1976
DOI: 10.1080/00213624.1976.11503358
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Necessary Elements for Effective Worker Participation in Decision Making

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
57
0
8

Year Published

1993
1993
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 61 publications
(66 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
1
57
0
8
Order By: Relevance
“…This brings us to the interrelated matters of the thoroughness and the authenticity of democratic efforts in organizations. Bernstein (1976), Strauss (1982), and Monge and Miller (1988), in their relatively comprehensive reviews of certain dimensions of workplace democracy, explain that at least three major factors must be considered: (1) the range of issues treated in a particular program, (2) the extent of actual influence by employees, and (3) the highest levels at which influence is exercised. The range of issues within the domain of democratic decision making is important because in some systems of participation certain topics (e.g., salary and wages) are excluded from consideration.…”
Section: Consistency Between Goals and Processmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…This brings us to the interrelated matters of the thoroughness and the authenticity of democratic efforts in organizations. Bernstein (1976), Strauss (1982), and Monge and Miller (1988), in their relatively comprehensive reviews of certain dimensions of workplace democracy, explain that at least three major factors must be considered: (1) the range of issues treated in a particular program, (2) the extent of actual influence by employees, and (3) the highest levels at which influence is exercised. The range of issues within the domain of democratic decision making is important because in some systems of participation certain topics (e.g., salary and wages) are excluded from consideration.…”
Section: Consistency Between Goals and Processmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…As the social and political developments of the 1960s spawned a resurgence of various forms of workplace democracy in the 1970s, Derber (1970) proposed a model containing nine principles for defining workplace democracy geared towards an American context. 1 This pioneering work was subsequently extended by other workplace democracy theorists (e.g., Walker, 1974;Greenberg, 1975;Bernstein, 1976;Thorsrud, 1977), who examined empirical evidence relating to new forms of worker participation in the United States and especially in Sweden and Norway. Based on this evidence, new alternate models of workplace democracy were proposed (e.g., Pateman, 1970;Hunnius et al, 1973;Tannenbaum et al, 1974;Herbst, 1976;Zwerdling, 1978;Witte, 1980).…”
Section: Defining Workers' Rights As 'Workplace Democracy'mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In attempting to synthesise these previous findings and models of workplace democracy, we will take as our starting point a modification of Schurman and Eaton' s (1996) sixcomponent framework of a democratic workplace, a modification based primarily on Derber (1970) and Bernstein (1976Bernstein ( , 1980. Briefly outlined in Table 1, the framework consists of six components of workplace democracy: i) shared sovereignty over all levels of decision making, ii) opportunities for direct and indirect participation in decision making, iii) access to complete information and education necessary for responsible decision making, iv) guaranteed equal rights for individuals and respect for individual dignity, v) the right to at least minimum economic, health and safety, and environmental standards, and vi) the right to a fair share of the surplus value created by one' s work.…”
Section: Defining Workers' Rights As 'Workplace Democracy'mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Third, some kind of mechanism that assures the broad diffusion of knowledge, information, and technological skills among the membership is necessary for maximal participation and to keep elites from forming and/or becoming oligarchic (Katovich et al, 1981;Lipset et al, 1956;Rothschild and Whitt, 1986). Lastly, there needs to be some kind of structured mechanism to protect people from reprisals when they dissent or challenge the leadership (Bernstein, 1982;Lipset et al, 1956).…”
Section: Structural Factorsmentioning
confidence: 98%