互补还是冲突?正式参与、非正式参与与组织绩效

A. S. Litwin, A. E. Eaton
{"title":"互补还是冲突?正式参与、非正式参与与组织绩效","authors":"A. S. Litwin, A. E. Eaton","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2201704","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Most studies of worker participation examine either formal participatory structures or informal participation. Yet, increasingly, works councils and other formal participatory bodies are operating in parallel with collective bargaining or are filling the void left by its decline. Moreover, these bodies are sprouting in workplaces in which workers have long held a modicum of influence, authority, and production- or service-related information. This study leverages a case from the healthcare sector to examine the interaction between formal and informal worker participation. Seeking to determine whether or not these two forces — each independently shown to benefit production or service delivery — complement or undermine one another, we find evidence for the latter. In the case of the 27 primary care departments that we study, formal structures appeared to help less participatory departments improve their performance. However, these same structures also appeared to impede those departments with previously high levels of informal participation. While we remain cautious with respect to generalizability, the case serves as a warning to those seeking to institute participation in an environment in which some workers have long felt they had the requisite authority, influence, and information necessary to perform their jobs effectively.","PeriodicalId":341206,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Capital-Labor Relations & Institutional Change (Topic)","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Complementary or Conflictual? Formal Participation, Informal Participation, and Organizational Performance\",\"authors\":\"A. S. Litwin, A. E. Eaton\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2201704\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Most studies of worker participation examine either formal participatory structures or informal participation. Yet, increasingly, works councils and other formal participatory bodies are operating in parallel with collective bargaining or are filling the void left by its decline. Moreover, these bodies are sprouting in workplaces in which workers have long held a modicum of influence, authority, and production- or service-related information. This study leverages a case from the healthcare sector to examine the interaction between formal and informal worker participation. Seeking to determine whether or not these two forces — each independently shown to benefit production or service delivery — complement or undermine one another, we find evidence for the latter. In the case of the 27 primary care departments that we study, formal structures appeared to help less participatory departments improve their performance. However, these same structures also appeared to impede those departments with previously high levels of informal participation. While we remain cautious with respect to generalizability, the case serves as a warning to those seeking to institute participation in an environment in which some workers have long felt they had the requisite authority, influence, and information necessary to perform their jobs effectively.\",\"PeriodicalId\":341206,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ERN: Capital-Labor Relations & Institutional Change (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ERN: Capital-Labor Relations & Institutional Change (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2201704\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Capital-Labor Relations & Institutional Change (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2201704","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

大多数关于工人参与的研究要么考察正式的参与结构,要么考察非正式的参与。然而,越来越多的工人委员会和其他正式的参与性机构正在与集体谈判并行运作,或者正在填补集体谈判衰落留下的空白。此外,这些机构在工人长期拥有少量影响力、权威和与生产或服务相关的信息的工作场所中萌芽。本研究利用医疗保健部门的一个案例来检验正式和非正式工人参与之间的相互作用。为了确定这两种力量——每一种力量都独立地有利于生产或服务的提供——是相互补充还是相互破坏,我们找到了后者的证据。在我们研究的27个初级保健部门中,正式的结构似乎有助于较少参与的部门提高绩效。但是,这些相同的结构似乎也妨碍了以前非正式参与程度很高的部门。虽然我们对其普遍性仍持谨慎态度,但对于那些寻求建立参与环境的人来说,这个案例是一个警告,在这种环境中,一些工人长期以来一直认为他们拥有有效履行工作所必需的权威、影响力和信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Complementary or Conflictual? Formal Participation, Informal Participation, and Organizational Performance
Most studies of worker participation examine either formal participatory structures or informal participation. Yet, increasingly, works councils and other formal participatory bodies are operating in parallel with collective bargaining or are filling the void left by its decline. Moreover, these bodies are sprouting in workplaces in which workers have long held a modicum of influence, authority, and production- or service-related information. This study leverages a case from the healthcare sector to examine the interaction between formal and informal worker participation. Seeking to determine whether or not these two forces — each independently shown to benefit production or service delivery — complement or undermine one another, we find evidence for the latter. In the case of the 27 primary care departments that we study, formal structures appeared to help less participatory departments improve their performance. However, these same structures also appeared to impede those departments with previously high levels of informal participation. While we remain cautious with respect to generalizability, the case serves as a warning to those seeking to institute participation in an environment in which some workers have long felt they had the requisite authority, influence, and information necessary to perform their jobs effectively.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信