Rafael Gomez, Michael Barry, Alex Bryson, Bruce E. Kaufman, Guenther Lomas and Adrian Wilkinson
The purpose of this paper is to take a serious look at the relationship between joint consultation systems at the workplace and employee satisfaction, while at the same time…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to take a serious look at the relationship between joint consultation systems at the workplace and employee satisfaction, while at the same time accounting for the (possible) interactions with similar union and management-led high commitment strategies.
Design/methodology/approach
Using new, rich data on a representative sample of British workers, the authors identify workplace institutions that are positively associated with employee perceptions of work and relations with management, what in combination the authors call a measure of the “good workplace.” In particular, the authors focus on non-union employee representation at the workplace, in the form of joint consultative committees (JCCs), and the potential moderating effects of union representation and high-involvement human resource (HIHR) practices.
Findings
The authors’ findings suggest a re-evaluation of the role that JCCs play in the subjective well-being of workers even after controlling for unions and progressive HR policies. There is no evidence in the authors’ estimates of negative interaction effects (i.e. that unions or HIHR negatively influence the functioning of JCCs with respect to employee satisfaction) or substitution (i.e. that unions or HIHR are substitutes for JCCs when it comes to improving self-reported worker well-being). If anything, there is a significant and positive three-way moderating effect when JCCs are interacted with union representation and high-involvement management.
Originality/value
This is the first time – to the authors’ knowledge – that comprehensive measures of subjective employee well-being are being estimated with respect to the presence of a JCC at the workplace, while controlling for workplace institutions (e.g. union representation and human resource policies) that are themselves designed to involve and communicate with workers.
Details
Keywords
This paper surveys the contribution of economics and industrial relations (E/IR) to the development of the field of personnel/human resource management (P/HRM). A brief review of…
Abstract
This paper surveys the contribution of economics and industrial relations (E/IR) to the development of the field of personnel/human resource management (P/HRM). A brief review of existing accounts of the evolution of the field reveals that they give little mention to the role of E/IR. A re‐examination of the early years of P/HRM suggests, however, that this is a serious omission. It is demonstrated, for example, that E/IR was in fact the principal disciplinary base for research and teaching in P/HRM in US universities into the 1940s and that for the first two decades of the field’s existence the most influential and authoritative academic‐based writers came from the ranks of economists and economics‐trained IR scholars. After describing the reasons for this close relationship, The centrifugal forces that caused a gradual split between E/IR and P/HRM are described. This split had roots in the 1920s, became increasingly visible in the 1950s and beyond, and by the late 1980s had reached a point where the two subject areas had little intellectual or organizational interaction. The paper ends with a brief review of recent developments that herald a modest rapprochement between E/IR and P/HRM.
Details
Keywords
The chapter provides a case study of the strategic-level employee involvement (EI) program at a high-performance company, Delta Air Lines. EI at Delta – probably the most…
Abstract
The chapter provides a case study of the strategic-level employee involvement (EI) program at a high-performance company, Delta Air Lines. EI at Delta – probably the most extensive in breadth, depth, and representational structure for nonunion workers at an American company – extends from shop floor to board room. Attention here is on the board component: a group of five peer-selected employees called the Delta Board Council (DBC) which has a nonvoting seat on the board of directors and participates in a wide range of strategic decisions and roles. The chapter discusses why this kind of representational EI group, although widespread up to the 1930s, is now quite rare in the United States. The main part of the chapter focuses on the structure, purpose, and accomplishments of the DBC, presented through a question and answer (Q&A) interview with a founding DBC member. Provided are numerous EI “lessons-learned” and “do’s” and “don’ts” for managers.
Details
Keywords
David Lewin and Bruce E. Kaufman
Volume 16 of Advances in Industrial and Labor Relations (AILR) contains eight papers that deal with important and interesting aspects of industrial and labor relations. These…
Abstract
Volume 16 of Advances in Industrial and Labor Relations (AILR) contains eight papers that deal with important and interesting aspects of industrial and labor relations. These include alternative approaches to establishing an ownership culture, accounting for union collective action through resource acquisition and mobilization, union avoidance through double breasting, labor–management partnership and mutual gains, high-involvement work systems and union–management communication networks, a new paradigm for IR/HR theory and research, implications for women of private pension reform, and competing ethical conceptions of the minimum wage. Two of these papers, by Rubinstein and Eaton and by Hermes, were originally presented in the “Best Papers” session at the 60th Annual Meeting of the Labor and Employment Relations Association (LERA, 2008).1 Three other papers, by Dunford, Schleicher, and Zhu; Willman and Bryson; and Badigannavar, were originally presented in the “Best Papers” session at the 59th Annual Meeting of the LERA (2007).2
Jan Kees Looise, Nicole Torka and Jan Ekke Wigboldus
Last decades scholars in the field of human resource management (HRM) have intensely examined the contribution of HRM to organizational performance. Despite their efforts, at…
Abstract
Last decades scholars in the field of human resource management (HRM) have intensely examined the contribution of HRM to organizational performance. Despite their efforts, at least one major research shortcoming can be identified. In general, they have devoted far too little attention to an aspect of HRM potentially beneficial for organizational performance: worker participation, and especially its indirect or representative forms. In contrast, for academics embedded in the industrial relations tradition, worker participation is a prominent theme, even though less emphasized in its relationship with company objectives. One might defend traditional scholars' reservations by arguing that participations main goal concerns workplace democratization and not organizational prosperity. However, several writers state that industrial democracy involving worker participation can channel conflicts of interest between employees and employers and stimulate desired employee attitudes and behavior, consequently enhancing organizational performance (e.g., Gollan, 2006; Ramsay, 1991; Taras & Kaufman, 1999). And, indeed, several studies have shown positive effects of both direct participation (e.g., European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 1997) and indirect participation (e.g., Addison et al., 2000, 2003; Frick & Möller, 2003) on organizational performance.
Nevertheless, to date, the absence of an integrated model explaining the connection between worker participation and organizational performance leads to the following question that still is in need of an answer: how do direct and indirect forms of participation – separate as well as in combination – affect organizational performance? This chapter aims to contribute to the filling of the aforementioned knowledge gaps. In so doing, we focus on direct and indirect, nonunion participation on the firm level, using a Western European and especially Dutch frame of reference.