The Relationship Between Workers’ Financial Participation in Companies and Economic Results

• Authors: Maciej Kozłowski
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

It is known that workers’ financial participation, primarily in the form of wider participation of employees in profits and ownership, has been used in enterprises from many years, but in practice the period of implementation of different forms of financial participation has taken place only in the last four decades. Workers’ participation in decision-making has a longer tradition, so it is well described in the literature, and its impact on the results achieved by companies are known through the many research projects conducted by researchers around the world and through detailed reports. Financial participation has not been the focus of so many papers, so the knowledge and information from this area is incomplete. This is because of the lack of comprehensive studies on the various forms of participation, their irregularity, the lack of cooperation between states in the exchange of information concerning the number of implemented solutions, etc. Of course, it is not possible to include all of the companies in research and the results cannot be generalized due to the different conditions and selection criteria in particular countries. Also, the ambiguous interpretation of the term “financial participation” by different authors and different institutions does not allow for setting up and developing the output database necessary to conduct the research and carry out comparisons. In the literature, programs of financial participation are treated as an incentive system, without taking into account the wider context and the relationships between these programmes and the results achieved by the company. This contribution aims to give some theoretical and scientific examples, which, by virtue of their nature and severity can contribute to the possible diverse research solutions to the problems facing businesses, especially in today's dynamic, global economy. After forty years of empirical research on the benefits of the implementation of various programmes of financial participation, the information provided, in principle, only in the form of reports, is not sufficient to express opinions on the development of forms of participation. At the same time, it is concluded that the programmes of financial participation have had a positive effect on the results achieved by companies, especially in terms of social benefits. Arriving at the above opinion has been additionally impeded by the different attitudes of the social partners to the issue of participation and participatory approaches, the absence of explicit data showing the relationship between implemented financial schemes and financial results, changes in the competitive position of enterprises, etc. The outlined theory concerning how the workers’ ownership affects economic performance achieved by a company unfortunately has not changed. This article is not to bring about fundamental changes, but to find new threads or directions of deliberation.

PL

Partycypacja finansowa pracowników, znana głównie pod postacią szeroko rozumianego udziału pracowników w zyskach oraz własności przedsiębiorstw, jest jak wiadomo, stosowana w przedsiębiorstwach od bardzo wielu lat, jednak koncentrując uwagę na czasach współczesnych, okres wdrażania rozwiązań z zakresu partycypacji finansowej to zaledwie 4 ostatnie dekady. Udział pracowników w podejmowaniu decyzji ma dłuższą tradycję, dzięki czemu został dosyć szczegółowo opisany w literaturze, a jego wpływ na wyniki osiągane przez przedsiębiorstwa nie podlega w zasadzie dyskusji i jest znany dzięki wielu badaniom prowadzonym przez naukowców na całym świecie i szczegółowym raportom. Partycypacja finansowa nie doczekała się tylu opracowań, toteż wiedza i informacja z tego zakresu są niepełne. Przyczyną tego stanu rzeczy jest m.in. brak kompleksowych badań na temat poszczególnych form partycypacji finansowej, ich nieregularność, brak współpracy pomiędzy państwami w zakresie wymiany informacji dotyczącej ilości wdrażanych rozwiązań partycypacyjnych itp. Oczywiście należy zdawać sobie sprawę, że objęcie badaniami wszystkich przedsiębiorstw nie jest możliwe, a uogólnianie wyników na wszystkie przedsiębiorstwa i wszystkie kraje nie wydaje się wskazane z racji odmiennych uwarunkowań i kryteriów doboru. Niejednoznaczna interpretacja terminu „partycypacja finansowa” przez różnych autorów i różne instytucje również nie pozwala na stworzenie i opracowanie wyjściowej bazy zmiennych, niezbędnej do prowadzenia badań i dokonywania porównań. Niejednokrotnie programy partycypacji finansowej traktowane są w literaturze jako element systemu motywacyjnego bez szerszego kontekstu i zależności pomiędzy tymi programami a rezultatami osiąganymi przez przedsiębiorstwa. Wszystko to powoduje, że celowe wydaje się zasygnalizowanie pewnych wątków teoretycznych i badawczych, które z racji swojej istoty i ważności mogą uzupełnić lukę informacyjną i przyczynić się do ewentualnej zmiany kierunku poszukiwań rozwiązań problemów stojących przed przedsiębiorstwami, zwłaszcza w dobie dynamicznej, globalnej gospodarki, stawiającej przed firmami nowe wyzwania. Po około czterdziestu latach prowadzenia badań empirycznych na temat korzyści z tytułu wdrażania programów partycypacji finansowej, informacje dostarczane w zasadzie tylko w formie raportów z badań nie są wystarczające do podjęcia jednoznacznej opinii na temat rozwoju form partycypacji finansowej, chociaż jednocześnie stwierdza się, że programy partycypacji finansowej wywierają pozytywny wpływ na rezultaty osiągane przez przedsiębiorstwa, zwłaszcza, jeżeli chodzi o rezultaty społeczne. Uzyskanie powyższej opinii jest dodatkowo utrudnione ze względu na wspomniany różny stosunek partnerów społecznych do problemu partycypacji i rozwiązań partycypacyjnych, brak jednoznacznych danych, na ile wdrażane programy finansowe przyczyniają się do zmiany wyników finansowych, zmiany pozycji konkurencyjnej przedsiębiorstw itp. Nakreślona teoria dotycząca tego, w jaki sposób własność pracownicza wpływa na wyniki ekonomiczne osiągane przez przedsiębiorstwa niestety nie zmieniła się. Oczywiście nie chodzi o to, aby zmieniła się diametralnie, ale o to, aby doszły nowe wątki lub zmienił się kierunek rozważań. Celem artykułu jest zaprezentowanie wybranych poglądów na temat postrzegania mechanizmów i zależności pomiędzy pracowniczą partycypacją finansową a wynikami przedsiębiorstw. Z racji, niewątpliwe większej popularności programów udziału we własności, skoncentrowano się na pokazaniu wielopłaszczyznowych zależności pomiędzy własnością pracowniczą, a osiągnięciami ekonomicznymi oraz wykazaniu, że mechanizmy oddziaływań własności pracowniczej na produktywność mają charakter złożonych interakcji.

Keywords

EN

financial participation; profit sharing; Workers' ownership; workers' attitudes

PL

partycypacja finansowa; udział w zyskach; własność pracownicza; postawy pracowników

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Łódzki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
• Journal: Comparative Economic Research. Central and Eastern Europe
• Year: 2014
• Volume: 17
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 167-191

Dates

published

2014-03-01

online

2014-04-25

Contributors

author

Maciej Kozłowski

• Professor at the University of Łódź, Faculty of Economics and Sociology, Department of Institutional Economics

References

• Bakan I., Suseno Y., Pinnington A. and Money A. (2004), The influence of financial participation and participation in decision-making on employee job attitudes, ‘International Journal of Human Resource Management’, 15[Crossref]
• Bell D.W. and Hanson C.G. (1984), Profit-Sharing and Employee Shareholding Attitude Survey, Industrial Participation Association, London
• Bell D.W. and Hanson C.G. (1987), Profit Sharing and Profitability: How Profit Sharing Promotes Business Success?, Kogan Page, London
• Ben-Ner A. and Jones D.C. (1995), Employee Participation, Ownership and Productivity: A Theoretical Framework, ‘Industrial Relations’, 34 (4)
• Blasi J.R. (1988), Employee Ownership: Revolution or Ripoff?, Ballinger Publishing Company, Cambridge, Mass Blasi J.R., Conte M. and Kruse D.L. (1996), Employee Stock Ownership and Corporate Performance among Public Companies, ‘Industrial and Labor Relations Review’, 50 (1)
• Bradley K. and Estrin S. (1987), Profit Sharing in the Retail Trade Sector: The Relative Performance of the John Lewis Partnership, Centre for Labour Economics, London School of Economics, Discussion Paper No. 279, London
• Bradley M.D. and Smith S.C. (1991), Firm Size and Effect of Profit Sharing (draft), George Washington University, Department of Economics, Washington D.C.
• Brooks L.D., Henry J.B. and Livingston D.T. (1982), How Profitable are Employee Stock Ownership Plans?, ‘Financial Executive’, 50
• Buchko A.A. (1992), Effects of Employee Ownership on Employee Attitudes, ‘Work and Occupations’, 19[Crossref]
• Buchko A.A. (1993), The Effects of Employee Ownership on Employee Attitudes: An Integrated Causal Model and Path Analysis, ‘Journal of Management Studies’, 30[Crossref]
• Caramelli M. (2010), Employee Ownership and Corporate Performance: Towards Unlocking The Black Box, Paper for the 15th World Congress of the International Association for the Economics of Participation (IAFEP) Université Panthéon-Assas, Paris II, 8 - 10 July
• Chang S. (1990), Employee Stock Ownership Plans and Shareholder Wealth: An Empirical Investigation, ‘Financial Management’, 19 (1) [Crossref]
• Chiu W.C.K., Hui C.H. and Lai G.W.F. (2007), Psychological Ownership and Organizational Optimism amid China's Corporate Transformation: Effects of an Employee Ownership Scheme and a Management Dominated Board, ‘International Journal of Human Resource Management’, 18 (2) [Crossref]
• Cin B-c. and Smith S.C. (2002), Employee Stock Ownership and Participation in South Korea: Incidence, Productivity Effects and Prospects, ‘Review of Development Economics’, 6 (2) [Crossref]
• Cohen A. and Quarrey M. (1986), Performance of Employee-Owned Small Companies: A Preliminary Study, ‘Journal of Small Business Management’, 24
• Coyle-Shapiro J.A.-M. (2002), Changing Employee Attitudes: The Independent Effects of TQM and Profit Sharing on Continuous Improvement Orientation, ‘The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science’, (38)
• Craig B. and Pencavel J. (1995), Participation and Productivity: A Comparison of Worker Cooperatives and Conventional Firms in the Plywood Industry, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Special Issue on Microeconomics
• Davidson W.N.I. and Worrell D.L. (1994), ESOP’s Fables: The Influence of Employee Stock Ownership Plans on Corporate Stock Prices and Subsequent Operating Performance, ‘Human Resource Planning’, 17 (4)
• Doucouliagos C. (1995), Worker Participation and Productivity in Labor-Managed and Participatory Capitalist Firms: A Meta-Analysis, ‘Industrial and Labor Relations Review’, 49 (1)
• Dunn S., Richardson R. and Dewe P. (1991), The Impact of Employee Share Ownership on Worker Attitudes: A Longitudinal Case Study, ‘Human Resource Management Journal’, 1[Crossref]
• Estrin S. and Jones D.C. (1992), The Viability of Employee-Owned Firms: Evidence From France, ‘Industrial and Labor Relations Review’, 45 (2)
• FitzRoy F.R. and Kraft K. (1992), Forms of Profit Sharing and Firm Performance, ‘Kyklos’, 45 (2) [Crossref]
• Florkowski G.W. (1989), The Organizational Impact of Profit-Sharing, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University
• Florkowski G.W. and Schuster M.H. (1992), Support for Profit Sharing and Organizational Commitment: A Path Analysis, ‘Human Relations’, 45[Crossref]
• Fogarty M. and White M. (1988), Share Schemes, Policy Studies Institute, Bourne Offset, London
• Freeman R., Blasi J.R., Kruse D.L. and Mackin C. (2010), Creating a Bigger Pie? The Effects of Employee Ownership, Profit Sharing, and Stock Options on Workplace Performance, in: Douglas L. Kruse, Richard B. Freeman, and Joseph R. Blasi (eds.), Shared Capitalism at Work, University of Chicago Press, Chicago
• Freeman R.B. and Weitzman M.L. (1987), Bonuses and Employment in Japan, ‘Journal of the Japanese and International Economies’, 1[Crossref]
• French J.L. and Rosenstein J. (1984), Employee Ownership, Work Attitudes and Power Relationships, ‘Academy of Management Journal’, 27[Crossref]
• Frohlich N., Godard J., Oppenheimer J.A. and Starke F.A. (1998), Employee Versus Conventionally-Owned and Controlled Firms: An Experimental Analysis, ‘Managerial and Decision Economics’, 19[Crossref]
• Frye M.B. (2004), Equity-Based Compensation for Employees: Firm Performance and Determinants, ‘Journal of Financial Research’, 27 (1) [Crossref]
• Greenberg E.S. (1980), Participation in Industrial Decision-making and Work Satisfaction: The Case of Producer Cooperatives, ‘Social Science Quarterly’, 60
• Hamilton H. (1983), The Effects of Employee Stock Ownership Plans on the Financial Performance of the Electrical and Electronic Machinery, Equipment and Supplies Industry, University Microfilms International, MI: Ann Arbor
• Hammer T.H. and Stern R.N. (1980), Employee Ownership: Implications for the Organizational Distribution of Power, ‘Academy of Management Journal’, 23[Crossref]
• Heneman R.L. (1984), Pay for Performance: Exploring the Merit Systems, Pergamon Press, New York
• Holyoake G. (1906), The History of Co-operation, Unwin, London IDS Study (1998), Profit Sharing and Share Options, Income Data Services, Study 641, London Iqbal Z. and Hamid S.A. (2000), Stock Price and Operating Performance of ESOP Firms: A Time- Series Analysis, ‘Quarterly Journal of Business and Economics’, 39 (3)
• James G., Dennison H., Gay E., Kendall H. and Burrit A. (1926), Profit-Sharing and Stock Ownership for Employees, Harper, New York Jones D.C. (1987), The Productivity Effects of Worker Directors and Financial Participation by Employees in the Firm: The Case of British Retail Cooperatives, ‘Industrial and Labor Relations Review’, 41 (1)
• Jones D.C. (1997), Employees as Stakeholders, ‘Business Strategy Review’, 8[Crossref]
• Jones D.C. and Kato T. (1993), The Scope, Nature and Effects of Employee Stock Ownership Plans in Japan, ‘Industrial and Labor Relations Review’, 46 (2)
• Jones D.C. and Pliskin J. (1988), The Effects of Worker Participation, Employee Ownership and Profit Sharing on Economic Performance: A Partial Review, ‘Working Paper’, The Jerome Levy Economics Institute, 13
• Jones D.C. and Pliskin J. (1989), British Evidence on the Employment Effects of Profit Sharing, ‘Industrial Relations’, 28
• Kaarsemaker E. (2006), Employee Ownership and Human Resource Management: a Theoretical and Empirical Treatise with a Digression on the Dutch Context, Ph.D. Dissertation, Radboud University, Nijmegen: the Netherlands
• Katz D. and Kahn R.L. (1978), The Social Psychology of Organizations, Wiley, New York Keef S.P. (1998), The Causal Association between Employee Share Ownership and Attitudes: A Study based on the Long Framework, ‘British Journal of Industrial Relations’, 36
• Klein K.J. (1987), Employee Stock Ownership and Employee Attitudes: A Test of Three Models, ‘Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph’, 72 (2) [Crossref]
• Klein K.J. and Hall R.J. (1988), Correlates of Employee Satisfaction with Stock Ownership: Who Likes an ESOP Most?, ‘Journal of Applied Psychology’, 73 [Crossref]
• Kruse D.L. (1987), Profit Sharing and Employment Variability: Microeconomic Evidence, Department of Economics, MA: Harvard University
• Kruse D.L. (1993), Profit-Sharing: does it make a difference? The Productivity and Stability Effects of Employee Profit-Sharing Plans, MI: Kalamazoo
• Kruse D.L. and Blasi J.R. (1997), Employee Ownership, Employee Attitudes and Firm Performance: A Review of the Evidence, in: David Lewin, Mitchell, Daniel J.B. and Mahmood A. Zaidi, (eds.), ‘The Human Resource Management Handbook’, JAI Press, Greenwich
• Kruse D.L., Freeman R., Blasi J.R., Buchele A., Scharf L., Rodgers L. and Mackin C. (2004), Motivating Employee-Owners in ESOP Firms: Human Resource Policies and Company Performance, [in:] Virginie Pérotin and Andrew M. Robinson (eds.), Employee Participation, Firm Performance and Survival, JAI, Amsterdam, vol. 8
• Lawler III E.E. (1971), Pay and Organizational Effectiveness: A Psychological View, McGraw- Hill, New York
• Lawler III E.E. (1981), Pay and Organization Development, Addison-Wesley, London
• Lee Y-T. (2003), The Productivity Effects of Employee Stock-Ownership Plans: Evidence From Panel Data of Taiwan Electronic Companies, ‘International Journal of Management’, 20 (4)
• Livingston D.T. and Henry J.B. (1980), The Effect of Employee Stock Ownership Plans on Corporate Profits, ‘The Journal of Risk and Insurance’, 47[Crossref]
• Lloyd H. (1898), Labor Copartnership, Harper, New York
• Long R.J. (1978a), The Effects of Employee Ownership on Job Attitudes and Organizational Performance: An Exploratory Study, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University
• Long R.J. (1978b), The Effects of Employee Ownership on Organizational Identification, Employee Job Attitudes and Organizational Performance: A Tentative Framework and Empirical Findings, ‘Human Relations’, 31[Crossref]
• Long R.J. (1978c), The Relative Effects of Share Ownership vs Control on Job Attitudes in an Employee-Owned Company, ‘Human Relations’, 31[Crossref]
• Long R.J. (1979), Desires for and Pattern of Worker Participation in Decision-making after Conversion to Employee Ownership, ‘Academy of Management Journal’, 22[Crossref]
• Long R.J. (2000), Employee Profit Sharing: Consequences and Moderators, ‘Industrial Relations’, 55[Crossref]
• Marsh T.R. and McAllister D.E. (1981), ESOPs Tables: A Survey of Companies with Employee Stock Ownership Plans, ‘Journal of Corporation Law’, 6 (3)
• Park C. and Rosen C. (1990), The Performance Record of Leveraged ESOP Firms, ‘Mergers and Acquisitions’, 25
• Park S. and Song, M.H. (1995), Employee Stock Ownership Plans, Firm Performance and Monitoring by Outside Blockholders, ‘Financial Management’, 24 (4) [Crossref]
• Pendleton A., Wilson N. and Wright M. (1998), The Perception and Effects of Share Ownership: Empirical Evidence from Employee Buy-Outs, ‘British Journal of Industrial Relations’, (36) 1[Crossref]
• Pérotin V. and Robinson A.M. (2003), Employee Participation in Profit and Ownership: A Review of the Issues and Evidence, ‘Working Paper’, SOCI 109 EN, European Parliament, 17
• Pfeffer J. (1998), Seven Practices of Successful Organizations, ‘California Management Review’, 40[Crossref]
• Pierce J.L., Rubenfeld S.A. and Morgan S. (1991), Employee Ownership: A Conceptual Model of Process and Effects, ‘Academy of Management Review’, 16
• Poole M. and Jenkins G. (1998), Human Resource Management and the Theory of Rewards: Evidence from a National Survey, ‘British Journal of Industrial Relations’, 36[Crossref]
• Poutsma E., Albaraccin D., Kalmi P., Pendleton A., Trébucq S. and Voss E. (2006), Changing Patterns of Employee Financial Participation in Europe, Nijmegen School of Management, the Netherlands
• Pugh W.N., Jahera J.S. Jr. and Oswald S.L. (2005), ESOP Adoption and Corporate Performance: Does Motive Really Matter?, ‘Journal of Business and Economic Studies’, 11 (1)
• Rayton B.A. and Seaton J.S. (1999), The Size of Employee Stakeholding in Large UK Corporations, ‘Managerial and Decision Economics’, 20[Crossref]
• Rhodes S.R. and Steers R.M. (1981), Conventional vs Worker-Owned Organizations, ‘Human Relations’, 34[Crossref]
• Richardson R. and Nejad A. (1986), Employee Share Ownership Schemes in the UK - An Evaluation, ‘British Journal of Industrial Relations’, 24[Crossref]
• Robinson A.M. and Wilson N. (2006), Employee Financial Participation and Productivity: An Empirical Reappraisal, ‘British Journal of Industrial Relations’, 44 (1)[Crossref]
• Rosen C. and Quarrey M. (1987), How Well is Employee Ownership Working?, ‘Harvard Business Review’, 65
• Rosen C., Klein K.J. and Young K.M. (1986), Employee Ownership in America: The Equity Solution, Lexington Books, Lexington
• Russell R., Hochner A. and Perry S.E. (1979), Participation, Influence, and Worker-Ownership, ‘Industrial Relations’, (18).
• Russell R. and Rus V. (1991), International Handbook of Participation in Organizations: For the Study of Organizational Democracy, Co-operation and Self-management, Ownership and Participation, Oxford University Press, Oxford, vol. 2
• Scholl R.W. (1981), Differentiating Organizational Commitment from Expectancy as a Motivating Force, ‘Academy of Management Review’, 6
• Smith G.R. (1993), Employee Share Schemes in Britain, ‘Employment Gazette’, 101.
• Smith S.C., Cin B-c. and Vodopivec M. (1997), Privatization Incidence, Ownership Forms and Firm Performance: Evidence from Slovenia, ‘Journal of Comparative Economics’, 25 [Crossref]
• Trébucq S. (2004), The Effects of ESOPs on Performance and Risk: Evidence from France, ‘Corporate Ownership and Control’, 1 (4)
• Tucker J., Nock S.L. and Toscano D.J. (1989), Employee Ownership and Perceptions of Work: The Effects of an Employee Stock Ownership Plan, ‘Work and Occupations’, 16[Crossref]
• Welbourne T.M. and Gomez-Mejia L.R. (1995), Gainsharing: A Critical Review and a Future Research Agenda, ‘Journal of Management’, 21 (3) [Crossref]
• Wilkinson A., Marchington M., Ackers P. and Goodman J. (1994), ESOP’s Fables: A Tale of a Machine Tool Company, ‘International Journal of Human Resource Management’, 5[Crossref]
• Williams A. (1913), Co-partnership and Profit-Sharing, Henry Holt, New York

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/cer-2014-0010