Fragmented Outcomes: International Comparisons of Gender, Managerialism and Union Strategies in the Nonprofit Sector
Resource type
Authors/contributors
- Baines, Donna (Author)
- Charlesworth, Sara (Author)
- Cunningham, Ian (Author)
Title
Fragmented Outcomes: International Comparisons of Gender, Managerialism and Union Strategies in the Nonprofit Sector
Abstract
Since the mid-1980s, the nonprofit social services sector has been promoted as an option for cheaper and more flexible delivery of services. In order to comply with government standards and funding requirements, the sector has been subject to ongoing waves of restructuring and the introduction of new private market-like, outcomes-based management models, such as New Public Management. This article explores ways in which nonprofit social services sector workers experience their work as highly fragmented. Drawing on case studies completed as part of a larger project addressing restructuring in the nonprofit social services sector in Scotland, New Zealand, Australia and Canada, we examine three key aspects shaping work in the nonprofit social services sector: 1) workers’ experience of managerialism; 2) gendered strategies drawn on by workers in the agencies studied; and 3) union strategies in the nonprofit social services sector, as well as within individual workplaces. Conclusions focus on contributions to understanding managerialism as a strong but fragmented project in which even weak union presence and the willingness of the predominantly female workforce to sacrifice to provide care for others ensure that some level of social solidarity endures.
Publication
Journal of Industrial Relations
Volume
56
Issue
1
Pages
24-42
Date
2014
Journal Abbr
JIR
Language
en
ISSN
0022-1856, 1472-9296
Short Title
Fragmented outcomes
Accessed
12/23/14, 6:33 PM
Library Catalog
Citation
Baines, D., Charlesworth, S., & Cunningham, I. (2014). Fragmented Outcomes: International Comparisons of Gender, Managerialism and Union Strategies in the Nonprofit Sector. Journal of Industrial Relations, 56(1), 24–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022185613498664
Link to this record