Factors Which Explain Variations in Employee Voice - Essay Example

Factors Which Explain Variations in Employee Voice Introduction The conceptualisation and the strategic implementation of International Human Resource Management (IHRM) has been confronted with various complex aspects, one of which recently has been the leverage of rising concern towards ‘employee voice’. However, the phenomenon is nothing new to the doctrine of Human Resource Management (HRM) where employee voice has been treated as an ethical responsibility and also as a significant strategic approach towards preserving a healthy, collaborative employee-employer relationship (Willman & et. al., 2006). It is in this context that to channelise employee voice in an effective manner with the vision of satisfying the common goals and the interests of both employees and the management, trade unions along with various other collaborative bodies organised by the federal or by the state political system have been established. The sole concern of these bodies have been to render adequate support to the employees in availing their rights depicting precise notions of the employers’ duties in given political, societal and economic situations (Donado & Wälde, 2012; Serrano & et. al., 2011). This paper aims at discussing the variances observed in the political, economic as well as social contexts and the consequent divergences in employee voices between countries. Great Britain, Germany and Demark have been thus concentrated upon in this paper to identify the employee voice variations with the use of Budd’s framework of efficiency, equity and voice. A Country-Level Analysis Using Budd’s Framework of Efficiency, Equity and Voice Theoretically, employee voice is often depicted as a notion of replicating the involvement of employees or labourers in the decision making process of any organisation. The concept tends to be a multidimensional approach towards employee-employer relationship and thus it acts as a phenomenon related to employee engagement (Kular & et. al., 2008; Dundon & et. al., 2004). As stated by Budd (2006) in his framework, at the industrial level, three basic interlinked objectives exist behind the establishment of employment relations and as determinants, these aspects also signify the degree of variations between employee voice related practices in different countries. These three objectives are efficiency, equity and voice (Budd, 2006). Efficiency, in this context refers to the balance between employers’ objectives and employees’ needs. To be specific, employers are always driven towards greater profits and simultaneously, employees operate towards the achievement of greater wages. Correspondingly, the notion of equity, in this framework entails the ethical responsibilities and integrity required to be maintained by employees and the employers allowing administrative rewards along with practicing transparent employment policies. The third objective of employment relationship in accordance with Budd’s framework, i.e. voice refers to employees’ abilities or competencies and liberty to render noteworthy inputs in the decision making process of the management applying both individual and collective bargaining powers (Johnstone, 2010; Budd & Colvin, 2007; Budd, 2006). Budd (2006) further depicted the three objectives of employment relationship to be strongly influenced by industrial relations practiced in the country level which assimilates the dimensions of organisational communication, policy administration and employee freedom rights. As these attributes differ from one country to the other, employee relations and correspondingly, the notion of employee voice also differ significantly at the international level (Budd & Colvin, 2007). From an evidence based perspective, these variances can be identified by applying the notion of ‘corporatism’ which represents the organisational or managerial decision making system at the industry-level. For instance, Denmark practices an organised corporatism decision making system which is often referred as ‘Social Democratic Corporatism’ (Mailand, 2008; Siaroff, 1999). It is worth mentioning in this context that approximately 35% of Denmark’s entire labour force is recorded to be employed in the public sector which is further argued to be comparatively a huge population in the public service sector on the basis of European standards practiced in other European Union states such as Germany and Great Britain. Owing to this particular reason, organisational significance is rendered towards profit earning and therefore ensuring efficiency with greater focus on increasing labour wages rather than with a motive or profit generation. Belonging to the Nordic region, Denmark also practices a rich social ambience which further creates a strong influence on its labour environment in preserving equity. Both these attributes of efficiency and equity tend to encourage greater leverage to employee voice in Denmark. The organised corporatism form of employment relationship practiced in this Nordic country is further influenced by the persisting poverty which motivates a greater concern to be rendered towards employee benefits and thereby encouraging a liberalised form of employee voice (Becker, 2007; Anderson & et. al., 1999). As revealed by Markey & et. al. (2007), Danish industries pay a greater significance towards employee involvement in the decision making process depicting a form of liberalised employee voice through corporation committees such as public unions and labour councils in comparison to other Nordic countries such as Norway. In comparison to Denmark, Germany practices a social partnership model with the intention to preserve equal significance to employers’ interests to profits and employees’ bargaining power or voice to influence the decision making process within their workplace. To be precise, the employment relationship practices in Germany are primitively focused on the unification of employers’ liabilities and employees’ rights. In this nation, indirect employee voice is being observed to persist. Political interventions and trade unions along with other collaborative bodies play a pivotal role in channelizing and determining employee voice in Germany (Keller, 1999). Wages and other employee benefits are often observed to be determined through agreements by the coordinative bodies in Germany and the precisely defined legal codes which allow comparatively a meagre employee voice. As affirmed by Jürgens & et. al. (2006), employees in German industries are generally witnessed to accept the reductions in their wage rates and continuously increasing industry-level flexibility with the intention to secure their employment. In the similar context, wages are determined at the industry level by governing bodies in Germany to avoid any kind of unrest and conflict between employers and employees thereby ensuring equity. This particular model of employment relations tends to define the liabilities of the employers in German industries and simultaneously obligate the employees with limited voice or inclusion in the decision making process (Parkinson, 2003). When assessing the employment relationship of Great Britain, a liberal approach can be observed through informal employee voice. Critical studies based on the employee relationship prospects of Great Britain revealed that employee participation in the decision making of any organisation in the United Kingdom is directed with specific schemes (Winchester & Bach, 1999). The objective of these schemes is either primarily intended towards marginalising or weakening employee voice applying a restrictive approach concerning trade unions or collaborative bodies associated with labour empowerment; or, the rationale behind these enforced schemes is to convey the sense or the notions and justness perceived in relation to the enforced decisions along with motivating the unions to perform deciphering greater responsibilities. It is worth mentioning in this context that the employment relationship aspects practiced in Great Britain decipher a collective bargaining model and a unitary perspective to employee voice (Ackers & et. al., 2003; Royle, 1999). Thus, efficiency and equity in the employment relationship model of Great Britain takes place in a more controlled environment which depicts a comparatively lesser degree of employee voice than that practiced in Germany and Denmark. From a critical point of view, it can also be observed that in accordance with Budd’s framework of efficiency, equity and voice, each country perceives its distinct values and strategic concerns which act as the fundamental determinants of divergences in terms of employee voices in each of the above illustrated Nordic and non-Nordic countries. Discussion With the rise in the significance rendered towards industry level integrity or rather equity and efficiency through employee involvement in the decision making process, the notion of employee voice has also gained a noteworthy momentum. Contextually, to obtain administrative harmony in decision making process and maintain a balance in employees’ as well as employers’ interests of increased profit and increased wages respectively, political interventions have been observed to create inevitable influences on employee voice in different countries (Bamber & et. al., 2010). Attributes related with social and economic contexts also play a vital role in influencing the country-level notion of employee voice (Frege & et. al., 2011). For instance, where on one hand a collaborative social structure is likely to imbibe a collective bargaining form of employee voice practiced in certain countries such as the UK; on the other hand, a pluralistic economic and political perspective towards decision making is likely to decipher a greater degree of employee participation in the decision making process. Such divergences can be apparently observed by comparing and contrasting the employment relations practiced in Germany, Denmark and Great Britain. Contextually, the industrial relations with concern to employee engagement in the decision making process in Germany tends to be based on an unique framework often referred as the German model in the industry environment. The development of German model has been through various alterations, which is currently regarded as highly adaptable, stable and flexible at the same time (Jackson & et. al., 2004). Over the past years, the German model of employment relations has been studied to become increasingly capital oriented with the depiction of attributes in relation to a capitalist economic structure and a unitary view towards conflicts. It is in this context that employee engagement in Germany is principally based on a decentralised form of corporate governance where conflicts are provided with lesser significance (Tüselmann, 2000). It is due to the same reason that the number of trade unions and other worker representation groups can be observed to persist with lesser density as compared to the Nordic countries such as Denmark. It has also been observed in this regard that Germany represents a collective bargaining perspective towards employment engagement between unions and employees. Significant inclusion of state level control can also be observed in the context of employment relations in Germany which further signifies a limited negotiating power residing in the hands of the employees. Even employers are allowed to have minimum control on employee voice being significantly influenced by the unitary perspective along with the allocation of insignificant negotiation power to trade unions (Parkinson, 2003; Poole & et. al., 2001). In contrast to the employment relationship system of Germany, Demark practices the Scandinavian model of employment relations depicting an elegatarian perspective of capitalism. It is worth mentioning in this context that unlike Germany, the employment relations in Denmark is based on a greater degree of pluralistic perspective where the density of trade unions is comparatively high. Stating precisely, where on one hand, Germany tends to restrict employees’ bargaining power enforcing greater degree of state level control on industry relations; on the other hand, Denmark emphasises on practicing a pluralist view towards employee rights and negotiation power. However, when assessing Denmark’s employment relations system with the practices observed in Germany, multiple similarities can be identified. For instance, both the systems tend to render due significance towards state-level interventions when deciding upon the employee wages and employer liabilities. Furthermore, both the countries encompass a collective bargaining framework in its employee relations system which creates a significant influence upon employee voice and empowerment through trade unions. In both these countries, trade unions are signified as a vital facet of employment culture and are controlled through state-level administration policies (Anderson & et. al., 1999; Keller, 1999). From an overall perspective, one of the most significant differences between the employment relations system of Great Britain and Germany as well as Denmark is identifiable in terms of complexity. Theorists and critiques emphasising on this context revealed that the aspect of employee voice in the UK tends to be quite complex being based on the notion of individualistic bargaining system. However, it also renders due significance towards the inclusion of trade unions and other workers representation groups which thus increases complexities in the principles concerned with employee voice in British companies. A major difference of the trade unions operating as working councils in Great Britain in comparison to the frameworks practiced in Germany and Denmark can be observed with reference to the industrial state-level philosophy. Employer perspectives are rendered greater significance in this context owing to which employee voice is observed to be comparatively low in Great Britain than Germany and Denmark. In contrast to the notion perceived in Germany and Denmark, the trade unions in Great Britain operate with the vision to either marginalise employee voice or to make them observe their responsibilities towards organisational goals of profit maximisation. This particular notion further leads to weaker employee voice in Great Britain, in comparison to the degree observed in Germany and in Denmark (Ackers & et. al., 2003). Notably, each of the illustrated countries exemplify a unique framework of employment relations and degree of employee voice in accordance with the political, social as well as economic notions and systems. Certainly, these unique attributes constitute particular strengths and weaknesses which in turn raise few advantages and also cause few disadvantages for employment relations in these countries. For instance, following a unitary system and collaborative bargaining framework of employment relations, Germany has been successful in attaining the advantage of better control over employee voice from the employers’ perspective; however, the country is quite likely to witness significant disadvantages in terms of poor applicability in global situations when relating to international trade collaborations. Similarly, state interventions in administrating trade unions and controlling employee voices in Denmark are also quite apparent. However, the aspect of employee voice is quite indirect. As a consequence, even though the system is competent in assuring country-level wage system, it lacks global applicability and therefore might cause dissatisfaction within the employers as well as employees when concerning innovative growth prospects. In both these countries, the employment relations and the consequent employee bargaining power are quite likely to get disrupted due to any major fluctuation in the political or economic contexts. From a similar perspective, Great Britain can also be identified as facing significant disadvantages in terms of dissatisfaction among trade unions and employees. It is worth mentioning that employees’ bargaining power depends on various attributes such as social and economic structures apart from the legal specifications. Thus, as employee voice in Great Britain tends to be largely influenced and restricted by legal contexts rendering greater significance towards employers’ objective of efficiency and equity, conflicts can occur at the individual and collective level imposing threats of social as well as industrial unrest with a rise in the employee bargaining power. Illustratively, it is worth mentioning in this regard that in the recent past, the country had been witnessing significant and frequent trade union protests depicting labour dissatisfaction in British industries (Moylan, 2012). Conclusion With reference to the above discussion, it can be affirmed that employee relation and the concept of employee voice tend to be a complex phenomenon in the present industry context. It is not only influenced by social, economic as well as political systems of the countries but is also significantly impacted by the philosophical views of trade unions, employers and regulative bodies. Another aspect that can be observed with the examples discussed above is the significance of employee voice in preserving adequate stability and integrity in the industrial relations through effective HRM practices. A major determinant to employment relations and employee voice is the industrial structures. It has been observed in this regard that employee voice depends on the industry clusters and the degree of bargaining power it delivers to the employees in comparison to employers (Markey & et. al., 2007; Turnbull & et. al., 2004). With due significance to the role played by employee voice in preserving efficiency and equity in the industry relations, these determinants need to be evaluated along with the probable consequences of failure in maintaining a fair employment environment. One of the most significant challenges to this aim is the continuously changing industrial environment which creates strong and inevitable impressions on employment relations which in turn affects the employee voice in country-level contexts. References Ackers, P. & et. al., 2003. Partnership and Voice, With or Without Trade Unions: Changing UK Management Approaches to Organisational Participation. Research Series, Vol. 4. Anderson & et. al., 1999. Denmark: Negotiating the Restructuring of Public Service Employment Relations in Bach, S., 1999. Public Service Employment Relations in Europe. Routledge, pp. 161-191. Bamber, G. J. & et. al., 2010. International and Comparative Employment Relations: Globalisation and Change. Allen & Unwin. Becker, U., 2007. The Scandinavian Model: Still an Example for Europe? Independent Publishers Group, Vol. 4, pp. 41-57. Budd, J. W., 2006. Employment with a Human Face: Balancing Efficiency, Equity, and Voice. Cornell University Press. Budd, J. W. & Colvin, A. J. S., 2007. Improved Metrics For Workplace Dispute Resolution Procedures: Efficiency, Equity, And Voice. Industrial Relations. Donado, A. & Wälde, K., 2012. Globalization, Trade Unions and Labour Standards in the North. Employment Working Paper No. 119. Dundon, T. & et. al., 2004. The Meanings and Purpose of Employee Voice. International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 15, No. 6, pp.1149-1170. Frege, C. & et. al., 2011. Richard Hyman: Marxism, Trade Unionism and Comparative Employment Relations. British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 209–230. Jackson, G. & et. al., 2004. Corporate Governance and Employees in Germany: Changing Linkages, Complementarities, and Tensions. RIETI Discussion Paper Series 04-E-008. Johnstone, S., 2010. Labour and Management Co-Operation: Workplace Partnership in UK Financial Services. Gower Publishing, Ltd. Jürgens, U. & et. al., 2006. Changing Work and Employment Relations in German Industries–Breaking Away from the German Model? WZB – Discussion Paper. Keller, B. T., 1999. Germany: Negotiated Change, Modernization and Challenge of Unification in Bach, S., 1999. Public Service Employment Relations in Europe. Routledge, pp. 45-75. Kular, S. & et. al., 2008. Employee Engagement: A Literature Review. Working Paper Series No 19. Mailand, M., 2008. Corporatism in Denmark and Norway - Yet another Century of Scandinavian Corporatism? Employment Relations Research Centre. Markey, R. & et. al., 2007. The Impact of Representative Employee Participation on Work Environment Quality and Business Outcomes in the Hotel Industry. Aalborg Universitet. Moylan, J., 2012. Union Membership Has Halved Since 1980. BBC News. [Online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19521535 [Accessed February 21, 2013]. Parkinson, J., 2003. Models of the Company and the Employment Relationship. British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 481-509. Poole, M. & et. al., 2001. A Comparative Analysis of Developments in Industrial Democracy. Industrial Relations, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 490-525. Royle, T., 1999. Where's the Beef? McDonald's and its European Works Council. European Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 327-347. Siaroff, A., 1999. Corporatism in 24 Industrial Democracies: Meaning and Measurement. European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 36, pp. 175–205. Serrano, M. & et. al., 2011. Trade Unions And The Global Crisis: Labour’s Visions, Strategies and Responses. International Labour Office. Turnbull, P. & et. al., 2004. Cleared for Take-off? Management-Labour Partnership in the European Civil Aviation Industry. European Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 287-307. Tüselmann, H., 2000. Employee Relations in Germany in Transition: A Path Dependent Trajectory of Change? Working Paper Series 007. Winchester, D. & Bach, S., 1999. Britain: The Transformation of Public Service Employment Relations in Bach, S., 1999. Public Service Employment Relations in Europe. Routledge, pp. 18-44. Willman, P. & et. al., 2006. The Sound Of Silence: Which Employers Choose No Employee Voice And Why? Socio-Economic Review, Vol. 4, pp. 283–299. Read More