When we see and hear more, we are able to stretch, if only for fleeting moments, beyond familiar and taken-for-granted scripts. Breaking through our trained incapacities, we are able to recapture an often lost spontaneity. For Dewey, such imaginings were necessary for diverse individuals to come together through speech and action to repair and renew community life.’  (D. R. Novak & L. M. Harter) Do we agree that we need to hear from those outsides of our community to fully understand how to help them and to put ourselves in their shoes? Choose one question from the in-class discussion and elaborate on your thoughts and reactions, directly referencing the readings at least once. Then, discuss a comment that was made in class – do you agree or disagree with this comment, and why? 5 attachments Slide 1 of 5 attachment_1 attachment_1 attachment_2 attachment_2 attachment_3 attachment_3 attachment_4 attachment_4 attachment_5 attachment_5 8:52 .., LTE CU < := AA Q Q a A 240 of 537 Participation, Teams, and Democracy at Work 219 a ambiguities necessarily arise' because these are places in discourse and human affairs where crucial issues get worked out.16 For important terms that guide our actions, like "democracy," "justice," and "progress," it's especially important to discern whose interests get represented by a particular vision or version of a value. In other words, whose ideas of 'democracy" win the day? This is one way that meaning and power come together in society. We base our definition of participation on Cynthia Stohl and George Cheney's work. They offer a conceptualization of participation that is both theoretical and prac- tical: "worker participation comprises organizational structures and processes designed to empower and enable employees to identify with organizational goals and to collaborate as control agents in activities that exceed minimum coordination efforts normally expected at work."17 As we'll see later, this definition is wide-ranging; the italicized items highlight several important dimensions. Like the meanings of many of the other key terms of organizational life, the mean- ings for participation, teamwork, and democracy are slippery and vague. We would like to stress several points here. First, notice that all three of these terms are com- monly used in popular discourse. As we turn on TV news reports, for example, we find many conflicts around the world described as forces of "democracy" opposing something else. Because of the sheer popularity of that term, especially in Western nations, we find parties and groups all over the political spectrum claiming the mantle of democracy, saying that they are more democratic than their opponents. Democracy, thus, is a "god term"—an unquestioned good—for many societies. But other nations or groups are suspicious of the term because they see it as an excuse for the West insisting on the spread of its own ideals. As they talk about international relations, U.S. government officials and spokespersons, for example, often use the phrase "the spread of democracy' when they really mean 'capitalism,' blurring the distinctions between political and economic realms.18 In fact, this issue of how to define democ- racy emerges frequently on the global stage and was part of the discussions surround- ing the fiftieth and sixtieth anniversaries of the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights in 1998 and 2008, respectively. Participation is an even broader or more diffuse term, because it references so many different forms of activity. In general, the term suggests active, voluntary involvement in arenas ranging from work to sports to politics. Voter participation in U.S. presidential elections has typically hovered around 50% in recent decades, except in 2004 and 2008, when it crossed 60%.19 There can be a high level of political partici- pation in a country with few democratic institutions or structures. In the former Czechoslovakia in November 1989, millions of people took to the streets to demand the overthrow of the Communist government; in just two weeks' time, the totalitarian government fell. In Pakistan in late 2007, President Pervez Musharraf reluctantly gave up his leadership of the military as well as the civilian government—even while main- taining martial law—and insisted that measures to suppress political participation were actually necessary to preserve the democracy. Thus, democracy does not neces- sarily imply participation, and neither does participation mean democracy—though the two ideas are closely related to one another. A number of writers have observed the same principle for organizations. Systems such as worker councils, labor unions, or quality circles may be in operation, yet there may be little active involvement or even interest on the part of employees. Over time, of course, interest may decline even further. This is exactly what happened with the widely 1 8:52 .., LTE CU < := AA Q Q a 242 of 537 Participation, Teams, and Democracy at Work 221 That is, by developing employee participation programs, organizations demonstrate externally as well as internally that they recognize the value of their employees and are willing to invest the resources necessary to help them realize their full potential. As articles in the business sections of major newspapers testify, employee participa- tion programs convey such meta-messages to a large audience. Comparing European and North American senses of employee participation, for example, we find that North Americans are less likely to appeal to social, political, or philosophical justifications and more likely to use productivity as the primary (though usually not the sole) reason for such initiatives. Justifications for specific programs framed in terms of democracy or social justice have been relatively rare in U.S. experi- ence, except within organized labor movements. In general, employee participation refers to instances where top management or the administration initiates an effort to boost both employee involvement and productivity. In other parts of the world, differences depend on the origins of the particular programs. In an interesting study of European managers from six countries, Cynthia Stohl found that meanings and attitudes toward participation varied a great deal by nationality.23 For example, German managers were more likely than Dutch managers to consider macro-level structures of participation. The English word teamwork is now surfacing on at least five continents. In some countries, the term has a lot of resonance because of the connection to athletics: cohesion within sports teams and competition with other groups. However, despite assumed similarities, cultural differences in the meaning of teamwork are significant. For exam- ple, models of teamwork in the Swedish auto industry feature a high degree of collabo- ration and autonomy at the group level. By contrast, the model of teamwork in the typ Japanese auto plant includes a strong sense of loyalty to the company. Collabora- tion is emphasized at the level of team production, but autonomy is not necessarily a significant dimension. Sociologist Laurie Graham worked at a Subaru-Isuzu plant in Indiana for six months in the early 1990s and discovered there was relatively little free- dom or discretion at the shop level, despite the implementation of a quality-manage- ment system and self-directed work teams. She found that for top Japanese managers, "teamwork' became a handy justification for all sorts of requirements of workers—from mandatory morning exercises to requests for overtime hours to calls for greater output.24 The differences in meaning become a problem when people try to implement a program based on a vague idea of "teamwork." In an attempt to be perceived as for- ward thinking or in tune with current trends, some organizations attempt to apply a popular model across the organization, even where the model doesn't fit very well. This is exactly what happened with the wave of implementation for TQM, which for many private firms and government agencies became as much a slogan as a detailed program for improvement of quality and involvement.25 In a university, for example, teamwork makes sense for some functions but not for others. We'll return to the types of conditions for (and limitations of) teamwork later in this chapter. Employee Participation When we examine participation programs, we need to look at such things as intentions, goals, constraints, structures, processes, outcomes, and adaptability. These features can be used as descriptive or even prescriptive criteria for assessing any par- ticular program of participation. 8:52 .., LTE CU < AA Q Q a 243 of 537 222 Chapter Eight Labor Organizing and Employee Participation In the last 25 years, the power of labor unions has declined in the United States, the United Kingdom, and a number of other industrial nations. Even in countries like Ger- many or Denmark, where labor power is institutionalized at the national level, the late 1990s saw a significant decrease in the role of unions and their influence on national and regional policies. Part of that decline was due to some unions growing out of touch with their rank-and-file membership. They became huge and were perceived as unduly centralized and bureaucratic; in some of the biggest unions, there were scandals and frequent reports of corruption. Another reason was that many young people in Western industrialized countries stopped identifying with unions and started to see themselves as autonomous 'professionals." As Kenneth Burke noted in the 1930s, 'laborers tend to enlist our sympathies but not our aspirations."26 We've witnessed this in our class- rooms; while many university students identified themselves with workers during the 1970s, few students today want to represent labor in simulated negotiations over wages and other benefits; they identify more with management. There are two more reasons for the decreased influence of labor unions. First, many corporations pursued active policies of "union-busting"; activities included establishing programs of participation intended to dilute labor power. Programs such as quality circles were created to offer employees alternative avenues of participation so that they would see the presence of organized labor as unnecessary or even unde- sirable.27 The second reason was that the language of labor unions seemed out of step with the times. When 'excellence," "quality," "teamwork," and "customer service" became the new buzz words, many of the oldest and most visible unions—such as the AFL-CIO in the United States or GMB in the United Kingdom-continued to stress employee benefits, working conditions, and workers' rights. Part of management's strategy became the theme of "cooperation"—in contrast with the union's adversarial portrayal of the relationship between management and labor. Driven by cutbacks in workforces and the use of outsourcing, many of the largest unions accepted sacrifices in wages and other benefits in the last two decades of the twentieth century. Since the late 1990s, however, the Western world has experienced something of a turnaround. Labor demands have been increasing, and some important contracts have included protections from sudden layoffs and extensive outsourcing of basic services. Many labor unions have adopted what they call "corporate campaigns"—multifac- eted efforts to boost their images and strengthen their position vis-à-vis management. As rhetorical critic Dana Cloud notes, there is a renewed interest in class issues as the grounds for labor campaigns today, as the growing gap between the 'haves" and the "have nots' becomes impossible to deny amidst the rhetoric of 'classlessness."28 Box 8.2 Organizational Communication and Labor Unions: Thinking about Economics and Workplace Democracy Dana Cloud, The University of Texas at Austin Critical organizational communication studies scholars are concerned with the control of workers and the ability of ordinary people to control and benefit from their work lives. Commu- nication is essential to workplace democracy, but economic relationships are a key part of the 8:52 .., LTE CU < := AA Q a A 246 of 537 Participation, Teams, and Democracy at Work 225 both types of democracy operating in many societies, where some assemblies work toward consensus and others fashion decisions out of conflicting views. This distinc- tion between the two models of democracy-one grounded in oppositional voice, the other presuming unified concerns—becomes very important when we talk about attempts at creating 'alternative" organizations that are more democratic and egalitar- ian, with truly flat and participative structures. Technology has created new employment sectors and has also facilitated unions organizing in new ways. For example, India leads the world in providing business process outsourcing (BPO). Indian call centers generate over $30 billion a year. Despite the large numbers of employees in the industry, it has been one of the least unionized employment sectors in India. Employees work for about one-sixth of the salaries earned by call center employees in the United Kingdom, and workers typi- cally have long shifts of over 50 hours a week, usually at night. Some employees formed an "e-union.' The 'BPO union" is an electronic network sustained through blogs, e-mail lists, and a Web site. The underground union targets investors and customers with on-line posts. The goal is to force management to institute more favorable conditions and salaries. Instead of challenging Indian employers directly through strikes, the union targets stock prices and investors' confidence by revealing how the firms are run. It believes British and American firms will abandon contracts with controversial firms because there are multiple other options. "Our main idea is to educate them, how their 'second-in-line' people who engage in daily operations, who dismiss unions with disdain, will cause harm to their stock prices."33 The sector also faces the historical tensions between unions and management and between unions and professional associations. The Union for Information & Technol- ogy Enabled Services (UNITES) was India's first union in the BPO sector. Part of the Indian National Trade Union Congress, it claims to represent 10% of the workforce (estimated at two million workers), and the numbers increased dramatically in the last quarter of 2008 when the downturn in the global economy resulted in large layoffs. UNITES is part of the Union Network International, with over 16 million workers in 13 sectors in 163 countries. In late November 2008, the union accused firms of violat- ing the eight-hour day established by the Indian Factories Act in 1948. The union charged IT firms with inconsistent behaviors. The firms claim the slowing economy necessitates eliminating jobs yet forced employees to work longer hours to complete projects. A spokesperson for Infosys Technologies said, 'These are difficult times and if they don't work hard then there will not be any industry left in coming days." Ironically, the IT sector was once the leader in human relations practices in India, including flexible work hours. Traditional unions, including the Congress of Indepen- dent Trade Workers (CITU), frame their involvement in unitary terms, arguing for bet- ter and more stable working conditions. Nonunionized professional groups in the sector, such as the I.T. Professionals Forum and the National Association of Software and Services Companies (NASSCOM), have framed CITU's involvement in adversar- ial terms, calling it a 'retrograde step," which would dilute the international competi- tive edge of the sector. 134 Managerially Driven Programs of Employee Participation There are three main categories of management-sponsored programs of employee participation. It is important to understand these approaches before discussing a brief history and specific types of employee participation.35 8:52 ... 5G CS < AA Q Q a 247 of 537 226 < Chapter Eight O Employee participation as problem-solving or decision-making groups that are to some extent outside of or beyond regular work activities. This type of employee par- ticipation began with the human relations movement, particularly the initia- tives toward what was called "participative management' from the 1940s through the 1960s. Quality (control) circles are the best known example in this category; cross-sectional groups or committees meet, often after work, to con- tribute ideas about productivity, efficiency, and quality. • Employee participation as a restructuring of work processes and activities, using self-directed or semiautonomous work teams. Specific tasks are reorganized to allow for greater coordination, a widening of individual responsibility, perhaps job rotation, and sometimes involvement in the development of the entire prod- uct or service. In some cases, there is substantial independence or autonomy in group decision making, such that teams can make their own determinations about the uses of new technologies, set their own schedules, and formulate their own production strategy. This type of participation first appeared in the 1940s to 1960s in the United Kingdom under the heading of socio-technical sys- tems (discussed later in the chapter). Employee ownership as economic investment in and/or overall governance of the organization; employee participation becomes part of the basic structure. Some- times, employee ownership is the result of the transformation of a more tradi- tional firm. Other times, it exists from the very beginning; the organization is built from the ground up with principles of participation to guide it. For exam- ple, in a worker cooperative the entire equity of the organization is held by employees and none by outsiders. A worker-owned cooperative may also be governed by the employees themselves, perhaps even using a one-person/one- vote principle for decisions on fundamental policies. Another example is employee stock ownership programs, many of which include economic rights without decision-making power. When the harmful and alienating aspects of the Industrial Revolution first became apparent in the first half of the nineteenth century (fueling Karl Marx's critique of cap- italist economies with examples of horrible factory conditions in England), social activists in Europe looked to some form of worker participation as a means of reinte- grating the urban working class into society. Even before World War I, workplace democracy was a major political issue in many Western European nations (e.g., in Ger- many, Britain, Denmark, and France).36 By the 1960s the European community began formal initiatives on worker participation. Today, workplace democracy remains a controversial and unresolved issue within the European Union, often conceptualized as a hybrid of the ideologies of socialism, human relations, and capitalism. In some countries there are legal mandates for participation (e.g., German workers councils and codetermination policies), whereas in others (e.g., Denmark) legal regulations are scarce but various cooperative agreements are commonplace. In some nations there is an adversarial union/management undercurrent in participative initiatives, whereas in other nations cooperation between management and labor is more developed. In the United States, employee participation is typically focused more narrowly on interfirm competition and on issues of human resources management. The human rela- tions tradition of the middle of the twentieth century emphasized the value and poten- tial of participation, cooperation, and collaboration between and among employees. Purchase answer to see full attachment Explanation & Answer: 200 words Tags: communications COMMUNITY people outside our community User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.