1 / 14

Adding value in studying employee involvement and participation: benefits of matching employee-employer data in WERS

Adding value in studying employee involvement and participation: benefits of matching employee-employer data in WERS. Annette Cox Manchester Business School University of Manchester, UK Presentation for 2nd WORKS workshop on ‘Measuring Changes in Work by Organisation Surveys',

Patman
Download Presentation

Adding value in studying employee involvement and participation: benefits of matching employee-employer data in WERS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Adding value in studying employee involvement and participation: benefits of matching employee-employer data in WERS Annette CoxManchester Business SchoolUniversity of Manchester, UK Presentation for 2nd WORKS workshop on ‘Measuring Changes in Work by Organisation Surveys', Higher Institute of Labour Studies of the Catholic University (HIVA-K.U.), Leuven, Belgium, 19 March, 2007

  2. Introduction to WERS Issues in examining EIP (1) - measuring EIP embeddedness EIP measures and outcomes used in analysing WERS Findings (1) – formal EIP practices and employee outcomes from WERS 2004 Issues in examining EIP (2) – organisational context and EIP processes Findings (2) – EIP processes and employee outcomes from WERS 2004 Conclusions Implications for international surveys Summary

  3. 5 surveys since 1980, sponsored by UK government and policy bodies Nationally representative sample of employers, workplace level unit of analysis, covers wide range of HR/IR topics Began with cross-section survey of employer and employee representatives, panel survey added 1998 WERS enjoys very good reputation and respectable response rates (64% for main mgt survey in 2004, 60% for employee survey) Employee self-completion survey for the first time in 1998, permitting matching of employee/employer data Employee survey quality increasing – detail and range of topics More information from Information and Advice Service for WERS Web address: http://www.wers2004.info/about/ourservices.php UK Workplace Employment/Industrial RelationsSurvey Series (WERS/WIRS)

  4. EIP and its outcomes – role of WERS • Problems with measuring outcomes and impact of EIP – need to look at nature and quality of EIP techniques – employee views critical for this • Key factor = ‘embeddedness’ of EIP in organisations Types of embeddedness: • Network • Temporal • Institutional Measured through EIP depthand breadth

  5. Measuring EIP embeddedness EIP Embeddedness Institutional = depth and breadth Temporal = depth Network = breadth Measure via presence of Measure via presence of Measure via longevity over multiple complementary multiple complementary EIP time (panel survey EIP practices and practices (breadth) and how analysis) and temporal coverage of employees seriously these are taken (depth): significance within workplace via by EIP (management airtime, coverage of employees, regularity and frequency of TB/JCCs cross-section survey method of JCC election, (management cross-section survey 2004) 2004) permanence of PSGs (management cross-section survey 2004)

  6. From the management survey: EIP practices examined (breadth): JCCs, ee surveys, team briefings, problem-solving groups, providing information about finance, investment and staffing Measures of embeddedness (depth): % of ees participating in problem-solving groups, airtime for ees in team briefings, selection method for ee reps in establishment committees, frequency of problem-solving groups and JCCs, permanence of problem-solving groups From the employee survey: Ratings of usefulness of: notice boards, email, intranet, newsletters, union/ee reps and ee – mgt meetings (employee perceptions of EIP) Ratings of mgt success in: seeking views of ees or their representatives, responding to suggestions from ees ees’ degree of satisfaction with the amount of involvement in decision-making ( (in) formal EIP processes) Measures of EIP applied in analysing WERS 2004

  7. 1) Employee commitment Pride in organisation Loyalty to organisation Sharing organisational values Employee job satisfaction perception of managerial fair treatment amount of job influence sense of achievement from work managers’ honest dealing with employees Analysis conducted using linear regression applying standard set of control variables Employee outcomes assessed through WERS

  8. EIP embeddedness and employee outcomes in WERS 2004 Analysis of WERS 2004 showed • no links between presence/absence of single EIP practices • no significant links between management reports of depth or breadth of EIP practices and employee perceptions of job satisfaction and commitment in smaller workplaces with fewer than 25 employees • Results for workplaces with at least 25 employees now follow…

  9. Links between EIP embeddedness (depth/breadth) and organisational commitment/job satisfaction in WERS 2004 survey Commitment Satisfaction EIP breadth **0.062 0.022 (0.025) (0.029) JCC -0.092 **-0.274 (0.079) (0.092) EIP depth 0.014 -0.025 (0.012) (0.014) Depth *0.026 -0.002 of direct EIP practices (0.013) (0.017) Depth of -0.020 **-0.093 indirect EIP practices (0.022) (0.028) Notes: ** significant at 1% level, * significant at 5% level.

  10. EIP processes and organisational context • Need to capture style of EIP implementation and informal EIP • Role of managers • Organisation context, especially size, may be important in use of EIP techniques • What aspects of EIP are important to employees?

  11. Employee perceptions of the helpfulness of EIP practices and links to organisational commitment/job satisfaction Workplaces with 10-24 employees Workplaces with 25 + employees Commitment Satisfaction Commitment Satisfaction Notice boards 0.239* 0.447** 0.471** 0.524** (0.108) (0.121) (0.050) (0.058) Email 0.239 0.150 0.314** 0.225** (0.130) (0.124) (0.069) (0.066) Intranet -0.151 -0.008 0.045 -0.068 (0.157) (0.159) (0.062) (0.059) Newsletters 0.133 0.138 0.364** 0.388** Union/ee reps 0.179 0.091 0.170** 0.153** (0.180) (0.184) (0.062) (0.057) Meetings 0.971** 1.043** 0.683** 0.935** (0.111) (0.129) (0.053) (0.057) Number of observations 2,123 2,128 14,411 14,279 Notes: ** significant at 1% level, * significant at 5% level

  12. Employee perceptions of EIP implementation Workplaces with 10-24 employees Workplaces with 25 + employees Commitment Satisfaction Commitment Satisfaction Mgrs good/ v good at 0.546** 0.854** 0.509** 0.840** seeking ee views (0.135) (0.129) (0.057) (0.059) Mgrs good/v good 0.370** 0.796** 0.496** 0.824** at responding to (0.124) (0.138) (0.059) (0.054) ee suggestions Ees satisfied/v 1.143** 1.462** 0.876** 0.824** satisfied with (0.119) (0.138) (0.059) (0.054) amount of involvement in decision-making Number of observations 2,135 2,134 14,292 14,195 Notes: ** significant at 1% level, * significant at 5% level

  13. Relationships between EIP structures, ee understanding of what EIP is and (in)formality of EIP processes require further exploration Potential of matching employee/employer survey data to compare views of workplace from different stakeholders Key message from findings = importance of EIP process -employee perception of management approach had strongest positive links to employee outcomes across all workplaces regardless of size Size matters (a bit) - employee views on usefulness of EIP techniques vary depending on workplace context (and likely use of different practices) Conclusions

  14. Implications for harmonising international survey data collection • Need to encompass national differences in organisational and institutional structures (Whitfield et al., 1998) • How much detail can we reasonably expect of employee surveys? • Huge potential for capturing (variations in) impact of transnational factors on employment conditions and relationships

More Related