Analysing the forces shaping employee involvement and participation (EIP) at organisation level in liberal market economies (LMEs)

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12065
• Author: Mick Marchington
• Date: 01 January 2015
• Published date: 01 January 2015

Analysing the forces shaping employee

involvement and participation (EIP) at organisation

level in liberal market economies (LMEs)

Mick Marchington, Manchester Business School, University of Manchester and

Strathclyde Business School, University of Strathclyde

Human Resource Management Journal, Vol 25, no 1, 2015, pages 1–18

Employee involvement and participation (EIP) continues to attract significant interest from academics

and practitioners alike, often in terms of so-called newer forms of employee engagement and informal

consultation. However, although the history of EIP shows that multiple channels are the norm in most

organisations, it is still rare for representative, direct and informal EIP to be discussed in the same study.

This article breaks new ground by developing measures for the breadth and depth of EIP, as well as

analysing the forces at and beyond organisation level which shape management choices about which

forms to adopt and how to embed them more deeply in organisations. Data were collected from 86

interviews and associated documentary analysis at and beyond organisational level in four liberal market

economies (LMEs) (UK, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand) in order to identify how forces at national

and organisational level shaped the breadth and depth of EIP in 25 case study organisations. The article’s

main conclusion is that while institutional forces – such as legislation, government action and

intermediary bodies – do have an influence in LMEs, the way in which management interprets more

immediate organisational forces remains significantly important in embedding EIP within organisations.

Contact: Professor Mick Marchington, Manchester Business School, University of Manchester,

Booth Street West, Manchester M15 6PB, UK. Email: mick.marchington@mbs.ac.uk

Keywords: employee involvement and participation; breadth and depth of EIP; embeddedness;

institutional forces; contingency theory; management choice

INTRODUCTION

There remains significant interest in the concept of employee involvement and participation

(EIP) and voice within the human resource management and employment relations

literatures, nowhere more so than in the Human Resource Management Journal (see, for

example, Cox et al., 2006; Johnstone et al., 2009; Holland et al., 2012; Kaufman, 2015). While many

publications focus on specific practices such as European Works Councils (EWCs) and joint

consultative committees (JCCs), interest has grown in how multiple forms of EIP combine

together to become embedded in organisations. This is important because EIP cannot be conflated

into one generic phenomenon but is configured via multiple practices which last for different

lengths of time and have varying levels of intensity. This was traditionally the case with

representative and direct EIP (Dundon et al., 2004; Danford et al., 2009) but research now shows

informal EIP co-exists alongside these (Townsend et al., 2012; Marchington and Suter, 2013).

The notion of multiple channels of EIP is developed here, in terms of their breadth (the

number of practices) and depth (the degree to which each form is embedded) within

organisations (Cox et al., 2006, 2009). Wilkinson et al. (2010) differentiate EIP into three broad

forms – formal representative, direct formal, and informal – which is defined in the next section.

Following Purcell (2014), employee engagement is integrated with EIP: structured practices

such as surveys are included within direct EIP while less structured interactions between line

bs_bs_banner

doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12065

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 25 NO 1, 2015 1

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Please cite this article in press as: Marchington, M. (2015) ‘Analysing the forces shaping employee involvement and participation (EIP) at

organisation level in liberal market economies (LMEs)’. Human Resource Management Journal 25: 1, 1–18.

managers and their teams are regarded as informal EIP. Having analysed these different forms,

we assess how the breadth and depth of EIP is shaped by (a) institutional and intermediary

forces beyond the organisation, (b) product and labour market context, and (c) organisational

structure and culture. However, because no simple iron law of contingency theory exists,

outcomes depend on how senior managers interpret these forces in making choices about

which forms of EIP to implement (Dundon et al., 2004).

This article seeks to fill two major gaps in the literature by (a) providing a more precise

articulation of what is meant by breadth and depth of EIP, and (b) examining how forces both

at and beyond organisation level influence management choices about the shape of EIP.

Following a literature review and an explanation of research methods, these ideas are tested

against data collected at national and organisational levels in four LMEs (the UK, Ireland,

Australia and New Zealand). These countries were selected because of some commonality in

EIP practices – JCCs, briefing groups and a growing focus on informality – as well as some

differences at institutional and intermediary levels. The article finishes with a summary of the

main conclusions and some implications for further research and for organisational practice.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Breadth and depth of different forms of EIP

EIP comprises representative formal systems, direct formal meetings and informal interactions.

Until the 1980s, it was portrayed totally in its representative form, via bodies such as JCCs which

provided opportunities for employee representatives to meet with managers to discuss issues

not covered by collective bargaining – such as future plans, work organisation and welfare

(Marchington, 1987). These varied greatly between organisations in terms of managerial

interest, regularity, mode of representation and subject matter, and while some JCCs still

comprise union representatives only, increasingly they now include both union and non-union

employee representatives or are totally separate from union channels (Gollan, 2010). Other

forms include EWCs in the UK and Ireland and partnership arrangements in all four countries

(Marchington, 2015).

Direct formal EIP occurs when managers interact directly with their teams in a formal setting

rather than via employee representatives. This has grown dramatically since the 1980s as

employers sought better access to employees rather than relying on trade union channels, a

move which coincided with declines in union membership thus raising questions about its

purpose, with some feeling it had been designed to marginalise unions (Wilkinson et al., 2010).

Direct EIP comprises a range of formal practices such as team briefing, town hall meetings,

problem-solving schemes, newsletters and blogs, and engagement/attitude surveys, some of

which also provide opportunities for workers to raise issues. These practices are now

widespread (Cox et al., 2009; Lavelle et al., 2010).

Informal EIP refers to ad hoc interactions between line managers and their staff which give

opportunities for information-passing and consultation. Strauss (1998: 15) defines it as ‘the

day-to-day relations between supervisors and subordinates . . . a process which allows workers

to exert some influence over their work and the conditions under which they work.’ This has

received limited attention but research suggests informal EIP is important at workplace level

not just in small firms where formal practices are less likely but also in larger organisations as

a way to build trust and commitment (Boxall et al., 2007; Townsend et al., 2012; Marchington

and Suter: 2013). The distinction between informal and formal EIP is not totally clear but

Strauss (1998: 17–18) regards any ad hoc conversations as the former while scheduled

Forces shaping EIP in LMEs

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 25 NO 1, 20152

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.