Involvement and Participation

Durham Research Online

Deposited in DRO:

25 October 2011

Version of attached �le:

Published Version

Peer-review status of attached �le:

Peer-reviewed

Citation for published item:

Wilkinson, A. and Bacon, N. and Redman, T. and Snell, S. (2009) 'The SAGE handbook of human resourcemanagement.', London: Sage.

Further information on publisher's website:

http://www.uk.sagepub.com/refbooksProdDesc.nav?prodId=Book229476

Publisher's copyright statement:

Copyright c© 2009 SAGE Publications.

Additional information:

Sample chapter deposited. Chapter 15: 'Involvement and participation.', pp. 245-268.

Use policy

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, forpersonal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro�t 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.

Durham University Library, Stockton Road, Durham DH1 3LY, United KingdomTel : +44 (0)191 334 3042 | Fax : +44 (0)191 334 2971

http://dro.dur.ac.uk

http://www.dur.ac.uk

http://www.uk.sagepub.com/refbooksProdDesc.nav?prodId=Book229476

http://dro.dur.ac.uk/7160/

http://dro.dur.ac.uk/policies/usepolicy.pdf

http://dro.dur.ac.uk

Involvement andParticipation

raha etz, drian . k nsonand To Red an

246 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

as

IS too

Quality circlesSuggestion schemesSelf-managing teamsT-groupsTeamworkingWorks councilsTeam brlefmgs

Jl""'''''''''Jl''''' a hle:rarchlcaJ

sell-nlaIrlaglng teams.

Cle<:lsllon-mlaKln,g or InnUeJ1Ce dO 0 ..... 'OJ'J-,

Table 15.1 Possible EIP schemes

Suchto

Attitude surveysContinuous improvement groupsEuropean works councilsJob enrichmentlre-designJoint management-staff committeesJoint working'Kaizen'

in resealrch into suchsCflenles might OISaQlree on definitions,

fail to a asunder the to it

This in part, due to the myriad PossIbleSCflenles that fall under the broad cat,egl()ryof involvenlentJparticipation/enlpowerment(Sashkin, 1976) see Table 15.1 andto the of old

as definitional1(''\1:::\11''\111 (1

ticipation' asments'in

Olscipliinary COIlvent14:)ns notthought on EIP.

on fromDachler and

,:')cnWeIger. 1979).

ineffective ones. Yet, as Magjuka andBaldwin (1991: 794) highlighted, there isa compelling need for 'enlpirical researchwhich identifies the relevant design variables[for EIP scheInes' effectiveness] and linkssuch variables with progranune outcomes'.Fenton-O'Creevy (1998: 68) noted: 'TheITIOSt significant question to answer is nolonger "what are the benefits of employeeinvolvement?" Rather. it is "What makesthe difference between effective employeeinvolvement progranlmes and those thatto their objectives?'" This is ourfocus in this chapter. Rather than overfanliliar ground on definition, context andoutcomes we 'the conditions in whichpolicies and practices are introduced [that] caninfluence outcomes', and 'the pf()ce:ss(~s

en~~ageITIentamong participantsPurcell, 1996: 668). The practical berleOtsthis articulated by et al.

'Knowing the H)fII~-ller:11J nrr'\Ctnn,1:::1':

a practice can help inabout allocating resourcessylTIbolic todestined to warrant nloreresources than t ...~ .... (,.tr...·,! ..... ,..nr·'.ro":>c

The chapter prC~Ce(~ClS

with a short SUIlnrnaryover EIP."',••-4 ...."';........ HRM we upon

DEFINITIONS

Glewunderstanding the 't<:l/'1r1''\r,' 11T\'n<:l/·'tll1itT upon EIP

SCtllerrleS, to help us the In acollerlent fashion. In sothe that EIP scnemc~s

acc:onCllng to III r"_l"!C"r" ...... '...... '.7. A,cclorCllInl2:lvthe rest the covers thethat determine the 'birth',final and the ultimate

SCtllerrles. Throughout we

The literature bedevilled by InUJre<:Isedefinitions EIP even 30

attempts atWilnert. 1978~

INVOLVEMENT AND PARTICIPATION 247

or

\:>aSI1.on. 1976).

represE~nt(itlvles of eml)IO~rees 1.... ~I.rl"\l'-+1

extent of emOIOVe€~s' 1n1''' u""nra

decision,in an c:I(f\J'I<iOrV GlpalcltV

deC]SIOin-nlaklncf up toare

knlowleclQ'e can

set seven l1n1'f~1"'<:":l1

EIP AND HRM

Levine and Tyson, 1990), where theformer to sharedon the job, while the latter aconsultation ""'V,""rI"'1C'~

Such schemes can avariety of dimensions Marchington et aI.,1992; Marchington and Wilkinson,including:

• Depth:thethrough

• Purpose: why the scheme was initiated, to servewhat and whose ends?

• Level: at what level of organisational hierarchydoes the scheme operate: team, workplace,divisional, strategic;

• Scope of the agenda: which subjects, anddecisions, are dealt by scheme (e.g.

and (1976) categories:(Le. workplace and concerns],workplace and 'distant'tionaI strategy matters]; Connor (1nine different agendas;

• Direct or inrtiral'-to w'het:her

ror""r111n.1~ and

not information c:h-]Irtnin r1,P"1ro~c:

as teamthoughbottom-up emlO"<)Vf~e

on LeOH>ro

Moreover, the Glew et a1. agenda - confinedsolely to improving organisational performance is too narrow. What is true, however,of all EIP schemes is that they topush influence, and even responsibility for,decisions down the organisational hierarchy(McMahan et aI., 1998: 198).

Glew and colleagues' (1995) other criteriafor EIP are that they involve morethan one person - participation is not anindividual endeavour in a manner that isvisible to others. Further, EIP are

seen as or 'role-expanding'for those involved. But the crucial defining

is the of aopportunity participants, where

to through which anindividual impact on someelenlent of the on~anllsalUOln ... withoutthere can participation'

et Kaufman,I This final <11s'tlnJ~Ul~;nlIl~ ."",Clf .. ,..""

-;11Ir'n'l1C: us to concentrate in this cn:aptenonlly onsctlenles that with a

input into <1eC;lSl:on-maKlng

et

as the contenthevonc1 EIP. That


recent Alnerican study found that "withadditional EIP union commitment,nrrpl1,w~J:. , and that disaffection with .... n1~1'nf·

tive EIP drives toward theirunion (Hoell, 2004: 272 added).

In eInpirical the link ~'''-'~YY """.II

firm HRM and firm peI'loI'm,lnce,EIP prominently intionalisations of HRM. In a sample of 104empirical fromet (2005) found thatmeasures of EIP, includingsrUClles fronl ( Guthrie (200 I),Huselid (1 MacDuffie11 included "ul,rpj(·t

Batt etDoty (I and .LdIU'YY

of theskills

to encour-

claim from the resource-basedfirm (Barney, 1991) thatand knowledge are one source of uniquesustainable competitive advantage,

EIP is a cornerstone of the "AMO' modelput forward by Appelbaum and cOlleagUl~s

(2000), in which the"A' stands for enhancingemployees' abilities, the 'M' for enhancingtheir motivation, and the '0' for'opportunities' for to PalrtIC:IP,lte,or utilise their abilities and motivation. EIPnot only provides opportunities butin so doing,motivation (Gollan et aI., 2006: 500; Millerand I and allowsto use their abilities more than if no EIPopportunities The is that thisshould InC]rea~~e nprt,("\rrn'lr"l">3

Another performance-driven I L4~j'\JIIL4I""

EIP is that participation in themeQllat(~S to additional. or Olscre:llonm'v

on behalf of'beyond contract' 1

on~anlsatlonal citizenship hlC' .... -:l\!ll£"\I1'rc

f'"'\n''''''7£'' L'" I

isp01:en1LlaJ to Imt)rO"esee

Establishing and runningEIPschemes

that mana~~ers

unIon

cOln-seen asmitment andwith n""<"'''If'",,,,,, COlllse:Quenc:;espm1lclp,ltlcm as emnIOiVet:'~

are won over toEIP

it can undermine union mlJ,ltalllcyserves(Parker and Slaughter, 1988),


t i

Figure 15.1 Glew and colleagues' (1995) framework of the participation process - adapted.

it

toInere

aertale to f'Al"1C'l.r1t3T'

we

In Inost casescase

seeto a

partiCipatIon (HeUer etdlscu~ss the most £""11.,.:.,.,t

Third. "an

that

as obstach;~s

sclllelIle IS a reCIUIJrennellt


INSTITUTIONAL PUSH

consult.ants and vendors)

Buildingsupply chain dynamicsTop management

Advisory

Figure 15.2 Lesure et al. (2004): model for the adoption of innovative workpractices - adapted.

IS

to

resources

SClleJlle never

terms

fourth llatJlllltles

to ror,ntlnl1<:1 eXIstIng rl",l1tln~.,'

create or

tramf~wlor~~sa

to

whether it Oe(~on]es ernlOeddled,

tion' .

during which problems are anticipatedand and initial

androutinised and

into organisational , touse et al.'s term (I isJIILlJJ"-'''-l in part by a

TheGlewet

Stinchcombe. 1965).


are

with

EIP is a

aC(~UlreS nlore

new scrlenles.)t;.(:lU(JLlla 'star

is more ctullle:nglngJ; PlmnlOVPplo;;

regarding, a performance gap betweenwhat they would like and what theycreates a socio-psychological anxiety orcognitive dissonance 1957) thatcan be alleviated by adopting the laudedmanagement techniques of their day (such as11 <:l r, <:lnf'L' of EIP) - provided that a Uh:t"-'V11.,I,J.

linking reasons for the performancea solution has been (11S$elmulatle(1,of course.

Third. most to be seento be complying with prevailing normsrationality and andcan do so efficiently by adopting laudedmanagement techniques. Abrahamson andFairchild (1999) at

the fashion for one EIP,quality in US a

co-evolution onquality ,",U\.J.,",,",

Fourth, and rel;ateIQ, flllan:lgers f'r,II,,-.,n, 'high-

fashion' etI

isconcerns

anawareness

(

mana~~enal re:ascmU1l2 on EIP is

Glew et al. trmme'WOlrl<

THE 'BIRTH': MANAGERIAL MOTIVESAND RATIONALES FOR EIP

new pracu(:es, InCIU(11n2pull

that the scheme can be seen as no longer fitfor purpose because it is outdated, and cannotbe adapted to serve 'new organisationalrealities'. Support for an ageing process ofEIP schemes has come from Kato (2006),while Strauss adopts a life-cycle model whenhe recounts the demise of the famous NUMMIand Saturn arrangements (2006: 784-787).The main questions are, therefore, why doschemes suffer from particular liabilities overthe course of their life-cycle, and what factorscan inoculate the scheme these threats?

The following present the findingsfrom EIP studies that have lookedinto component Glew and cOlleagU(~S

rlr<:l1tTft"UY for the most part upon

their 1995 article (forretlerenc<~s and rpcP<:lll"l"h P\flr1Pl"'l{"P

on areoriginal article). We

within our


it is mamoate:onl0re than

act as

particular and internal ClfCUlmstarrces,notably complexity, ctr·:.tpI1rl.!

profile, and 'participation ClllmateIn Connor's ( study ofOregon nIU·C'I1,n

and complexity was ...",.'... ,...... -with more use participation

sctllerrles, but for profit-motive wereAOC1IS()n et (I found that

branch plant statuswere

IS a multiinternally COfltradlC

see

sUj~ge:sts that rnamagellal n-tr,hu''1t,r'\n

initiating an EIP

tory

interacting with 'wannth and enthusiasm'with custonlers (passing on con-cern to custonlers)~

itation of froIn as tonuorClvenlents to the organisation and, finally,valuable word-of-mouth advertising and customer retention (from people telling theirTrl#::>nrll.: about exceptional Yet"11,::>.,.",,,1 benefits are costs: anrp"lt#'.r nlonetary investrnent in andlr'l,n'I1'O (to screen out likely poor nt",rl£'lrn-tprc

overall labour coststo , ,",U.4",'U,F.,

potentially (' 1,,,,,,,,,"r

n£»,.. , ,,::>r, , violations

and bad (due to acts of

Uh:J""""""nJ" by ~'II""''''~~.'

\A/.II?.,n£·n,n et al.

ORGANISATIONAL FACTORSINFLUENCING THE EIP SCHEME'SDESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION

.,.....'-.""'...,, COJrnplettng eX1JlanatlofiS are exam-

Table 15.2 Bowen and Lawler: five contingencies for introducing 'empowerment' in servicework.

'Production

BusinessTie to the customer

Business environmentProfile of workforce

1 2low-cost,

3

and weak

4 5


on both

of EIP scnenll~S

the ru·".·.n.c •• t.,,,,n·

that the overwhelming 'performance tan!etsclimate militated ag,lIllstboth direct and indirectvoice - despite enthusiasm

6

All of this that EI climate woulda potentially interesting linefor EIP. There is a need to understand theantl~celC1ents and EI CHnlatein more depth. Climate rp.cp.o:llr*r'h

sational behaviour in generalrapidly (Hotfman et aI.,Brandt, 2000; Schneider et andfurther EI climate would a valuablecontribution to a fullerclinlate research.

A to ISor enl:reIlchlmt~nt,

to

the

that

four

relationship.

Inor2anJ:satlons Bach

Inand

the willwith participants). They

that firms with a EI clinlatehigh all would

on II I I 'L.4 1 I"'. lUI

and

Miller and Monge's (1986) metaanalysis reported that working in a strongparticipation-oriented climate had apositive effect on enlployee satisfaction. Yet,as Riordan et aI. (2005) the plannedcreation of a climate is formidably difficult.In their study of EI clinlate's onorganisational performance, they nleasuredEI climate four dimensions: pol-ver

sufficient influence overthe final decision), injlJrmation (parties

information to

p.rn,nlt"""'.p. commitnlent

would fullyTheir multi-level

sJ2nHliCalrlt resources aelClJcate~a

with frontline f'n,nllnVf~f'''

SCflenles to


et

Managers' and supervisors'dispositions, motivators and needs

EIP

INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE FACTORSINFLUENCING EIP SCHEME DESIGNAND IMPLEMENTATION

a llUll\.111Ul CILlItliral phe:nornelllon, .:J1IIJIII"1

context

conl-concerns are

et

elnnl(lIVet~S conle to lnfp'rnrpf


ainvolvement tn,'h <:t1', \ft::t(· T'l'rnru::trl'\!

the In mlCldle manaf2~eml.ent reSllstanceand sctlerrle P1ttPI'tnrpnp\:,

for managers to comply. A 'trickle-down'effect appears to be in operation herewith middle managers managing their directreports in the way they themselves aremanaged. A perceived threat to job orpromotion opportunities was also influential.The practical implication is that middlemanagementlinked to reportedscheme the organisation. if anorganisation the I ""JI'JIIUl"- beJllnd EIPand anticipates thethen, planned to overcome mamageJt1alscepticism is anYet

. the removal of power [with the intro-duction of an EIP scheme to share

often asa threat and oartICI()atl'"e Trlanilqemeintis seen as a burden to many middle managers, andit is not do not welcomeit (1999:

and influence), (Fenton O'Creevy, ]998: 7]).Similarly, Wilkinson noted

Aside from the loss of status and perceivedassault on managerial prerogative and henceon their self-identity, Spreitzer and Mishra(1999: ]56) put a different emphasis on the

involved for managers:

of

to

to retainEIP

want EIP

as to whleth~er

no tunidarnerltal

4

5

2

main

n""'Ir"£''''''t\!,;:l.rt extra burden

time andEIP scnl~me:s.

Klein .rlo....~.t.. art

3

sctlenles InlTIulti-nationals.

in it

IS

mancon-

anv

what

the

'v •• ,..... fi-,"'"'~ with the £1""'1:" <Tn

In

support totributor toas as the

12 only mild or for

scheme - signal by emIJIO~'ees

equivalent to the first tactic;3 controlling access to to

favourites (as a reward) or apunishment); using scheme to conferor exert discipline;

4 coercing participants into partproducing the outcomes sought byrea,ardlless of the EIP scheme's remit.

Thus, studying themost likely toand implementation

to


a

1) note

on manto

thenleasures

COIJ'ln£! with

Employee dispositions, capacities,motivations and needs

bility in tJ4.LJ,11"-'JtJ111J,",'1l S(:hemes. UlcentrvlSIn£!

it COInes to \llt,ptl,pr p,nnUlVPjO\l'

Finally. \JI]Jl ""1',1~""1

irnpact

top mana~~etTlent

Riordan et al.

in the literature: cosmetic that do notdisturb existing power dynamics in or~~anllsa

tional decision-making tend not to befor anyone. On Battconcluded,

oDlenrless. concern and comt)etc~n(~e

to allowin participation

the on

evenmore sarlgulneto their dls;cn~ticm

middle mana!~ers would

Overall, foundthe outcomes from

relnf()rcJ[nQ a recurrent fIndtnlg

In\lOI'Vefnelnt in teamson

case, seJJ-rnalrla~~ea

For Klein ( 1984), traInIng programmesin running EIP tend to be ineffective.More successful interventions to persuadefront-line to relent and supportEIP are: showing it to thenl in action,

thelTI their own input into higher-leveldecision-Inaking (including on theof the EIP and support

By contrast, Vallas' (2003: studyof teamwork and continuous improvelnentprogramrnes inside four paper mills in thefound that middle might 0",hF';'J/'/7

EIP as a means their authorityin that they had not previously t"nl£"'''''f1

(emphasis in the original), principallyJllUn.Jlll;;;' EIP participants under their

like 'a band rest theworkforce in a manner that hr.I<,1:o...' nlarlagers

own authority concluded.'the outconle EIP]initiatives to the distribution""~""ll 'en over the ilTIplenlentation

butstructure led tolHrU"V,o.." and "11"...0 .... " "r..."

minimal impacts onoff-line


utility

VO,lltlon;al _'J"~"'-". but are

a

are attractive enough. Specifically, willingvolunteers will see in well-designed EIPschemes opportunities for personal growthand personal achievement. Additionally,theorised that powerful norms inwork{:)la(:e wouldself-selection decisions: people surroundedfamily and friends who are also aboutthe will be more likely to volunteer.

This line of is theapplying Fishbein and (1975) the-of action to eX,lmlne elTlnll[)Vf~e,

participation in EIP. Thisattitudes and norms as nrl"'ntr'f"tn,n

behavioural intentions, which in tum T'\ ...&:Hi.,,.,.t

actual behaviour. Subjective normsextent to which slgnlulCalrlt ",11.1\.•••'J.

ily. friends and l'I",~~'1:U~''''V''''''''

EIP. In line with the geller,al ft''''::t>", ...'''''t.,F>" 1

approach in reaSOIleonorms are me~asun:~Cl

et 1995)eX)JlanatlorlS as

I )'perso~n-t~nVlronment fit' (p. in

outcomes are optitnised

Structural: the awareness that the real decisionsare made outside the EIP scheme, so why bother?

2 Relational: whether the organisation's hierarchical arrangements 'promote competition andemphasize rank and status over mastery andcompetence' (Glew et aI., 1995: 410).

3 Societal: the effects of employeetion, ideology or history of lablC)ur··malna(~emlent

part isto assessments \1lt1IPttlPT this iswhether the SCl1lerrle is likely to sUCiceelCl,whether the the emolovee

Neumann (1989, cited inproposedto why individuals might chc)os;e not to enJ~a~~e

in EIP Each renl~cts ,'1.C',...,,,,,.t.,,,"

motivation in different

by noting how EIP programmes 'will bemeaningless unless employees behave inways that are supportive of EI'. Thus, whileunderstanding the perspective of the instigators and co-ordinators of EIP schemes iscrucial, so too is awareness of the factorsthat shape the level of engagement of therecipients and enactors of such schemes the employees themselves. Hespe and Wall(1976) cited Walker (1972: II thus: 'Ifthere is little interest and pressure for workers'participation among workers, little differenceis made by their having high Cal)aCltJc;~s

high relative power, or by a high ac(~ep~tarlce

participation on the

ment) rh~lr~lj("tf'''rlCl~tl''C

Allen et aL (Iparticipation rates inon emlnh)vf'~e

stanCllmg this nr(',£"p,C'c

involved or not -- is ,".... t.,'..':.1 to under-Stanolmg what might or"''')'I,IUP;'''' (p. II

the


Intlen(led one,

n#'},1"t1f"III·..,' elmpJhaSIS on res;ealrch

whate'veroutcomes are reaJls(~d

.:>asIrlKIn (1

"In course. it is

to

"TQM one:ntaltlonon continuous Im1Dr()veme~nt.

found that(such as

continuous

perform in the in HongKong and the US confirmed that the y U.llU.L,'IY,'

did in manner nY1Jotlhes,lsed.

THE ACTUAL PARTICIPATIONPROGRAMME

et aI.,

linlited

the IlteratlJre, it isunable to

eX'lml.nulg the relationship

I3",Inl'""'/t'"13 participation in EIP.of stu(lles

Ir,n.I;L~rt at the 'tY'lI'J,l'iCJI"'::lt1Inl"f

r ..... r ...... h.~ ... individual dlS;Posltllon onet

caution ag,un:sr the lln ••• ,""" ....''''1

'It isto ~n.~'YYl profound cnalngc~s

and culturenumber of indi viduals likely to be Intere~stt~d

in participation over1 I

From

programme team-based problemsolving meetings confirmed that people with

,-,VIILILJ. and high growthwill more favourably disposed to

J;:,\.cLI'IUJ;:, involved in EIP voluntarily, and suchpeople might constitute a group' forsctlen1es to aimed at. Their study acontingent approach derived fronl eXloec:tarlCVtheory. The obvious practical implicationis that, 'dynarrlics', "not aU

IIIL"~1 v,"lv'-A In pal11CIPaltIng'V()JUlnteers and non-volunteers

involved the EInotesuch

andJ.l""O"T"1r-V and Mount, 1 is an ..............."",,.... .•,.... t

OmllSSJOn In EIP Itt""...."'f'I1 ...CJ1


In sum.not

b) employment practices.that the would DCBand would lead to positive assessments all

job enrichment but thatthe latter would an impact onDCB and would only through "'AC'~tl'fa.

a.YY""""1''' on and ·"'a. .....,...C>.~.f"'.,..t

slgnltllcalnce . Importantly, their measure

and changing mind-sets and orientations, or(Bartunek, 1984).

Group composition and resources

Magjuka and Baldwin (1991) found that,seven identified man-

as potentially EIP ,"'('*1'""=-"''''',"'

three teamteanl and information accessfor half the

access 011.# Y L,'~

note how

Problem or decision type

I1110re emlnl{)ve~e elnthuslaSlTI

Interpersonal dynamics andmind-sets

IS

to

a C0l11mOn aSS;ul11pllOn


I Motivation to change;2 schema generation' - when

perceptions andperceptions and aspirations may

3 'Iterative schema cOlllparison' whenthe newly schenla is com-pared to the old ofdoing things, andtangible, enduring shifts in approach areeither confirmed or refuted by v"-".......,

r}J"~.n.rH' and outcomes, and

4 'Stabilisation depending on 2and 3. the old orit is the new SCflerna.

schemas and to enact new schemas duringa pivotal period in the empowerment effortcreated resistance to change' (Labianca et aI.,2000: 236). Their four ofchange are:

The found that, during thean of man

as to whetherwere Illore with

or with

is more counter-intuitive,the unspoken

" ,.1-' ,,,.,,)' .. ,,,.' ' , IS

failure to

Lesure and colleagues found fronl their reviewof studies into the adoption of new workpractices that, 'The importance of employeecommitment at [the inlplenlentation]

very lnixed support, not tono support. However, research thattraining and educating the enlployees aboutthe new practices is Inuch lnore iIllportantthan trying to secure their comnlitnlent at this

(Lesure et aI., 2004: 75).Tjosvold (1987) has proffered sonle

thoughts on interpersonal dynaIllics. Hismodel (a conlmonpurpose and sense ofgenuine rather than

as one obvious influentialfactor determining interactions,his 'productive


worker

are

at

when

InI

,,·,r'f'\}}{' EIP scn(~me~s, InC!U(llng

thecant'),

superior-subordinate relations, job andorganisational values/climate. This lattermodel challenges the dominant assumptionin the affective model that the forparticipation is universal. 47,:JLU'Ulv,:J, Miller and found no 1::'11T\1"\nrt

for various f"nlr\t"11r\CU::llnr',,_,rta1'.. \t."'F1 preOlctllons,

including job levelthey could not test tJ'.... ".J".U•• L

There was stronger support foreffect on than onThere was overall£"nC'rnlt""t'" nlodel ("moderately

(

that EIP scl1lem(~s

are

setleoles as

in

1 £'\£'\L' O£1 at

on productivity

andproductivity through an

not nec:essm-I1y

whilefrom

their me~ta-·anaIV"l'

Miller and ." .. 'IIr.:L,

ipation sctlenles

their COfltll1'Rel'lt

motivation which, in turn, orctduces CTr""'lt,,-r

,:JUl.,,," • ......'l..,J ... It is act

sut)lec:t to ole-deratln!!: "'}T"·,."',I"",,,

tieipants' personality, the oeC:lSllon SltllatllOnS,

Previous and of theimpact of participation on perfomlance outcomes have reported "mixed' (Cappelli and

1998) and 'equivocal'results (Lam et aI., 2002), with even themost positive rather modest

1994)" and( 1979) original can be sumnlarisedas finding positive on job ;')UlJ,'1J(.l\.-lJI'-/U

but, an impact on actualperformance The authors did nottoo many firm conclusions, due to whatsaw as the influence so otherhidden or latent principally '}rC\lln,rf

j(::lIrY'lnlr,\',j(::lI,D{' ~ I<njC\\lJlpf'tnp and motivation,and leadership ',lttY"lh"lt""c

OUTCOMES

but failed to improve workforce-managementrelations. Timming that this maybe based upon a 'calculative strategyfor enhancing organisational performance, butrather on a historico-cultural attitude' withinUK industry of antipathy toward EIP.


eVIOeirlCe on llu"..rlr""rc'

come. Intlngl1ln,gly

COfltlnues to 1"~",'uri·~::u"~

THE FATE OF THE SCHEME

z~<ms:mZ"""i»Zo~:::a-in~5z

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

__ J

-,IIIIIIIIIIII

Outcomes• InOlVIOUaH9V91

•

programme

Actual

• IJrnhlolT'll

•

•

•

••••

Figure 15.3 and colleaGues' framework of the participation process - with identified factors from previous research.

N0\IN


We see three possible 'fates' for EIP(Figure 15.1). The first is that the schemeis considered legitimate and valuable(howsoever defined) and becomes embeddedin organisational routine; the second is thatit fails to deliver to the satisfaction of oneor Inore parties and is either 'killed off' orallowed to die fronl lack of care, and thethird is that EIP lives on as a principle but itsoriginal form is replaced with a new scheme.There is sonle work which supports this latternotion of reinvention as schemes are wornout but revived under a new guise (Wilkinsonet aI., 2007).

Chi et al.'s (2007) longitudinal study on theadoption and termination of EIPs sheds somelight on their fate. The failure rate of EIPs canbe high and firms' use of such programmes isnot continuous, with a suggestion from theirdata is that it can take as long as 20 yearsfor firms to find a steady-state distribution.Chi et al.'s analysis finds firms are lesslikely to terminate EIPs when they haveother advanced HR practices and businessstrategies supportive of employee autonomyin the workplace. Equally, firms terminateEIPs as bundles, which further implies that thepolices are complementary with each other.

CONCLUSION

Figure 15.3 summarises in diagrammatic formsome of the most influential variables thatwe have identified from the literature foreach element ofGlew and colleagues' originalframework.

The allure of EIP's potential is generallymade on three counts: its contribution toorganisational effectiveness, its contributionto satisfying basic human needs and makinggood use of employees' skills, and its possibleimpact on reducing 'political inequalities'inside organisations (see Strauss, 2006: 801).This attraction continues to draw generationsof managers into planning, designing andimplementing new forms of worker involvement and participation. However, as thischapter has demonstrated, the overwhelmingimoression from the literature is ofa multitude

of factors that can determine success orfailure. Moreover, each one of these variablesis itself complex and the nature of theinteractions among them even more so.George Strauss offered what seems to us ameasured and elegant summary position onEIP thus:

My perspective on'" participation has always beensomewhat ambivalent and sometimes cynical.I have always believed participation as a theory, inpart because when it works (a key point), it providesa win-win solution to a central organisationalproblem: how to satisfy workers' needs whilesimultaneously achieving organisational objectives.Today, my view is that workers' participation can'work' (by a variety of measures) but making it workis very difficult. My hopes for it are considerablydiminished (Strauss, 2006: 778).

NOTES

1 To illustrate, what Labianca et al. (2000) call an'empowerment' programme in their study conformsto what Kessler and Purcell (1996) called a 'jointworking party'; what Tjosvold (1987: 739) calls'participation' ('a setting in which managers andemployees can exchange information and ideas tosolve problems') does not comply with a convention inthe British literature that 'participation' schemes mustbe indirect and representative in form. That said, GolIan et al.'s (2006: 499) definition of 'participation' in aspecial issue of Industrial Relations (encompassing 'therange of mechanrsms used to involve the workforcein decisions at all levels of the organisation -- whetherdirect or indirect -- conducted with employees orthrough their representatives': our emphaSIS) Ignoresthis distinction. Finally, Bartunek and Spreitzer (2006)examined 17 different meanings of 'empowerment'.

2 There is also a somewhat paternalistiC, evenpatronising whiff implied by the 'gift' of input beingbestowed upon grateful employees.

3 This chapter will not look at financial forms ofparticipation, such as share ownership and profltrelated pay. This is reserved for the chapter oncompensation.

4 Abrahamson's work on management fashions (Abrahamson, 1996, 1997; Abrahamson andFairchild, 1999) suggests some insights into managerial impetus for EIP. First, EIP would be classedas a 'normative' rather than a 'rational' rhetoric formanaging employees as it 'can render employeesmore productive by shaping their thoughts andcapitalising on their emotions' (Abrahamson, 1997:493) by satisfying their needs [including for a 'voice'in the workolaceL Abrahamson hypothesised, and


found in his studies counting academic and popularbusiness press articles, that discourses advocatingnormative techniques have tended to emerge at theend of the upswing of a Kondratieff long wave, justbefore the downswing. Thus, managers' enthusiasmfor EIP may be linked to a downturn in macroeconomic trends and their disinterest may be shapedby economic upswings.

5 When Nissan set up its plant in the North East ofEngland in the 1980s, Hague (1989) commented onthe rapid 'Japanisation' of 'Geordie-land' (a colloquialterm for people from Newcastle - even though theplant is technically down the road in Sunderland).

6 A respondent for Harlos' study (2001: 332)of voice systems told of managers analysmg thehandwriting of submissions to an anonymous suggestion box and checking shift attendance records toidentify authors.

7 This last comment echoes, perhaps unwittingly,down the years to the celebrated conclusion inthe Donovan enquiry into British industrial relationsstructures in the late 1960s: to regain controlmanagers may have to share it with workers (Fox andFlanders, 1975).

REFERENCES

Abrahamson, E. (1996) 'Management fashion',Academy of Management Review, 21 (1): 254-85.

Abrahamson, E. (1997) 'The emergence and prevalenceof employee management rhetorics: the effects oflong waves, labor unions and turnover, 1875 to1992', Academy of Management Journal, 40 (3):491-533.

Abrahamson, E. and Fairchild, G. (1999) 'Managementfashion: lifecycles, triggers and collective learningprocesses', Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (4):708-40

Ackers, P., Marchington, M., Wilkinson, A. and Dundon,T. (2006) 'Employee participation in Britain: fromcollective bargaining and industrial democracy toemployee involvement and social partnership - Twodecades of Manchester/loughborough Research',Decision, 33 (1): 76-88

Addison, J. T., Schnabel, C. and Wagner, J (1997) 'Onthe determinants of mandatory works councils inGermany', Industrial Relations, 36 (4): 419-45.

Ajzen, I (1991) 'The theory of planned behavior', Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 50 (2) : 179-211.

Allen, R.E., lucero, M.A. and van Norman, K.l. (1997)'An examination of the individual's decision toparticipate in an employee involvement program',Group and Organisation Management, 22 (1):117-43.

Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P and Kalleberg, A(2000) 'Manufacturing advantage: Why highperformance systems payoff'. Ithaca, NY: CornellUniversity Press.

Bach, S. (2004) 'Employee participation and union voicein the national health service', Human ResourceManagement Journal, 14 (2): 3-19.

Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K. (1991) 'The bigfive personality dimensions and job performance:A meta-analysis', Personnei Psychology, 44 (1): 1-26

Bartunek, J (1984) 'Changing interpretive schemesand organizational restructuring: The example of areligious order'. Administrative Science Quarterly,29, 355-372.

Bartunek, 1M. and Spreitzer, G.M. (2006) 'Theinterdisciplinary career of a popular construct used inmanagement: Empowerment in the late 21 st century',Journal of Management Inquiry, 15 (3): 255-73.

Barney, J.B. (1991) 'Firm resources and sustainablecompetitive advantage', Joumal ofManagement, 17,99-12.

Batt, R(2004) 'Who benefits from teams? Comparingworkers, supervisors and managers', IndustrialRelations, 43 (1): 183-212.

Batt, R., Colvin, A.J.S. and Keefe, J. (2002) 'Employeevoice, human resource practices, and quit rates: Evidence from the telecommunications industry', Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 55 (4): 573-94.

Becker, G(1964) 'Human capital'. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.

Bowen, D.E. and lawler III, E.E. (1992) 'The empowerment of service workers: What, why, how andwhen', Sloan Management Review, Spring: 31-9.

Boselie, P., Dietz, G. and Boon, C. (2005) "Commonalities and contradictions in research on humanresource management and performance", HumanResource Management Journal, 15 (3), 67-94.

Boxall, P. and Purcell, J. (2003) Strategy humanresource management. london: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cappelli, P. and Rogovsky, N. (1998) 'Employee involvement and organizational citizenship: Implications forlabor law reform and "lean production"', IndlJstrJrajand Labor Relations Review, 51 (4): 633-53.

Chi, W., Freeman, R.B. and Kleiner, M. (2007) 'Adoptionand termination of employee involvement programs.'Working paper 12878. Cambridge, MA, NationalBureau of Economic Research.

Cohen, S.G. and Bailey, D.E. (1997) 'What makes teamswork: Group effectiveness research from the shopfloor to the executive suite',23 (3): 239-90.

Connor, P.E. (1992) 'Decision-making participation patterns: The role of organizational context', '-'\.U'\.,/\,;1I11'

of Management Review, 35 (1): 218-31.


Cooke, W.N. (1994) 'Employee participation programs,group-based incentives, and company performance:A union-nonunion comparison', Industrial and LaborRelations Review, 47 (4): 594-609.

Cox, A., Zagelmeyer, S. and Marchington, M. (2006)'Embedding employee involvement and participationat work', Human Resource Management Journal,16 (3): 250-67.

Cotton, l (1993) 'Employee involvement'. NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Coyle-Shapiro, lA-M. and Morrow, P.c. (2003) 'Therole of individual differences in employee adoptionof TQM orientation', Journal of Vocational Behavior,62 (62): 320-40.

Cressey, P., Eldridge, J. and Macinnes, J. (1985) JustManaging: Authority and Democracy in Industry.Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Dachler, H.P. and Wilpert, B. (1978) 'Conceptualdimensions and boundaries of participation inorganisations: A critical evaluation'. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 23 (1), 1-39.

Delery, J.E. and Doty, D.H. (1996) 'Modes of theorizingin strategic human resource management: Testsof universalistic, contingency, and configurationalperformance predictions', Academy of ManagementJournal, 39 (4): 802-35.

Deming, W.E. (1988) Out of the Crisis: Quality,Productivity and Competitive Position. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983) 'The ironcage revisited: Institutionalisomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields', AmericanSociological Review, 48 (2), 147-169.

Doucouliagos, C. (1995) 'Worker participation andproductivity in labor-managed and participatorycapitalist firms: Ameta-analysis', Industrial and LaborRelations Review, 49 (1): 58-77.

Dundon, T., Wilkinson, A., Marchington, M. andAckers, P. (2004) 'The meanings and purpose ofemployee voice', International Journal of HumanResource Management, 15 (6): 1149-70.

Fenton-O'Creevy, M. (1998) 'Employee involvement andthe middle manager: Evidence from a survey oforganizations', Journal of Organizational Behavior,19: 67-84.

Festinger, L. (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance.Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.

Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975) Belie" Attitude,Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theoryand Research. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fox, A. and, Flanders A. (1975) 'Collective bargaining:Fro'm Donovan to Durkheim', in Flanders, A. (ed.),Management and Unions: The Theory and Reform ofIndustrial Relations. London: Faber and Faber.

Fox, A. (1974) 'Beyond contract: Work, power and trustrelations'. London: Faber and Faber.

Freeman, R.B. and Kleiner, M.M. (2000) 'Who benefitsmost from employee involvement: Firms or workers?',American Economic Review, 90 (2): 219-23.

Glew, D.J., O'Leary-Kelly, A.M., Griffin, R.W. and vanFleet, D.D. (1995) 'Participation in organizations: Apreview of the issues and proposed framework forfuture analysis', Journal of Management, 21 (3):395-421.

Gollan, P.l, Poutsma, E. and Veersma, U. (2006)'Editors' introduction: New roads in organizationalparticipation?', Industrial Relations, 45 (4), 499-512.

Guthrie, lP. (2001) 'High-involvement work practices,turnover, and productivity: Evidence from NewZealand', Academy of Management Journal, 44:180-90.

Hague, R. (1989) 'Japanising Geordie-land?', EmployeERelations, 11 (2): 3-16.

Hannan, M.T. and Freeman, J. (1984) 'Structural inertiaand organizational Change', American SociologicalReview, 49: 149-164.

Handel, M.J. and Levine, 0.1. (2004) 'Editor's introduction: The effects of new work practices on workers',Industrial Relations, 43 (1): 1-43.

Harlos, K.P. (2001) 'When organizational voice systemsfail: More on the deaf-ear syndrome and frustrationeffects', Journal of Applied Behavioural Science,37 (3): 324-42.

Heller, F., Pusic, E., Strauss, G. and Wilpert, B. (1998)'Organisational participation: Myth and reality'.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Henderson, A.D. (1999) 'Firm strategy and agedependence: A contingent view of the liabilities ofnewness, adolescence and obsolescence', Adminis·trative Science Quarterly, 44 (2): 281-314.

Hespe, G. and Wall, T. (1976) 'The demand forparticipation among employees', Human Relations,29 (5): 411-28.

Hodson, R. (2001) 'Disorganized, unilateral, andparticipative organizations: New insights from theethnographic literature'. Industrial Relations, 40 (2),204-230.

Hofmann, D.A., Morgeson, F.P. and Gerras, S.J.(2003) 'Climate as a moderator of the relationship between leader-member exchange andcontent specific citizenship: Safety climate as anexemplar', Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (1):170-78.

Hoell, R.C. (2004) 'How employee involvement affect.sunion commitment', Journal of Labor Research,25 (2), 267-277.

Huselid, M.A. (1995) 'The impact of human resourcemanaaement oractices on turnover. oroductivitv.


'Research in organizational behavior', 1, 265-339.Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

McMahan, G.c., Bell, M., and Virick, M., (1998) "Strategic human resource management: Employee involvement, diversity, and international issues", HumanResource Management Review, 8(3), 193-214.

MacDuffie, J.P. (1995) 'Human resource bundlesand manufacturing performance: Flexible productionsystems in the world auto industry', Industrial andLabor Relations Review, 48 (2): 197-221.

McFarlin, D.B., Sweeney, P.D. and Cotton, J.L.(1992) 'Attitudes toward employee participation indecision-making: A comparison of European andAmerican managers in a United States multinationalcompany', Human Resource Management, 31 (4):363-83.

Magjuka, R.J. and Baldwin, T.T. (1991) 'Teambased employee involvement programs: Effects ofdesign and administration', Personnel Psychology,44: 793-812.

Marchington, M., Wilkinson, A., Ackers, P. andGoodman, J. (1993) 'The influence of managerialrelations on waves of employment involvement',British Journal ofIndustrial Relations, 31 (4): 543-76.

Marchington, M., Wilkinson, A., Ackers, P. andGoodman, J. (1994) 'Understanding the meaningof participation: Views from the workplace', HumanRelations, 47 (8): 867-94.

Marchington, M. and Wilkinson, A. (2005) 'Directparticipation and involvement', in S. BachManaging Human Resources: Personnel Management in Transition, 4th edition. Oxford: Blackwell,pp. 398-423.

Mayo, E. (1933) The Human Problems of an matlSmaf

Civilization. New York, London: Routledge.Miller, K.1. and Monge, P.R. (1986)

productivity and satisfaction: Ameta-analyticAcademy of Management Journal, 29 (4): 727-53.

Neumann, J.E. (1989) people don't participatein organizational change', in R. Woodman andW. Pasmore (eds), 'Research in orQI1nil'at!cmaland development', Vol. 3. Greenwich, CT: JAlpp. 181-212.

Parker, M. and Slaughter, J. (1988) ChoosingUnions and the Team Boston, MA:End Press.

Parker, S.K., T.D. and Jackson, P.R. (1997)" 'That's not my job": Developingwork orientations', AG~deJr]1Y lot f\,~anaQ€lment

40 (4): 899-929.Peccei, R., Bewley, H., Gospel, H. P.

(2005) 'Is it good to talk? Information UI.,)\..IV..)UIl\..

organisational performance in the UK',of Industrial Relations, 43 (1): 11-39.

and corporate financial Performance', Academy ofManagement Journal, 38 (3): 635-72.

Ichniowski, c., Shaw, K. and Prennushi, G. (1997) 'Theeffects of human resource management practices onproductivity: Astudy of steel finishing lines', AmericanEconomic Review, 87 (3): 291-313.

Ivancevic, J.M. (1979) 'An Analysis of Participation inDecision Making Among Project Engineers', Academyof Management Journal, 22 (2): 253-69.

Kanter, R.M. (1983) 'Dilemmas of managing participation', Organizational Dynamics, 11 (1): 5-27.

Kato, T. (2006) 'Determinants of the extent ofparticipatory employment practices: Evidence fromJapan', Industrial Relations, 45 (4): 579-605.

Kaufman, B. (2003) 'High-level employee involvementat Delta Air Lines', Human Resource Management,42 (2): 175-90.

Kelloway, E.K. and Barling, J. (1993) " 'Members"participation in local union activities: Measurement,prediction and replication', Journal of AppliedPsychology, 78 (2): 262-79.

Kessler, I. and Purcell, J. (1996) 'The value of jointworking parties', Work, Employment and Society,10 (4): 663-82.

Klein, J.A. (1984) 'Why supervisors resist employeeinvolvement', Harvard Business Review, 62, Sept/Oct:87-95.

Labianca, G., Gray, B. and Brass, D.J. (2000),Agrounded model of organizational schema changeduring empowerment', Organization Science, 11 (2):235-57.

Lam, 5.5., Chen, X-Po and Schaubroek, J. (2002)'Participative decision-making and employee performance in different cultures: The moderating effectsof allocentrismlidiocentrism and efficacy', Academyof Management Journal, 45 (5): 905-14.

Ledford, G.E. and Lawler III, E.E. (1994) 'Researchon employee participation: Beating a dead horse7',Academy of Management Review, 19 (October):633-6.

Lesure, M., Birdi, K., Bauer, J., Denyer, D. and Neely, A.(2004) 'Adoption of promising practice: A systematicreview of the literature', AIM Research, February.

Levine, D. and Tyson, L.D. (1990) 'Participation,productivity, and the firm's environment', in ABlinder(ed.), Paying for productivity. Washington D.C:Brookings Institution, 183-243.

Lindell, M.K. and Brandt, CJ. (2000) 'Climatequality and climate consensus as mediators of therelationship between organizational antecedents andoutcomes', Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (3):331-48.

Locke, E.A. and Schweiger, D.M. (1979) 'Participationin decision-making: One more look', in B Staw (ed),


Peters, T and Waterman, R (1982). 'In search ofexcellence'. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

Pfeffer, J(1998). 'The human equation'. Cambridge, MA:Harvard Business Press.

Poutsma, E. and Huijgen, F. (1999) 'European diversityin the use of participation schemes', Economic andIndustrial Democracy, 20 (2): 197-223.

Ramsay, H., Scholarios, D. and Harley, B. (2000)'Employees and high-performance work systems:Testing inside the black box', British Journal ofIndustrial Relations, 38 (3), 501-531.

Riordan, eM., Vandenberg, R.J. and Richardson, H.A.(2005) 'Employee involvement climate and organisational effectiveness', Human Resource Management,44 (4): 471-88.

Rosenthal, P., Hill, S. and Peccei, R. (1997) 'Checkingout service: Evaluating excellence, HRM and TQMin retailing', Work, Employment and Society, 11 (3):481-503.

Rubinstein, S. and Kochan, T.A. (2001) 'Learning fromSaturn'. Ithaca, NY: IRL Press.

Sashkin, M. (1976) 'Changing toward participativemanagement approaches: A model and methods',Academy of Management Review, July: 75-86.

Schneider, B., Salvaggio, A.N., and Subirats, M. (2002)'Climate strength: A new direction for climateresearch', Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (2):220-9.

Spreitzer, G.M. and Mishra, A.K. (1999) 'Giving upwithout losing control: Trust and its substitutes'effects on managers' involving employees in decisionmaking', Group and Organization Management,24 (2),155-187.

Stinchcombe, A.L. (1965) 'Social structure and organizations', in J.G. March (ed.), 'Handbook ofOrganizations', 142-193, Chicago, IL: Rand-McNally.

Strauss, G(2006) 'Worker participation - some underconsidered issues', Industrial Relations, 45 (4):778-803.

Timming, A.R. (2007) 'European works councils andthe dark side of managing worker voice', HumanResource Management Journal, 17 (3): 248-64.

Tjosvold, D (1987) 'Participation: A close look at itsdynamics', Journal of Management, 13 (4): 739-50.

Vallas, S.P. (2003) 'Why teamwork fails: Obstacles toworkplace change in four manufacturing plants',American Sociological Review, 68 (April): 223-50.

Vandenberg, R.J., Richardson, H.A and Eastman, L.J(1999) 'The impact of high involvement work

processes upon organisational effectiveness: A2nd-order latent variable approach', Group andOrganization Management, 24: 300-39.

Wall, T.D. and Lischeron, lA. (1977) Worker participation: A critique of the literature and some freshevidence. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hili.

Wagner, lA. (1994) 'Participation's effect on performance and satisfaction: A reconsideration ofthe research evidence'. Academy of ManagementReview, 19 (2), 312-330.

Welsh, D.H., Luthans, F. and Sommer, S.M. (1993)'Managing Russian factory workers: The impact ofU.S-based behavioural and participation techniques',Academy of Management Journal, 36 (1): 58-79.

Wilkinson A., Marchington, M., Ackers, P. andGoodman, J. (1992) 'Total quality management andemployee involvement'. Human Resource Management Journal, 2 (4): 1-20.

Wilkinson, A. (1998) 'Empowerment: Theory andpractice', Personnel Review, 27 (1): 40-56.

Wilkinson, A. (2008) 'Empowerment', in Clegg, S.and Bailey, l (eds), Encyclopaedia of OrganisationalStudies. London: Sage.

Wilkinson, A. and Ackers, P. (1995) 'When two culturesmeet: New Industrial Relations at Japanco', International Journal of Human Resource Management,6 (4): 849-71.

Wilkinson, A., Godfrey, G. and Marchington, M.(1997) 'Bouquets, brickbats and blinkers: TotalQuality Management and Employee Involvement',Organization Studies, 18 (5): 799-820.

Wilkinson, A., Dundon, T., Marchington, M. andAckers, P. (2004) 'Changing panerns of employeevoice', Journal of Industrial Relations, 46 (3):298-322.

Wilkinson A., Dundon, T. and Grugulis, I. (2007) 'Information but not Consultation: Exploring employeeinvolvement in SMEs', InternationalJournal ofHumanResource Management, 18 (7): 1279-97.

Wilkinson, A., Gollan, P., Lewin, D. and Marchington, M.(2009) Participation in Organisations. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press

Wood, S. (1999) 'Human resource management andperformance', International Journal of ManagementReviews, 1(4): 367-413.

Zeitz, G., Mittal, V. and McAuley, B. (1999) 'Distinguishing adoption and entrenchment of managementpractices: A framework for analysis'. OrganizationStudies, 20 (5), 741-776.

Involvement and Participation

Documents