The Introduction of Employee Involvement
The following piece of work determines aspects of employee involvement systems and seeks to analyse whether they are likely to enhance productivity and to lead to a happier workforce.
The first two parts examine due to which circumstances the principle of em-ployee involvement aroused in the HRM literature and why it is seen as help-ful to lead to greater productivity and a happier workforce and why not.
The third part points out some conditions for a succeeding employee involve-ment program and the fourth part aims to identify some negative effects of HRM performance.
The last part then will draw a conclusion based on the developments in the present piece of work.
Introduction
Organisations have been faced with a more and more competitive environ-ment and technological change over the last 30 years (D’aveni; Volberda, cited in Riordan, Vandenberg, and Richardson 2005, p. 471). Thus, nowa-days, employees have to be more flexible and in possession of high skills. Because of these requirements organisations have to choose a commitment policy in direction of workforce (Walton, cited in Gennard and Judge 2003, p. 229). Employee involvement is seen as one way to achieve these exigencies (Huselid; Lawler, cited in Riordan, Vandenberg, and Richardson 2005, p. 471).
Employee involvement
Gennard and Judge (2003) state that employee involvement is intended to create a committed workforce to conducive to the efficient business activity of an organisation. The focus at this is on the individual employees (Gennard and Judge 2003) and it is presumed that employees have an unexploited ca-pability due to their know-how and experience to improve an organisation’s performance. (Gennard and Judge 2003). However, the management has the power to run the business and therefore to make the final decisions (Stevens, cited in Gennard and Judge 2003, p. 228).The management’s aim by adoption of an employee involvement system is to attain the acceptance of the employee to its
The first two parts examine due to which circumstances the principle of em-ployee involvement aroused in the HRM literature and why it is seen as help-ful to lead to greater productivity and a happier workforce and why not.
The third part points out some conditions for a succeeding employee involve-ment program and the fourth part aims to identify some negative effects of HRM performance.
The last part then will draw a conclusion based on the developments in the present piece of work.
Introduction
Organisations have been faced with a more and more competitive environ-ment and technological change over the last 30 years (D’aveni; Volberda, cited in Riordan, Vandenberg, and Richardson 2005, p. 471). Thus, nowa-days, employees have to be more flexible and in possession of high skills. Because of these requirements organisations have to choose a commitment policy in direction of workforce (Walton, cited in Gennard and Judge 2003, p. 229). Employee involvement is seen as one way to achieve these exigencies (Huselid; Lawler, cited in Riordan, Vandenberg, and Richardson 2005, p. 471).
Employee involvement
Gennard and Judge (2003) state that employee involvement is intended to create a committed workforce to conducive to the efficient business activity of an organisation. The focus at this is on the individual employees (Gennard and Judge 2003) and it is presumed that employees have an unexploited ca-pability due to their know-how and experience to improve an organisation’s performance. (Gennard and Judge 2003). However, the management has the power to run the business and therefore to make the final decisions (Stevens, cited in Gennard and Judge 2003, p. 228).The management’s aim by adoption of an employee involvement system is to attain the acceptance of the employee to its
Bibliography: ADDISON, J.T., 2005. The determinants of firm performance: unions, works councils, and employee involvement/high-performance work practices, Scot-tish Journal of Political Economy, 52(3), pp. 406-450. BODAH, M.M., MCHUGH, P.P. and YIM, S.J., 2008. Employee involvement programs and collective bargaining: the role of labor relations climate, Journal of Collective Negotiations, 32(3), pp. 245 – 260. BUDD, J.W., GOLLAN, P.J COX, A., MARCHINGTON, M. and SUTER, J., 2009. Employee involvement and participation: developing the concept of institutional embeddedness using WERS2004, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(10), pp. 2150-2168. KANDATHIL, G.M. and VARMAN, R., 2007. Contradictions of Employee In-volvement, Information Sharing and Expectations: A case Study of an Indian Worker Cooperative, Economic and Industrial Democracy, 28(1), pp. 140-174. KIM, J., MACDUFFIE, J.P. and PIL, F.K., 2010. Employee voice and organ-izational performance: Team versus representative influence, Human Rela-tions, 63(3), pp. 371-394. KLEIN, J. A., 1984. Why supervisors resist employee involvement. Harvard Business Review, 84, pp. 5-27. NASURDIN, A.M. et al., 2005. Influence of employee involvement in total pro-ductive maintenance practices on job characteristics, Gadjah Mada Interna-tional Journal of Business, 7(3), pp. 287-300. THOMAS, G.F., ZOLIN, R. and HARTMAN, J.L., 2009. The central role of communication in developing trust and its effect on employee involvement, Journal of Business Communication, 46(3), pp. 287-310. TORKA, N., VAN WOERKOM, M. And LOOISE, J., 2008. Direct Employee Involvement Quality (DEIQ), Creativity & Innovation Management, 17(2), pp. 147-154. WELIKALA, D. and SOHAL, A. S., 2008. Total Quality Management and em-ployees’ involvement: A case study of an Australian organisation, Total Qual-ity Management, 19(6), pp. 627-642.