Employees’ Conceptions of How Management Can Operationalize Employee Involvement

Chapter
Part of the Media Business and Innovation book series (MEDIA)

Abstract

The global recession and its subsequent negative consequences have led managers of media organizations consider changes to the way they manage their organizations, aiming for greater efficiency and effectiveness. One of the changes considered was the achievement of employee involvement towards organizational decisions and operations.

Despite long-standing recognition on the importance of gaining employee involvement for implementing change successfully, we know almost nothing about how employees think about the way management can work to gain employee involvement. The purpose of this research is to eliminate this lacuna.

From a theoretical perspective, there has been a great deal of literature on the importance of gaining employee involvement in order to implement change. Even though these theoretical views are helpful, outstanding issues remain. More specifically, the existing theoretical views have not dealt adequately with how the employees think about the way management can work to achieve employee involvement. Also, there is little empirically grounded theoretical account of how employees think about how management can operationalize employee involvement.

In order to address this gap this study explores how employees think about the way management can operationalize employee involvement. As a result this research contributes towards a richer theory on the process behind the implementation of employee involvement, highlighting the importance of the recruitment process and the achievement of employee creation, innovation and confidence that their involvement is true and valid.

Keywords

Media Organization Stock Option Recruitment Process Organizational Decision Psychological Empowerment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abdel-Halim, A. A. (1983). Effects of task and personality characteristics on subordinate responses to participative decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 26(3), p477–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abdel-Halim, A. A., & Rowland, K. M. (1976). Some personality determinants of the effects of participation: a further investigation. Personnel Psychology, 29(1), p41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alge, B. J., Ballinger, G. A., Tangirala, S., & Oakely, J. L. (2006). Information privacy in organizations: Empowering creative and extrarole performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 9, 221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Argyris, C. (1973). Personality and organization theory revisited. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18, 141–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  6. Black, S., & Margulies, N. (1989). An ideological perspective on participation: a case for integration. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 2, 13–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Block, P. (1987). The empowered manager. San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.Google Scholar
  8. Clayton, J., & Gregory, W. J. (2000). Reflections on critical systems thinking and the management of change in rule-bound systems. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13, 140–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cobb, A. T., Folger, R., & Wooten, K. (1995). The role justice plays in organizational change. Public Administration Quarterly, 19, 135–152.Google Scholar
  10. Coch, L., & French, J. R. P., Jr. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 4, 512–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conger, J. A. (1986). Empowering leadership. Montreal: McGill University. Working Paper.Google Scholar
  12. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13, 471–482.Google Scholar
  13. Cummings, L. (1965). Organizational climates for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 8(3), 220–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Delaney, J. T., & Sockell, D. (1990). Employee involvement programs, unionization and organizational flexibility. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, 1990, 264–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theory from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532–550.Google Scholar
  16. Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. (2003). Assessing creativity in Hollywood pitch meetings: Evidence for a dual-process model of creativity judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 46(3), p283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fiedler, F. E. (1972). The effects of leadership training and experience: A contingency model interpretation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 453–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. French, J. R. P., Israel, J., & Aas, D. (1958). An experiment in participation in a Norwegian factory. Human Relations, 13, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. George, J. M. (2007). Creativity in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 1, p439–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 513–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gill, J. (1996). Communication—Is it really that simple? An analysis of a communication exercise in a case study. Personnel Review, 25, 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. London: Wiedenfeld and Nicholson.Google Scholar
  23. House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3, 81–98.Google Scholar
  24. Hrebiniak, L. G. (1974). Effects of job level and participation on employee attitudes and perceptions of influence. Academy of Management Journal, 17(4), p649–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kanter, R. M. (1979). Power failure in management circuits. Harvard Business Review, 57(4), 65–75.Google Scholar
  26. Kerr, J. L. (2004). The limits of organizational democracy. The Academy of Management Executive, 18(3), 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ketokivi, M., & Castaner, X. (2004). Strategic planning as an integrating device. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 337–365.Google Scholar
  28. Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  29. Maurer, J. G., (1967) The relationship of work role involvement to job characteristics with higher-order need potential. Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  30. McHugh, M. (1997). The stress factor: Another item for the change management agenda? Journal of Organizational Change Management, 10, 345–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Morgan, D. E., & Zeffane, R. (2003). Employee involvement, organizational change and trust in management. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14, 55–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morse, N., & Reimer, E. (1956). The experimental change of a major organizational variable. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52, 120–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Neubert, M. J., & Cady, S. H. (2001). Program commitment: A multi-study longitudinal field investigation of its impact and antecedents. Personnel Psychology, 54, 421–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nord, W. R., Rosenblatt, Z., & Rogers, K. (1993). Toward a political framework for flexible management of decline. Organization Science, 4, 76–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Oldham, G. R. (1976). The motivational strategies used by supervisors’ relationships to effectiveness indicators. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15, 66–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Patchen, M. (1970). Participation, achievement, and involvement on the job. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  37. Pedersen, D. M. (1997). Psychological functions of privacy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 147–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, IL.: Irwin.Google Scholar
  39. Ruh, R. A., White, J. K., & Wood, R. R. (1975). Job involvement, values, personal background, participation in decision making and job attitudes. Academy of Management Journal, 18(2), 300–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rusaw, C. A. (2000). Uncovering training resistance—A critical theory perspective. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13, 249–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schwochau, S., & Delaney, J. (1997). Employee participation and assessments of support for organizational policy changes. Journal of Labor Research, 18, 379–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). Effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 933–958.Google Scholar
  43. Straus, G. (1977). Managerial practices. In J. R. Hackman & L. J. Suttle (Eds.), Improving life at work: Behavioral science approaches to organizational change (pp. 297–363). Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.Google Scholar
  44. Tannenbaum, A. S. (1954). The relationship between personality and group structure Unpublished PhD thesis, Syracuse University.Google Scholar
  45. Tannenbaum, A. S. (1961). Control and effectiveness in a voluntary organization. The American Journal of Sociology, 67, 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tesluk, P. E., Vance, R. J., & Mathieu, J. E. (1999). Examining employee involvement in the context of participative work environments. Group and Organization Management, 24, 271–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tierney, P. (1999). Work relations as a precursor to a psychological climate for change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12, 120–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vroom, V. H. (1959). Some personality determinants of the effects of participation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 322–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vroom, V. H. (1973). A new look at managerial decision making. Organizational Dynamics, 1, 66–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Westin, A. F. (1967). Privacy and freedom. New York: Atheneum.Google Scholar
  51. White, R., & Lippitt, R. (1960). Autocracy and democracy: An experimental inquiry. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  52. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research—Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Frederick UniversityLefkosiaCyprus

Personalised recommendations