Chapter 2

Employee Involvement in a Participatory Culture

            The purpose of this chapter is to present research on participation in the work force.  In quantitative and qualitative terms (Yates 2000), the following items are what can be found within a firm.  The quantitative issues are: absenteeism and turnover rates, on-the-job performance, product quality, productivity, customer service, profitability, and production costs.  The qualitative components are: manager-worker communication, worker job satisfaction, motivation, working conditions, employee participation, labor-management relations, and employee attitudes.  Studying all of these components would be quite an arduous task.  Studying some of them, though, can yield useful results to a specific population.

A focus group of human-resource managers aided in reducing these components to employee participation and its relationship to absenteeism and turnover for this research.  The human-resource managers stated that there is a need to provide such information given the paucity of research on topics of interest to them.

With the above focus in mind, the following chapter provides information on the importance of creating a participatory culture.  The basic theme followed is to identify what the company can do to make people feel apart of the organization.  As a preview of things to come, what one finds is that participation creates a sense of belonging, and this belonging encourages people to remain an active member within an organization.

In the last chapter, I identified what the firm can create in order to provide mechanisms for participation.  From figure 1, one can see that the firm can offer mechanisms for participation: training, information, mechanisms for involvement, and short-term, financial incentives.  While these components are necessary in that without them then no participation can occur, these are but one piece of the puzzle.  The larger whole that must be considered, which is the point of this thesis, is that a culture of participation must be present for actual involvement to occur.  Therefore, this chapter explores this larger piece of the puzzle while including how and why mechanisms for participation are important.  Please keep the larger picture in view while reading this chapter.

Additionally, this chapter considers the impact of participation and its correlation to absenteeism and turnover rates.  The first section explores what must be present for a participatory culture to exist.  The second section examines how inclusion affects absenteeism and turnover.  The essence of the second section is that by involving employees and creating a bond between firm and employee, then employees want to be present at work and do not want to leave the firm.

Participatory Culture

            An organization can create an environment where the members feel a commitment to the organization.  Roger C. Mayer and F. David Schoorman (1998) [1] found that organizational tenure, retirement benefits, education, and age were highly correlated with continuance commitment [2] ; whereas, felt participation, perceived prestige, job involvement, and role ambiguity were highly correlated with value commitment [3] .  The implications of this research are huge.  If an organization wants people to have a commitment beyond money to the organization, then the decision-makers within the organization should focus on those areas that foster value commitment [4] .

            The very aspects that create value commitment also have other, very tangible benefits to the organization in that they provide employees with skills that they can utilize to solve problems.  Working in teams can provide invaluable experience to members of an organization given that workers can draw upon this knowledge in a variety of ways.  Vicki L. Goodwin and Laurie Ziegler (1998) found that there is a relationship between problem familiarity and variety of work experience to the number of scripts [5] available for problem solving.  These two researchers found that problem familiarity and work experience are positively related to problem solving.  What this means is that wider experiences coupled with continued contact with problems, which results in problem familiarity, aids in equipping people with the ability to solve problems.

            Now, how should the company reward employees for performing well and contributing to the company?  Comparing cooperation and task and reward interdependence elucidates the impact of cooperation over financial gain.  It is true that task and reward interdependence interact to increase performance  (Wageman and Baker 1997). Ruth Wageman and George Baker go on to say that, and surprisingly, task interdependence, but not reward interdependence, drives observed cooperative behavior.  Reward interdependence is important, but task interdependence is the dominant factor in increased performance derived from cooperative behavior.  In other words, people would rather work and perform tasks together, which would be indicative of a participatory culture, than complete a job independently and get more money.

            While there are real benefits to cooperation, there are situations that undermine it.  Neil Christiansen, Peter Villanova, and Shawn Mikulay (1997) found that organizational politics was clearly related to work attitudes: satisfaction with co-workers, trust in management, and evaluation of self.  The implication is that organizational politics can divert attention from work and hinder productivity.  In other words, do organizations want to foster a culture where people jockey for position with each other?  Or, do organizations want to foster a climate where people work together as a group in order to fulfill the firm’s goals?

A firm does have the ability to foster a certain type of climate.  In fact, the organization fosters the climate, and the people within the organization incorporate the values, expectations, and goals into their own psychological schemata.  Helena D. C. Thomas and Neil Anderson (1998) studied newcomer expectations of British Army recruits on the psychological contract [6] .  They found that expectations increased on several dimensions: changes were predicted by learning about Army life; perceived importance of an Army life increased; and, most importantly, recruit expectations developed and were congruent with experienced, ‘insider’ soldiers.  The implications are that recruits “become” like the “old-timers.”  In other words, the organization can influence the expectations, which can have a corollary influence on behavior of the people within the organization.

            Although some might find a difference between British Army recruits and “regular” newcomers to an organization patently separate, there is a real correlation between the two.  The two are similar in that they are both new to the organization.  Basic training for Army recruits may be more rigorous, harsher, and isolative, but the fact remains that all newcomers receive indoctrination into the organization.  This indoctrination may be intrusive, as is the case of the Army recruit, or it may be obscure and covert, as could be the case of the “regular” newcomer.  For example, an organization can offer continual blitzing of negative information. The result is diminished satisfaction, commitment, and performance levels that can escalate to aggressive and reprehensible behavior on the job (Wright and Doherty 1998, 484).

            At this point, a seemingly legitimate response by an employer would be to have co-workers implement a participatory culture and try and get along on their own.  After securing company commitment, working together is extremely important.  In fact, only employee interaction breeds a collective climate (Young and Parker 1999).  Scott A.Young and Christopher P. Parker found that only employee interface predicts collective-climate membership.  In other words, people at work want to work together and only by working together do they become a team.

            While it is clear that employees want to work together, there can be roadblocks.  A roadblock that continually arises in dialogue is “those pesky middle managers.”  The truth of the matter is that middle managers can be an impediment to employee involvement [7] .  Mark Fenton-O’Creevy (1998) found that middle managers resisted employee involvement under two conditions.  One, resistance occurred in response to self-interest (managerial job loss and delayering) [8] .  Two, resistance occurred when there was a lack of congruence between organizational systems and structures and the goals of employee involvement, and when there was divided or unclear senior management support for employee involvement.  Now, these findings are not surprising when considering that middle management refuses to “put its neck on the line” if upper management is unclear or unsupportive of employee involvement.  Therefore, the lesson learned is that employee involvement must be congruent within the organization and must be supported from the top echelons of the firm on down.

            Although firm compatibility and employee-participation acceptance are important, there does exist a reason to create a hospitable environment in which people work beyond successful integration of a participatory culture.  The impact of a leader on the people in a firm is quite substantial.  In fact, the reactions and behaviors displayed by leaders in a firm can influence perceptions of leader effectiveness.  Leaders expressing negative emotions impacted the affective state of others (Lewis 2000).  In a laboratory study of leaders expressing emotion, participants downgraded the effectiveness of a male leader who displayed sadness compared to neutrality.  Also, participants downgraded the effectiveness of female leaders who displayed sadness or anger as compared to neutrality.  Therefore, the need to create environments that allow for the positive expression of emotion is substantial given that leader effectiveness depends upon it.

            Now, suppose that a firm’s leadership creates an environment where all people interact cordially with one another, and everybody seems to be getting along quite well.  The employees behave in a polite manner to their bosses, and everyone seems happy.  Is everything all right?  Maybe or maybe not.  The superior already receives quite a lot of reverence [9] given the position (Morand 2000) [10] .  How the superior utilizes that position may influence and accentuate superior-subordinate interaction and aid, or possibly detract, from overall superior performance.  In other words, just because someone is polite to you does not mean that they are not cursing you behind your back.

            Staying within the tone of expressing polite, or positive behavior, research also indicates that there can be physical problems associated with “acting” one way but feeling another.  Perceived demands to express positive emotion on the job is related to physical symptoms (Schaubroeck and Jones 2000).  There are situational, dispositional, and gender differences that do mitigate the impact somewhat. However, the overall findings are that acting one way and feeling another do relate to physical symptoms.

            The bottom line with all of this research is that people do respond to the environment in which they work.  If the organization creates a positive environment where people can freely express their ideas without fear of reprisal, then the organization can benefit.  However, if the organizational environment is factional, oppressive, or negative, then people may resort to coping mechanisms.  Those coping mechanisms can mask the true state of the organizational climate such that the firm leadership believes that “everything is O.K.” given that people are polite and cordial, but the reality can differ greatly.  Subordinates often defer to the superior.  The result is masked behavior that results in confusion to the leadership and physical ailments to the employee.

Reactions to a Participatory Culture

            Now that we have seen that the company can influence the culture of the organization, let us examine how the employee reacts to that culture.  Certainly there are issues of importance to employees, and there are events that influence the employees.  A strong mediator in perception of events by the employee is a positive or negative relationship between the manager and the employee.

Supervisors who reported higher levels of empowerment were seen by subordinates as more innovative, positively influencing upward mobility, and inspirational (Spreitzer, Janasz, and Quinn 1999).  Empowerment is a dominant force that can work in more than one direction.  When a supervisor empowers an employee, then the employee believes that the superior is innovative, suggesting upward mobility, and inspirational.  The result can be that in times of great demand, stress, or a crisis, the employee will turn to those “who can get the job done.”  With the groundwork laid already, then the employee does not have to develop trust given that beliefs are already existent.  In times of great demand, then the employee believes, a priori, that the leader is a leader and “knows” what is going on.

            When considering management-employee relations and the reactions of employees to management, one must also consider that employees learn from management.  However, not all instructional types are equal.  Of the three types of leadership styles: laissez-faire [11] , transformational [12] , and transactional [13] , only transformational leaders create an environment where there is a reduction in stress and the protégé receives mentoring well (Sosik and Godshalk 2000).  What this means is that the manager must take a “hands-on” approach to instructing the employee such that the employee knows that the manager considers the employee’s development, the employee’s ability to contribute to the firm, and the employee’s physical and mental well-being.

            This research also points into the direction of what the company can offer to the employee.  Lyman W. Porter, Jone L. Pearce, Angela M. Tripoli, and Kristi M. Lewis (1998) found that the greater the discrepancy between what the employer offered as inducements and what the employee viewed as offered inducements, then the greater was job dissatisfaction; even after controlling for employee job satisfaction and employee performance [14] .  In other words, if the employer says it will do something or give something, then the employer ought to do it.  If a gap exists between supposedly offered inducements and perceived-received inducements, then the result is decreased job satisfaction.

Inducements to Contribute

            Staying within the realm of mentoring functions and employee satisfaction, we find that what accentuates an employee’s willingness to make suggestions is the organizational culture and perceived acceptance of the contribution by the firm (Frese, Teng, and Wijnen 1999).  What is important is that employees occupy themselves with work and are confident that they can think of good ideas.  This research is congruent with all that has been said before.  If the employee receives instruction from a transformational leader, then the employee knows that the employer considers the employee’s abilities to make contributions, physical and mental well-being, and how the employee “fits” within the organization.  Likewise, if the employee thinks that there is no discrepancy between stated desires to receive suggestions and the actual receipt of suggestions by employers, then the employee will suggest.  Remove any of these pieces, then the suggestion box rusts.  Now, a point often contested is how to reward an employee who submits an idea.  The first response may be that the reward should be monetary.  However, Michael Frese, Eric Teng, and Cees J. D. Wijnen (1999) found that the motive to get a reward was only slightly related to suggestions, i.e. paying more money to get more suggestions is not necessary.  What seems to be the central factor in getting good suggestions is soliciting suggestions.  The researchers state that the quantity of suggestions tempered the quality of suggestions.

            When employers show interest in the employee making suggestions, the employees perceive that they have the capability to make a contribution.  Gregory E. Prussia, Joe S. Anderson, and Charles C. Manz (1998) studied the use of self-leadership on performance.  They found that self-leadership strategies had a significant effect on self-efficacy evaluation, and self-efficacy directly affected performance.  In other words, empowering workers produces workers who view themselves as competent, meaningful, productive workers who, in turn, have higher performance.

Subtle Differences

            An important point that needs to be clarified is the difference between empowerment and individual autonomy.  Empowerment is the act of giving someone the accountability, responsibility, and ability to do something.  Individual autonomy is granting someone the license to conduct one’s self in a manner without constraint.  There is a difference.  The difference becomes apparent when individuals must work in groups, which would be the focus of a participatory culture.

            There is a negative relationship between individual autonomy [15] and group cohesiveness [16] (Langfred 2000).  In other words, having people run around as loose cannons who are above and beyond a code of rules that should apply to everyone results in people who do not work together.  Another interesting finding within this research is that the relationship between group cohesiveness and group effectiveness [17] is moderated by group-performance orientation [18] (to what does the group aspire to do: work or social stability, conflict reduction, reducing productivity?).  Employees want to be a part of a group that has a direct influence on their jobs, the company, and issues of relevance to them and the company.

Working Together

            The effects of a labor-management exchange (LMX) cannot be overstated.  Only within a positive environment can labor and management work cohesively.  Claudia C. Cogliser and Chester A. Schriesheim (2000) found that a positive LMX relates to reduced stress, increased harmony, work-group cooperation, warmth, and friendliness.  However, and very importantly, a positive LMX relates negatively to coercive power.  What this means is that if labor and management have a positive relationship, then people will work together.  There is no need to use techniques of power to force people to work if a positive LMX exists; people will work because that is what they want to do.

            Shifting the focus from the employee to the manager, we find that the manager also finds having a favorable LMX to be beneficial.  In fact, managers are reluctant to delegate to subordinates with whom they have a negative LMX.  According to Gary Yukl and Ping Ping Fu (1999), manager delegation to subordinates is dependent upon subordinate competence, shared objectives, tenure of subordinate under manager, and a favorable exchange between manager and subordinate.  Therefore, having a favorable LMX built upon a positive relationship between labor and management benefits not only labor but also management.  The positive benefit of having the entire organization at work doing work is a goal under which all benefit and all should strive.

            Often, LMX is about how people treat each other.  In fact, management action, which is felt and not expressed, can hamper, destroy, and even evoke violent responses by employees. Within this realm, we find that justice plays a large role inside the firm.  Now, this is not poetic justice; nor is this the type of justice seen on police shows.  Justice, as we will see, is a multi-faceted concept that demonstrates how employees interpret treatment within a firm.

Justice

            Let us begin where most people begin on justice in the work place—money.  Money is a strange phenomenon.  People use it to get what they want.  Some people have more; some people have less.  Money can be a reward for labor.  However, pay is associated often with what people think they are worth.  There is an abundance of literature on how money does not demonstrate the true worth of an individual.  People write songs about how money is not that important, because it “can’t buy me love.”  Be that as it may, most people find that having money is a good thing.  Try living without it.  With this precept expressed, money does have an impact on people’s perception of their employment.  When salaried and non-salaried workers deem that pay is equitable in relation to their efforts as compared to other employees in the organization, there is an increase in job satisfaction—I am getting paid what I am worth; when both groups compare their pay to others outside of the organization and deem that their pay is equitable, then there is satisfaction in regard to the job (Igalens and Roussel 1999).

            The purpose of presenting these points is that management must know that pay is important.  That is one piece of the puzzle.  Pay is important in the sense that people deem pay to be associated with justice.  The question is: Is the distribution of resources equitable given my talents and responsibilities as compared to others?  If the answer is yes, then people are happy.  If the answer is no, then people become unhappy.  However, the point seems to be that equitable justice is what is important—not the money itself.  People want to know that they are valued.  Value, expressed through monetary compensation, is what is important.  Now that the point of money is addressed, let us move on from here to other issues of justice.  In other words, what acts of justice or injustice result in negative perceptions?

            There are three types of people, usually, within a workplace: superior, co-worker, and subordinate.  Each of these three considers different types of offenses to cause them anger.  Superiors are angered by morally reprehensible behaviors and job incompetence; co-workers are angered by morally reprehensible behaviors and public humiliation; and subordinates are angered by unjust treatment (Fitness 2000).  The common theme, though, from the research is that humiliating offenses elicited more intense hate than non-humiliating offenses.  Now, this might seem childish in that people can chide each other and that is how people work, but the findings also suggest that subordinates are less likely to confront the anger target and to consider the issue unresolved.  Events can occur, a word is not spoken, the issue goes unresolved for, possibly, years, and actions taken to “get even” are expressed in negative ways.  Remember that subordinates give reverence to superiors and act politely to superiors just given their position; the same applies here.

            This issue of justice is a pervasive theme within the workplace.  Feeling slighted is just one of the many perceptions of injustice.  The three types of justice are distributive [19] , procedural [20] , and interactional [21] .  What Karl Aquino, Margaret U. Lewis, and Murray Bradfield (1999) found is that if an employee perceives any of these justices as acts of injustice, then there is a greater likelihood that deviant behavior, such as theft or vandalism, will occur [22] .  For example, if a superior acts in a harsh manner toward an employee while giving a work assignment, then that employee is more likely to go and destroy some piece of firm property.

            While on the topic of justice and the perception of it from the viewpoint of the employer and the employee, let us consider deviant behavior in the workplace.  A familiar caption in the news is that a “disgruntled worker” committed some action at work and that disgruntled worker is a person who, possibly, engaged in already deviant behavior.  Research supports that claim to a point.  However, justice still plays a dominant role within workplace-deviant behavior.  Liane Greenberg and Julian Barling (1999) studied procedural justice and abuse of alcohol to determine how either one relates to aggression [23] at work.  They found the following results: History of aggression and amount of alcohol consumed (behavior) predicted aggression against a co-worker; procedural justice and workplace surveillance (workplace factors) predicted aggression against a supervisor; but neither behavior nor workplace factors predicted aggression against a subordinate.  When considering the variables in connection with one another: Procedural justice interacted with alcohol consumption to predict aggression against a coworker and subordinate; job security and procedural justice interacted with history of aggression to predict aggression against a subordinate; and job security and alcohol consumption interacted to predict aggression against a subordinate.  What all of this means is that personal action does predict workplace aggression.  However, justice does play a large part in determining whether or not aggression occurs in the workplace.  The answer to workplace aggression is not simply employee culpability.  Organizational justice should be on trial as well.

Now that we know what occurs as a result of injustice, how do we have employees perceive greater amounts of justice?  The answer is not that surprising.  Individuals perceive greater procedural justice when they are part of the decision-making process and can ascertain if organizational authorities are neutral and unbiased (Tyler 1990) [24] .  There are procedures that affect justice perceptions: treating people with respect, communicating in a trustful manner, and justification for decisions (Bies 1987; Tyler and Bies 1990) [25] .  Finally, individuals want to stay with the organization and are content with their job if they perceive it as just (Mossholder, Bennet, and Martin 1998).

            The purpose of this presentation was to demonstrate what can accentuate and detract from a participatory culture.  Research suggests that employees must be able to participate without hindrance.  Concomitantly, employees have to perceive that the organization operates justly.  While the reaction of the employee in an unjust situation is to react through aggressive behavior, the more important lesson is that employees who perceive injustice are more likely to disengage, maintain grudges, and consider past slights when they could be productive.  Therefore, bringing employees into the business results in greater awareness of the operations and a sense of justice, if justice exists, given inclusion.

Summary

            To sum up the preceding presentation, it is fair to say that having employees involved into the affairs of the company results in more productive employees who have a greater sense of commitment to the organization.  Now, the employee is not going to go out on a limb and be the sole commando on this expedition.  The company must take the initial step, and continue to commit itself, in creating the conditions that are conducive to involvement.  After the company demonstrates that it is ready, willing, and able to obligate itself to the employees, then the employee will in turn show commitment to the organization.  The benefit of this circular interaction is that it breeds a collective climate in which people are willing to contribute.  The importance of employee contribution is that the firm benefits given that employees are very knowledgeable about what goes on in the firm.

            Simply stated, employing Total Quality Management principles, such as teamwork, results in more favorable work-related outcomes, satisfaction at work, effective communication between employer and employee, and positive perceptions of the work environment (Morrow 1997).  Now, what are the benefits of having positive work-related outcomes, employees happy at work, and constructive communication with the boss?  The first one is the most tangible—it is a good idea in business to have things work out right to make money.  The other points are a little less tangible given that few, myself included, neither consider nor even begin to understand how to measure communication or interaction between the boss and the employee.  What one finds when investigating relations between boss and subordinate is that the boss should want the employee involved in all decisions, especially in terms of feedback, because employees are more aware of the impact of a leader’s actions.  Employees are more aware of the impact of a superior’s actions, because they dedicate more time to studying the causes and consequences of a leader’s actions than do leaders (Konst, Vonk, Van Der Vlist 1999).

Two Final Points

            Before concluding, there are two final points that I would like to address.  They are competition and a participation theory called the Vitamin Model.  The goal of competition, somewhat discreetly, is to conquer the opponent.  However, competition is the ultimate threat to cooperation and, ultimately, participation.  If people are constantly competing against one another, then they cannot engage in participation.  Why?  The very nature of competition thwarts working together, because, in competition, the goal is to win [26] .

            Now, the gain from competition is quite miniscule when considering the psychological impact and barriers created within an organization.  Additionally, competition destroys any concept of caring.  The importance of caring is that an organization that cares about its people has employees who care about the organization (Rousseau 1998a).  The point is that only through social and equitable exchanges—fostered through trusting, committed, and reciprocal relationships—can a firm satisfy its broad base of customers: employees, distribution and associate partners, and strategic-alliance partners (Beckett-Camarata, Camarata, and Barker 1998).

            On the other hand, having too much of a good thing, such as participation, could result in diminished or negative returns.  One model for understanding this point is through analogy to vitamins.  The Vitamin Model of Warr (1987) [27] states that ingesting no vitamins, or a deficiency, produces a result of poor nutritional status. Increasing vitamin intake from this point results in increased health.  Taking too many vitamins, though, results in decreased health given toxicity.  For example, ingesting C&E [28] , regardless of intake, plateaus after a while having no further impact on the health.  However, taking A&D [29] can lead to toxicity if taken in excess.  Utilizing this model, Jan De Jonge and Wilmar B. Schaufeli (1998) performed a study and found that there is support for this non-linear model.  What they found, in essence, is that there is a substantial benefit from ingesting A&D vitamins, but, after a while, there is a level of toxicity reached and negative effects are felt.  Therefore, having and promoting a participatory culture is a good thing, but, at some point, workers must work and managers must manage.    

            The following list provides a compact version of what the firm can offer in order to create an environment conducive for participation.  The point of presenting this list is to provide a convenient reference guide when performing the research analysis, found in chapters 4 and 5.  This list is a guidepost as to what one would find in a participatory culture and what was measured on the survey.

The Nine Points of a Participatory Culture

1.      There must be an open and free flow of communication.

2.      Training and continual efforts at creating a positive, participatory culture should exist.

3.      Employees in the firm should work together.  Having top-down commitment is very important

4.      The work place should be devoid of a factional environment.

5.      If the firm offers something as an inducement, then the firm must fulfill its obligation.  There can be no discrepancy between what is offered and what is given.

6.      The firm should empower its workers.

7.      The firm’s leadership should mentor employees by taking an interest in the employees and giving them training, sharing information, and providing mechanisms by which to participate.

8.      The firm should operate justly, and the firm should involve employees into the decision-making apparatus.

9.      There should be a balance between participation and actual work.  Constantly having meetings and the like to participate would probably act as a detractor to participation.  All firms are slightly different, but it is important to recognize that having too much of a good thing can be detrimental.

The preceding nine points serve as identifiers of a participatory culture.  In the chapters four and five, these points will be utilized to determine if a firm has a participatory culture.  In other words, these points serve as a “what to look for.”

In terms of “what to look for” in a participatory culture, the preceding section outlined what a participatory culture is.  The essence of a participatory culture is inclusion.  By involving employees, then the firm creates a sense of belonging between the employee and the firm.

Now, is there any value to the firm for creating a sense of belonging between the firm and the employee?  Yes.  Firms that create a bond between employer and employee create a sense of belonging between the employee and the firm.  A manifestation of this bond is that employees want to be present at work and do not want to leave.

Factors Affecting Absenteeism and Turnover

            The purpose of this section is to identify characteristics found in an organization that either increase or decrease absenteeism and turnover of employees.  The overall theme found in the literature is that companies that “care” about their employees have lower rates of absenteeism and turnover.

            The review presented earlier in this chapter established that employees are more likely to participate in the operations of the firm if the firm showed an interest in the employees’ contributions.  Likewise, in this section, we find the same pattern on the specific issue of absenteeism and turnover.  If the firm shows an interest in the employee as a valued asset, then the employee is more likely to show up for work and to stay with the firm.

            The focus of this section is literature that addresses absenteeism and turnover directly.  In this case, the dependent variable is always either absenteeism or turnover—sometimes both.  Therefore, the independent variable is often a type of participation or positive environment created by the firm—as was found earlier in this chapter.  But, the dependent variables of absenteeism and turnover stay the same always.

            This section begins with a discussion of material that illustrates what reduces absenteeism and turnover rates.  Second, I present what causes high rates of absenteeism and turnover.

Organizational Commitment

            When a mutually-obligated, and fulfilled, relationship exists between employee and employer, then employees perceive higher levels of organizational support, career future, and affective commitment and a lower level of turnover intention (Shore and Barksdale 1998).  The direction of this research highlights, again, the importance of the psychological contract [30] .  In a review article by Neil Anderson and René Schalk, they discussed the nature of the psychological contract.  Their conclusion is that violations of the psychological contract can lead to mistrust issues, decreased job satisfaction, higher turnover, or feelings of betrayal (1998).

            The importance of creating fulfilled commitment between the organization and the employee cannot be overstated.  In determining turnover for nurses [31] , researchers found that organizational commitment had the strongest and most direct impact on whether or not an individual decided to leave (Lum, Kervin, Clark, Reid, and Sirola 1998).  Intentions to withdraw are mediated by job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Davy, Kinicki, and Scheck 1997).

            In investigating why employees choose to disengage from a firm, researchers find that withdrawal is a behavioral reaction to organizational stimulus.  Behavioral reactions to organizational frustration are poor job performance, absenteeism, turnover, organizational aggression (sabotaging or covertly aspiring to harm the company), and interpersonal aggression (Fox and Spector 1999, 917) [32] .  Aaron Cohen found that “employees who are highly involved in their job have more positive work experiences, attributed to organizational officials or their career decision, and will reciprocate with high commitment” (1999, 305) [33] .  During times of problems at work, job satisfaction [34] , especially satisfaction with supervision, seem to promote the use of a calm, considerate voice [35] , and loyalty [36] ; additionally, satisfaction suppresses exit [37] , absenteeism, and using company time for personal business (Hagedoorn, Van Yperen, Van De Vliert, and Buunk 1999).

            Not surprisingly, organizational commitment is reciprocated by employee commitment.  In fact, if people are committed to their jobs, then they engage in behavior that is positive for the company [38] (Somers and Birnbaum 1998).  The importance of having a positive organizational climate—based on fulfilled obligations and people committed to their jobs—cannot be overstated, because unmet expectations and job dissatisfaction affect intention to quit, neglect of in-role job duties, and organizational-citizenship behavior (Turnley and Feldman 2000).  People want to receive what they expect.  If a person expects something and that want is unfulfilled, then they are more likely to leave the firm.  This is especially true for a newcomer who has no “sunk costs” with the firm.  Both organizational values and new-employee values are determinants of turnover in that congruence of the two would determine if an employee stayed with the organization after one year (Vandenberghe 1999) [39] .

            The link that holds an employee to an organization is a bond built upon trust and understanding.  The employee knows if the organization cares for the employee.  The literature presented earlier in this chapter demonstrates that employees are very aware of the actions by the firm.  They can interpret those actions sometimes better than the performer.  Focusing on how actions taken by the firm affect employees, one can see that if the organization engages in activities that threaten a congenial bond, then the employee reacts by withdrawal from the firm.  The next section details what can cause the organizational bond between the firm and the employee to weaken or to be severed.

Hindrances to Organizational Commitment

            In beginning of this chapter, we found that a highly conflictional, political [40] climate diminishes employee participation.  However, a political climate does more than hinder participation, it drives employees away from the firm.  Russell Cropanzano, John C. Howes, Alicia A. Grandey, and Paul Toth (1997) found that politics is negatively related to withdrawal behaviors, turnover intentions, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment, but a supportive climate was related positively [41] .  Similarly, Marjorie L. Randall, Russell Cropanzano, Carol A. Bormann, and Andrej Birjulin (1999) found that politics and support are related to job satisfaction, commitment, turnover intentions, and a superior’s rating of an employee’s organizational-citizenship behavior.  The link between political behavior and organizational commitment is well documented.  However, the idea of using political behavior as a coping device is a new concept that does warrant attention.

            Individuals who perceive organizational environments as highly political, but who are reluctant to leave, engage in political behavior [42] as a mechanism of control.  But, individuals who choose to remain in a highly politicized organization and engage in fewer political behaviors substitute withdrawal behaviors, absenteeism and job shirking, in response to the situation (Harrell-Cook, Ferris, and Dulebohn 1999).  What this means is that some people will “play the game” just to cope.  Others, however, will shirk their responsibilities and forego commitment to illustrate their discontent.  In the end, though, conflict undermines the organization and organizational commitment by employees.        

            Against this backdrop of a political environment, let us consider the use of punishment in the work place.  There are times when a manager must discipline an employee.  The type of punishment can vary from extreme to lenient.  However, an employee’s intention to depart a company is lessened when a supervisor punished an offender harshly rather than leniently (Niehoff, Paul, and Bunch 1998) [43] .  At first glance, this research seems to suggest sadistic behavior is positive.  Looking through the lens of politics, though, one can begin to understand that punishment equity is what is important.  For example, consider the following two scenarios.

            Scenario 1.  Diedre, an assembly-line worker, often uses ignorance as an excuse at the workplace.  She is able to forgo work that others must perform given that “she does not know how to do it.”  A supervisor, one of two, named Cheri confronts Diedre about a task.  Diedre’s response is that of ignorance.  Cheri retreats and compels another assembly-line worker to perform the task.  As seen from the third party, these actions are unfair given that the “other” person had to perform the task.

            Scenario 2.  Working within the same scenario of Diedre being the ignorant assembly-line worker, Jacquelyn, the other supervisor, confronts Diedre about a task.  Diedre pleads ignorance.  However, this time the excuse is not accepted.  Jacquelyn admonishes Diedre about her continual ignorance, lack of action to overcome her lack of knowledge, and sets a timetable for Diedre to gain competency.  As time goes by, Diedre continues to revel in her “inabilities.”  Jacquelyn follows the timetable.  Jacquelyn determines that Diedre did not follow the timetable and takes appropriate action [44] .  As seen from the third party now, the “other” now sees equitable treatment.

              The essence of this section is that a factional environment compels people to want to withdraw from an organization.  While some may engage in political activity simply to contend with their environment, they do so not because they enjoy politics but because they feel the need to protect themselves from harm.  As a result of politics, there is a degradation of organizational commitment.  Employees depart, and the people who stay do so reluctantly.

Summary of the Theoretical Presentation

            At this point, let us bring the previous work presented together.  The common thread is that organizations that care about their people have people who care about their organization.  The manifestation of that caring from the employee is that of being present at work and remaining as an employee of the firm.  Additionally, workers who are at work are productive simply by being there.  Simply put, absenteeism and turnover are costs for the firm.  Reducing them is obviously beneficial to the firm.

            Before proceeding, let us consider some of the research on absenteeism and turnover rates.  The numbers that I presented in the introduction may, in fact, understate the actual costs.  Leslie Klaff writes in a newspaper article, “Hidden cost of employee turnover: Here’s why profits drop and a variety of other bad things, like low morale, happen when workers leave,” (2001, Section F) that the costs to employers for an employee departing is equal to 150% of the employee’s salary.  She states that most employees are in the training period for 10 to 14 weeks.  Finally, she states that the average, annual turnover in all U.S. industries is 15%, with the numbers for retail at 100% and fast food at 120%.

            Given the costs, less is known empirically about absenteeism and turnover than one might expect, and most of what is in the literature pertains to a handful of sectors.  Abraham Pizam and Steven Thornburg (2000) performed a pilot study, which focused on absenteeism and turnover in Central Florida hotels [45] .  The turnover rates for all departments within the hotels surveyed was 69.5% (Pizam and Thornburg 2000, 216), which, was a bit lower than the 1996 finding of 75.4% (Woods et al. 1998) [46] .  When considering the costs, the numbers take on even higher meaning.  Marriott Corporation, a hotel chain, estimated that a 1% increase in turnover manifests itself into losses (costs) ranging from $5 to $15 million (Schlesinger and Heskett 1991) [47] .

Teresa Wai Chi Tai, Sherry I. Bame, and Chester D. Robinson (1998) performed the most in-depth review of turnover studies in the nursing profession.  They studied the literature for the past 20 years and reported the turnover rates for each study.  The essence of their findings is that nursing turnover is around 40% to 50%, the costs are high, and most organizations shrug their shoulders.

In these two industries, at least, turnover is a huge problem.  These high numbers are found from “low-skilled” positions, such as hospitality workers, to so-called “caring” professions, such as nurses.  Consider just the cost for recruitment of a nurse.  The cost of recruiting a single nurse is $10,000 (Jones 1990) [48] . 

Research on absenteeism suffers from problems of definition [49] that vary from people are absent from work if they are not doing work to an absence of, for example, three consecutive days is considered a single occurrence.  These types of definitions make comparisons impractical.  There need to be standards for defining and presenting absenteeism rates (Harrison and Martocchio 1998, and Havergal 1996).  In the absence of such standardization, then presenting numbers is an irrelevant exercise—how can one interpret the findings?  Consider research that measures absenteeism in quarter-hour increments (Morrow, McElroy, Laczniak, and Fenton 1999, 365) to research that uses average number of absences per day/per employee over a year (Pizam and Thornburg 2000, 214) to reporting practices that range from reporting absences in per day or per hour (Havergal 1996, 30-31).  Coding and reporting differences make comparison between studies difficult.

What all people do agree is that turnover and absenteeism rates are high and that the costs involved are substantial.  The impact of shared understanding on this research project is that the rates and costs I presented in the introduction are grossly under-representative of what occurs in the economy.  Using Klaff’s estimation of the 15% overall turnover within the United States, and her associated costs of 150% of a person’s salary, then the figures I presented become: 250 employee times 15% equals 37.5.  Multiply 37.5 people exiting the door at a salary cost of 150% of their average annual salary of $25,000, the total cost is $37,500 times 37.5 people, or, $1,406,250.  This number is almost 3 times the associated cost for turnover alone for the scenario I presented.  Add in absenteeism costs, and the firm’s expenses become even higher.

The bottom line is that absenteeism and turnover rates should be a substantial concern for any firm.  Ignoring them, which is what many researchers state that most firms do especially in terms of computing the costs associated with the issue, is like disregarding an elephant in someone’s living room.  There is this huge issue right in front of everyone, but discounting it will not make the issue disappear or go away on its own.  If the elephant is comfortable, then it will stay.

Overall Conclusion of the Chapter

            Involve employees and good things happen.  That is the overall conclusion of this chapter.  I presented a lot of information, but the point is essentially the same and consistent throughout.  The first section describes what the firm can do to create a sense of belonging amongst employees, which are the aspects of a participatory culture.  The second section describes how a sense of belonging between firm and employee impacts absenteeism and turnover.  By creating a participatory culture, then employees want to be present at work and do not want to leave.

            This chapter presents what must be present in a firm—a participatory culture.  As hypothesized, a firm that has a participatory culture should have lower rates of absenteeism and turnover.  By knowing what attributes to seek, then the subsequent review of companies to determine if they are participatory or not is made possible.  Likewise, we also have an understanding about the relationship between a participatory culture and absenteeism and turnover given that the second section of this chapter identifies the link between inclusion and its impact on absenteeism and turnover rates.  The only piece of the puzzle left to consider is how to ascertain the culture of a firm.  The next chapter provides this missing part of the equation.