Where Informality Really Matters: Patterns of Employee Involvement and Participation (EIP) in a Non-Union Firm

an article by Mick Marchington (University of Manchester) and Jane Suter (University of York) published in Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society Volume 52 Issue Supplement s1 (January 2013)

Abstract

Industrial relations scholars have long been interested in notions of employee involvement, participation, voice, and industrial democracy but the terminology is so elastic that the types of practices covered are extremely broad.

In this article, following a brief discussion that categorises employee involvement and participation (EIP) in terms of degree, level, and scope, we focus on the relatively dilute formal and informal practices which operate at workplace level in non-union firms.

Although researchers now examine direct – as well as representative – forms of EIP, we argue the focus is still on formal systems. This finding is understandable both from a methodological and a theoretical angle, but it leaves a gap in our awareness of how EIP functions at workplace level, and in particular, the role played by line managers in developing informal communication and consultation in non-union firms.

In this article, we examine formal and informal EIP within a large non-union firm in the UK hospitality sector; a context characterised by intense product and labour market pressures and limited union presence.

Our principal conclusion is that informality takes centre stage in this organisation, driven by managerial and worker preferences for informal EIP in the context of close working relations at the customer interface.

Moreover, customer pressures and flexible working patterns make it difficult to sustain formal EIP in the context of a capability framework that puts a primacy on managers using informal approaches. However, it is argued that informal EIP needs to be combined with the formal system to operate effectively.

---

The Comparative Advantage of Non-Union Voice in Britain, 1980–2004

an article by Alex Bryson (National Institute for Economic and Social Research), Paul Willman (London School of Economics), Rafael Gomez (University of Toronto) and Tobias Kretschmer (University of Munich) published in Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society Volume 52 Issue Supplement s1 (January 2013)

Abstract

Non-union direct voice has replaced union representative voice as the primary avenue for employee voice in the British private sector.

This study explains this development by providing a framework for examining the relationship between employee voice and workplace outcomes.

Voice is associated with lower voluntary turnover, especially in the case of union voice.

However, union voice is also associated with greater workplace conflict. We argue changes in voice in Britain are not best understood using a simple union/non-union dichotomy.

Union effects on workplace outcomes and the incidence of human resource management hinge on whether it coexists at the workplace with non-union voice in what we term a “dual” system.

In the first part of the 21st century, these dual voice systems were performing at least as well as non-union only regimes, suggesting that the rise of non-union regimes is attributed to something other than clear comparative performance advantages over other forms of voice.

JEL Classifications: J24, J51, J52, J53, J63

---