HRM Coursework本科课程作业：Compare and Contrast the Practices of C

1.0 Introduction引言

随着组织社会化程度的提高，组织面临的经营环境复杂且具有竞争性（Kwon、Farndale和Park，2016）。为了维持组织的长期发展，仅仅依靠管理层的决策是不够的（Constantin和Baias，2015年）。因此，现代学者和企业越来越重视如何发挥员工的智慧和主动性，给予员工参与决策的机会（Venkataramani等人，2016）。他们提出了一系列的理论和法规，如员工声音理论、集体谈判、联合协商等。本文将对基于员工声音框架和理论的集体谈判和联合协商的实践进行比较和对比，以了解这两种方式如何帮助员工影响管理决策。

With the increasing degree of socialization of organizations, the operating environment that an organization faces is complex and competitive (Kwon, Farndale and Park, 2016). To maintain the long-term development of an organization, it is not enough to rely solely on management's decision-making (Constantin and Baias, 2015). Therefore, modern scholars and enterprises pay more and more attention to how to exert the wisdom and initiative of employees’ and give employees the opportunity to participate in decision-making (Venkataramani et al., 2016). They propose a series of theories and regulations, such as the theory of employee voice, collective bargaining, joint consultation and so on. This essay will compare and contrast the practices of collective bargaining and joint consultation based on employee voice frameworks and theory to understand how these two help employees to influence management decision making.

2.0 Body主体

2.1 Employee voice员工声音

Venkataramani等人（2016）将员工声音定义为员工基于协作目的表达与工作相关的意见、信息和观点。员工声音包括员工对工作不满意时表达的观点，以及在正常情况下提高组织绩效的建设性观点。

员工声音行为相当复杂，现有的研究主要从以下三个维度进行研究。

康斯坦丁和拜亚斯（2015）根据员工声音的内容，将员工声音分为禁止性声音和促进性声音。禁止性声音提出要解决存在的问题，以改善他们，促进性声音是指员工提出的新的工作模式，以挑战当前的形势。

根据员工声音方式划分，Kwon、Farndale和Park（2016）将员工声音划分为体贴的声音和攻击性的声音。体贴的声音会考虑到员工自身的利益和组织的利益，而咄咄逼人的声音更是考虑到个人的利益。

根据动机，Venkataramani等人（2016）将员工声音分为防御声音和默许声音、亲社会声音。防御性发言是指积极提出的自我保护建议，可能对组织不利。默许员工的声音是对他们观点的一种消极表达。亲社会的声音是一种积极主动的表达员工的建议，这对组织是有益的。

Venkataramani et al. (2016) define employee voice as employees’ expression of work-related opinions, information and views based on the purpose of collaboration. Employee voice includes views expressed when employees are not satisfied with their work and constructive views under normal circumstances on improving performance of an organization.

Behavior of employee voice is rather complicated, and the existing researches mainly study it from the following three dimensions.

According to the content of employee voice, Constantin and Baias (2015) divide employee voice into prohibitive voice and promotive voice. Prohibitive voice proposed to address the existing problems to improve them, promotive voice refers to new working paradigms put forward by employees to challenge the current situation.

According to the division of ways of employee voice, Kwon, Farndale and Park (2016) divide employee voice into considerate voice and aggressive voice. Considerate voice will take into account employees’ own interests and the interests of the organization, and aggressive voice is more consideration of personal interests.

According to the motive, Venkataramani et al. (2016) divide employee voice into defensive voice and acquiescent voice, prosocial voice. Defensive voice refers to the recommendations put forward actively for self-protection, which may not be beneficial to the organization. Acquiescent employee voice is a negative expression of their views. Prosocial voice is a proactive expression of staff’s suggestions which are profitable for the organization.

2.2 Compare and Contrast of Collective Bargaining and Joint Consultation

2.2.1 Definition

Collective bargaining is defined as that in collective bargaining, it takes an employer, some employers or several employer organizations as a party, taking a or several workers' organizations as the other party to conduct the negotiation based on the following purposes: determining working conditions and conditions of employment; adjusting the relationship between employers and workers; adjusting the relationship between employer organizations and worker organizations  (Berg, Kossek, Baird and Block, 2013). 

Joint consultation is the practice that employees' representatives and representatives of enterprises are on the basis of laws to negotiate equally on matters such as wage distribution systems, forms of wage distribution, income levels and enterprise management to sign wage agreements (Okpu, and Jaja, 2014).

2.2.2 Similarities

The similarities between collective bargaining and joint consultation include that firstly, purposes of both are to resolve the contradiction between employees and enterprises to coordinate labor relations, both of them give employees the right and opportunity to influence enterprises’ decision-making (Jimeno and Thomas, 2013; Holland, Pyman, Cooper and Teicher, 2009). Secondly, there is a low degree of government intervention in the implementation process and results of the two systems, only when the labor disputes involve the public domain, a government will intervene (Holland, Pyman, Cooper and Teicher, 2009; Berg, Kossek, Baird and Block, 2013). Finally, both of them contribute to the coordination of labor relations, workers are given more opportunities to participate in the management of an enterprise, which helps to stimulate the enthusiasm and creativity of laborers to improve labor efficiency, providing a fundamental guarantee for improving enterprise productivity, economic efficiency (Jimeno and Thomas, 2013; Okpu and Jaja, 2014).

2.2.3 Differences

Collective bargaining differs from joint consultation mainly in the following four aspects. First is people involved. Representatives of workers in joint consultation are usually generated through democratic elections (Okpu and Jaja, 2014), while workers' representatives of collective bargaining are usually selected by trade union organizations. Second is about the content of discussion(Berg, Kossek, Baird and Block, 2013). Joint consultation discusses content of a more large range (Holland, Pyman, Cooper and Teicher, 2009). It can often include enterprise development strategies, business decisions, and content related to employee compensation, working hours, benefits, and so on. The content of collective bargaining is usually limited to content related to staff salaries, working hours, benefits, and so on (Jimeno and Thomas, 2013). Finally, the dispute resolutions of the two are different. In the process of joint consultation, the difference between employers and employees will be settled through negotiation, while the dispute in collective bargaining can lead to strikes, shutdowns, downtime and other fierce ways. Finally, considering from the characteristics of communication, joint consultation is not a negotiation decision-making process, but a consultation process (Okpu and Jaja, 2014). It is more emphasis on non-confrontation communication and consultation. Under this mechanism, the labor relations emphasize cooperation rather than confrontation. The opposition of the two sides in economic interests is replaced or weakened by the unity, and enterprises develop becomes the highest interests of both sides. Joint consultation provides a common platform for both employers and employers to formally or informally discuss issues commonly concerned to exchange information and explore ways to solve problems in an organized framework. While in collective bargaining, the two parties are in a relevant legal framework to fight with each other about the organization they work in, staff motivation and participation, as well as the settlement of disputes and a series of work-related contents to maximize their own interests (Jimeno and Thomas, 2013). The core of the bargaining is the game for interests.

Judging from the above analysis, collective bargaining has the characteristics of promotive voice, aggressive voice and the characteristics of defensive voice. While joint consultation has the characteristics of  prohibitive voice, considerate voice and prosocial voice.

3.0 Conclusion

Collective bargaining and joint consultation embodies two kinds of different views and approaches on employees' influence on enterprise decision-making. Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages, rational use of these two systems has a positive effect on improving labor relations and encouraging employees to participate in enterprise management.

 

References

Berg, P., Kossek, E. E., Baird, M. and Block, R. N. (2013). Collective bargaining and public policy: Pathways to work-family policy adoption in Australia and the United States. European Management Journal, 31(5), 495-504.