This paper provides a historical review of Employer Associations (EAs) in China across three distinct political regimes, characterised first by weak and then by dominant state influence. This study extends the current knowledge of EA behaviour through an examination of a case of a non-liberal democratic state, hitherto largely neglected in the EA literature. It also contributes to the recent literature that examines the countervailing power thesis in relation to EAs by uncovering state hegemony as a boundary condition of EAs' countervailing power.

PurposeIn recent years, in research and policy circles, there is growing interest in the subject of speaking up (and silence) within the health sector, and there is a consensus that it is a major issue that needs to be addressed. However, there remain gaps in our knowledge and while scholars talk of a voice system - that is the existence of complementary voice channels designed to allow employees to speak up - empirical evidence is limited. We seek to explore the notion of a voice system in a healthcare organisation as comprising structures and cultures as seen from different stakeholder perspectives. What do they see and how do they behave and why? To what extent do the users see a voice system they can access and easily navigate?Design/methodology/approachInterviews and focus groups were conducted with a voice stakeholder group (e.g. designers of the system from senior management and HR, which comprised 23 staff members) as well as those who have to use the system, with 13 managers and 26 employees from three units within a metropolitan hospital: an oncology department, an intensive care unit and a community health service. Overall, a total of 62 staff members participated and the data were analysed using grounded theory to identify key themes.FindingsThis study revealed that although a plethora of formal voice structures existed, these were not always visible or accessible to staff, leading to confusion as to who to speak up to about which issues. Equally other avenues which were not designated voice platforms were used by employees to get their voices heard.Originality/valueThis papers looks at the voice system across the organisation rather than examining a specific scheme. In doing so it enables us to see the lived perceptions and experiences of potential users of these schemes and their awareness of the system as a whole.

Given recent studies have begun to question the siloed nature of employee voice research this paper attempts to theorise the boundaries between Organisational Behavior (OB), Human Resource Management (HRM) and Industrial and Employment Relations (I/ER) voice. Researchers examine specific organisational contexts that may influence employees' voice behavior, with OB researchers paying particular attention to the micro contextual influences of leadership behavior and psychological safety climate on individual voice behavior; HR researchers emphasizing the meso role of HR practices that may facilitate employee voice; and I/ER researchers focusing more on how macro institutional supports such as unions and collective bargaining can protect employees and facilitate voice. The paper proposes a model of "contextual voice efficacy" as a bridge between these disparate literatures, and develops propositions as to how OB, HR and I/ER voice mechanisms can combine together in a single model.

PURPOSE:We aim to advance our understanding by examining voices related to employees' own interests and associated outcomes for employees and healthcare organizations. Patient safety reviews do not explore contextual factors such as organizational or professional cultures and regulatory environments in depth, and arguments for overcoming barriers to voice in health are underdeveloped. The research has largely developed in separate literature (various subdisciplines of management and the health field), and we outline the divergent emphases and opportunities for integration with the aim of investigating all relevant contextual factors and providing guidance on best practice informed by multiple disciplines. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH:A systematic approach was taken to gathering and reviewing articles, and coding and reporting are in line with the most recent Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (Rethlefsen et al., 2021). FINDINGS:We identified a range of facilitators, barriers and outcomes of employee interest voice at different levels (organizational, leadership, team or individual) in a healthcare context. We identify various theoretical, methodological and knowledge gaps, and we suggest several ways in which these can be addressed in future research efforts. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS:We make multiple contributions to both theory and practice, including highlighting the importance and implications of integrating disciplinary approaches, broadening context, improving research design and exploring under-researched samples and topics. This information is essential in providing a more comprehensive model of healthcare voice and to shifting management focus to include all forms of employee voice in healthcare for the benefit of staff and patients. ORIGINALITY/VALUE:We make multiple contributions to both theory and practice including highlighting the importance of integrating disciplinary approaches, broadening context to include employee interest issues, improving research design and exploring under-researched samples and topics. This information is essential in providing a more comprehensive model of health care voice and to shifting management focus to take a more inclusive view of employee voice in healthcare for the benefit of staff as well as patients.

This chapter provides an overview of the literature on employee voice in health care contexts and the implications for human resource management (HRM) theory and practice. The research surveyed is referred to herein as voice in health (VIH) literature and encompasses research on the topic of employee voice which has been conducted within health care organisations or where health worker samples have been studied. VIH includes studies approached from HRM, employment relations (ER), organisational behaviour (OB), and health perspectives. The chapter covers the development of employee voice and VIH concepts in these disciplines, the main themes addressed by this body of research at various levels, the theoretical and practical value of the VIH literature to HRM, limitations and how they could be overcome, as well as promising areas for future research.

For employers and their associations, 2021 began with the prospect of significant industrial relation change and a return to business as usual. However, the enduring implications of the pandemic, and defeat of many employer-supported aspects of the Coalition Government's legislative changes in the Senate, quickly dashed these dreams. Through a review of public submissions, media reports and interviews, this article explores the key activities and interests of employers and their associations throughout 2021. This year saw welcomed clarity regarding casual employment, renewed government interest in (if not support for) skilled migration, and through the enhanced use of online communication platforms, the opportunity for better member–association relationships. As the year progressed, employer attention shifted back to the pandemic, and more specifically, the challenge of managing vaccine mandates. For employers and their associations, 2021 was then a year of mixed results and enduring uncertainty.

The 'psychologisation' of the human resource management (HRM) and industrial relations (IR) has been a major topic of conversation in management journals, not least in HRMJ (Farndale et al., 2020). We contribute to this debate by focussing on employee voice as an important topic of scholarship, and by explaining how this topic has been psychologised over time. First, we review organisational behaviour (OB) voice literature from the 1980s onwards to show how OB voice has itself shifted, and narrowed, over time, making OB voice a more static phenomenon, and one that marginalises other perspectives and stakeholders. In our review, we distinguish between what we call the 'old' and 'new' OB voice scholarship, the latter occurring from the mid-1990s onwards. We then review all voice publications across four major HR journals from 2000 onwards, to show how OB's psychologised conception of voice has influenced HR voice, and the implications of this for HRM.

The frames of reference model developed by Fox, and extended by a number of other authors, is arguably the central paradigm framework in the employment/industrial relations field. Despite its importance and popularity, use of frames of reference to structure empirical analysis and develop hypotheses is relatively rare and, to the best of our knowledge, the framework and its key constructs and principles have themselves never been empirically examined with data from a representative cross-section of workplaces using quantitative methods. This article, with the aid of a new four-country (Australia, Canada, UK, and US) survey data set on 7000+ workplaces, initiates this kind of empirical study. The frames of reference distinguish three main types of employment relationships: unitarist, pluralist, radical. We select six attitudinal/behavioral indicators from the data set that distinguish which frame a workplace is in, combine them to form a Relational Quality Index, plot the 7000+ Relational Quality Index observations as four-country frequency distributions, and use different statistical criteria to indicate the relative size of each frame. We next do regression analysis in which the 7000+ workplace Relational Quality Index scores are the dependent variable and construct from the data set 20 frames of reference explanatory variables. As theory predicts, workplaces with stronger common (opposed) interests have better (worse) employer–employee relations.

The ‘frames of reference’ concept has been a significant and enduring feature of industrial/employment relations since being developed by Alan Fox; and yet there has been only limited scholarly research seeking to develop the frames. We introduce this special issue by reviewing the extant literature on frames which provides a backdrop to the five article contributions that explore the frames in both new and historical light. The special issues ask the following questions: Do the traditional frames continue to provide insights into the perceptions and behaviour of employers and employees? If not, how might existing frames be broadened by new (or indeed historical) developments and insights? A re-examination of frames of reference is both important and timely given the many changes currently impacting work and employment. Our hope is that by reflecting on and celebrating the influence of Alan Fox on our thinking, we can also chart a forward-looking research agenda that continues to use his insights and apply them to the field as well as developing and continuing to engage with them.

This paper constructs alternative balanced scorecards based on high‐performance work system (HPWS) and employment relations system (ERS) models. The models are depicted and compared in diagrams and used as framework skeletons for building separate HPWS and ERS scorecards, intended to provide a detailed data picture of the operational health and performance of an organization's employment/HR system and its operations, processes, and inputs/outputs. The scorecards are filled in with nationally representative data from 2,000+ U.S. workplaces using more than 50 employment/HR indicators, as reported by separate panels of managers and employees. The indicators for each workplace are aggregated into an overall HR/employment system score, ranked from low‐to‐high, and graphed as frequency distributions. These distributions provide a unique snapshot picture of the mean and dispersion of the state of employment relations and HR system performance for companies across the United State. They also reveal that “models matter” since the HPWS and ERS scorecards provide distinctly different evaluation assessments.

This chapter charts the future of employee engagement. It reports engagement findings from a large, four-country survey of workers and management. Across all four countries the survey finds employers report considerably higher levels of employee engagement than do workers, with low to moderate employee scores indicating much room for improving employee engagement. The chapter also assesses future trends in employee engagement by estimating the likelihood of greater spread of the high-performance work system (HPWS), which is predicated on engaged workers. Taking into consideration a variety of factors, the authors settle on a sober assessment, noting that, while some trends such as growth in knowledge-driven and high-technology industries favor an expansion in HPWSs, other future of work trends, such as financialization and employment insecurity, work against the adoption of engagement practices through HPWSs.

We explain our aim of charting a forward-looking agenda for employment relations research. The aim is to map out the important intellectual boundaries for the field of research, outline the key research needs and link this research agenda back to how it should inform practice. In doing so, we look at current research topics such as the rise of the gig economy and the role of platform companies and examine the implications of such developments for key employment relations research agendas, such as (in)security of employment, equity, fairness, wellbeing and voice. We review the extant literature on the future of work and also explore the big issues facing the modern workforce. While acknowledging that, and analysing how, the world of work is changing in important ways, we argue for a research base that allows more sober reflections on grand claims that surround the future of work and a base of research that is firmly grounded in evidence to guide policy makers and practitioners who must tackle the issues raised in this volume.

This cutting-edge book charts the latest ideas and concepts in employment relations research. Mapping out the intellectual boundaries of the field, The Future of Work and Employment outlines the key research and policy outcomes for work and employment in the age of digitisation and artificial intelligence. Internationally renowned contributors unpack the implications of the latest developments in employment relations, from the rise of the gig economy to the role of platform companies, from perspectives such as employment (in)security, equity, fairness, wellbeing and voice. Reviewing the extant literature on the future of work, and exploring the biggest issues facing the modern workforce, this book argues for a research base that allows more sober reflections on the grand claims that dictate the future of work. Empirically-grounded and incisively-argued, the book forms critical reading for both undergraduate and postgraduate students of business and human resource management, featuring insight into the latest developments in the field. Researchers, policymakers and practitioners will also benefit from its implications for policy and its blending of theory and practice.

This paper examines the determinants of job‐related training and workplace voice. Using data from a unique 2016 cross‐national survey of Australian, British, Canadian and American employees, the paper contrasts two classic formulations in the literature; (1) the neoclassical/human capital approach which predicts that individual characteristics (such as age and education) which increase the efficiency of learning, will have the largest impact on the allocation of training (i.e. younger and more educated employees will be afforded training) and (2) the traditional institutional approach which favors the structural characteristics present at the industry and firm level, the nature of the job itself and the strategic choices of firms as the major predictors of job‐related training. We find that age – a key factor in the human capital model – plays a significant role in the allocation of training but that education (in keeping with recent evidence) does not. In sum the human capital model provides, at best, only a partial explanation for the differences in training observed across individuals. In contrast, variables invoked by the institutional literature (i.e. occupation level; industry; ownership type; and market structure) are highly significant and account for a much greater proportion of the variance in training observed across workers. Other institutional factors such as the presence of a union and a human resource department were strong positive predictors of job‐related training. But most important were product‐market strategy and employee voice. Respondents working in firms utilizing a ‘high road/high quality’ product/service strategy and with a workplace consultative committee were significantly more likely to receive training than similar workers employed in observably similar firms. This last finding supports the industrial relations view of voice as an important channel by which training is optimally delivered inside the firm.

This paper uses the popular balanced scorecard from strategic management, and a new survey data set, to empirically measure and evaluate the state of workplace employment capabilities, relations, practices, and performance for shareholders and stakeholders. An innovative feature is that two alternative scorecards are constructed based, respectively, on the high-performance work system (HPWS) model and model of an employment relations system (ERS). The two are depicted and compared in diagrams, used as theoretical frameworks to build alternative scorecards, and filled in with nationally-representative data on more than fifty workplace attributes provided by separate panels of managers and employees from over 2,000 U.S. workplaces. The workplace performance scores are transformed into frequency distributions showing, first, the mean and dispersion of U.S. workplaces as ordered from lowest to highest performance and, second, evidence that the HPWS and ERS yield different evaluation assessments – indicating models matter for scorecard analysis.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to take a serious look at the relationship between joint consultation systems at the workplace and employee satisfaction, while at the same time accounting for the (possible) interactions with similar union and management-led high commitment strategies.Design/methodology/approachUsing new, rich data on a representative sample of British workers, the authors identify workplace institutions that are positively associated with employee perceptions of work and relations with management, what in combination the authors call a measure of the “good workplace.” In particular, the authors focus on non-union employee representation at the workplace, in the form of joint consultative committees (JCCs), and the potential moderating effects of union representation and high-involvement human resource (HIHR) practices.FindingsThe authors’ findings suggest a re-evaluation of the role that JCCs play in the subjective well-being of workers even after controlling for unions and progressive HR policies. There is no evidence in the authors’ estimates of negative interaction effects (i.e. that unions or HIHR negatively influence the functioning of JCCs with respect to employee satisfaction) or substitution (i.e. that unions or HIHR are substitutes for JCCs when it comes to improving self-reported worker well-being). If anything, there is a significant and positive three-way moderating effect when JCCs are interacted with union representation and high-involvement management.Originality/valueThis is the first time – to the authors’ knowledge – that comprehensive measures of subjective employee well-being are being estimated with respect to the presence of a JCC at the workplace, while controlling for workplace institutions (e.g. union representation and human resource policies) that are themselves designed to involve and communicate with workers.

Using new, rich data on a representative sample of British workers, we examine the relationship between joint consultation systems at the workplace and employee satisfaction, accounting for possible interactions with union and management-led high-commitment strategies. We focus on non-union employee representation at the workplace, in the form of joint consultative committees (JCCs), and the potential moderating effects of union representation and high-involvement human resource (HIHR) practices. Our findings suggest a re-evaluation of the role that JCCs play in the subjective well-being of workers even after controlling for unions and HIHR policies. There is no evidence in our estimates of negative interaction effects (i.e., that unions or HIHR negatively influence the functioning of JCCs with respect to employee satisfaction) or full mediation (i.e., that unions or HIHR are substitutes for JCCs when it comes to improving self-reported worker well-being). If anything, there is a significant and positive three-way moderating effect when JCCs are interacted with union representation and high-involvement management. This is the first time – to the authors' knowledge – that comprehensive measures of subjective employee well-being have been estimated with respect to the presence of a JCC at the workplace, whilst controlling for workplace institutions that are themselves designed to involve and communicate with workers.