Work environment quality: the role of workplace participation and democracy

Abstract

The article explores how employee participation influences the quality of the work environment and workers’ well-being at 11 Danish workplaces from within six different industries. Both direct participation and representative forms of participation at the workplace level were studied. Statistical as well as qualitative comparative analyses reveal that work environment quality and high levels of participation go hand in hand. Within a typology of participation models the highest level of participation, including strong elements of collective participation, and also the best work environment, measured as ‘psychosocial well-being’, were found at workplaces managed in accordance with democratic principles.

Workplace innovation and social innovation: an introduction

“…This hypothesis is also consistent with the paradigm of industrial democracy, which presupposes strong ties between direct democracy in the form of work teams or other vehicles for employee expression, and representative democracy in the form of unions or other bodies such as labour-management committees Knudsen et al, 2011). This hypothesis is especially germane to labour relations systems like those in North America that almost always negotiate local contracts.…”

“…Still other unions supported the introduction of work teams as designed by management in an effort to protect jobs (Eaton and Voos, 1989;Frost, 2008;Lapointe, 2007). Union involvement in the design and implementation of work teams, union demands for greater democracy within work teams and better working conditions, and union support for teams and team leaders are the factors most strongly associated with the spread of democracy within work teams and enhanced worker well-being [Gollan and Markey, (2001), pp.324 and 328;Huzzard et al, 2004;Knudsen et al, 2011;Vidal, 2007]. On balance, industrial democracy, which combines direct and representative democracy in a relationship of mutual support, is an effective framework for analysing work teams (Frege, 2007;Poole et al, 2001;Knudsen et al, 2011;Lansbury, 2009).…”

The Just World Fallacy as a Challenge to the Business-As-Community Thesis

“…Indeed, even where there are differences in power, which may be inevitable, a democratic spirit, in which power and authority are not appealed to, and are not actively on display, would be a way of fostering community. The suggestion offered here has some affinity with Landemore et al's (2016) defence of workplace democracy and may find support from empirical studies which associate psychosocial wellbeing with the most democratic workplaces (see, for example, Knudsen et al, 2011). It also has an affinity with conceptions of management and leadership which focus on the needs of employees, rather than the characteristics of leaders and managers themselves, in particular Servant Leadership (see, for example, Greenleaf, 2002;Sinnicks, 2016).…”

Commitment or Compliance? Institutional Logics of Work Environment Management

“…An example can be found in the study by Knudsen et al (2011) wherein the authors show that workplaces that employ management techniques from what we have dubbed the commitment logic prioritize the work environment and well-being of the employees. These workplaces employ more direct participatory models for employee-management relations.…”

“…(Kamp, 2009:86) It is furthermore suggested as an 'HR-fication' of the work environment (Kamp & Nielsen, 2013), while other scholars also point to the same development (Abrahamsson & Johansson, 2013;Georg, 2014;Holt Larsen, 2014;Jacobsen et al, 2013;Knudsen et al, 2011).…”