German and Dutch works councils: A trust theory of legal employee voice

IF 5.4 2区 管理学 Q1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR Human Resource Management Journal Pub Date : 2024-05-29 DOI:10.1111/1748-8583.12561
Annette van den Berg, Yolanda Grift, Arjen van Witteloostuijn, Saraï Sapulete, Wolfram Brehmer, Martin Behrens
{"title":"German and Dutch works councils: A trust theory of legal employee voice","authors":"Annette van den Berg, Yolanda Grift, Arjen van Witteloostuijn, Saraï Sapulete, Wolfram Brehmer, Martin Behrens","doi":"10.1111/1748-8583.12561","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"German and Dutch law grant works councils (WoCs) a significant role in company affairs, accompanied by the obligation to act in the organization's overall interest. However, is this sufficient to ensure meaningful WoC involvement in practical organizational decision‐making? We use the well‐emphasized concept of trust from the voluntary employment voice literature as a foundation for exploring how managerial goodwill translates into employment relations regimes with strict mandatory employee voice elements. We take two cases of strict employee voice systems as our litmus test: Germany and the Netherlands. Through structural equation modeling, we unravel the direct and indirect effects on employee representatives' assessment of employee voice effectiveness, considering factors such as legislation, interpersonal relationships between WoC and management team, and union involvement. Trust is positioned as a central mediator. Utilizing unique survey data from 2014 that includes responses from German and Dutch works councilors, the results indicate that legal information rights alone do not solely promote WoC involvement in both countries. Trust also plays a vital role, demonstrating a direct positive effect on having a say and acting as a mediator for timely information provision, goal sharing, organizational support, unity within the WoC (in the Netherlands), and union involvement (mainly in Germany). These cross‐country differences are attributed to variations within Rhineland capitalism, where German relations are primarily characterized by a strong capital‐labor divide, and Dutch relations predominantly emphasize consensus‐seeking.","PeriodicalId":47916,"journal":{"name":"Human Resource Management Journal","volume":"219 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Resource Management Journal","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12561","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

German and Dutch law grant works councils (WoCs) a significant role in company affairs, accompanied by the obligation to act in the organization's overall interest. However, is this sufficient to ensure meaningful WoC involvement in practical organizational decision‐making? We use the well‐emphasized concept of trust from the voluntary employment voice literature as a foundation for exploring how managerial goodwill translates into employment relations regimes with strict mandatory employee voice elements. We take two cases of strict employee voice systems as our litmus test: Germany and the Netherlands. Through structural equation modeling, we unravel the direct and indirect effects on employee representatives' assessment of employee voice effectiveness, considering factors such as legislation, interpersonal relationships between WoC and management team, and union involvement. Trust is positioned as a central mediator. Utilizing unique survey data from 2014 that includes responses from German and Dutch works councilors, the results indicate that legal information rights alone do not solely promote WoC involvement in both countries. Trust also plays a vital role, demonstrating a direct positive effect on having a say and acting as a mediator for timely information provision, goal sharing, organizational support, unity within the WoC (in the Netherlands), and union involvement (mainly in Germany). These cross‐country differences are attributed to variations within Rhineland capitalism, where German relations are primarily characterized by a strong capital‐labor divide, and Dutch relations predominantly emphasize consensus‐seeking.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
德国和荷兰的劳资协议会:雇员合法发言权的信任理论
德国和荷兰的法律赋予劳资协议会(WoCs)在公司事务中的重要作用,并规定其有义务以组织的整体利益为重。然而,这是否足以确保劳资协议会切实参与组织的实际决策呢?我们以自愿性雇佣话语权文献中广为强调的信任概念为基础,探讨管理者的善意如何转化为具有严格强制性雇员话语权要素的雇佣关系制度。我们以两个严格的雇员话语权制度案例作为试金石:德国和荷兰。通过结构方程模型,我们揭示了员工代表对员工话语权有效性评估的直接和间接影响,并考虑了立法、员工代表大会与管理团队之间的人际关系以及工会参与等因素。信任被定位为核心中介因素。利用 2014 年的独特调查数据(其中包括德国和荷兰职工代表的回复),研究结果表明,在这两个国家,仅靠法律信息权并不能完全促进职工代表的参与。信任也发挥着至关重要的作用,在及时提供信息、分享目标、组织支持、工会内部团结(荷兰)和工会参与(主要在德国)方面,信任对拥有发言权和充当调解人有着直接的积极影响。这些跨国差异可归因于莱茵地区资本主义内部的差异,其中德国关系的主要特点是资本与劳动的强烈分歧,而荷兰关系则主要强调寻求共识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
10.90%
发文量
56
期刊介绍: Human Resource Management Journal (CABS/AJG 4*) is a globally orientated HRM journal that promotes the understanding of human resource management to academics and practicing managers. We provide an international forum for discussion and debate, and stress the critical importance of people management to wider economic, political and social concerns. Endorsed by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, HRMJ is essential reading for everyone involved in personnel management, training, industrial relations, employment and human resource management.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Neuronormativity as ignorant design in human resource management: The case of an unsupportive national context Reflections on achieving anti‐racism in organisations: The role of human resource management scholars and practitioners Gender composition at work and women's career satisfaction: An international study of 35 societies Antecedents and outcomes of enabling HR practices: The paradox of consistency and flexibility
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1