Perspectives on Employee Voice

Perspectives on Employee Voice 10

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, which was popular in the 1980s and 1990s, ismanagement philosophy and technique that demands negotiation betweenthe manager and the employees with the objective of arriving at amutual agreement. Wheelwright (2008, p. 236) describes jointconsultation as any strategy for creating dual-way communication foreither two or more parties that do not share information on a dailybasis. The aim of the consultation is reaching on a suitable decisionthat suits everyone is the organization or ensuring differences aresolved amicably. Thus, joint consultation aims at guarantyingfairness at the workplace. On the contrary, collective bargainingtheory mainly involves a meeting held between a labor union andeither an association or a single employer (Tangirala &amp Ramanujam2008, p. 1194). More so, it involves industrial relations and thelaws governing an industry’s stakeholders. Both the jointconsultation and collective bargaining play a critical role indefining the human resources decision making process. This essay aimsat comparing and contrasting the thepractices of Collective Bargaining and Joint Consultation.

CollectiveBargaining and Joint Consultation have some similarities such as theobjective of solving differences between the employees and themanagement through conflict management practises. In many cases, thestaff and employees require discussing on critical matters such asworking conditions and remuneration. Both methods provide an avenuefor the employees and the management to suggest their ideas, and thenreach a mutual agreement (Wheelwright 2008, p. 239). Both collectiveand consultative voice frameworks base the negotiation on mutualtrust, understanding, and discussion. This implies that the partiesare 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).

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 human resourcesmanage. By the end of the bargaining, the human resources managementand the employees strike a rapport regarding the desired improvement,which in turn encourages the staff to increase productivity(Armstrong 2006, pp. 26-29). On the other hand, joint consultationaims at achieving communal employee contribution. The underlyingtheory whereby the human resource management encourages the staff totake part in the decision-making process is that they have adequateinterest, knowledge, skills, and capabilities to contributeproductive business decisions. The staff retention in organizationsthat use joint consultation is often high because the the employeeshave a sense of belonging to the organization because of consultationby the management when decisions are being made (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 consultationinvolves all employees who take part to address operation problemsusing a problem-solving approach. The succinct ideology representedby the philosophy is management through consent as the administratorsinvolve all the staff members in making and implementing policies(Van &amp Greenwood 2008, 213).

Collectivebargaining does not change the management hierarchy because theemployees who select their representatives, who will consequentlymeet with the human resources managers to disagree to agree on someissues needing to be addressed (Walker, Lyons &amp Beaumont 2001, p.161). The representatives advocate management to accomplish givenobjectives in order to improve productivity. Depending on the demandsbeing made by the representatives, the human resources managers willhave to review its decisions and principles, and thereby makedecisions after considering the demands being presented. Thus, thesocial hierarchy is affected because not all employee meet themanagement (Greenberg, &amp Edwards 2009, p. 69). However, jointconsultation interferes with the management hierarchy becauseeveryone represents him or herself. In addition, joint consultationis valuable in businesses that are about to introduce significantchanges in the organization as the employees and the administratorscan develop reach an agreement on efficient transition structure(McCall 2001, p. 199).

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). There has been a dilemmabetween the human resources, the workers and the unions in regards tojoint consultation and collective bargaining. In efforts to enhanceeconomic growth while ensuring a mutually beneficial relationshipbetween the employer and the employee, the UK government hasestablished mechanism of increased data sharing of information amongthe three parties. The human resources management has been forced todevelop information sharing consultative meetings that between allthe stakeholders to ensure full disclosure of relevant informationabout a firm and its policies. Irrespective of the attitude developedby government, in UK, collective bargaining is aimed to address legalissues on law of disclosure where the employees, through their unionor representative feel cheated, while joint consultation is a recentapproach in UK developed by the human resources in efforts to adoptthe changes in the information sharing. Through collective bargainingdifferences between the employees can be resulted through eitherinformal conciliation that results to improved industrial relationsor formal hearing through a predefined procedures.

Theemployee participation in decision making through information sharingis another major achievement control that regulates labour andemployers with the intention of minimizing employee withdrawal orlowers the susceptibility of the employees to feeling exempted inmaking major decisions affecting them at the work environment. Thepresent UK government is dedicated to labour versatility thus, ithas established policies aimed at committing the country to theEuropeanSocial 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. Information disclosure has increased industrialrelations since the disclosure of information is becoming morepronounced.


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

Walker,N., Lyons, C., &amp Beaumont, P. (2001). Convergence and divergencein European public law. Oxford, Hart.

Batt,R., Colvin, A., &amp Keefe, J. 2002, ‘Employee voice, humanresource practices, and quit rates: Evidence from thetelecommunications industry’. Industrial&amp Labor Relations Review,vol 55,no.4,pp. 573-594.

Bogg,A., &amp Novitz, T. 2014. Voicesat work: continuity and change in the common law world.Available from:&lt[12 October 2014]

Dyne,V.L., Soon, A., &amp Botero, I. C., 2003, ‘ConceptualizingEmployee Silence and Employee Voice as Multidimensional Constructs’,Journalof Management Studies,vol.40,no.6,pp. 1359-1392.

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

McCall,J. J. 2001, ‘Employee Voice in Corporate Governance: A Defense ofStrong Participation Rights’, BusinessEthics Quarterly,vol 11, no.11, pp. 195-213.

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,vol.18,no.3,pp. 289-303.

Saunders,D. M., Sheppard, B. H., Knight, V., &amp Roth, J. 1992, ‘EmployeeVoice to Supervisors’, EmployeeResponsibilities&amp Rights Journal,vol.5,no.3,pp. 241-259.

Spencer,D. G. 1986, ‘Employee Voice and Employee Retention’, Academyof Management Journal,vol.29,no.3,pp.488-502.

Tangirala,S., &amp Ramanujam, R.,2008, ‘Exploring Nonlinearity in EmployeeVoice: The Effects of Personal Control and OrganizationalIdentification’, Academyof Management Journal,vol.51,no.6,pp. 1189-1203.

Van,B.H., &amp Greenwood, M., 2008, ‘Enhancing Employee Voice: AreVoluntary Employer-Employee Partnerships Enough?’, Journalof Business Ethics,vol.81,no.1,pp.209-221.

Wheelwright,E.L, 2008, ‘Joint consultation in Britain’, AustralianJournal of Public Administration,vol.13, no.4. pp. 236-250.

Wilkinson,A. .2014. Handbookof research on employee voice.Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar Publishing. Available from&lt[12 October 2014].