A Wide Range of Processes and Structures Which Allow and Even Empower - Assignment Example

A wide range of processes and structures which allow and even empower employees, directly or indirectly, to contribute to decision making within the organisation (Rose, 2008, p.334)” Introduction Employee participation and empowerment seems an important aspect of employer-employee relationship particularly when decisions that can affect their work and well-being are going to be made. The above statement seems to suggest that organizations have a number of choices when they finally decided to allow employees take part in the organizational decision-making process. However, these processes and structures are not clear thus there is a need to investigate. The following sections analyses the above statement using employee involvement theories and existing structures for workers involvement, the shift from industrial relations and employee relations, and discussion of employee voice in union and non-union setting, Employee voice By analysis, this view generally suggest that aside from task-based involvement initiatives, employees can participate further and influence management decisions particularly those that will affect their working lives. This in effect is somewhat similar to what Gennard & Judge (2005) wants to explain regarding the employee involvement theory, which in its broad meaning is about providing opportunities and structures for worker involvement, participative decision-making, and employee empowerment for better-quality management decisions (p.182). According to Armstrong (2009), these processes and structures that empower employees and eventually influence the decisions and actions of their employers is ‘employee voice’, direct or indirect depending on the opportunities provided (p.936). Clearly, Ed Rose’s statement is about allowing employee voice in an organisation by creating opportunities for employees to use voice and encourage them to actually voice out their concerns. Moreover, the role of management in creating opportunities from this view is critical as management above all shaped voice opportunities through proactive leadership (Greenberg & Edwards, 2009, p.184). The Shift from Industrial Relations to Employee Relations However, there seems much more than employee voice in this statement since providing opportunities to participate directly in decision-making would undermine union membership and presentation. According to the updated factsheet of CIPD (2011), the relationship between employees and employers in the United Kingdom has changed since 2005 when the term ‘industrial relations’ was replaced by ‘employee relations’ which is more relevant in today’s workplaces. This is because there is considerable decline in union membership and industrial action since 1980, which is suggestive of increasing individual employee representation and diminishing influence of collective bargaining on management’s discretion (p.1). In other words, the need to provide opportunities for employee voice was because of the changing relationship between employees and employers, which is becoming more profound than work-based or industrial relationship. “Employee relations” for instance is based on common values among employees, which in essence is proactive and more positive approach to managing employees. In contrast, traditional reactive management see employees as mere factor of production and wage earners who has controlled relationship with their employers which in reality is a social concern often resulting to struggle, strikes, lockouts, retrenchments, and others (Singh 2011, p.125). Ed Rose statement therefore is not only a reminder of the availability of various processes and structures but a call to management to use employee voice as a decision-making tool. Employee Voice and Decision Making in Organizations Traditionally, decision-making is centralized and the authority concentrated on top management. However, due to the social impact of centralized decision-making decentralization is being pursued to provide employees with participative power in making organizational decisions. For instance, General Motors supposedly decentralized their decision-making structure and encouraged low-level supervisors to make decisions on new designs and pricing in 1996. The purpose is to hasten the decision-making process, which through the former management committee structure will take weeks before anything can be finalized. However, this does not necessarily mean that this is decentralized decision-making since such process can only be achieved with greater employee participation and extensive participation in non-programmed decisions (Griffin & Moorhead, 2001, p.449). Apparently, decentralized decision-making requires full recognition of employee voice otherwise, decision making is still centralized, involuntary, and highly restricted. In simple term, employee voice is allowing employees to formally or informally express their perspectives within their respective organization. However, using employee voice as mere mechanism to hear them seems inadequate particularly in matters concerning their financial interest and well-being because of management priorities and prerogative. According to Wood (2009), a more preferable interpretation of employee voice is one that considers employee involvement as a means to build employee loyalty, commitment, and improving organizational performance. For instance, the intersubjectivist theory about employee voice and ethical HRM practice, consider the attitude of both parties in practicing employee voice and in particular, very careful in engendering employee morale (p.87). This is because some form of employee voice are only introduced by management in response to pressure while others merely exist because of employees desire to be heard rather than a management initiative. This “representation gap” according to Wilton (2010) limits the influence of employees on management decisions because the depth, scope, level, and form of employee voice are determinants of its success. For instance, the depth or the extent to which employees share decision-making with management determine the number of outcomes beneficial to employees. Similarly, the range of issues or matters discussed (scope) contribute to reduction to the number of employees grievances while the hierarchical level where the voice mechanisms operates determines the possibility and speed actions from management- the higher the better as final and powerful decisions are made by higher management. More importantly, the form of voice mechanism – direct or indirect- determine the representation by either union, individual, or group of employees and the extent to which management seriously consider workers’ proposals (p.289). Implementation of voice mechanism particularly for non-union members is typically associated with HRM strategies such as individual employee negotiations, involvement, consultation, employee surveys, quality circles, senior management and employee meetings, and so on. However, some literature on voice mechanisms suggests that unions offer more voice opportunities and benefits for its members compared to non-union employees. For instance, labour unions often use their collective power to acquire employee’s needs and therefore greater benefits level for their members (Bennett & Kaufman, 2007, p.295). According to Mangum & Walsh (1994), only an employee organization can provide an effective communication channel to management, as although employers seek to provide an employee voice, it is powerless and can be silenced or ignored whenever they want (p.253). In one study conducted by Bamberger & Meshoulam (2000), the number of employee turnover is lower in union settings primarily because it is a formalized system of voice where employees have greater power to express their grievances and enforce their opinions (p.158). Moreover, employers that are not required to deal with organized employee voice have tendencies to act on their own either interest or demands of their shareholders (Pfeffer, 1996, p.171). Union offers a collective voice, ensure management adherence to agreed terms, and represent the demands of average workers (Kaufman & Taras, 2000, p.349). Advantage and Disadvantage of Employee Voice in Non-Unionized Setting Typically, employee voice and worker interest have less weight compared to shareholders and management’s own economic interest (Appelbaum 2000, p.23). Moreover, recognition of non-union employee voice is often a product of management’s union-avoidance strategy and therefore with less commitment. For instance, even with existing union companies avoiding such type of employee representation can build other union-free facilities elsewhere and gradually shift their capital investments from their unionized facilities to the new non-unionized facilities with HR controlled employee voice (Holley et al, 2011, p.122). Advanced HRM practices such as employee voice reduce the desire for union representation and as well as the threat of strikes and others but it is not clear whether it can provide the same benefits provided by unionization. In a UK study, such HRM approach was generally found deceptive and consequential to increase management coercion against employees as well employees’ resistance (Wunnava, 2004, p.254). Explanations provided by Block & Upjohn (2003) suggest that non-unionized employees tend to see HRM implemented voice as employer controlled structures that can be use to their disadvantage. For this reason, employees are less likely to share their knowledge and eventually seek union support (p.67). Moreover, the power imbalance between management and individual employee is more likely to result to group formation or collective bargaining to strengthen the employees’ position. In the same manner, employers commonly view individual bargaining as an advantage since they can be flexible and control employment matters in favour of their priorities. However, unlike union representation, individual and small group bargaining is often time consuming for employers and likely to generate discontent among workers who are likely to feel discriminated whenever employer decide in favour of the company (Gospel & Palmer 1993, p.176). The alliance between labour and employers undoubtedly would result to high-performance systems, productive workforce, and harmonious working environment. However, the alliance cannot succeed without sincerity and commitment from employers. In particular, the employer should recognize the value of employee voice in enhancing creativity and innovation within the workplace (Daniels & Mcllroy, 2009, p.237). Similarly, employees should be engaged since some employees may be committed but in a purely transactional manner such as those fostering work for pay attitude (Sherman, 2006, p.64). Therefore, employee voice regardless of form can succeed when there is genuine commitment and engagement from both sides. These include employment relationship that value the contribution of both parties to the success of the organization, ability of management to support and build employee trust, create an environment of fairness and loyalty, and greater satisfaction at work (Gennard & Judge, 2005, p.11; CIPD, 2010, p.3). The result of the study conducted by Freeman & Haynes (2007) suggest that workers typically want greater influence in the workplace and organizations that recognized this reality developed modes of direct communication and involve workers in solving quality and production problems. Those that provide alternative forms of representative voice often encourage and allow workers to express their employment concerns while employees do so because they are generally happy with this arrangement (p.210). Several studies conducted from 1995 to 1997 about the impact of employee voice suggest that the most reliable indicators of the link between voice and workplace performance are low levels of absenteeism, increasing productivity, and better staff retention rates. HR managers who participated in the study also express the significance of voice in achieving workplace improvements and cooperative environment (CIPD, 2001, p.53). Research on high performing workplaces and advanced HR practices reveals that moulding human raw material to the needs of the organization in manner beneficial to the organization not only result to better management-employee relationship but increase productivity, quality, enhance customer service, high retention rates, reduced absenteeism, and growth. However, achieving these is not easy since it involves providing employment security, sharing almost all information to employee, innovative and participative job design (Sherman, 2006, p.64). Moreover, management should eradicate biased thinking about employees such as thoughts generalizing employees as self-interested and untrustworthy individuals, inferior to managers, and disagreement with employees is bad. These thinking should be avoided, as it would encourage silence among employees or hesitations to voice out their concerns (Greenberg & Edwards, 2009, p.189). Summary and Conclusion Ed Rose statement concerning employee voice is true since there are some advanced HR strategies that can actually empower employees. Moreover, although employee participation and empowerment can also be achieved through union representation, employee voice through non-union setting seems more promising if both sides are engaged and committed. The advantage of employee voice in a non-unionized workplace is the fact that employees generally like the idea of involvement and expressing their concerns and opinions particularly when making decisions about their employment. Similarly, employers who generally avoid the negative impact of union or collective bargaining prefer a more convenient and flexible way to deal with their employees. Non-union employee voice not only create a harmonious working relationship between employers and employees but increase productivity, reduce absenteeism and turnovers, and provide both management and staff with opportunities to improve performance. However, this does not necessarily the union representation is bad as there are actual proofs that employee voice through union representative can also produce significant employee benefits. The only problem however is the willingness of employers to deal with powerful union who often limit their priorities and prerogatives. Although, union avoidance is evidently the primary objective of most employers, it is also evident that in terms of business growth they generally consider the benefits of non-union employee voice in terms of loyalty, commitment to work, retention, attendance, and productivity. Ed Rose statement not only remind employers of the availability of employee voice but its importance as a direct or indirect mechanism for change through empowerment, engagement, and continuous participation in the organization’s decision-making process. Bibliography: Appelbaum E, (2000), Manufacturing Advantage: Why high-performance work systems pay off, Cornell University Press, United States Armstrong M, (2009), Armstrong’ Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice, Kogan Page Publishers, United Kingdom Bamberger P. & Meshoulam I, (2000), Human Resource Strategy: Formulation, Implementation, and Impact, SAGE, United States Bennett J. & Kaufman B, (2007), What do unions do?: A twenty-year perspective, Transaction Publishers, United States Block R, (2003), Bargaining for Competitiveness: Law, Research, and Case Studies, W.E. Upjohn Institute Press, United States CIPD, (2001), Management Choice and Employee Voice, CIPD Publishing, United Kingdom CIPD, (2011), Employee Relations: An Overview, available online at http://www.cipd.co.uk/hr-resources/factsheets/employee-relations-overview.aspx Daniels G. & Mcllroy J, (2009), Trade Unions in a Neoliberal World: British Trade Unions Under New Labour, Taylor & Francis, United Kingdom Freeman R. & Haynes P, (2007), What workers say: Employee Voice in the Anglo-American Workplace, Cornell University Press, United States Gennard J. & Judge G, (2005), Employee relations, CIPD Publishing, United Kingdom Greenberg J. & Edwards M, (2009), Voice and Silence in Organizations, Emerald Group Publishing, United Kingdom Gospel H. & Palmer G, (1993), British Industrial Relations, Routledge, United Kingdom Greenberg J. & Edwards M, (2009), Voice and Silence in Organizations, Emerald Group Publishing, United Kingdom Griffin R. & Moorhead G, (2011), Organizational Behaviour: Managing People and Organizations, Cengage Learning, United States Holley W., Jennings K, & Wolters R, (2011), The Labour Relations Process, Cengage Learning, United States Kaufman B. & Taras D, (2000), Nonunion Employee Representation: History, Contemporary Practice and Policy, M.E. Sharpe, United States Mangum G. & Walsh J, (1994), Union Resilience in Troubled Times: The Story of the Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, M.E. Sharpe Publishing, United States Pfeffer J, (1996), Competitive Advantage Through People: Unleashing the Power of the Workforce, Harvard Business Press, United States Rose E, (2008), Employment relations, 3rd Edition, Prentice Hall, United Kingdom Searle R. & Skinner D, (2011), Trust and Human Resource Management, Edward Elgar Publishing, United Kingdom Sherman P, (2006), Usability success stories: How organizations improve by making easier-to-use software and Web sites, Gower Publishing Ltd, United Kingdom Singh P, (2011), Employee Relations Management, Dorling Kindersley Ltd, India Wilton N, (2010), An Introduction to Human Resource Management, SAGE Publications, United Kingdom Wood G, (2009), Human Resource Management: A Critical Approach, Taylor & Francis, United Kingdom Wunnava P, (2004), The Changing Role of Unions: New forms of representation, M.E. Sharpe, United States Read More