Analyze the concepts of Employee Participation and Employee Involvement

 

Slightly successful business relies heavily on its employees, who are recognized as its most asset. According to Price (2004), employee engagement in operational structure not only inspires them but also permits them to contribute more actively and efficiently. Further, he asserts that employee engagement is a system that encourages involvement of employees, interaction, and decision-making, all of which contribute to industrial democracy and employee motivation, among other things. In the words of the CIDP (2009), employee engagement is defined as employees' dedication to the organization's ideals and commitment to support one another in attaining the organization's goals. In the long run, this results in an increase in employee satisfaction and motivation, as well as an increase in the overall success of the firm. Employer engagement, in its most basic form, comprises creating an environment in which employees have a constant effect on choices and activities that have an impact on their work.

Participation in the workplace and employee participation are two sides of the same coin. A healthy ecosystem relies on the other to function, and the absence of either would spell disaster. In terms of meaning, there is little difference between the two terms. When it comes to an organization's day-to-day functioning, participation is more relevant than involvement. Several authors have made significant contributions to the development of the components of employee engagement or participation. Among the definitions given by Delaney (1996) are involvement, which is described as an employee's voice in the decision-making system, as well as the definition of different types of employee engagement in the company's activities. Several authors have attempted to distinguish between two different meanings, though. There are many ways in which employees can participate within an organization, according to Kale (1999). However, the term "participation" doesn't refer to a specific type of employee engagement.

The study focused primarily on essential mechanisms that foster employee involvement and participation, such as an enlightened view, collective agreements, trade union engagement, and a social dialogue system, among other things. A large number of authors have contributed in a variety of ways, and each one brings a distinctive viewpoint to the idea and its significance. The terms participatory management, employee engagement, and staff involvement have all been used by different authors in the ancient and modern to describe employee commitment and inclusion. Perceptions are discussed in depth by Professor David Guest of Kings College London (2002), who explains their importance and the advantages they can give to both employees and employers. According with model, it is critical for employers to adhere to people management principles since it has a direct impact on the psychological contract with their employees. The contract is founded on the employees' shared trustworthiness and honesty, as well as their belief that the employer will uphold their end of the bargaining bargain. Further, he argues that including employees in decision-making increases their sense of ownership and ownership leads to increased productivity The labor unions also welcomed the fact that they could raise any issue or concern with management without fear of punishment or retaliation. Moreover, the communication structure had been preserved, giving them confidence that management could continue the dialogue regardless of the persons involved, even when unions' yearly conventions ushered in new office holders. Employee engagement and cooperation have been at the heart of employment relationship since its inception, despite the fact that much of the contemporary terminology has completely shifted from the Webbs' 1898 term of "industrial democracy." With the passage of time, employee involvement and engagement brands and concepts have developed to represent a variety of academic upbringings (including industrial relations, human resource management, psychology, and political science), changing socio - economic status surroundings (including conflicting goals between management, labor, and the government), and a variety of activities. A contrast is also made in the study between primary and symbolic methods of involving employees in the project and the way they interact. Even though employee participation and involvement is likely to remain contentious, the study found that its conceptual acceptability will be enhanced when it is linked to employee well-being and success. An productive working relationship necessitates the combination of employee engagement and participation techniques as well as interaction between employers and employee representatives.

 

References

Ang, A., 2002. An eclectic review of the multidimensional perspectives of employee involvement. The TQM Magazine.

De Vos, A. and Meganck, A., 2009. What HR managers do versus what employee’s value. Personnel Review.

Delaney, J.T. 1996. The impact of human resource management practices on perceptions of organizational performance. Academy of Management journal, 39(4), pp.949-969.

Evans, C.A. and Redfern, D.C., 2010. How can employee engagement be improved at the RRG Group? Part 1. Industrial and Commercial training.

Frauenheim, E., 2009. Good company: Business success in the worthiness era. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Gennard, J. and Judge, G., 2005. Employee relations. CIPD Publishing.

Grates, K.W., 2009. Impact of management basics on employee engagement. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 13(2), p.21.

Guest, D.E. and Conway, N., 2002. Communicating the psychological contract: an employer perspective. Human resource management journal, 12(2), pp.22-38.

Kale, E., 1999. Impacts of internal factors in organisations on creative and innovative performance in hospitality companies. International Journal of Innovation Management, 21(06), p.1750049.

Marchington, M., 2001. Employee involvement and participation: developing the concept of institutional embeddedness using WERS2004. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(10), pp.2150-2168.

Marchington, M., Wilkinson, A., Ackers, P. and Goodman, J., 1993. The influence of managerial relations on waves of employee involvement. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 31(4), pp.553-576.

Oosthuizen, G.J. and du Toit, A.S., 1999. Participative management in academic library services. Library Management.

Price, F., 2004. Employee involvement, technology and evolution in job skills: A task-based analysis. ILR Review, 65(1), pp.36-67.

Walton, R.E., 1985. From Control to Commitment in the Workplace: In factory after factory, there is a revolution under way in the management of work. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor-Management Relations and Cooperative Programs.

Webb, S. 1898. Webbs on industrial democracy. Palgrave Macmillan.