The Employee as the Unknown Actor? A Discourse Analysis of the Employee Share Ownership Debate with Special Emphasis on Central and Eastern Europe

Abstract

Background and purpose: Although employee share ownership (ESO) deserves of a long tradition, we still know little about employees’ perspectives about ESO. The lack of knowledge about the employees’ attitudes towards ESO is discursively filled in the ESO debate. This paper challenges that deficit by carrying out a semantic analysis of the literature with the aim to identify the various actor constructions used implicitly in the ESO discourse. Design/Methodology/Approach: We conduct a semantic analysis of the ESO discourse. To unfold the order of this discourse we draw on the distinction between surface and underlying structure of communication in the sense of Michel Foucault. We interpret some semantic lead differences, a term coined by Niklas Luhmann, to constitute the underlying structure of communication. Results: We can identify six different streams on the ESO discourse’s surface level each defined by the ends pursued. The discourse’s underlying structure is made up of the distinctions production-consumption, capital-labour, and ownership-control that also determine the actor models implicitly in use. Conclusion: We can identify five different actor models implicit in the ESO discourse. While the CEE discourse differs on the surface level in as far as it is more concerned with questions of political legitimation of the privatisation process than with questions of economic efficiency, thus introducing political distinctions in the discourse rather missing in the west, it shares the underlying semantic lead differences with the Western discourse as well as the actor models anchored in those differences.

New social cooperation model in service oriented economy: the case of employee financial participation in the Baltic states

“…Most research and policy studies conclude that privatisation was the main driving force behind the initial spread of employee financial participation in Central and Eastern Europe (Mygind, 2012;Kranz et al, 2016;Lowitzsch, 2009b). As a transition process, privatisation also developed specific conditions that influenced this advance, i.e.…”

Aplicar una distinción. Un programa sistémico-constructivista para la investigación social cualitativa

“…Sin embargo, últimamente existe un número creciente de estudios que intentan aplicarla, combinándola -con éxitos dispares-con una variedad de enfoques y técnicas analíticas cualitativas, como la Teoría Fundamentada (Gibson et al 2005;Mitchell 2007;Stein et al 2011), el análisis de contenido (Feldpausch-Parker et al 2013;Gentile 2010;Von Groddeck 2010), de discurso (Andersen 2006;Boholm 2008;Kranz et al 2016;Noe & Alrøe 2015), de frames o narrativas (Boholm 2012;Knight et al 2005), conversacional (Messmer 2003;Schneider 2000) o los estudios de caso (Alexander & Blum 2016;Fontes & Ayala 2011).…”