Preview

Employee Ownership, Motivation and Productivity

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
23030 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Employee Ownership, Motivation and Productivity
Employee ownership, motivation and productivity

A research report for Employees Direct from Birkbeck and The Work Foundation

By Jonathan Michie, Christine Oughton and Yvonne Bennion November 2002

Page 2

E M P LOY E E S D I R E C T R E P O R T N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 2

Contents
About the authors/Acknowledgements Foreword, by Will Hutton Executive Summary 1. Introduction 2. Site visits and interviews 3. Follow-up surveys 4. Focus groups 5. Discussion and Conclusion References
3 4 5 6 10 18 21 30 33

Layout: Wyvern 21 Printing: JW Arrowsmith

The Work Foundation. Registered as a charity no: 290003 This issue first printed November 2002 ISBN 1-84373-003-0

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording and/or otherwise without the prior written permission of the publishers. This publication may not be lent, resold, hired out or otherwise disposed of by way of trade in any form, binding or cover other than that in which is is published, without the prior consent of the publishers.

E M P LOY E E S D I R E C T R E P O R T N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 2

Page 3

About Employees Direct
Employees Direct is a working party established in July 2001, following a report commissioned by Mutuo1 on how the government’s aim of enhancing productivity through the motivational effects of employee shareholding might best be realised. 2 Employees Direct brings together academics, practitioners and opinion formers. Its intention is to report on the potential for employee shareholding to: first, play an active role in improving the corporate governance and accountability of firms second, to enhance employee motivation and productivity. This report has been commissioned to help inform this process. The Working Party members include Mutuo, the CBI, Job Ownership Ltd, the TUC, Unity Corporate Advisers, Cobbetts Solicitors, the



References: JT Addison and CR Belfield (2000) ‘The impact of financial participation and employee involvement in financial performance: a reestimation using the 1998 WERS’, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, volume 47, number 5, pp 571-583. E Appelbaum, T Beiley, P Berg and AL Kalleberg (2000) Manufacturing Advantage: Why High-Performance Work Systems Pay Off, Cornell University Press. J Blasi, M Conte and D Kruse (1996) ‘Employee stock ownership and corporate performance among public companies’, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, volume 50, number 1, pp 60-79. P Burns (2000) The Silent Stakeholder, London: The Industrial Society (now The Work Foundation). MJ Conyon and RB Freeman (2001) Shared Modes of Compensation and Firm Performance: UK Evidence, mimeo. GAO (General Accounting Office) (1987) Employee Stock Ownership Plans: Little Evidence of Effects on Corporate Performance, Washington DC. J Godard (2001) ‘High performance and the transformation of work? The implications of alternative work practices for the experience and outcomes of work’, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, volume 54, number 4, pp 776-805. D Guest, J Michie, M Sheehan and N Conway (2000) Employment Relation, HRM and Business Performance: An analysis of the 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey, London: CIPD. D Guest, Z King, N Conway, J Michie and M Sheehan-Quinn (2001) Voices from the Boardroom, London: CIPD. Inland Revenue (1999) A New All-Employee Share Plan, London: Inland Revenue E Kandel and EP Lazear (1992) ‘Peer pressure and partnerships’, Journal of Political Economy, volume 100, number 4, pp 801-817. SJ Konzelmann and R Forrant (2002) ‘Creative work systems in destructive markets’, in Burchell, Deakin, Michie and Rubery (eds) Systems of Production: markets, organisations and performance, London: Routledge. D Kruse and J Blasi (1995) Employee ownership, employee attitudes and firm performance, NBER Working Paper no 5277. EP Lazear (1995) Personnel Economics, Cambridge Mass: The MIT Press. J Logue and J Yates (2001) The Real World of Employee Ownership, Ithaca and London: ILR Press. R McNabb and K Whitfield (1998) ‘The impact of financial participation and employee involvement on financial performance’, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, volume 45, number 2, pp 171-187. R McNabb and K Whitfield (2000) ‘The impact of financial participation and employee involvement on financial performance: a reestimation using the 1998 WERS: a reply’, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, volume 47, number 5, pp 584-590. J Michie (2001) ‘High performance work systems’, in Michie (ed.), A Reader’s Guide to Social Sciences, London: Fitzroy Dearborn/ Routledge. J Michie and C Oughton (2001) Employees Direct: Shareholder Trusts, Business Performance and Corporate Governance, London: Mutuo. J Michie and M Sheehan (1999a) ‘Labour market dynamics and innovation’, Industrial & Corporate Change, volume 8, number 2, pp 211-233. J Michie and M Sheehan (1999b) ‘No Innovation without representation? An analysis of participation, representation, R&D and innovation’, Economic Analysis, volume 2, number 2, pp 85-97. J Michie and M Sheehan-Quinn (2001) ‘Labour Market Flexibility, Human Resource Management and Corporate Performance’, British Journal of Management, volume 12, number 4, pp 287-306. J Michie and M Sheehan (2003) ‘Labour Flexibility and Innovative Behaviour’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, volume 27, number 1, forthcoming, January. P Nolan (2002) ‘Director’s Report’, in The Future of Work Bulletin number 4, August, Leeds University Business School, www.leeds.ac.uk/esrcfutureofwork/ MG Patterson, MA West, R Lawthom and S Nickell (1997) Impact of People Management Practices on Business Performance, London: CIPD. A Pendleton, E Poutsma, J van Ommeren and C Brewster (2001a) Employee Share Ownership and Profit-sharing in the European Union, Dublin, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. A Pendleton (2001) Employee Ownership, Participation and Governance: A study of ESOPs in the UK, London: Routledge. J Philpott (2002) ‘HRH – A work audit’, Perspectives, Summer, London: CIPD. FK Pil and JP MacDuffie (1996) ‘The Adoption of High-Involvement Work Practices’, Industrial Relations, volume 35, number 3, pp 423455. Offices in London, Birmingham and Scotland Contact us by telephone on: 0870 165 6700 or by fax on: 0870 165 6701 customercentre@theworkfoundation.com www.theworkfoundation.com

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays
    • 972 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Mr. Zaboschuk

    • 2303 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Stathopoulos, K., Espenlaub, S., & Walker, M. (2004). U.K. executive compensation practices: New economy versus old economy. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 16, 57-92.…

    • 2303 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Rubbermaid

    • 928 Words
    • 4 Pages

    In recent years, companies have managed to turn their backs on employees and investors, all because they wanted to save money and do what’s best for the company and them without caring how it would affect the employees and investors. They became greedy and did whatever it took to get themselves rich by lying to investors with balance sheets that didn’t include money-losing assets and laying off employees leaving them jobless and feeling betrayed. Even though both employees and investors were betrayed by the companies, they do not share sufficient common interests to join forces in asking for reforms from either government or corporations. There are three reasons for this: first, investors are higher on the ladder than employees; second, both…

    • 928 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    West Jest vs Air Canada

    • 1204 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Kruse, Douglas; Richard Freeman, and Joseph Blasi. 2009, Shared Capitalism at Work: Employee Ownership, Profit and Gain Sharing, and Broad-Based Stock Options. Chapter 5: Creating a Bigger Pie? The Effects of Employee Ownership, Profit Sharing, and Stock Options on Workplace Performance. Version 2009.…

    • 1204 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Firms using minority share ownership plans tend to be larger and have high levels of employment, greater levels of sales and are capital intensive. These firms all have complex tasks in industries such as finance, retail and communication. This leads onto the first reason employee share ownership plans are used. Agency theory (Jensen & Meckling 1976) implies that firms that have a sole owner will have the lowest agency costs. The opportunity for agency costs to incur arise because there is not a sole owner and individuals become agents. The person who delegates work in the firm is called the principal and the person to whom work is assigned is called the agent. Firms use minority share ownership plans because the risk preferences by the agents differ to those of the principals’ and that leads to inefficient decisions being made. Agency theorists explain the use of minority employee share ownership plans as a way of delaying compensation to motivate employees and limit the risk of employees shirking their responsibilities.…

    • 1761 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    2 0 1 3 Sp e c i a l R e p o r t o n…

    • 2808 Words
    • 64 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    AQR Case

    • 3166 Words
    • 13 Pages

     A p p r o x i m a t e l y 4 0 0 e m p l o ye e s…

    • 3166 Words
    • 13 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Motivation and Employees

    • 2237 Words
    • 9 Pages

    It has been suggested that “financial rewards do not guarantee more productivity, but paying attention to employees’ motivational needs does” and that “managers need to pay less attention to financial incentives and more to the actual motivation needs of their employees” (Sunday Business Post 2012). This is further supported by the results of the 2011 Mercer’s What’s Working survey where “being treated with respect, a work-life balance, the type of work undertaken … were ranked ahead of overall compensation” (Sunday Business Post 2012).…

    • 2237 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Susanne Tietze, Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University Sara Nadin, Sheffield University School of Management, University of Sheffield Human Resource Management Journal, Vol 21, no 3, 2011, pages 318–334…

    • 9493 Words
    • 38 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    Employment Relations

    • 1373 Words
    • 6 Pages

    This paper seeks to analyse the characteristics of employee representation in the UK and concerns about is the UK ‘lightly regulated’ in regard of the employee representation. Employee representation can be known as the right of workers to seek a union or an individual to represent them to negotiate with their organizations with a wide range of management issues, such as wage rate, working hours, working conditions, health and safety and also their benefits. It is vital to have a formal system of employee representation in a business. This can give an opportunity for a business to communicate with employees and the law requires a business to consult with the employees in some situations. It helps management and employees to understand more about the workplace issues and other factors that could affect a business. Moreover, this could help to build up trust between employees and managers and therefore workplace relations could be improved. In the UK workplace, there are forms of employee representation which are trade union, non-trade union and indirect representative participation. As for the UK is ‘lightly regulated’ in employee representation is being concerned, there are many workplaces still do not have their employee representations. To a large extent, I agree with this argument. Common structure of employee representation does not exist in the UK and the most common way that legally forces employers to deal with employees is the unions. However, union recognition is decreasing.…

    • 1373 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Lincoln Electric Case Study

    • 3639 Words
    • 15 Pages

    Klein, K. J. (1987). Employee stock ownership and employees attitudes: A test of three models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 319-332.…

    • 3639 Words
    • 15 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    E D I T H K R A M E R : A r t a s T h e r a p y 2…

    • 1411 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Unions and Management

    • 15236 Words
    • 61 Pages

    j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / h u m r e s…

    • 15236 Words
    • 61 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Health

    • 7924 Words
    • 32 Pages

    H E A L T H A F F A I R S ~ M a r c h / A p r i l 2 0 0 2…

    • 7924 Words
    • 32 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Executive Compensation

    • 2110 Words
    • 9 Pages

    Milne, J. A. (2006, May). Good corporate governance, good performance. Benefits & Compensation Digest, 43(5), 34-38.…

    • 2110 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays