Employee participation in management is increasing with the influence and success of Japanese and European management practices. The federal government is following the lead of American business in adopting procedures like quality circles and the use of employee suggestions, and these procedures have highly productive results. MSPB data indicates that the limited use of quality circles in federal government has shown them efficient, and the wide use of employee suggestions has improved productivity as measured by benefit-cost ratios. The future of these forms of participation seems assured, but more wide-ranging forms like employee involvement in decision making and quality of work life programs await a final verdict on their futures.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BryantStephenKearnsJoseph. “Workers’ Brains as Well as Their Bodies: Quality Circles in A Federal Facility,”Public Administration Review, March / April 1982, 144–150.
2.
CammonCortlandtLedfordGerald. “Productivity Management Through Quality of Work Life Programs,”FombrunCharles (Eds.) Strategic Human Resource Management (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1984).
3.
CrosbyBob. “Employee Involvement: Why it Fails, What it Takes to Succeed,”Personnel Administrator, Feb. 1986, 31:295–107.
4.
DaleyDennis. “Humanistic Management and Organizational Success: The Effect of Job and Work Environment Characteristics on Organizational Effectiveness, Public Responsiveness and Job Satisfaction,”Public Personnel Management, Summer 1986, 15:2, 131–142.
5.
FarrellDon. “Exit, Voice, Loyalty and Neglect as Responses to Job Dissatisfaction: A Multidimensional Scaling Study,”Academy of Management Journal, Dec. 1983, 26:4, 596–607.
6.
FennDanYankelovichDaniel. “Responding to the Employee Voice,”BeerMichaelSpectorBert (Eds.) Readings in Human Resource Management (London: Collier. Macmillan, 1985).
7.
FisherScott. “Work Teams: A Case Study,”Personnel, Jan. 1981, 60:1, 42–45.
8.
FlaglerJohnSchroederWilliam. “Unions and Worker Participation in PAIR Management,” in YoderDaleHenemanHerbert. ASPA Handbook of Personnel and Industrial Relations, Vol. III (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs, 1977, 7.1–7.35).
9.
GadonHerman. “Making Sense of Quality of Work Life Programs”, Business Horizons, Jan/Feb. 1984, 27:1, 42–46.
10.
GehrmanDouglas. “The Deregulated Employee,”Personnel Administrator, Jan. 1986, 31:1, 35–40.
11.
Getting Involved: Improving Federal Management with Employee Participation (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, May 1986).
12.
HammerTove“Absenteeism When Workers Have a Voice: The Case of Employee Ownership,”Journal of Applied Psychology, Aug. 1981, 66:4, 561–573.
13.
HarrisonTeresa. “Communication and Participative Decision Making: An Exploratory Study,”Personnel Psychology, Spring 1985, 38:1, 93–116.
14.
HirschmanAlbert. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard U. Press, 1970).
15.
JimenoJuliusCarneyBrian. “U.S. Department of Agriculture's Quality of Worklife Survey,”Basic Personnel Management, Winter 1985, 14:4, 367–383.
16.
LovrichNicholas. “The Dangers of Participative Management: A Test of Unexamined Assumptions Concerning Employee Involvement,”Review of Public Personnel Administration, Summer 1985, 5:3, 9–25.
17.
MortonHerbert. “Quality of Life in Work,” in Yoder, Dale and Heneman, Herbert. Vol. VI, op.cit., 1997, 3–103–3–123.
18.
SchusterMichaelMillerChristopher. “Employee Involvement: Making Supervisors Believers,”Personnel, Feb. 1985, 62:2, 24–28.
