Beyond the Battlefield: How I Traded My Armor for a Gardener’s Trowel to Cultivate a Thriving Workplace

Introduction: The Hollow Victory

The air in the conference room was thick with the ghosts of arguments past—stale coffee, exhaustion, and the faint, metallic tang of resentment.

It was 3 A.M. on the final day of a grueling, three-week negotiation with the union.

I was younger then, a rising star in the world of industrial relations, and this was my moment.

My team and I, armed with binders of data and legal precedents, had fought for every clause.

We had stared them down, outlasted them, and finally, they had conceded.

We had averted a costly strike and secured terms that would look fantastic on the next quarterly report.

On paper, it was a total victory.

I walked out into the pre-dawn chill, expecting to feel a surge of triumph.

Instead, a profound emptiness settled over me.

The next morning, as I walked the factory floor, the silence was louder than any shouting match had been.

There were no smiles, no greetings.

Just the rhythmic clang of machinery and the averted eyes of people who now saw me not as a colleague, but as a conqueror.

We had won the battle, but in the process, we had poisoned the well.

Trust was shattered, morale was in the basement, and the “us vs. them” chasm was wider than ever.

The organization was wounded, and my victory felt like the most profound failure of my career.

This hollow victory became my obsession.

It forced me to confront a painful truth: the very foundation of my profession, the traditional model of industrial relations, was broken.

It is a framework built for a battlefield, viewing the relationship between a company and its people as an endless series of conflicts to be managed and skirmishes to be won.¹

Its language is one of warfare: disputes, grievances, strikes, lockouts.³

It assumes that the interests of management and labor are fundamentally opposed in a zero-sum game.²

I realized we didn’t need better weapons or cleverer battlefield tactics.

We needed a new map entirely—a new way of seeing that wasn’t about managing conflict but about cultivating health.

This article is the story of that journey, a journey that took me from a battlefield commander to a workplace ecologist.

It offers a new paradigm that can transform any organization from a site of perpetual conflict into a thriving, resilient ecosystem, where shared prosperity isn’t a naive dream, but a biological reality.

Part 1: Mastering the Old Map: My Life on the Industrial Battlefield

In my early career, I was trained to be a tactician.

Industrial Relations (IR), I was taught, was the art of managing the “employment relationship”.³

This relationship was defined by a complex web of laws, agreements, and power dynamics between employers, employees, and their representative bodies, like trade unions.⁵

My job was to master the rules of engagement, navigate the inevitable conflicts, and protect the company’s interests.

The dominant philosophy guiding this work, whether spoken or unspoken, was the adversarial model.

The Adversarial Doctrine

The adversarial model is the bedrock of traditional labor relations in many Western countries, particularly the United States.²

It operates on the core assumption that the interests of capital (management) and labor (employees) are inherently at odds.

The goal of management is to maximize profit, which often translates to minimizing labor costs, while the goal of unions and employees is to maximize wages and improve working conditions.²

The relationship is thus framed as a perpetual struggle over a finite pool of resources.

This isn’t just a cynical perspective; it’s a structure deeply embedded in the legal framework.

The U.S. National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), for example, was designed during an era of intense industrial strife and effectively institutionalizes this separation of parties.¹

It creates a system where employees often face a binary choice: engage in adversarial representation through a union or have no formal representation at all.¹

This legal scaffolding ensures that interactions are channeled through mechanisms designed for conflict, like formal collective bargaining and grievance procedures, which presume competing interests from the outset.

The Predictable Skirmishes (The “Challenges” of IR)

Living on this battlefield, I learned to anticipate the same skirmishes over and over.

What the textbooks call “common challenges” in industrial relations, I came to see as the predictable, inevitable outcomes of an adversarial system.

They aren’t bugs in the system; they are its core features.

• Wage and Hour Disputes: These are the most common battles, framed as a direct fight over the company’s treasure.⁸ Every negotiation over a pay raise, every dispute over overtime hours, is seen through a zero-sum lens: a dollar in an employee’s pocket is a dollar taken from the company’s bottom line. The conversation is never about creating more value together, only about dividing the existing spoils.
• Interpersonal and Departmental Conflict: When the relationship at the highest level—between the organization and its people—is defined by opposition, that culture of conflict naturally trickles down. A lack of trust between management and the workforce breeds a lack of trust between departments and individuals.¹¹ Silos form, information is hoarded, and collaboration withers.
• Safety and Attendance Issues: In a low-trust environment, rules are perceived not as tools for collective well-being but as impositions to be resisted. Safety protocols become bureaucratic burdens to be circumvented rather than shared commitments to keeping colleagues safe.⁸ Similarly, absenteeism and tardiness can become forms of passive resistance—a quiet, individual protest against a system that feels uncaring or unfair.⁹
• Poor Communication: On a battlefield, information is a weapon. It is hoarded, spun, and deployed strategically to gain an advantage.¹⁰ Management is rarely transparent for fear of showing weakness or giving the “other side” leverage. This lack of transparency fuels rumors, erodes what little trust exists, and makes any genuine attempt at collaboration feel like a trap.

The adversarial framework creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.

By providing tools and processes designed for combat—formal grievances, confrontational bargaining, legalistic procedures—the system trains every participant to see the other as an opponent.

It actively manufactures the very conflict it claims to manage.

Even when mutual interests clearly exist, the available mechanisms push the parties toward a fight.

It’s like giving two people who want to build a house only a sledgehammer and a crowbar; they are far more likely to end up demolishing things than building anything lasting.

This makes the entire model dangerously anachronistic in a modern economy that depends on agility, innovation, and psychological safety—qualities that cannot survive on a battlefield.¹

Part 2: The Epiphany: Discovering the Workplace Ecosystem

My disillusionment after the “hollow victory” sent me searching for answers outside the confines of my field.

The breakthrough came from an unlikely place: a book on ecological restoration.

I was reading about how a forest recovers after a fire, not through a single, heroic intervention, but through a complex, interdependent web of interactions between soil, fungi, insects, plants, and animals.

A thought struck me with the force of a physical blow: a company is not a battlefield.

It’s a living ecosystem.

This metaphor wasn’t just a poetic turn of phrase; it was a new operating system for reality.

An ecosystem is a community of living organisms interacting with each other and their physical environment as a system.¹³

This felt infinitely more accurate and useful than the mechanistic or militaristic models I had been taught.

It provided a language of health, resilience, and symbiosis, rather than one of conflict, victory, and defeat.

Unlocking Dunlop’s Theory with an Ecological Key

This new lens allowed me to see the foundational theories of my own field in a completely new light.

I revisited the work of John Dunlop, whose “Industrial Relations Systems” theory from the 1950s is a cornerstone of academic IR.¹⁴

Dunlop described the IR system as an analytical subsystem of society, composed of key elements.

To my younger self, his model felt sterile and abstract.

But viewed through an ecological lens, it came alive.

Dunlop had, without knowing it, drawn the blueprint of a workplace ecosystem.

I began to translate his academic terms into living concepts:

• The Actors: Dunlop identified three key groups of actors: management, workers and their organizations, and government agencies.¹⁶ In my new model, these are the
  “Species” or “Inhabitants” of the ecosystem. Each has a niche, a role to play in the life of the whole.
• The Contexts: Dunlop noted that the actors operate within a set of environmental contexts: technology, market or budgetary constraints, and the distribution of power in the wider society.¹⁴ This is the
  “Environment and Climate” of the ecosystem—the soil quality, the weather patterns, the geology that shapes what can live and thrive there.
• The Web of Rules: The output of the system, according to Dunlop, is a “web of rules” that governs the workplace.¹⁵ These are the
  “Natural Processes and Feedback Loops” of the ecosystem. Like the water cycle, photosynthesis, or decomposition, these are the dynamic processes that regulate the system’s life and health.
• The Binding Ideology: Dunlop argued that the entire system is held together by a “binding ideology”—a set of shared ideas and beliefs that provides stability.¹⁴ This was the most profound connection. The ideology is the
  “Shared DNA or Culture” of the ecosystem. It is the invisible code that determines whether the interactions between the inhabitants are parasitic (one benefits at the expense of the other), predatory (one hunts the other), or symbiotic (they cooperate for mutual benefit).

This reframing revealed a critical flaw in how most organizations approach change.

The “binding ideology” is not a passive belief; it is the active, foundational operating system of the entire workplace.

The adversarial model, with its core belief in inherent conflict, is one such operating system.

You cannot change the system’s outputs—like high conflict, low trust, and poor productivity—by merely tweaking the “rules” (introducing a new communication policy, for example).

Such attempts are like trying to run a modern software application on an ancient, incompatible operating system.

The system will inevitably reject the change or corrupt it to fit the old logic.

The primary work of a true industrial relations leader, therefore, is not rule-making or dispute resolution.

It is cultural architecture.

It is the work of a gardener tending to the soil, carefully recoding the organization’s DNA from an adversarial ideology to a cooperative, symbiotic one.

Only then will new, healthier rules and behaviors emerge naturally and sustainably.

Table 1: The Paradigm Shift: Battlefield vs. Ecosystem

Feature	Battlefield Model (The Old Map)	Ecosystem Model (The New Map)
Core Metaphor	A battlefield or a machine	A living ecosystem or a garden
Primary Goal	To win, dominate, and control	To cultivate health, resilience, and adaptability
View of Conflict	Inevitable and a contest to be won	A signal of imbalance or sickness in the system
Role of Leadership	Commander, tactician, enforcer	Steward, gardener, cultivator
View of Employees	A cost to be minimized; a resource to be deployed	Producers, inhabitants, the lifeblood of the system
View of Unions	An external adversary to be defeated or contained	A potential symbiotic partner; a communication network
Key Metric of Success	Concessions won; strikes averted; costs reduced	Collective vitality; high engagement; innovation; adaptability

Part 3: The Inhabitants of the Ecosystem: A New View of the Actors

Armed with this new map, I began to see the people in my organization differently.

They were no longer chess pieces to be maneuvered on a board of corporate strategy.

They were distinct species, each with a unique and vital role in our shared habitat.

The common business term “stakeholder management” ¹⁹ suddenly felt transactional and detached.

A “stakeholder” has an interest in a venture, but an “inhabitant” belongs to a place; they are interdependent and have a right to exist and thrive there.

This shift in language led to a profound shift in perspective on the key actors in our system.²¹

Beyond “Stakeholder Management”

• Leadership as the Forest Canopy: Senior leaders are not just commanders issuing orders from a distant headquarters. They are the canopy of the forest. They shape the environment for everyone else. They regulate the amount of “light” (information, transparency) that reaches the forest floor. Their decisions provide shelter and resources, and their health—or toxicity—drips down to affect everything below.¹¹ Their primary role is not domination, but stewardship: creating the conditions for all other life to flourish.
• Employees as the Producers and Pollinators: Employees are the core life force of the ecosystem. Like the plants that convert sunlight into energy through photosynthesis, employees create the value—the products, services, and innovations—that sustains the entire system.⁵ They are also the pollinators, spreading ideas, culture, and energy from one part of the organization to another. Their health, engagement, and morale are not “soft” metrics; they are the most direct and vital signs of the entire ecosystem’s health.
• Unions as the Mycorrhizal Network: This was the most radical and powerful reframing for me. In the adversarial model, unions are an external enemy. In the ecosystem model, they can be understood as the mycorrhizal network—the vast, underground web of fungi that connects the roots of individual trees in a forest. This network is invisible to the casual observer, but it is vital. It transports water and nutrients between trees, allowing the strong to support the weak. Crucially, it acts as a massive communication system, sending chemical signals that warn the entire forest of disease or insect attacks.³ A healthy union, seen this way, is not an adversary but a vital feedback mechanism, a system for collective communication and resource sharing that makes the entire organization more resilient.
• Government, Customers, and Community as the Climate and Geology: These powerful external forces are the non-negotiable context of the ecosystem. Like the sun, the rain, and the underlying bedrock, they create the conditions that the ecosystem does not control but must adapt to in order to survive.²⁰ Government sets the legal “climate” with labor laws and regulations.⁶ Customers are the “sunlight” providing the energy of revenue. The community is the “soil” from which the organization draws its workforce and its social license to operate.

This new perspective revealed the profound danger in a common goal of the adversarial model: to weaken or eliminate the union.

From an ecological standpoint, attempting to destroy the “mycorrhizal network” is an act of self-sabotage.

A lack of effective engagement with unions and employees is a known cause of communication breakdown, mistrust, and ultimately, damaging industrial disputes.²⁴

A union, even one that creates friction, provides a structured, centralized channel for feedback.

It aggregates the many weak signals of individual employee discontent into a strong, clear signal that leadership can actually hear and act upon.

Eliminating that channel does not eliminate the discontent.

It simply forces it to go underground, where it can fester and express itself in chaotic, unpredictable ways like mass resignations, quiet quitting, or wildcat strikes.

By destroying the union, management may achieve a short-term financial win, but they render the organization deaf, blind, and profoundly more vulnerable to systemic risk.

Table 2: The Workplace Ecosystem Inhabitant Map

Inhabitant (Species)	Ecological Role	Essential Needs (Nutrients, Light, Water)	Contribution to Ecosystem Health	Signs of Distress	Systemic Risk if Ignored
Leadership (Canopy)	Shapes the environment; provides shelter; regulates information flow	Strategic clarity; accurate data; trust from below	Sets the cultural tone; enables growth; protects the system	Indecisiveness; inconsistent messaging; isolation	System-wide blight; loss of direction; top-down decay
Employees (Producers)	Create all value; generate energy; pollinate ideas	Fair compensation; psychological safety; purpose; growth opportunities	Productivity; innovation; customer satisfaction	Low morale; high turnover; absenteeism; poor quality	Energy production ceases; the system starves and withers
Middle Management (Keystone Species)	Translates strategy into action; connects canopy to forest floor	Autonomy; support from above; clear goals	Nutrient transfer; local problem-solving; team cohesion	Burnout; micromanagement; blocking communication	Broken feedback loops; strategy fails to execute; talent loss
Union (Mycorrhizal Network)	Connects individuals; communicates systemic stress; shares resources	Legitimacy; access to information; good-faith bargaining	Systemic feedback; early warnings; collective voice; stability	Formal grievances; adversarial posture; public disputes	Inability to sense systemic problems; widespread, chaotic discontent
Customers (Sunlight)	Provide the primary energy source (revenue)	Value; quality; reliable service	Sustains the entire system financially	Declining sales; poor reviews; loss of loyalty	The ecosystem runs out of energy and dies

Part 4: The Conditions for Life: Cultivating a Thriving Ecosystem

Once I began to see the inhabitants of my organization as an interconnected web of life, the next step was to understand the invisible forces that determined whether that life would thrive or wither.

The daily “problems” of industrial relations—the conflicts, the grievances, the performance issues—were no longer isolated incidents to be managed.

They were symptoms of an underlying ecological imbalance.

To heal the organization, I had to stop treating the symptoms and start tending to the environment itself.

Diagnosing Ecosystem Health

• Nutrient Flow (Communication and Compensation): A healthy forest has efficient nutrient cycles. In a workplace, the two most vital nutrients are information and compensation. Transparent, honest, and multi-directional communication is the flow of information that nourishes every part of the system.¹¹ Fair, equitable, and understandable compensation is the flow of resources that allows inhabitants to thrive.¹⁰ When these flows are blocked, slow, or inequitable, the system shows clear signs of malnourishment: rumors and gossip flourish in the information vacuum, trust erodes, and disputes over pay and recognition become chronic.⁹
• Soil Health (Psychological Safety and Trust): The soil is the foundation of any terrestrial ecosystem. You can have perfect sunlight and rain, but nothing will grow in toxic soil. In an organization, the soil is the level of psychological safety and trust.¹¹ An environment poisoned by fear, blame, harassment, or discrimination cannot support healthy, engaged life.¹⁰ It leads to high turnover (inhabitants fleeing the toxic conditions), burnout (the soil being stripped of nutrients), and a catastrophic failure to innovate (no one is willing to take the risk of planting a new seed).
• Biodiversity (Diversity and Inclusion): Agricultural monocultures—endless fields of a single crop—are famously efficient but also incredibly vulnerable. A single disease or pest can wipe out the entire system. A diverse, old-growth forest, by contrast, is a bastion of resilience. A disease that affects one species leaves the others to thrive. A diverse workforce, rich in different backgrounds, perspectives, and skills, is the same. It is more innovative, more adaptable, and better at problem-solving. Overlooking diversity and failing to build an inclusive culture is not just a social failing; it is a critical strategic weakness that creates a fragile organizational monoculture.¹²
• Immune Response (Conflict Resolution): Every living thing encounters threats and injuries. A healthy organism is defined not by the absence of threats, but by the effectiveness of its immune response. In an organization, this means having processes for addressing conflict that are designed to heal, restore balance, and strengthen the system, not just to assign blame and punish offenders.¹¹ This requires investing in skills like mediation, active listening, and restorative justice, turning conflict from a destructive force into an opportunity for learning and growth.⁸

This ecological diagnosis reveals that overt conflict—a formal grievance, a work stoppage, a strike—is a lagging indicator of distress.

It is the visible, external symptom of a disease that has been progressing unseen for months or even years.

The traditional, adversarial model is almost entirely focused on reacting to these lagging indicators.

It’s a system of emergency room medicine, treating the patient only after the heart attack has occurred.

An ecological approach, by contrast, focuses on monitoring the leading indicators of health.

A workplace ecologist doesn’t just track the number of grievances filed.

They actively monitor the “soil quality” through regular, anonymous surveys on trust and psychological safety.

They measure the “nutrient flow” by analyzing communication patterns and pay equity.

This proactive focus on the leading indicators of systemic health allows for early intervention, preventing the ecosystem from ever reaching the stage of catastrophic, overt conflict.

It shifts the entire practice of industrial relations from reactive firefighting to proactive, preventative care.

Part 5: The Practice of Industrial Ecology: A Steward’s Toolkit

Theory is one thing; practice is another.

Shifting from a battlefield commander to a workplace gardener required me to throw out my old toolkit of weapons and tactics and learn to use new tools of cultivation.

This meant fundamentally redesigning the processes—the “web of rules”—that governed our organization.

The goal was no longer to impose rules from the top down, but to cultivate enabling processes that would allow a healthy culture to emerge from the ground up.

From Imposed Rules to Enabling Processes

• Designing Intelligent Feedback Loops: The old model relied on a reactive, formal grievance procedure—a cumbersome process that was only initiated after a problem had become severe. We began to replace this with a dense network of continuous listening tools designed to make feedback a normal, healthy part of the system’s metabolism. This included simple, frequent “pulse” surveys to check the organizational mood, confidential “skip-level” meetings where employees could talk to senior leaders, and, most importantly, intensive training for managers in active listening and mediation so they could resolve issues locally and early.⁸ The goal was to hear the whisper of a problem before it became a roar.
• Sustainable Resource Management: We reframed our approach to compensation, benefits, and leave. Instead of viewing them as costs to be ruthlessly minimized, we began to see them as critical investments in the long-term health and productivity of our ecosystem’s most valuable inhabitants.⁴ This meant not only ensuring wages were fair and competitive but also investing in comprehensive well-being programs and designing flexible leave policies that acknowledged employees as whole people. These investments paid for themselves many times over in reduced turnover, higher engagement, and increased loyalty.⁹
• Fostering Co-Evolution through Shared Governance: This is the most advanced and powerful practice of industrial ecology. It involves moving beyond the strict, legally mandated separation of labor and management to create structures for genuine cooperation and co-evolution.¹ For us, this started small, with joint labor-management committees focused on shared problems like workplace safety and production efficiency. These committees built trust and demonstrated that cooperation was possible. Over time, this can evolve toward more sophisticated models seen in some European countries, such as works councils or co-determination, where employee representatives have a formal voice on company boards, participating in high-level strategic decisions.²⁵ The goal is to harness the collective intelligence of the entire ecosystem, allowing it to adapt and evolve together in the face of a changing environment.

It is crucial to understand, however, that this shift is not a one-time project with a clear finish line.

Research and experience show that cooperation is not a stable, final destination.

It is a dynamic and fragile state that exists in a constant tension between the pull of mutual interest and the pull of self-interest.²⁶

It is easy for parties to “slide down” from a state of high-trust cooperation back toward more adversarial habits.

Achieving genuine cooperation requires a continuous, conscious effort from all parties to invest in the relationship, to take responsibility for understanding the other’s needs, and to commit resources to maintaining trust.²⁶

This reality elevates the role of the leader as a steward.

Their most important job is to guard against this natural entropy.

They must constantly champion the cooperative ideology, model the right behaviors, protect the structures that enable collaboration, and ensure those structures are properly resourced.

Success, in the ecological model, is not achieving cooperation.

It is the daily, unending, and deeply rewarding work of sustaining it.

Conclusion: The Future is Ecological

I often think back to that cold morning after my “hollow victory.” I remember the feeling of emptiness, the sense that I had followed all the rules of the game only to lose something far more important than the negotiation.

Today, when I walk through my organization, the feeling is entirely different.

The air is not silent and resentful; it is buzzing with conversation and collaboration.

The goal is no longer to win against each other, but to win together against the challenges of the marketplace.

The well-documented benefits of good industrial relations—higher productivity, lower staff turnover, enhanced innovation, and ultimately, greater profitability ⁴—are not a series of happy accidents.

They are the natural, predictable, and bountiful harvest of a healthy, well-tended ecosystem.

They are the fruits of a system designed for life.

My journey has taught me that the language we use and the metaphors we live by have the power to shape our world.

For too long, the field of industrial relations has been trapped by the language of the battlefield.

It has limited our imagination and poisoned our workplaces.

I offer this story as a call to action for leaders, HR professionals, union representatives, and anyone who believes we can do better.

It is time to lay down the weapons of the old adversarial model.

It is time to discard the outdated maps that lead us into endless, draining conflicts.

The future of work, and the future of our organizations, requires a different set of tools.

We must pick up the tools of a gardener: patient observation, deep empathy, a commitment to stewardship, and a profound understanding of the interconnectedness of systems.

It is time to begin the vital work of cultivating the thriving, resilient, and truly living workplaces of the future.

Works cited

1. Rethinking the Adversarial Model in Labor Relations: An Argument for Repeal of Section 8(a)(2) – Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/16496/82_96YaleLJ2021_July1987_.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
2. A Divided Interest: The UAW’s Current Contradiction of the National Labor Relations Act’s Adversarial Model – Michigan State University College of Law, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.law.msu.edu/king/2009-2010/Kosin.pdf
3. Concept of Industrial Relation Definition of Industrial Relations, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.cvs.edu.in/upload/IR_Concept.pdf
4. Industrial Relations: Key Concepts, Importance, and Global Strategies – Vedantu, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.vedantu.com/commerce/industrial-relations
5. What is Industrial Relation? | Importance, and Management – Globy, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://gogloby.io/glossary/industrial-relation/
6. Industrial Relations: Meaning, Key Elements, Significance and Scope – Plutus Education, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://plutuseducation.com/blog/industrial-relations/
7. Where are the employers?: American labor relations in comparative perspective, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.epi.org/unequalpower/publications/american-labor-relations-comparative-international/
8. 6 Common Examples of Employee Relations Issues and Top Solutions – NCheck, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.ncheck.net/employee-relations-issues/
9. Proven Solutions for 6 Common Employee Relations Issues – Pulpstream, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://pulpstream.com/resources/blog/employee-relations-issues
10. 5 Employee Relations Challenges Every Business Should Know – Loop Health, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.loophealth.com/post/employee-relations-challenges
11. Five Obstacles to Good Employee Relations – Hutchison Group Inc., accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.hutchgrp.com/five-obstacles-to-good-employee-relations/
12. Mistakes to Avoid: Common Pitfalls in Factory HR and Industrial Relations – Expertia AI, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.expertia.ai/career-tips/mistakes-to-avoid-common-pitfalls-in-factory-hr-and-industrial-relations-70545w
13. Learn and work Ecosystem – Credential As You Go, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://credentialasyougo.org/learn-and-work-ecosystem/
14. Industrial relations system – Oxford Reference, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100002264
15. (PDF) Theorerical Approaches to Industrial Relations – ResearchGate, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258373164_Theorerical_Approaches_to_Industrial_Relations
16. Dunlop’s System Model of Industrial Relations – Arghaa Hr Technologies, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://arghaa.com/news/dunlops-system-model-of-industrial-relations/180
17. Application of the System Model of Industrial Relations in A Leading Manufacturing Organization in Bangladesh* – DergiPark, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/4524922
18. www.oxfordreference.com, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100002264#:~:text=Dunlop%20contended%20that%20the%20IR,actors%2C%20and%20a%20binding%20ideology.
19. Stakeholder Management in HR Projects – HR Curator, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://hrcurator.com/2024/08/28/stakeholder-management-in-hr-projects/
20. What Are Stakeholders? Definition, Types, and Examples – Investopedia, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/stakeholder.asp
21. indolabourdatabase.wordpress.com, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://indolabourdatabase.wordpress.com/2023/03/02/stakeholder-engagement-to-support-sound-industrial-relations/#:~:text=Identify%20stakeholders%3A%20The%20first%20step,needs%2C%20interests%2C%20and%20concerns.
22. Actors in industrial relations • MBA Notes by TheMBA.Institute, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://themba.institute/industrial-and-employment-relations/actors-in-industrial-relations/
23. The Four Main Roles in Industrial Relations (Online Guide) – Measuredability, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://measuredability.com/the-four-main-roles-in-industrial-relations/
24. Stakeholder Engagement to Support Sound Industrial Relations, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://indolabourdatabase.wordpress.com/2023/03/02/stakeholder-engagement-to-support-sound-industrial-relations/
25. Codetermination and power in the workplace | Economic Policy Institute, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://www.epi.org/unequalpower/publications/codetermination-and-power-in-the-workplace/
26. The Many Meanings of Cooperation in the Employment Relationship and Their Implications – John W. Budd, accessed on August 9, 2025, https://jbudd.csom.umn.edu/RESEARCH/cooperation.pdf