Trust and justice in the formation of joint consultative committees

Abstract

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Abstract.The paper identifies six phases in the creation of new joint staff-management consultative arrangements such as a works council, or 'staff forum'. Trust and justice theories are then used to analyse the processes involved in initiating, designing, setting up, and maintaining such a forum. The resulting framework considers both institutional and interpersonal aspects, and is intended to present researchers with a structure and an agenda for investigating the nature and consequences of the processes involved. The framework also provides initial guidelines to practitioners involved with establishing new consultative arrangements. TRUST AND JUSTICE IN THE FORMATION OF JOINT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEES.This paper presents a theoretical framework for understanding the processes involved in designing, setting up, and maintaining new joint staff-management consultative arrangements such as a works council, or 'staff forum' (hereafter, for convenience, a 'JCC'). While we are only concerned with new JCCs, many of the arguments made are also likely to be valid for the adaptation of pre-existing arrangements.The literature on these processes is surprisingly thin. While the meaning and content of existing this work tends, understandably, to be descriptive and prescriptive rather than explanatory.1 Broad split his longitudinal study into three phases: early, intermediate and a 'later' stage. He found that the managerially-imposed Council, which suffered from little administrative or facilitative support structures, proved an anonymous and hence ineffective forum for airing employees' opinions, or for getting managers' message back to the shopfloor (which had been the managers' principal aim). Within 12-18 months workers began to complain about the Council's limited instrumentality and of their initially high expectations being dashed (ibid: 31-35). Broad believed that "employee dissatisfaction with consultation could be explained by the performance of representatives and by the perception that the remit of the Council was too narrow" (ibid: 35). The sense of frustration swelled to the point where the employees forced union recognition on the company, and the EEPTU union quickly realised that the Council would only "deliver tangible results" if pressures were concurrently applied through the new collective bargaining processes (Broad, 1994: 33). Broad concludes: "Paradoxically, it is the perceived failure of the unitarism of joint consultation which has given additional credence to active shopfl...

The outcomes of works councils: the role of trust, justice and industrial relations climate

“…Additionally, it provides support to researchers examining WCs, suggesting that trust is an important antecedent of a WC's effectiveness ( i.e. Timming, ; Beaumont and Hunter, ; Dietz and Fortin, ).…”

The effect of propensity to trust and perceptions of trustworthiness on trust behaviors in dyads

“…As interactions mature, the trustor will increasingly depend on the behavior of the trustee rather than personal dispositional factors, such as propensity to trust, when making trust evaluations (Jones & Shah, 2016;Levin et al, 2006). Furthermore, trust may manifest by risk-taking behaviors unique to that relationship (Dietz & Fortin, 2007;Dirks, 1999), impacting subsequent trustworthiness beliefs.…”

Trust in management: the role of employee voice arrangements and perceived managerial opposition to unions

“…As Lewis and Weigert (1985) argue, the actions of others imply reciprocal trust; conversely, actions that violate trust can create an atmosphere in which employees may be less willing to develop a committed relationship with management and/or the organisation. Employees, therefore, are continually appraising multiple sources of information and evidence to inform their impression of the overall trustworthiness of management (Dietz and Fortin, 2007). As Tzafrir (2005) and Nichols et al (2009) point out, trust is a key outcome variable in the relationship between HR practices and employees' attitudes to management, and is likely to be influenced by communication channels and the degree of employee involvement or participation in organisational decisions.…”

“…While literature addresses the influence of HR practices on trust in management (e.g. Whitener, 1997;Gould-Williams, 2003), the impact of EVA on trust has received little attention (for exceptions, see Spreitzer and Mishra, 1999;Dietz and Fortin, 2007).…”