Many studies
have been carried out on employee’s participatory management, though some of
them see no relationship between participatory management and organizational performance,
yet so many others see clear relationships between participatory management and
performance.
Studies by
Kelly and Kelly (1991), Vaughan and Whitehead, (1995), and Ben-Ner and Jones, (1995)
all proved that there is negative association between participation and company
performance.
Different
studies have shown that attitudes and behaviour changes are not uniform and
differ between
forms of participation used and between different employees.
Batt and
Appelbaum (1995) found that performance improved as a result of participatory management.
A National
Survey conducted in 1992 and 2000 by White et:al;(2003) concluded thus our evidence clearly show that that
“employees do not always benefits from high-performance work practices”
especially in relation to a work-life balance.
A study by
Guest et:al; (2003) showed little evidence of link between Human Resource (HR)
practice and
productivity or performance change. More so data examined over a considerable time frame, between Work Place
Employees Relations Survey (WERS 1990 and WERS 1998) also indicate some contradictory
result for participatory and company performance claims.
Addison and
Belfield’s (2001) comparative analysis of two datasets found that, while employee
involvement increases were positively associated with productivity levels
for the 1990 dataset, this as not
replicated in 1998 survey result.
Sequel to the
above fact, the variant on outcome also seems to depend to some extent on the type of participatory
investigated. Consequently, Addison and Belfield’s conclusion from their
analysis of the determinants of organizational performance across the two
surveys is that the principal regularity in estimates based on the WERS 1990
and 1998 surveys is their lack of consistency.
However, Batt
and Appelbaum (1995) found that performance enhancement was most associated
with self-managed teams. Some negligible body of literature has it that participation
can increase level of conflict in an organization instead of reducing it . In reaction
to the above, Forsyth (1990) contended that conflict is a necessary process in building
group cohesion, which cannot occur, until inter-group hostility has surfaced,
been confronted and resolved.
As a matter of
fact, group cohesion is an integral factor of effective team working through
the establishment of group norms and peer pressures that prevent free riders.
A study by Peter
and Waterman (1996) concluded that employees participation or involvement helps
to improve relations, aids in conflict handling, change employees attitude and
behaviour, build trust and improve communication, all of which are critical elements
along the participation perception-performance casual part (Blast et:al; (1996), Oakland,
(1996), cited in Knight and McCabe (2000).
A review of
three Meta-analysis covering 70 individuals studies concluded that self-managed
team had:
§
A positive impact on productivity
§
A positive impact on specific attitudes relating
to self-management (e.g. responsibility and control).
§
No significant impact on general attitudes (e.g.
job satisfaction and organizational commitment).
§
No significant impact on the absenteeism or
turnover.
A study in
(2002) by Jordan et:al ; concluded that “ group cohesiveness (a positive ‘we’
feeling) is associated with higher performance rating”. Based on the literature
review, evaluation and empirical reports, it is clear that when participatory
(job design) is properly handled; it may lead to improved performance.