Perspectives on Employee Voice

Perspectives on Employee Voice 8

Perspectiveson Employee Voice

Perspectiveson Employee Voice

Theemployee voice frameworks refer to communication links between twoparties such as employees and employers. The main voice frameworks inbusinesses environment include jointconsultation and collective bargaining theory.The joint consultation is management philosophy and technique thatdemands negotiation between the manager and the employees with theobjective of arriving at a mutual agreement. Wheelwright (2008, p.236) describes joint consultation as any strategy for creatingdual-way communication for either two or more parties that do notshare information on a daily basis. For example, a CEO of anorganization intending to make significant changes in an organizationmay convene all the employees, including the lowest class employeesthat are not involved on daily business management administration.The aim of the consultation is reaching on a suitable decision thatsuits everyone is the organization. On the contrary, collectivebargaining theory mainly involves a meeting held between a laborunion and either an association or a single employer (Tangirala &ampRamanujam 2008, p. 1194). The objective of the conference isratifying the workplace policies. This essay aims at comparing andcontrasting the thepractices of Collective Bargaining and Joint Consultation.

TheCollective Bargaining and Joint Consultation have some similaritiessuch as the objective of solving differences between the employeesand the management. In many cases, the staff and employees requirediscussing on critical matters such as working conditions andremuneration. Both methods provide an avenue for the employees andthe management to suggest their ideas, and then reach a mutualagreement (Wheelwright 2008, p. 239).

Bothcollective and consultative voice frameworks base the negotiation onmutual trust, understanding, and discussion. This implies that theparties are equal hence, each side proposes recommendations that arediscussed during the conference. The parties then arrive agree on acompromise that would suit each party (Battet al. 2002, p. 590).

Thecommunication techniques offer a chance for addressing operationalchallenges between the employer and the employees in aproblem-solving approach. For example, the staff can addressremuneration, working conditions, and expectations. On the hand, themanagement proposes its position such as the remuneration level andits preferred work environment. Eventually, the negotiating partiesstrike a rapport that facilitates smooth operation of a business(Armstrong 2006, p. 29).

Collectivebargaining versus joint consultation

Collectivebargaining pushes for negotiation through involvement. The employeeschoose a few people (trade union representatives) to negotiate withthe management on their behalf. On the contrary, joint consultationnegotiates through participation. Dyne (2003, p. 1364) asserts thateach staff member actively participates in the decision-makingprocess. This provides an avenue for introducing social changes usingdesirable solutions.

Theworkers’ unions use the collective bargaining method enhancesindividual employee input through reconciling their conflictinginterests with the management. The employees choose a fewrepresentatives to present their interests to the administrators. Bythe end of the bargaining, the management and the employees strike arapport regarding the desired improvement, which in turn encouragesthe staff to increase productivity (Armstrong 2006, pp. 26-29). Onthe other hand, joint consultation aims at achieving communalemployee contribution. The underlying theory for encouraging thestaff to take part in the decision-making process is that they haveadequate interest, knowledge, skills, and capabilities to contributeproductive business decisions. The staff retention in organizationsthat use joint consultation is often high because the managementgrants them an opportunity to customize the work environment to theirneeds (Spencer 1986, p. 485).

Collectivebargaining aims at enhancing responsibilities of individual employeesthat in turn enhance effective plant operation. The communallyproposed changes in the business sustain prosperity and stability ofthe business. According to Saunders (1992, pp. 246-247), collectivebargaining bring changes in the power hierarchy of rival groups andserves as a peace accord among different parties. The stakeholders inthe collective bargain involve people that share a common task. Theoutcome of the deal is an agreement of the terms and conditions thatwill control a continued service. Contrary, joint consultation is acollective representation of everyone. The staff can addressoperation problems using a problem-solving approach. The succinctideology represented by the philosophy is management through consentas the administrators involve all the staff members in making theimplemented policies (Van &amp Greenwood 2008, 213).

Collectivebargaining does not change the management hierarchy. The staffidentifies a few representatives that take their grievances to thetop management. The individuals advocate management to accomplishgiven objectives in order to improve productivity. The method aims atchanging the social hierarchy of the employees instead of theadministrative structure (Greenberg, &amp Edwards 2009, p. 69).However, joint consultation interferes with the management hierarchybecause everyone represents him or herself. This implies that ajunior employee can contribution in the motion immediately after theCEO introduces a motion as the intention of the meetings is seekingconsent from the staff. McCall (2001, p. 199), adds that jointconsultation is valuable in businesses that are about to introducesignificant changes in the organization as the employees and theadministrators can develop reach an agreement on efficient transitionstructure.

Theemployees are passive recipients in collective bargaining because thetrade unions present their grievances to their employers. The unionrepresentatives enter into an agreement with the management on behalfof their employees (McFarlin, &amp Sweeney 1996, p. 294).Nonetheless, the members of joint consultation participate activelybecause everyone has an opportunity to present his or her grievances(Tangirala &amp Ramanujam 2008, p. 1194).

Voiceframework trends in the UK

TheUK employee-management communication has significantly transformedover time. During the industrial democracy, the re-ordering mainlyfocused on securing control access to the management of productionmeans. This implies that the staff had the essential democratic rightfor employees to participate in influencing management decisions inan institution (Batt et al. 2002, p.574).

Theemployee participation is another major achievement control thatregulates labour and employers with the intention of minimizingemployee withdrawal or lowers the susceptibility of the employees tofeeling exempted in making major decisions affecting them at the workenvironment. The present UK government is dedicated to labourversatility thus, it has established policies aimed at committingthe country to the EuropeanSocial Policy (Bogg&amp Novitz 2014, p.57).

Currently,the European Social Policy advocates employee involvement. The staffhas access for controlling and directing labor of the subordinates.The main advantage of adopting this voice framework includesachieving enhanced problem-solving abilities and greater staffdedication to their respective duties (Wilkinson 2014, p. 38).

Backin the 1960s, the UK emphasized on job enrichment and motivation ofthe staff. The management accomplishes the enrichment objectivethrough offering enhanced training to the employees. The Humanresource management department offers scholarships or flexibleprograms that would in turn allow the employees to advance education.The industrial democracy dominated in the UK in the 1970s. From 1980sto 1990s, the voice of frameworks focused on competitive advantageand motivation that is attained through financial incentives.Starting from the 2000s, regulated participation and improvedinvolvement through collective bargaining has become popular. Infact, the UK government has established elaborate platforms foremployee participation in business management such as the EuropeanWorks Councils (EWCs) (Bowen &amp Blackmon 2003, 1395).

Bibliography

Wheelwright,E.L, 2008. Joint consultation in Britain. AustralianJournal of Public Administration.13 (4). Pp. 236-250.

Dyne,V.L., Soon, A., &amp Botero, I. C., 2003. Conceptualizing EmployeeSilence and Employee Voice as Multidimensional Constructs. Journalof Management Studies,40(6),1359-1392. Retrieved October 11, 2014, from the Business SourceComplete database.

Armstrong,M., 2006. Handbookof Human Resource Management Practice (10thed.). London: Kogan Page, Limited.

Tangirala,S., &amp Ramanujam, R.,2008. Exploring Nonlinearity in EmployeeVoice: The Effects of Personal Control and OrganizationalIdentification. Academyof Management Journal,51(6),1189-1203. Retrieved October 11, 2014 from the Business SourceComplete database.

Spencer,D. G. 1986. Employee Voice and Employee Retention. Academyof Management Journal,29(3),488-502. Retrieved October 11, 2014, from the Business SourceComplete database.

Saunders,D. M., Sheppard, B. H., Knight, V., &amp Roth, J. 1992. EmployeeVoice to Supervisors. EmployeeResponsibilities&amp Rights Journal,5(3),241-259.

Van,B.H., &amp Greenwood, M., 2008. Enhancing Employee Voice: AreVoluntary Employer-Employee Partnerships Enough?. Journalof Business Ethics,81(1),209-221.

McCall,J. J., 2001. Employee Voice in Corporate Governance: A Defense ofStrong Participation Rights. BusinessEthics Quarterly,11(1),195-213.

Greenberg,J., &amp Edwards, M. S., 2009. Voiceand silence in organizations.Bingley, U.K., Emerald Group Pub.

McFarlin,D. B., &amp Sweeney, P. D. 1996. Does Having a Say Matter Only ifYou Get Your Way? Instrumental and Value-Expressive Effects ofEmployee Voice. Basic&amp Applied SocialPsychology,18(3),289-303.

Batt,R., Colvin, A., &amp Keefe, J. 2002. Employee voice, human resourcepractices, and quit rates: Evidence from the telecommunicationsindustry. Industrial&amp Labor Relations Review,55(4),573-594.

Wilkinson,A. .2014. Handbookof research on employee voice.Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar Publishing.http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=1681110.

Bogg,A., &amp Novitz, T. 2014. Voicesat work: continuity and change in the common law world.

Bowen,F., &amp Blackmon, K. 2003. Spirals of silence: The dynamic effectsof diversity andorganizational voice. Journalof Management Studies,40(6), 1393-1417.