and

participation (EIP) at organisation level in liberal market economies (LMEs). Human

Resource Management Journal vol 25 (1): 1-18.

49

Marchington M, Suter J (2013) Where Informality Really Matters: Patterns of

Employee Involvement and Participation (EIP) in a Non-Union Firm. Industrial

Relations vol 52 (1): 284-313.

Markey R, Knudsen H (2014) Employee Participation and Quality of Work

Environment: Denmark and New Zealand. The International Journal of Comparative

Labour Law and Industrial Relations vol 30 (1): 105-126.

National Collective Agreement for Shops 2012-2014. Copenhagen: Dansk Erhverv &

HK Handel.

Pedrosa, A, Näslund, D and Jasmand, C (2012) Logistics case study based

research: towards higher quality. International Journal of Physical Distribution and

Logistics Management vol 42 (3): 275-295.

Price R, McDonald P, Bailey J and Pini B (2011) Young People and Work. Farnham,

Surrey: Ashgate Publishing.

Rogers J, Streek W (eds.) (1995) Works Councils. Consultation, Representation and

Cooperation in Industrial Relations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

50

Soja EW (1989) Postmodern geographies. The Reassertion of space in critical theory.

London: Verso.

Sundstrom E, Sundstrom MG (1986) Work Places. The Psychology of the Physical

Environment in Offices and Factories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Toubøl J, Ibsen CL, Jensen DS and Larsen AG (2015) LO-dokumentation. Tema: Det

mobile danske arbejdsmarked og organisering af lønmodtagere. Copenhagen: LO.

Walton RE, Cutcher-Gerschenfeld JE and McKersie RB (1994) Strategic Negotiations -

A Theory of Change in Labor-Management Relations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business

School Press.

Wilkinson A, Fay C (2011) New times for employee voice? Human Resource

Management vol 50 (1): 65-74.

Wilkinson A, Townsend K and Burgess J (2013) Reassessing employee involvement

and participation: Atrophy, reinvigoration and patchwork in Australian workplaces.

Journal of Industrial Relations vol 55 (4): 583-600.

51