Employee perspectives on communication and consultation: findings from a cross-national survey

Kessler, Ian; Undy, Roger; Heron, Paul

doi:10.1080/0958519042000181232

Cited by 30 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings are therefore not entirely novel, but they are based on a much more extensive international dataset than used by other researchers (see for example the datasets used by Fenton O'Creevy 2005 andKessler, Undy andHeron 2004) and therefore allow the association to be confirmed as a European one transcending "VOC." They are also based on more recently gathered data than those of Peccei et al (2005).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Varieties of Firm: Complementarity and Bounded Diversity

Wood

Croucher²,

Brewster

et al. 2009

Journal of Economic Issues

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is a study of the nature of internal diversity within liberal and collaborative market economies. Based on large scale comparative survey data, we assess the extent to which specific clusters of practices are associated with specific varieties of capitalism. Given that recent literature has pointed to internal diversity within specific national contexts, we explore the nature of internal diversity within both liberal and collaborative market economies, and what makes each variety of capitalism distinct. We find that more than one cluster of practices is indeed likely to be encountered in a particular national context, but that this diversity was bounded: only a limited number of alternative paradigms are likely to emerge and persist. The survey findings not only shed light on the nature of this internal diversity, but also reveal the fact that liberal and collaborative markets remain distinct, with the rights accruing to employees being more deeply embedded in a wide cross section of firms within the latter. This is a study of the nature of internal diversity with liberal and collaborative market economies. Based on large scale comparative survey data, we assess the extent to which specific clusters of practices are associated with specific varieties of capitalism. Given that recent literature (Brewster, Wood and Brookes 2006;Crouch 2005; Crouch and Voelkzow 2004) has pointed to internal diversity within specific national contexts, we aim to explore the nature of internal diversity within both liberal and

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Varieties of Firm: Complementarity and Bounded Diversity

Wood

Croucher²,

Brewster

et al. 2009

Journal of Economic Issues

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is also more effective when measured in terms of managerial responsiveness; that is, managers are more likely to be seen as responsive to worker ideas when direct EIP is in place, especially via upward problem‐solving groups and management meetings with the workforce. The Anglo‐American data—which include the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and the United Kingdom—show a similar pattern, as Freeman, Boxall, and Haynes (: 23–24) note: “by and large, workers endorse the growth of management‐driven forms of involvement and show a strong preference for the expansion of more cooperative styles of EIP.” Studies of EIP across a range of European countries (Kessler, Undy, and Heron ; Wood and Fenton O'Creevy ) find that workers are most interested in, and also most satisfied with, information relating to the team and individual level. Pyman et al.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although such contributions are valuable, they still privilege forms of employee representation that have little immediate relevance for most workers. However, interest has also grown in forms of direct EIP, such as team briefings, town‐hall meetings, problem‐solving groups, and newsletters that are directed specifically at employees rather than channeled via their representatives (Bryson ; Cox, Marchington, and Suter ; Kessler, Undy, and Heron ; Marchington et al. ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Where Informality Really Matters: Patterns of Employee Involvement and Participation (EIP) in a Non‐Union Firm

Marchington¹,

Suter²

2012

Industrial Relations

104

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Industrial relations scholars have long been interested in notions of employee involvement, participation, voice, and industrial democracy but the terminology is so elastic that the types of practices covered are extremely broad. In this article, following a brief discussion that categorizes employee involvement and participation (EIP) in terms of degree, level, and scope, we focus on the relatively dilute formal and informal practices which operate at workplace level in non‐union firms. Although researchers now examine direct—as well as representative—forms of EIP, we argue the focus is still on formal systems. This finding is understandable both from a methodological and a theoretical angle, but it leaves a gap in our awareness of how EIP functions at workplace level, and in particular, the role played by line managers in developing informal communication and consultation in non‐union firms. In this article, we examine formal and informal EIP within a large non‐union firm in the UK hospitality sector; a context characterized by intense product and labor market pressures and limited union presence. Our principal conclusion is that informality takes centre stage in this organization, driven by managerial and worker preferences for informal EIP in the context of close working relations at the customer interface. Moreover, customer pressures and flexible working patterns make it difficult to sustain formal EIP in the context of a capability framework that puts a primacy on managers using informal approaches. However, it is argued that informal EIP needs to be combined with the formal system to operate effectively.

show abstract

“…Collective union voice also has an impact on the effectiveness of direct non‐union voice. Kessler et al. (2004: 528) found that in the absence of collective voice mechanisms, employees were likely to find direct non‐union voice mechanisms less useful.…”

Section: Hypotheses and Model Estimationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Employee voice: does union membership matter?

Benson

Brown

2009

Human Res Mgmt Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Industrial relations research has traditionally viewed trade unions as the primary mechanism for employee voice. With the decline in unionism in many advanced industrial economies over the past two decades, new direct non‐union voice mechanisms have been introduced by employers. This focus on the mechanisms for employee voice, however, fails to take account of employees' perceptions of voice. We suggested that employee perceptions of voice vary between the different levels of an organisation and proposed that trade union membership will be more likely to enhance individual employee perceptions of voice at the wider organisational level. Contrary to our expectations, our analysis of 2,949 employees of a public sector scientific research organisation found that union membership had a significant negative impact on employee voice at the organisational level. The article concluded by offering possible explanations for this unexpected finding and the implications for theory, management and future research.

show abstract

Employee perspectives on communication and consultation: findings from a cross-national survey

Cited by 30 publications

References 48 publications

Varieties of Firm: Complementarity and Bounded Diversity

Varieties of Firm: Complementarity and Bounded Diversity

Where Informality Really Matters: Patterns of Employee Involvement and Participation (EIP) in a Non‐Union Firm

Employee voice: does union membership matter?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About