|
|
|
II. Industrial Democracy and Political Participation
High Involvement Work Systems and Political Efficacy:
A Tale of Two Departments
Lisa Schur, Adrienne Eaton, and Saul Rubinstein
Rutgers University
Abstract
Carole Pateman argues that democratic participation
in the workplace can increase workers' feelings of political efficacy
and political participation. We explore this issue by looking at the implementation
of a high involvement work system (HIWS), using both cross-sectional and
longitudinal comparisons. Political efficacy did not change overall, but
increased in one department where the HIWS was strongly supported and
very successful, and decreased in another department characterized by
bad labor-management relations and little management support. The results
suggest that social connections, a sense that one's work is meaningful,
and positive labor-management relations can increase workers' feelings
of political efficacy.
Does industrial democracy encourage political democracy? The political
theorist Carole Pateman raised this question over thirty years ago but
the question has taken on new salience given the continuing decline in
voter turnout and other forms of political and civic participation in
the United States (Conway 2000; Putnam 2000). While this decline has led
to a number of proposals and policy initiatives, little attention has
been paid to the political implications of what goes on in the workplace.
Pateman argued that traditional, autocratic workplaces reduce employees'
feelings of political efficacy—the belief that they are competent to
take part in politics or that the political system is responsive to their
interests. Since Pateman wrote her book in 1970 many companies have experimented
with ways to increase employee involvement, both direct (or on-line) forms
embedded in the organization of work itself and indirect (or off-line)
forms like labor-management committees. The effects of employee involvement
on employee and firm outcomes have received substantial attention, but
little attention has been paid to how it may affect feelings of efficacy
and participation outside the workplace.1
This study uses new data to examine workers' feelings of political efficacy
following the implementation of a high involvement work system (HIWS)
at a major pharmaceutical company. One unique aspect of this study is
that workers filled out surveys both before and after the implementation
of the HIWS, providing panel as well as cross-sectional data. In addition,
the HIWS was implemented at three different work sites and among three
different occupational groups. Variation across these work sites and groups
provides insights into the factors that can affect the success of HIWS
and its influence on feelings of political efficacy.
Literature Review
Schlozman et al. (1999) and Schur (2003) analyze nationally
representative data sets and find that civic skills developed at work
(through such activities as leading meetings and participating in decision
making) are linked to greater political involvement. Madsen finds similar
results, although he claims that Pateman's hypothesis only fully applies
to workers with a "collectivistic" orientation (Madsen 1997, 387). A longitudinal
study by Karasek (1978) found that workers who enjoyed increased freedom
in decision making on the job became more politically active outside of
work, while those who lost decision-making authority on the job became
more politically passive outside of work. Clearly, the relationship between
workplace decision making and political participation is not a simple
one, and depends in part on the types of participation being considered.
Directly participating in workplace decisions seems to have positive effects
on forms of political participation other than voting (specifically campaign
work and involvement in community projects); in contrast, voter turnout
is not related to most measures of workplace decision making and appears
to be depressed by working in an economically troubled cooperative (Arrighi
and Maume 1994, 154; Greenberg et al. 1994, 317-21; Sobel 1993, 348).
Pateman argues that political efficacy is a key mediator between industrial
democracy and political participation. Through participation in workplace
decisions with their fellow workers, individuals increase their sense
of personal and political efficacy which, in turn, leads them to be more
politically engaged and active in the broader community outside the workplace.
Political efficacy is generally divided into internal political efficacy—the
belief that one is well qualified to participate in politics—and external
political efficacy—the belief that the political system is responsive
to one's interests. While many studies have supported the idea that both
types of political efficacy are important predictors of political participation
(Conway 2000, 59-61; Schur 2003), only a few studies have focused specifically
on the influence that workplace decision making may have on feelings of
political efficacy.
Greenberg, Grunberg, and Daniel (1994) find that direct face-to-face participation
in workplace decisions, but not representative participation, is associated
with a greater sense of internal political efficacy. Elden (1981) finds
that semiautonomous work groups are linked to a greater sense of political
efficacy, while structures that simply make workers more satisfied with
their jobs but do not increase their autonomy are not associated with
a greater sense of political efficacy. A study by Peterson (1992) finds
that respondents who reported greater participation in workplace decision
making also reported higher levels of political efficacy and involvement
in political activities. Several earlier studies from the 1960s and 1970s
also found a connection between control over workplace decisions and feelings
of personal and political efficacy (summarized in Elden 1981, 53-54).
Data
The data come from surveys of employees involved in a new
HIWS at a large pharmaceutical company in New Jersey. The goal of this
project was to improve productivity and quality while enhancing employment
security and earnings. Rutgers faculty have helped organize shop-floor
and department level labor-management teams responsible for planning,
decision making, problem solving, information sharing, and system administration
since 1998. The high involvement work system has been implemented in all
areas of the company across four New Jersey locations in which employees
are represented by a union. The units include maintenance, manufacturing
and packaging, veterinary sciences, analytical R&D and laboratory services.
The teams received training in planning, problem solving, group decision
making, conflict resolution, workplace diversity, data analysis, meeting
skills and leadership, and team dynamics. Teams met off-line for an average
of one hour several times per month and worked on the problems they selected
with the support and guidance of the labor-management leadership committee
in their department. While there have been some efforts to create on-line
teams of employees who would work together to accomplish their day-to-day
work tasks, thus far the majority of employees have been involved only
in off-line team problem solving activity.
In each department, the first set of employee surveys was administered
to employees at the beginning of the training, and the second set was
distributed approximately one year after the high involvement system had
been in effect. To date, 417 employees have filled out the first survey
in eleven departments, and 163 have filled out the second survey in six
departments.
This exploratory analysis presents cross-sectional regressions based on
the first round of surveys, and longitudinal comparisons of departments
that completed both rounds of surveys. It should be noted that individual
responses cannot be matched between the first and second sets, but changes
in average scores among the department can be examined to see what variables
are associated with changes in political efficacy.
Political efficacy is measured using respondents' level of agreement with
two statements: "I can influence decisions that affect my community" and
"By working together, people in my community can influence decisions that
affect the community." Answers are given on a scale of one to five, from
"strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." Both questions combine the concepts
of internal and external political efficacy, since a positive answer indicates
both perceived competence to participate in politics and the perception
that the political system is responsive.
Results
Repeating the approach used
in many prior studies, Table 1 reports results of cross-sectional regressions
that relate political efficacy to attitudes towards work and the workplace
environment. The first three predictors are built on work alienation scales
from Mottaz (1981) that measure control and autonomy (the degree of perceived
control in planning and performing one's daily tasks at work), embeddedness
(the perceived importance of one's work and how it fits into the organization),
and intrinsic rewards (the extent to which one's work is interesting,
challenging, and a source of personal fulfillment). While one might expect
control and autonomy to be associated with political efficacy, neither
this measure nor intrinsic rewards is a significant predictor. Those who
report a greater sense of embeddedness, however, are significantly more
likely to report that by working together people can influence community
decisions. This result suggests that perceiving a sense of connection
between your work and that of your co-workers may be key to perceiving
that as a group you can work with others to make a difference.
Regressions 2 and 4 add three variables of interest: a labor-management relations
index (summing twenty-three five-point items), a satisfaction index (summing
eight five-point items), and an item measuring the frequency of interaction
with co-workers in company- or union-sponsored events (on a scale of one
to five). Workers who interact frequently with their co-workers are significantly
more likely to report that people can influence the community, while those
who report more positive labor-management relations are more likely to
report that "I can influence decisions that affect my community." One
interpretation is that having good connections with one's co-workers--reflecting
stronger social capital--is important for a sense that people can work
together effectively. In contrast, the sense that one can personally make
a difference may depend very much on having a climate where labor and
management listen to each other and cooperate, so that individual suggestions
are more likely to be acted upon.
These cross-sectional results are of course
subject to concerns about causality--the relationships may reflect, for
example, other unmeasured aspects of individual personalities or job characteristics.
Those who feel more efficacious may simply have more positive views of
labor-management relations. To explore this, we present comparisons between
the responses to the two sets of surveys from six departments. Examining
changes over time controls for any fixed attributes of the people or jobs,
and provides insights into whether changes in the workplace are associated
with changes in perceived efficacy.
The panel results, presented in Table 2,
show that overall efficacy levels did not change significantly between
the first and second sets of surveys. A different picture emerges, however,
when looking at individual departments. Average efficacy scores changed
significantly in two departments. There was a strong increase in the perception
that "I can influence the community" among the laboratory technicians
at Site A and a decrease in the perception that "people can influence
the community" among the veterinary science employees at Site C. Consistent
with results from the cross-sectional analysis, the laboratory technicians
also reported significant improvement in labor-management relations, suggesting
that a positive labor relations climate may help enhance feelings of individual
efficacy. In addition, the laboratory technicians reported improvements
in several other measures: interactions with co-workers, cooperation across
departments, and satisfaction. Finally, they were significantly more likely
to say that "I can influence the department." This is consistent with
Pateman's argument that there are strong connections between increases
in workplace efficacy and political efficacy.
In many respects the veterinary science
department at Site C provides an opposite picture. In addition to the
decline in political efficacy, there was a decrease in embeddedness--the
sense that employees' work is meaningful and connected to that of their
co-workers. This finding is consistent with the relationship found in
the cross-sectional analysis. In addition, workers perceived significantly
worse labor-management relations, less cooperation across departments,
and lower levels of satisfaction, in addition to a decreased sense that
people can influence the department.
Why was there such a striking difference
between these two departments? Much can be explained by workplace culture,
management attitudes, and the circumstances in which the HIWS was implemented.
At Site A, the HIWS was fully supported
by the laboratory technicians, the managers, and the union. The manager
of the department, who had been a worker himself, trusted the employees.
He encouraged innovation and was willing to delegate authority. Workers
responded enthusiastically and the teams used their greater decision making
power to take several initiatives. For example, one team created a computer
lab to help other employees develop and strengthen their computer skills.
Site C was a newly opened worksite. The veterinary
science department was staffed in part by company employees whose manufacturing
jobs had been discontinued and who were allowed to bid for new jobs at this
site. Many of them resented having to work as animal handlers, as well as
the increased commuter time. There was also division in the department between
younger workers who chose to be animal handlers and the older workers who
were forced to do this job in order to remain employed. To make matters
worse, the department managers did not appear to appreciate the difficulties
experienced by the older workers or to embrace the principles of HIWS. Instead
of delegating authority and empowering employees, they tried to control
the workforce and remained inflexible. For example, the managers blocked
the efforts of employees who tried to work together in designing more flexible
schedules, which could easily explain decreases in the belief that people
could influence the department and the community. In short, differences
in the histories of these two departments and the ways in which HIWS was
implemented can help explain the divergent results in feelings of political
efficacy.
Conclusion
This study on the effects of a HIWS does not provide a simple
answer to the question of whether employee involvement encourages political
democracy. While individual control over daily work is not connected to
political efficacy, both the cross-sectional and panel results indicate
that a greater sense of embeddedness--the feeling that one's work is meaningful
and connects to the work of others--increases the belief that people can
work together to influence their workplaces and communities. Both sets
of results also suggest that a climate of labor-management cooperation
and trust may help increase a sense of political efficacy, while mistrust
and a deteriorating labor-management relationship may have negative effects.
These findings indicate that social connections at work play an important
role in shaping workers' views of political participation. This makes
sense given that making a difference in the political system requires
working with other people. The factors related to political efficacy in
this study are similar to most definitions of social capital, a construct
of increasing interest in the social sciences. This study suggests that
when HIWS is done well it may increase workers' social capital which,
in turn, may increase their feelings of political efficacy.
This is a rich area for further study, especially if it includes measures
of political involvement that examine connections among HIWS, social capital,
political efficacy, and civic and political participation. Such research
could help answer the important question of if, and how, industrial democracy
can encourage political democracy.
Notes
1. Whether or not these management-initiated forms of employee
involvement constitute actual industrial democracy is a different question
(see for example Schurman and Eaton 1996).
References
Arrighi, Barbara, and David Maume. 1994. "Workplace Control
and Political Participation." Sociological Focus, Vol. 27, no. 2,
pp. 147-59.
Conway, Margaret. 2000. Political Participation in the United States.
Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly.
Elden, J. Maxwell. 1981. "Political Efficacy at Work: The Connection Between
More Autonomous Forms of Workplace Organization and a More Participatory
Politics." American Political Science Review, Vol. 75, pp. 43-58.
Greenberg, Edward. 1981. "Industrial Democracy and the Democratic Citizen."
Journal of Politics, Vol. 43, pp. 964-81.
Greenberg, Edward, Leon Grunberg, and Kelley Daniel. 1994. "Industrial Work
and Political Participation: Beyond `Simple Spillover.'" Political Research
Quarterly, Vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 305-30.
Karasek, Robert. 1978. "Job Socialization: A Longitudinal Study of Work,
Political and Leisure Activity in Sweden." Paper presented at IX World Congress
of Sociology, Uppsala, Sweden.
Madsen, Morten 1997. "The `Classroom Hypothesis' and Individualization."
Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 18, pp. 359-91.
Mottaz, Clifford J. 1981. "Some Determinants of Work Alienation." Sociological
Quarterly, Vol. 22, Autumn, pp. 515-29.
Pateman, Carole. 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Peterson, Steven A. 1992. "Workplace Politicization and Its Political Spillovers:
A Research Note." Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 13, pp.
511-24.
Putnam, Robert. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American
Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Schlozman, Kay, Nancy Burns, and Sidney Verba. 1999. "`What Happened at
Work Today?': A Multistage Model of Gender, Employment, and Political Participation."
Journal of Politics, Vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 29-53.
Schur, Lisa. 2003. "Do Jobs Create Active Citizens? Employment and Political
Participation." British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 41,
no. 4, pp. 751-71.
Schurman, Susan J., and Adrienne E. Eaton. 1996. "Labor and Workplace Democracy:
Past, Present and Future. Introduction to the Special Issue." Labor Studies
Journal, Vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 3-26.
Sobel, Richard. 1993. "From Occupational Involvement to Political Participation:
An Exploratory Analysis." Political Behavior, Vol. 15, pp. 339-53.
|
