The Efficacy of U.S. Employee Participation Programs

Cooperation between management and unions to improve productivity in the American workplace was one of the most popular topics in the industrial relations literature of the 1970s. Interest in such cooperative efforts continued to increase in the 1980s and early 1990s. During this period considerable experimentation in labor-management cooperation and employee participa­ tion in both union and nonunion firms took place. The wider use of employee participation programs seems to have been triggered by the need to respond to environmental forces such as increased domestic and foreign competition, technological advances, and changing labor force demographics. The growth of these programs has led to considerable interest among researchers regard­ ing their effects on the existing system of industrial relations. This article reviews the recent literature on employee participation programs to assess their impact on outcomes for employers, employees, and unions. Several issues for the study and practice of employee participation are raised and future research directions are suggested. Cooperation between management and unions to improve productivity in the American workplace was one of the most popular topics in the industrial relations literature of the 1970s [1]. Interest in such cooperative efforts continued to increase in the 1980s. During this period considerable experimentation in labormanagement cooperation and employee participation in both union and nonunion © 1996, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc. 71 doi: 10.2190/Q338-5PUU-BB90-VDK4 http://baywood.com 72 / LEVINE AND POON firms took place [2]. The wider use of employee participation programs in the 1980s seems to have been triggered by the need to respond to environmental forces such as increased domestic and foreign competition, technology advances, and changing labor force demographics [3,4] . The concept of labor-management cooperation is based on the idea that both labor and management can gain from concerted action toward goals that are mutually beneficial to employees and management [5]. One concern that has been raised within the academic community and the labor movement, however, is whether such cooperative efforts can coexist with unions and collective bargain­ ing as currently constituted. Since these workplace innovations began initially in nonunion firms that were committed to keeping unions out [6], it is not surprising that the labor movement has in the past been suspicious and even hostile toward employee participation programs. In the view of Kochan, Katz, and McKersie [7], the active and extensive use of quality-of-work life (QWL) and other workplace innovations by employers and behavioral science consultants as part of a broader strategy to keep out unions was the most significant obstacle to the acceptance and diffusion of similar cooperative efforts in unionized workplaces in the 1970s. Although union opposition still exists in some cases, union leaders have in general become less oppositional and more diversified in their views. For example, Eaton and Voos [8] reported a diverse range of union responses to workplace innovations including direct opposition, passive indifference, protec­ tive involvement, and wholehearted involvement and collaboration. Juravich, Harris, and Brooks [9], in their survey of both management and union respon­ dents, found that although unions were less enthusiastic than management about employee involvement programs, they did not regard such programs as serious threats. In fact, they were either neutral or somewhat positive toward such cooperative efforts. In another study, Wolters [10] surveyed sixty-two manage­ ment and thirty-nine union practitioners in Alabama to determine their attitudes toward labor-management cooperation. The results indicated that both groups favored such cooperative efforts; however, union representatives demonstrated more positive attitudes overall. The development and growth of employee participation programs have also led to an interest among researchers in the industrial relations field regarding the impact of these programs on the existing system of industrial relations. Of interest is also the effect of such programs on various economic and noneconomic outcomes for management, employees, and unions. There is considerable debate among academic scholars and labor practitioners concerning whether employee participation programs will, in the long run, have positive or negative effects on the interests of unions and the workers they represent. This article reviews some of the empirical evidence on the impact (benefit, costs, risks) of employee participation programs and outlines some recommendations and research suggestions. U.S. EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION PROGRAMS / 73 A DEFINITION OF EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION According to Eaton and Voos [6], employee participation is a general term used to encompass many programs, all of which attempt to involve employees in decision making by holding regular meetings. These meetings are usually held among a small number of persons in the same work group. Attendance may be voluntary or involuntary, compensated or uncompensated, and training may or may not be provided. Programs vary widely in the issues to be addressed by groups and the degree of authority given. Programs such as quality circles, quality of work life, and employee involvement are all considered employee participation