IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/woemps/v25y2011i3p379-396.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Work environment quality: the role of workplace participation and democracy

Author

Listed:
  • Herman Knudsen
  • Ole Busck
  • Jens Lind

Abstract

The article explores how employee participation influences the quality of the work environment and workers’ well-being at 11 Danish workplaces from within six different industries. Both direct participation and representative forms of participation at the workplace level were studied. Statistical as well as qualitative comparative analyses reveal that work environment quality and high levels of participation go hand in hand. Within a typology of participation models the highest level of participation, including strong elements of collective participation, and also the best work environment, measured as ‘psychosocial well-being’, were found at workplaces managed in accordance with democratic principles.

Suggested Citation

  • Herman Knudsen & Ole Busck & Jens Lind, 2011. "Work environment quality: the role of workplace participation and democracy," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 25(3), pages 379-396, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:woemps:v:25:y:2011:i:3:p:379-396
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://wes.sagepub.com/content/25/3/379.abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Gregor Murray & Christian Lévesque & Christian Dufour & Adelheid Hege, 2013. "Special Issue. Edited by: Gregor Murray, Christian Lévesque, Christian Dufour and Adelheid Hege," Industrial Relations Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(4), pages 340-354, July.
    2. George Kandathil & Jerome Joseph, 2019. "Normative Underpinnings of Direct Employee Participation Studies and Implications for Developing Ethical Reflexivity: A Multidisciplinary Review," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 157(3), pages 685-697, July.

    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:woemps:v:25:y:2011:i:3:p:379-396. 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.britsoc.co.uk/ .

    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.