IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ilrrev/v67y2014i4p1063-1094.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Balancing Efficiency, Equity, and Voice

Author

Listed:
  • Dionne M. Pohler
  • Andrew A. Luchak

    (Dionne M. Pohler is an Assistant Professor at the Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, University of Saskatchewan. Andrew A. Luchak is an Associate Professor at the University of Alberta School of Business.)

Abstract

Theory and research surrounding employee voice in organizations have often treated high-involvement work practices (HIWPs) as substitutes for unions. Drawing on recent theoretical developments in the field of industrial relations, specifically the collective voice/institutional response model of union impact and research on HIWPs in organizations, the authors propose that these institutions are better seen as complements whereby greater balance is achieved between efficiency, equity, and voice when HIWPs are implemented in the presence of unions. Based on a national sample of Canadian organizations, they find employees covered by a union experience fewer intensification pressures under higher levels of diffusion of HIWPs such that they work less unpaid overtime, have fewer grievances, and take fewer paid sick days. Job satisfaction is maximized under the combination of unions and HIWPs.

Suggested Citation

  • Dionne M. Pohler & Andrew A. Luchak, 2014. "Balancing Efficiency, Equity, and Voice," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 67(4), pages 1063-1094, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ilrrev:v:67:y:2014:i:4:p:1063-1094
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ilr.sagepub.com/content/67/4/1063.abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dionne Pohler & Andrew Luchak, 2015. "Are Unions Good or Bad for Organizations? The Moderating Role of Management's Response," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 53(3), pages 423-459, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:ilrrev:v:67:y:2014:i:4:p:1063-1094. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ilr.cornell.edu .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.