Employee Participation and Corporate Governance in Employee-Owned Firms

Pendleton, Andrew; McDonald, J. Michael; Robinson, Andrew; Wilson, Nick

doi:10.1177/0950017096102001

Cited by 11 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Pendleton et al (1996) explore the potential of an Employee Share Ownership Plan (ESOP) in facilitating greater levels of employee participation in corporate governance as compared with conventional employee share ownership and worker cooperatives. Their findings indicate that innovations of participation in the advanced form of ESOP studied are primarily indirect and representative (here nonunion forms are referred to) and tend to focus on strategic rather than task-related decisions (Pendleton et al, 1996: 222).…”

Section: Antecedents Of Employee Participationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From all the above-mentioned articles previously published in Work, Employment and Society, 12 have been selected for inclusion in this e-special issue on employee participation (as noted with an asterisk in the reference list: Cressey, 1995;Donaghey et al, 2011;Hales, 2000;Harley, 1999;Harley et al, 2010;Kessler and Purcell, 1996;Knudsen et al, 2011;Martinez Lucio and Stuart, 2005;Pendleton et al, 1996;Perrett, 2007;Ramsay, 1991;Samuel, 2007). These articles provide excellent examples of employee participation research published in this journal over the last two decades.…”

Section: A Contested Terrain a Captured Terrain Or Beyondmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Re-engagement with the employee participation debate: beyond the case of contested and captured terrain

Gollan

2014

Work, Employment and Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This e-special issue showcases employee participation research published in Work, Employment and Society over the last few decades. The editorial introduction provides an overarching review of the literature and also sets an agenda for future research. In particular, this article is concerned with the question of whether employee participation really brings employees increased voice and well-being, or whether it is simply an agenda that promotes the interests of employers. The article examines the evolution of employee participation and variation in its meanings and forms, and discusses research focused on its antecedents and outcomes. The paradox in the evolution of employee participation, and the mixed findings of outcomes, especially those from the perspectives of employees, highlights a need for interdisciplinary re-examination of the legitimacy of employee participation -when and how it works well for both employers and employees in changing organizational and societal contexts -and suggests looking beyond the conventional debate of contested versus captured terrain.

show abstract

Section: Antecedents Of Employee Participationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Contested Terrain a Captured Terrain Or Beyondmentioning

confidence: 99%

Re-engagement with the employee participation debate: beyond the case of contested and captured terrain

Gollan

2014

Work, Employment and Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The issues of whether levels of EI increase, and indeed, whether there is actually more scope for promoting a culture of EI within an employee-owned firm, have been covered extensively in the literature (see for example , Cotton 1993;Dunn et al 1991;Heller et al 1998;Hyman and Mason 1995;Keef 1998;Long 1982;Pendleton 1997Pendleton , 1992Pendleton et al 1998Pendleton et al , 1997Pendleton et al , 1996Pendleton et al , 1995aPoole and Jenkins 1990;Rosen 1984;Russell et al 1979;Tucker et al 1989;Wilson et al 1995;Wright et al 2000). Perhaps unsurprisingly (for reasons highlighted earlier in this paper), conclusions have been varied.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has been credited with bringing some measure of employee control to the production process (Pendleton et al 1996), providing opportunities for employees to share in the rewards of work (Hyman and Mason 1995;Kelly and Kelly 1991;Poole and Jenkins 1990) and thus motivating them to work harder (Heller et al 1998). Moreover, where an increase in involvement in decision-making occurs, positive effects upon employee job attitudes (including more co-operative behaviours between employers and employees) and productivity are anticipated (Long 1978).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Employee buyouts and employee involvement: a case study investigation of employee attitudes

Trewhitt

2000

Industrial Relations Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article investigates the association between employee share ownership (ESO) and employee involvement (EI) in an employee-owned firm. Based on data from the firm's employers and employees, the article concludes that the mere presence of share ownership is no guarantee of increased involvement for employees, highlighting instead the significance of other variables.Over the last two decades ESO has been hailed as a 'phenomenon of considerable importance ' (Wilson et al. 1995). It has been credited with bringing some measure of employee control to the production process (Pendleton et al. 1996), providing opportunities for employees to share in the rewards of work (Hyman and Mason 1995;Kelly and Kelly 1991;Poole and Jenkins 1990) and thus motivating them to work harder (Heller et al. 1998). Moreover, where an increase in involvement in decision-making occurs, positive effects upon employee job attitudes (including more co-operative behaviours between employers and employees) and productivity are anticipated (Long 1978). Specifically, systems of ownership can allow employees the opportunity to increase their involvement in the workplace, improve their level of financial understanding and the degree of communication they have with management (Poole and Jenkins 1990). In summary, proponents have highlighted the potential of ESO to create organisational cultures symbolising co-operation, flexibility and shared goals (Wilson 1992).Despite the claims made for ESO, studies undertaken to assess its effects have produced mixed results. Wilson et al. (1995: 3) referred to the 'methodological shortcomings' characteristic within much of the UK literature 'to the extent that it is difficult to quantify the effects of share ownership upon employee attitudes'. Specifically, reliance solely upon univariate and bivariate methods of analysis adopted in many UK studies has tended 'to preclude a precise assessment of the causal efficacy of Ì Lisa Trewhitt is a Research Officer for the Management Pay Review, Incomes Data Services.

show abstract

Filling the Vacuum in New Management Practice? Lessons from US Employee-Owned Firms

Wills

Lincoln

1999

Environ Plan A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we explore the way in which Anglo-American capitalism is evolving to meet the competitive challenges of a global economy. A wide range of scholars, policymakers, and business leaders now argue that the post-Fordist economy requires greater levels of employee involvement, participation, and empowerment, and a new set of management practices have been developed to secure this new culture of work. In this paper we explore these developments and point to the different ways in which terms such as involvement, empowerment, participation, and partnership can be mobilised in the workplace. Moreover, research suggests that new management practices and cultures of work have evolved in different ways across space, crafting an uneven geography of new management practice. In this regard, we look at the ways in which some employee-owned firms in Ohio, America, have been the arena for considerable managerial experiment in fostering employee participation. Although we acknowledge the limitations of employee ownership, empirical material from two majority employee-owned firms illustrates the way in which employees have been able to take a greater role in the business. Employee ownership is much further advanced in the United States than the United Kingdom, and there is scope for building on US experiences in the United Kingdom.The Ohio Center for Employee Ownership^ conducts training sessions for supervisors in employee-owned firms. One of the games they play is designed to teach participants the importance of management style. One trainee is asked to take on the role of an authoritarian manager, another a democrat and the third, that of a pseudo-democrat (a manager who asks people what they think and then promptly ignores them, follows a contrary line of action and/or belittles the ideas suggested). After a short period of role playing it becomes clear that the authoritarian and the democrat are making much better progress with their staff than the pseudo-democrat. The workers under the jurisdiction of the pseudo-democrat grow increasingly angry as they realise their expectations are not being met. Their morale plummets, they have no commitment to the success of the business, and they sometimes end up going on strike. If managers are going to embrace the cause of workplace democracy and employee involvement and participation, this training exercise would suggest that such a strategy needs to be based on relations of trust. Indeed, one of the key lessons to emerge from recent research into new management practice or human resource management (HRM) is the need for mutual trust and respect between workers and those who employ them. The overcoming of long-established traditions of adversarialism is a serious challenge to the development of genuinely new workplace relations.

show abstract

Employee Participation and Corporate Governance in Employee-Owned Firms

Cited by 11 publications

References 16 publications

Re-engagement with the employee participation debate: beyond the case of contested and captured terrain

Re-engagement with the employee participation debate: beyond the case of contested and captured terrain

Employee buyouts and employee involvement: a case study investigation of employee attitudes

Filling the Vacuum in New Management Practice? Lessons from US Employee-Owned Firms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About