Co-determination or Participation?
THE SEARCH FOR THE BEST SUITABLE FORM OF
CO-DETERMINATION AND / OR PARTICIPATION FOR ARS BENE
LABORANDI BV
April 2010
PIETER DIRK DE BOER Wilgenlaan 4
1834 GJ Sint Pancras 06-13552289 pddeboer@gmail.com Rijksuniversiteit Groningen Faculty of Economics & Business
1st Supervisor RuG: Prof. Dr. Ir. R. Goodijk
2nd Supervisor RuG: Drs. D.B. Veltrop
Supervisor Ars Bene Laborandi BV: Dhr. Niels Bolt
Oude Boteringestraat 69 9712 GG Groningen
PREFACE
Groningen, 30 april 2010
Voor u ligt het onderzoeksverslag van het onderzoek naar medezeggenschap & participatie bij Ars Bene Laborandi BV. Deze afstudeerscriptie vormt de afsluiting van mijn studie Bedrijfskunde aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Gedurende het afgelopen half jaar heb ik onderzoek mogen doen naar medezeggenschap & participatie bij Ars Bene Laborandi BV in Groningen. Ik vond het buitengewoon interessant om juist bij dit jonge en innovatieve bedrijf mijn afstudeerscriptie te mogen schrijven. Dankzij deze mogelijkheid ben ik een zeer leuke en leerzame ervaring rijker.
In de eerste plaats wil ik dan ook alle medewerkers van Ars Bene Laborandi bedanken en in het bijzonder mijn begeleider Niels Bolt. Hij heeft mij alle ruimte geboden om bij Ars Bene Laborandi mijn afstudeeronderzoek uit te voeren. Daarnaast wil ik de respondenten bedanken voor hun medewerking aan het onderzoek. Hun medewerking heeft een zeer positieve bijdrage geleverd aan dit onderzoek.
In het bijzonder wil ik ook mijn begeleider vanuit de Rijksuniversiteit dhr. Goodijk bedanken voor zijn bijdrage aan het onderzoeksproces. Zijn enthousiasme en kritische blik hebben een onmisbare bijdrage geleverd aan het onderzoeksproces. Tenslotte wil ik ook mijn tweede begeleider dhr. Veltrop bedanken voor zijn bijdrage aan het onderzoek.
ABSTRACT
The management of Ars Bene Laborandi BV (ABL) is questioning itself whether ABL is obliged to establish a works council or not. Co-determination and / or participation could also be established in a form which suits better to the organisation. The purpose of this research is to find the best suitable form of co-determination and / or participation for ABL. The theoretical framework shows different forms of co-determination and participation which can be separated into forms in the perspective of a more Continental-European approach, and forms in the perspective of a more Anglo-Saxon approach. Further, the theoretical framework shows different influencing factors on the choice for a form of co-determination / participation. The research model, based on the theoretical framework, contains the following forms of co-determination and participation: a works council, work meetings, project teams and digital participation forms. Furthermore, the model contains three influencing factors on the choice for a form of co-determination / participation: organisational characteristics, legislation and the attitudes, needs and expected effects of co-determination / participation of the parties involved. The research includes a desk research regarding the organisational characteristics, a document research on the Dutch Works Councils Act and a written questionnaire to discover the attitudes, needs and expected effects of co-determination / participation of the parties involved.
The desk research shows organisational characteristics like the amount of homework and the extend of digitalization. Furthermore, the document research to the Dutch Works Council Act shows that ABL is obliged to establish a works council. The results of the written questionnaire show that the employees prefer digital participation forms and work meetings as forms of co-determination / participation.
TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ... 2 ABSTRACT ... 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ... 4 1. INTRODUCTION ... 5 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 7
2.1 CO-DETERMINATION&PARTICIPATION ... 7
2.2 FORMSOFCO-DETERMINATION/PARTICIPATION ... 8
2.3 INFLUENCINGFACTORS ... 13
2.4 EFFECTSOFCO-DETERMINATION/PARTICIPATION ... 17
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... 20
3.1 RELEVANTFORMSANDINFLUENCINGFACTORS ... 20
3.2 RESEARCHMETHODS ... 23
4. RESEARCH FINDINGS ... 25
4.1 DESCRIPTIONOFTHEORGANISATION ... 25
4.2 DUTCHWORKSCOUNCILSACT ... 31
4.3 RESULTSWRITTENQUESTIONNAIRE... 36
5.CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ... 45
5.1 ORGANISATIONALCHARACTERISTICSANDLEGISLATION ... 45
5.2 ATTITUDES,NEEDSANDEXPECTEDEFFECTS ... 46
5.3 THEBESTSUITABLEFORM ... 47
5.4 RECOMMENDATIONSFORAWORKABLESITUATION ... 47
REFERENCES ... 50
APPENDICES ... 52
APPENDIXA:QUESTIONNAIRE... 52
APPENDIXB:ORGANISATIONCHARTARSBENELABORANDIBV ... 55
1. INTRODUCTION
Since the industrialisation in the 19th century, forms of employee participation and co-determination exist within organisations. In 1878 a so called ‘staff core’ was established by J.C. Marken, a Dutch industrial. This ‘staff core’, also called a ‘factory commission’, was established as a result of two different needs. On the one hand the need of the employer to make his company’s policy more easily recognizable and to make it easier to carry out and on the other hand the recognition of the needs of the employees (Bakels, 2007). Since the fifties co-determination in the Netherlands has been bound by law in the ‘Wet op de Ondernemingsraden’ (Dutch Works Councils Act) (Bakels, 2007).
Co-determination and participation can act as important instruments to engage the knowledge and experience of employees in strategic plans and change processes. This can lead to improved decision-making and more involvement of the employees in the organisation (Wissema e.a., 1995). Different forms of co-determination / participation exist. A works council is a traditional form of co-determination, and has developed itself to a full grown and widely accepted body of representation. Since the nineties there is a visible shift from the more formal forms of co-determination like works councils, to more informal, direct forms of participation, resulting in individual, custom-made co-determination / participation solutions (Goodijk & Sorge, 2005).
However, the question may be whether there is a possibility to survive for a traditional form of co-determination like a Works Council. And what would be the position of a Works Council in the future? (Looise et al.(1996). Organisations and the needs of their environment have changed strongly and it is the question if traditional forms of co-determination can still adapt to today’s organisations and to those of the future. For instance, would a works council still be a workable form of co-determination / participation if the employees work from home and are situated on different locations across the Netherlands? Are there other forms of which are more appropriate to organisations than a works council? Or does the Dutch works councils law provide enough space for works council which is suitable for today’s organisations? An organisation which asks itself these questions as well is Ars Bene Laborandi BV.
work part-time and from home. The management of ABL would like to have a form of co-determination / participation which creates, in line with the characteristics of ABL, the most workable situation. Thereby, the management of ABL is questioning itself if they are obliged to establish a works council. Employees of ABL are mainly working from home and are spread over the whole country, and even over Europe. Co-determination / participation within ABL could be established in the form of an obligatory works council, but it can also be a form of participation which suits the organisation better. The above mentioned organisational problem is the motive for this research. The purpose of this research is to find the best suitable form of co-determination / participation for ABL.
The research question which is derived from this problem is: ,,What is the best suitable form
of co-determination and / or participation for Ars Bene Laborandi BV?”
Suitable for ABL means that the form of co-determination / participation should be in line with the characteristics of ABL. Besides that, which forms of co-determination / participation may be available for ABL? And what are the expectations of the employees of ABL from determination / participation? Does legislation have influence on the form of determination? The next chapter contains a theoretical research to different forms of co-determination / participation, the factors which influence co-co-determination / participation, and the perceived effects.
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The purpose of this research is to find the best suitable form of co-determination / participation for Ars Bene Laborandi BV. Before starting the search for the best suitable form, it needs to be clarified how co-determination / participation should be defined. Furthermore, the appreciation of different forms of co-determination / participation cannot be seen isolated from their context (Goodijk & Sorge, 2005). Therefore, factors which may influence the choice for a specific form of co-determination / participation will be elaborated as well.
2.1 CO-DETERMINATION & PARTICIPATION
In the literature, many different forms of co-determination / participation are known (Goodijk & Sorge, 2005, Kaler, 1999, Cotton et al., 1988 and Looise et al.,1996). However, different authors acknowledge that co-determination / participation exist in different forms, there is no consensus regarding the definitions and content of co-determination / participation. On the one side there is a more formal view on co-determination / participation, especially by authors from ‘Continental Europe’. These ‘Continental European’ authors describe co-determination / participation more in terms of co-determination. (Wissema et al., 1994, Looise et al.(1996), Goodijk & Sorge, 2005). For instance, Wissema et al.(1995) define co-determination as: ,,(...) the exerting of influence on decision-making in organisations by employees, in dialogue with the management”. Goodijk & Sorge (2005) acknowledge the existing of different forms of co-determination / participation, and have distinguished formal and informal, more direct forms of co-determination / participation. They define the formal forms of participation as ‘co-determination’. The more informal, direct forms are described as ‘participation’ by Goodijk & Sorge (2005). They define these both ‘groups’ of co-determination / participation forms as:
,,concepts of consultation which aim at the employees to influence decision-making processes within the organisation”. Besides the ‘Continental European’ approach, a more instrumental,
Anglo-Saxon approach appears from the literature. Within this approach, co-determination / participation are described more as a management tool in terms of participation (Kaler, 1999, Cotton, 1988, Glew et al., 1995, Zajac & Bruhn, 1999). For instance Glew et al. (1995) define participation as follows: ,,A conscious and intended effort by individuals at a higher level in
an organisation to provide visible extra-role, or role-expanding opportunities for individuals or groups at a lower level in the organisation, to have a greater voice in one or more areas of organisational performance”. Another, more instrumental, Anglo-Saxon definition of
participation is given by Kaler (1999). He defines participation as: ,,(…) any arrangement
uses the term ‘co-determinatory participation’ for the more formal forms of co-determination / participation like a works council. Cotton et al. (1988) identify these forms as well and describe these as ‘representative participation’. In addition, a works council is defined by Vink (2003) as follows: A consultative body which aims common consultation with the
management and representation of the employees.
In this research, the following definition will be used for co-determination: ,,The exerting of
influence through formal, indirect ways on decision-making within an organisation”.
Participation will be defined as: ,,The exerting of influence through more informal, direct
ways on decision-making within an organization. The term decision-making could, according
to Van het Kaar & Smit (2006) be defined as: ,,The right who takes the decisions and has the
capacity to give instructions”.
2.2 FORMS OF CO-DETERMINATION / PARTICIPATION
In the literature, different views exist on forms of co-determination / participation. In the following chapters, these different views with their different forms of co-determination / participation will be elaborated.
2.2.1 DISTINCTION OF CO-DETERMINATION BY A MORE CONTINENTAL-EUROPEAN APPROACH
Figure 1. Forms of co-determination / participation (Looise et al., 1996)
Besides a workings council, there are several alternative forms of co-determination / participation according to Looise et al. (1996). They describe these alternatives as ‘organisational tools’. These tools are work meetings, job enrichment and job enlargement, project teams, autonomous task groups, and participative management, which is a management style used by executives which leaves space for taking initiative and responsibility by employees. Furthermore, Looise et al. (1996) mention some organisational instruments to improve the participation of employees in organisations. They call those instruments ‘alternative forms of co-determination’ besides a works council. The following ‘alternative forms’ are mentioned by Looise et al.: work meetings, job enrichment and job enlargement, project teams, autonomous task groups and self steering teams and participative management, a management style which leaves space for employees to take initiative and responsibilities. Anthony (1978) defines this management style in his book as follows: ,,(…)
the process of involving subordinates in the decision-making process. It stresses active involvement of the people en uses their expertise and creativity in solving important managerial problems. In line with the definitions of co-determination / participation for this
research, this ‘alternative forms’ could be described as forms of participation.
2.2.2 FORMS OF CO-DETERMINATION / PARTICIPATION: AN ANGLO-SAXON APPROACH
Taking into account the definitions of co-determination / participation for this research, Kaler (1999) mentions several forms of both, in terms of ‘participation’. Further, he classifies a ‘participation form’ as a particular aspect of the business in which the participating arrangement allows employees to share in. According to Kaler (1999), forms of participation
can be divided into two categories, namely operational and financial. The participation forms by Kaler (1999) are shown in the next figure.
Figure 2. Forms of participation (John Kaler, 1999)
right with managers to both initiate and veto proposals. A weaker degree is ‘partial co-determination’. In this case, employees can veto, but not initiate proposals. Differences in level are presented by the differences between ‘procedural’ co-determination through a works council, and ‘strategic’ co-determination through an employee representative in the supervisory board. The distinction between employees’ co-determination through elected representatives rather than doing this in person, could be described as differences in ‘mode’. This difference can also be described as the difference between participation in terms of ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’. The fourth difference within forms of ‘co-determinatory’ participation are the differences within ‘weighting’. This is a measure of the relative voting strength of the employee and the employer sides in joint decision making. For instance, on Germany supervisory boards, employee representatives can have one third of the total votes relative to shareholder representatives. Further they can have one half minus one, or full equal voting strength subject to the casting vote of a neutral chairperson.
Besides the several forms of operational participation, Kaler (1999) mentions two categories of financial participation: ownership and income. Ownership contains various schemes for employee share ownership: offering shares at a discount, employee share option plans and employee share ownership plans. Financial participation through income is usually about the payment to profits, like a fixed percentage of profits, or a bonus related to the profits.
2.2.3 CONFIGURATIONS OF CO-DETERMINATION / PARTICIPATION
the participants is high. Participation in work decisions focuses on the work, typically dealing with how it is organized, what is done, who does what and so forth. Consultative participation is the second configuration and refers to situations where employees engage in long-term, formal, and direct participation. Thereby the content of the participation is focused on job issues. In case of consultative participation, employees give their opinions, however they typically do not have a veto or complete decision-making power. Scanlon plans and quality circles are examples of consultative participation. Scanlon plans are based on monetary bonuses given for productivity-enhancing suggestions. Quality circles focus on small groups, and usually do not return a monetary incentive to participants. Besides the forms of long-term participation, there are participation programs of limited duration. These are short-term participation forms. These forms could be characterized as formal, direct and concerned with the work itself. Furthermore, participation may occur informally through the interpersonal relationships between managers and subordinates. This form of participation is called informal participation. Previous to the theory of Kaler (1999), Cotton et al. (1988) mentions employee ownership as a form of participation. Employee ownership provides employees the right to participate as a stockholder. For instance, they can influence the decisions made by the management through mechanisms as the election of the board of directors for instance. The final configuration in the research of Cotton et al. (1988) is representative participation. In this form employees participate indirectly through representatives, who are elected to a governing council, or through representatives who have a position in the board of directors. In the next figure the forms of participation by Cotton et al. (1988) are shown graphically.
Figure 3. Forms of participation (John L. Cotton et al., 1988)
2.2.4 NEW FORMS OF CO-DETERMINATION / PARTICIPATION
The research of Goodijk & Sorge (2005) with regard to co-determination / participation, has resulted in a wide range of forms of co-determination / participation, besides the traditional forms. First of all, they mention the so-called ‘new style work meetings’. However the
functioning of work meetings is still exhausting in practice, it is a conscious management tool and its usefulness for organisations is recognised. Critical factors for the successfully functioning of work meetings are a stimulating approach from the top management, the quality and skills of the middle management, a clear purpose and the presence of touchable and functional topics. Other new participation forms given by Goodijk & Sorge (2005) are: improvement teams, quality circles and other self steering teams. Besides these teams, there are project teams and temporary work teams. The purposes of these teams can be the development of new products, or the support of organisational changes for instance. Besides meetings for teams, the management of an organisation may organise informative meetings to involve employees with the organisation. Another method to involve employees with strategic decisions and other questions, is the personnel questionnaire. Other examples of these questionnaires could be an employee satisfaction research or the collection of complaints and new ideas. These questionnaires can be used in a digital form. Other examples of participation through digital communication are digital discussion forums and communication by email. The last new participation forms, mentioned by Goodijk & Sorge (2005), are Human Resources tools like competence and performance management and individual Human Resources tools.
2.3 INFLUENCING FACTORS
In the preceding paragraphs, different forms of co-determination / participation have been distinguished. A lot of studies have focused on the outcomes of co-determination / participation. However, there is little known about the factors which determine the form of co-determination / participation (Cabrera et al., 2003).
2.3.1 MOTIVES FOR CO-DETERMINATION / PARTICIPATION
From the literature, different motives for co-determination / participation appear (Kaler, 1999, Looise et al., 1996, Goodijk & Sorge, 2005). In accordance with the different views on co-determination / participation in part 2.1 of this chapter, these motives could be distinguished in two different approaches, the motives given by the authors from ‘Continental Europe’ and the motives given by Anglo-Saxon authors.
view can be seen as an Anglo-Saxon motive, organisations just want to do more with fewer employees (Kaler, 1999). On the contrary there are Continental-European motives as well. These motives can be found more in terms of influence on decisions and democratisation.
As a result of co-determination / participation, responsibilities are decentralised and there is more attention for the opinions and views of the employees (Looise et al., 1996). These motives fit more within the Continental European, more democratic ideology with regard to co-determination / participation. Goodijk & Sorge (1995) have identified twelve groups of motives for co-determination / participation: (1) the prevention & reducing of tensions, (2) social reformations, (3) humanising of labour, (4) company democratisation, (5) labour relations, (6) emancipation, (7) protection of interests, (8) influence on policy / operational participation, (9) human resources, (10) quality of decision making, (11) co-responsibility, and (12) functionality. In addition, the first ones might suit better within a Continental-European ideological approach, while the last 4 motives might suit better within an Anglo-Saxon, instrumental perspective.
2.3.2 SITUATIONAL AND CONTEXT VARIABLES
Contextual and situational factors are acknowledged to be important factors which are influencing the form of co-determination / participation. However, how important are the opinions of the employees? And what preferences and needs does the management have concerning co-determination / participation? Goodijk & Sorge (2005) have acknowledged that the attitudes of the parties involved towards of co-determination / participation, may be another important factor that influences the choice for a specific form of co-determination / participation. Behaviour and style may be even more important than structural characteristics in many situations. Goodijk & Sorge, 2005).
the hr-department and the members of the works council. The amount of knowledge and experience of the members of the works council is an example of this factor. Organisational control and management style is another important factor which influences the choice for a form of co-determination / participation. The shift form hierarchical, top-down management, to an approach more focused on development, provides more room for co-determination / participation. Besides this shift, the quality and the position of the human resource management function is important as well. Furthermore, the respondents in the Goodijk & Sorge (2005) research mentioned four developments concerning personnel characteristics: education level, emancipation, quality, attitude, willingness to change, the strength of the bond with the organisation, involvement and interest of employees.
Figure 4. Model with influencing factors by Goodijk & Sorge (2005)
2.3.3 INFLUENCING FACTORS
Cabrera et al. (2003) have made another overview concerning influencing factors on employee co-determination / participation. This overview contains the following factors: the amount of competition, the sector, the pursuit of a differentiation strategy based on either quality of service, and the amount of indirect participation.
One of the main reasons for the rise of participative management for instance, can be found in the increasingly competitive environment faced by organisations (Hyman & Mason, 1995). Furthermore, Lawler et al.(1995) reported that foreign competition, rapidly growing markets and extreme performance pressures, are strongly related to the adoption of employee involvement practices in general. Cabrera et al. (2003) conclude as well that there seems to be agreement that the motivational impact of the involvement of employees, is more important for success in the service sector, than in the manufacturing sector. Furthermore Cabrera et al.
Forms of Participation Attitudes and Professionalism Management and Control Style Personnel Characteristics Developments Legal and Organisational Structure Organisational Culture Legislation and Social Conceptions Educational level, quality and emancipation Attitudes and willingness to change Bond with the
Organisation
Development Stage
(2003) suggest that co-determination / participation are positively related to the pursuit of a differentiation strategy based on quality, and a differentiation strategy based on service.
Parnell & Menefee (1995) suggest that an employee involvement philosophy should be developed and considered in conjunction with the generic strategy of a particular organisation, if it is to maximize its prospects for superior financial performance. Top managers should consider modifying the organisation’s approach to employee involvement when major strategic initiatives and changes are undertaken. (Parnell & Menefee, (1995). Lawler et al. (1995) found a significant positive relationship between organisational size and co-determination / participation practices. Furthermore, the aggregate result of surveys conducted in the U.K. showed a positive linear relationship between organisational size and the number of involvement initiatives (Hyman & Mason, 1995). However, other studies have found a negative relationship between the organisational size and levels of employee involvement (Heller et al., 1998).
Goll & Johnson (1997) suggest that firms facing more environmental pressure will be more likely to implement employee involvement programs, because of two reasons: employee involvement programs potentially increase the flexibility of a firm, and these programs may increase the access and speed at which firms acquire and process information. Another factor according to Goll & Johnson (1997) which is expected to influence employee involvement in decision-making, is the corporate strategy. Diversified firms have a higher need of shared information and values. Therefore they would be more likely to implement employee involvement programs, because employee involvement moves the level of decision making downwards (Goll & Johnson, 1997).
2.4 EFFECTS OF CO-DETERMINATION / PARTICIPATION
In the search for the best suitable form of determination / participation, many forms of co-determination / participation are found. Besides these forms, there are some influencing factors from the literature. Nevertheless, what are the effects which could be expected from these forms of co-determination / participation?
2.4.1 MULTIPLE EFFECTS OF CO-DETERMINATION / PARTICIPATION
decision-making, and to improved acceptance of decisions made by the management. In addition, Wissema (1995) states that co-determination may improve the complicity of the employees. Further, there is a growing consensus among human resource researchers and professionals, that participative management can enhance employee motivation, commitment, productivity and job satisfaction, according to Cabrera et al. (2002) and Cotton et al. (1988).
In their research, Goll and Johnson (1997) examine several effects of co-determination / participation. At first they report positive effects given by Voos (1989). These include: positive effects on union officer management relations, absenteeism, turnover and labour flexibility. Meta-analytic literature reviews by Miller and Monge, (1986) and Wagner and Gooding (1987), have resulted in support for a positive effect of co-determination / participation on satisfaction and performance, or productivity. However, Goll and Johnson (1997) suggest that co-determination / participation by definition, involve a loss of power and control by management, resulting from the joint decision making process.
Cotton et al. (1988) have divided the effects of the forms of co-determination / participation, into effects on performance and effects on satisfaction. According to their review of empirical participation studies, the effects of co-determination / participation on satisfaction and performance, vary with the form. Participation in work decisions, informal participation and employee ownership may have a positive effect on performance. Furthermore they found that informal participation, employee ownership and representative participation may have a positive effect on satisfaction. However, representative participation increases the satisfaction of the representatives more than it does that of other workers.
increases in productivity and satisfaction. The meta-analysis of Miller & Monge (1986) does not provide any support for these theories.
The second model of Miller & Monge (1986) is the affective model. Affective models suggest that co-determination / participation will satisfy higher-order needs of workers and by satisfying these needs, the satisfaction of the workers is increased. These models predict that working in a participative climate is adequate for increasing workers’ productivity, however the participation of workers in decisions on which they have special knowledge, is not necessary. Furthermore, there is no direct link between co-determination / participation, and productivity, but an indirect link, through motivation. Co-determination / participation may provide more noticeable increases in satisfaction, for employees who are not having higher-order needs fulfilled from other aspects of their jobs.
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In the foregoing theoretical framework, several forms of co-determination / participation were discussed, after determining the definitions. Furthermore, the influencing factors on co-determination / participation were analysed, as well as the effects of co-co-determination / participation. This chapter aims to select relevant factors, based on the organisational context, from the overall theoretical framework presented in the foregoing paragraph. Furthermore it will explain how these factors will be investigated.
3.1 RELEVANT FORMS AND INFLUENCING FACTORS
Regarding the forms of co-determination / participation given by Kaler (1999), not all of these forms of determination / participation may fit within the definitions and context of co-determination / participation for this research. Delegatory participation transfers decision making powers to employees (Kaler, 1999). This can be seen as similar to job enrichment, an alternative form of co-determination / participation in the overview of Looise et al. (1996). Informing, the second form of co-determination / participation by Kaler (1999), is about sharing related information with employees. It can precede joint decision making however it is not a form of it (Kaler, 1999). Concerning the definition, also in the case of informing, there is no exerting influence on decision-making. The same may apply for Kaler’s form of financial participation through income. In this form, employees are participating through sharing in the profits (Kaler, 1999). However this may not be a form of co-determination / participation, regarding to the definitions of these concepts. The same is true for Kalers’s ‘financial participation through ownership’. Looise et al. (1996) have made a distinction of co-determination / participation in two forms, namely representative and direct. One form according to Looise et al. (1996) is external representative co-determination. Because this research focuses on internal determination / participation and not on external co-determination / participation, external co-co-determination / participation will not be researched further in this chapter.
participation is classified as ‘works council’ because the importance of this form of participation in the Dutch context and specifically in line with the motive of this research.
The second part of the conceptual model contains ‘alternative participation forms’. Work meetings, project teams and autonomous task groups / self steering teams may be classified as forms of Cotton’s and Kaler’s ‘consultative participation’. However, autonomous task groups / self steering teams are taken into account within project teams for this research because of their similar characteristics. Both forms are temporary and have a specific purpose. On the contrary, work meetings are structural and do not have a specific topic. Further, participative management is described by Looise et al. (1996) as a management style. This form of participation may be seen more as a characteristic of the organisational culture in terms of a condition for co-determination / participation, instead of a specific form of co-determination / participation. Therefore ‘participative management’ is not taken into account as an alternative participation form within this research. Co-determination / participation are defined in this research as ways of influencing decision-making. In line with this definition and because of the context of the organisation, job enrichment is not taken into account for this research.
An important characteristic for Ars Bene Laborandi is digital communication. The majority of the activities within ABL are executed through ICT technology. Email is the most important communication form within the organisation. This implies that ABL may be suitable for digital forms of participation like email questionnaires, digital discussion platforms and a digital suggestion box for instance. All these forms have the similar characteristic that they are organized digitally.
Co-determination Alternative Participation Forms
- Works Council - Work Meetings
- Project Teams
- Digital Communication - Other Alternatives
Table 1. For this research relevant forms of co-determination / participation
Council, structural participation through work meetings, temporary, ad hoc participation through project teams and at last participation through digital communication. These forms fit within the definition of co-determination / participation and may be seen as suitable for this type or organisation.
Several influencing factors on the choice for a suitable form of co-determination / participation are shown in the theoretical framework. These factors vary from legislative influences to the influence of the management style on participation. For this research the influencing factors on participation are clustered. The different factors which are found in the literature are clustered together in a scheme. This clustering of influencing factors for this research is based on the clustering in the research of Goodijk & Sorge (2005).
Figure 5. Model with influencing factors on the choice for a form of co-determination / participation
First, this research will focus on organisational characteristics like the organisational structure. According to Daft (2004) there are three key components in the definition of organisation structure. In the first place the organisation structure designates formal reporting relationships. Further, it identifies the grouping together of individuals into departments and
Legislation
- Dutch Works Councils Act (WOR)
Attitudes, needs and expected effects of co-determination / participation of involved parties
- Management (project managers) - Line management (editors) - Employees (writers, e-coaches)
of departments into the total organisation. Thirdly, the organisation structure includes the design of systems to ensure effective communication, coordination, and integration of effort across departments. Taking the organisation and the available time for this research into account, the following characteristics of the organisation structure of ABL will be researched: characteristics with regard to the hierarchy, the organisation chart and the tasks, responsibilities and competences. Another characteristic of the organisation which influences the choice for a form of co-determination / participation, is the organizational culture (Goodijk & Sorge, 2005). The organisational culture can be defined as the shared values and beliefs that underlie a company’s identity (Kreitner et al., 2002). The limitation of this research make it impossible to investigate all the values and beliefs of the organisation. In this research, the organisational culture is researched based characteristics which are researchable and may be seen in relation with co-determination / participation. These characteristics are: the way of decision-making, internal communication, employee involvement and leadership style. At last, the characteristics of the employees and the type of work will be investigated. Another influencing factor is the Dutch Works Councils Act. For finding the best suitable form of participation, this is an important factor because this act may oblige ABL to establish co-determination in the form of a works council. The third influencing factor contains the attitudes and needs of the involved parties. Besides their attitudes and needs, this research will investigate the effects they expect from participation.
3.2 RESEARCH METHODS
In the foregoing chapter, the clustering of the relevant theory has created a model for the research. This chapter explains in which manner this research will be set up to find the best suitable form of participation for Ars Bene Laborandi BV, based on the conceptual model. This research contains three parts, a desk research based on documents to organisational characteristics, a document research to the Dutch Works Council Act and a written questionnaire.
3.2.1 DESK RESEARCH ON DOCUMENTS REGARDING ORGANISATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
the required information, the document containing the organisational characteristics will be examined in consultation with the management of ABL.
3.2.2 DOCUMENT RESEARCH ON THE DUTCH LAW FOR WORKS COUNCILS
To determine if ABL is obliged to establish a works council according to the law, it must be investigated whether the organisation is obliged to establish this formal, obligatory form of co-determination. In order to find an answer to this question, the Dutch Works Councils Act (WOR), jurisdiction and clarifying documentation must be researched to find out in what extend ABL, according to the characteristics collected in paragraph 3.3.1, is obliged to establish a works council or not. After this research the results will be examined in consultation with an expert.
3.2.3 QUESTIONNAIRE
4. RESEARCH FINDINGS
4.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE ORGANISATION
This chapter contains a description of the organisational characteristics of Ars Bene Laborandi, the organisational culture, the employee characteristics and the type of work. The results in this paragraph are obtained by a desk research to organizational documents, observations and informal conversations with the management and employees during an introduction period of the researcher, foregoing to the questionnaire. First, the history of ABL will be described shortly.
In the year 2004 BriefopBestelling (LetteronDemand), the largest section of ABL, started with producing personal and business letters. Pilot periods with the Dutch unemployment agency UWV and several municipalities have been accomplished successfully and BriefopBestelling has grown strongly, resulting in a national break-through in 2007. Nowadays BriefopBestelling delivers every month 2000 cover letters and cv’s in the Netherlands. After the successful break-through in the Netherlands, BriefopBestelling has expanded its services to Belgium, Germany, England and China. The other sections of ABL, It’sMyTurn and It’sMyBusiness started respectively in 2005 and 2006. In 2007 these sections, together with BriefopBestelling in the Netherlands, have shaped the private limited company Ars Bene Laborandi BV.
Figure 6. Overview of Ars Bene Laborandi BV (Source: www.arsbenelaborandi.nl)
LetteronDemand, It'sMyTurn and It'sMyBusiness each play its own particular role. During their career everyone seeks the place where their interests and abilities can be used to the full. In addition to that, at some points in their life, everyone needs a change. This derives in part from the desire for something new, and in part from external influences. At that time it is crucial that the right decisions are made and that we take responsibility for this transitional phase in our life” (www.arsbenelaborandi.nl, 2009)
4.1.1 ORGANISATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
As described above, the private limited company Ars Bene Laborandi BV consists of the sections BriefopBestelling, It’sMyTurn and It’smyBusiness. The information with regard to the organisation of the Dutch parts of ABL within the Netherlands is collected by observations and informal interviews. The organisation is structured as follows:
Figure 7. Organisational structure of Ars Bene Laborandi BV (Source: Organisation Chart Ars Bene Laborandi BV)
Managing director
On the top of the organisational diagram is the managing director and large shareholder of ABL. The managing director is responsible for the enterprise-broad decisions. The account manager, office manager and project managers play an advising role by these decisions.
Managing Director
Account manager Office
Account management
The account manager is responsible for maintaining the relationships of ABL. For instance the relation with the unemployment agency UWV and other principals. Besides the maintaining of existing relations, one of the tasks of the account manager is the acquisition of new relations. Further, he is responsible to be informed about important developments and happenings which may be relevant for the businesses of ABL.
Office management
The office manager supports the managing director by executing administrative tasks. For instance the office manager is responsible for the wages administration and the bookkeeping. Further, the office manager plays also an advising role for the managing director.
Project manager BriefopBestelling
BriefopBestelling, the largest section of ABL, is managed by a project manager. This project manager is responsible for the functioning of the editors and writers of BriefopBestelling. Selecting and recruiting of editors and writers is one of the tasks of the project manager as well as the processing of feedback, given by customers. He is an important contact point for customers, editors and writers.
ICT support BriefopBestelling
The ICT support of BriefopBestelling provides support to editors and writers in case of difficulties concerning the ICT-environment.
Editors BriefopBestelling
Under the project manager of BriefopBestelling, there are 16 editors working who are responsible for the functioning of a team consisting of 8 to 10 writers. These editors divide an incoming order to a suitable writer. When the writer has written the letter, the editor draws up the letter and sends it to the customer. The editor is also a contact point for the customer. In some cases, the editors contacts the customer for additional information for instance.
Writers BriefopBestelling
As already mentioned before, the writers are responsible for writing the letters from the orders they receive from their editors. On the base of the received information from the order they write the letter. The letters have to be satisfactory to the requirements of BriefopBestelling and have to be send to the editor within 36 hours from receiving the order.
Project manager It’sMyTurn
‘e-coaches’. The project manager of It’sMyTurn is responsible for the functioning of It’sMyTurn and it’s e-coaches. Further he is responsible for the development and improvement of the reintegration path of It’sMyTurn. The project manager of It’sMyTurn takes the first interview with the candidates and allocates a suitable coach to them. He is an important contact point for candidates and e-coaches.
E-coaches
The E-coaches of It’sMyTurn support individual job-seekers with finding a new job. For instance they help the candidates by their search for vacancies. Further, the E-coaches provide feedback on assignments and tests of the candidates. They are an important contact point for the candidates.
Project manager It’sMyBusiness
It’sMyTurn provides individual support to job-seekers with finding a new job. This accompaniment takes place especially via the internet through 5 so-called ‘e-coaches’. The project manager of It’sMyTurn is responsible for the functioning of It’sMyTurn and its e-coaches.
4.1.2 ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE
Way of decision-making
The managing director / owner of ABL is responsible for all the for the organisation important decisions. By these decisions, the involvement of the project, account and office managers seems quite high. From observations of the researcher it appeared that they are consulted by the managing director frequently with regard to several decisions. This leadership style may be described as a style of participative leadership. Probably this is encouraged because both the managing director and the project, account and office managers are working on the same location.
Internal communication
the editors organise team dinners with their team members. At last, once a year an informal party is organised for al the members of the organisation.
Obvious with regard to the communication within ABL is the amount of digital communication. Writers and editors communicate with each other mainly by email and also within the higher level of the organisation (editors and up), a substantial amount of communication is handled by email. Besides the use of email there is an online workspace, which is an important digital communication tool as well. Another example of the use of digital communication is the text message service for writers. They receive a text message on their mobile phone if they have received a new order. Further, the writers receive automatic emails concerning the acceptation or rejection of orders. At last, they receive their salary slips and a monthly newsletter by email. In addition, an employee satisfaction research is executed among the writers by the project manager.
Employee involvement
However the involvement of the management and editors seems quite high, this seems not that high for the writers. From the employee satisfaction research appeared that their involvement is just moderate. Further it appeared that only 20% of the employees want to be involved more, versus 34% of the employees who do not want to be involved more in the organisation. Reasons for this relative low involvement of the writers may be found in the relative short length of their engagement with ABL (example: students may only work for ABL in their last year of University), the absolute distance to the office, the fact that the employment of a writer is usually a part time and the content of the work (internet work). Nevertheless, the writers appreciate BriefopBestelling as a good employer by valuing the organisation with an 8.
Leadership style
4.1.3 EMPLOYEE CHARACTERISTICS
4.2 DUTCH WORKS COUNCILS ACT
This chapter contains a research to the Dutch Works Councils Act. The important aspects within this act will be explained briefly and after that, the for ABL relevant articles of this act will be elaborated further. At last, two experts are consulted with regard to the findings of this research to the Dutch Works Councils Act.
4.2.1 THE DUTCH WORKS COUNCILS ACT (WOR)
Code are seen as employees for the WOR, and those with an agreement of instruction are not (WOR, art. 1).
4.2.2 OBLIGATION FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A WORKS COUNCIL
According to the WOR, an enterprise in which at least 50 employees are working, is obliged to establish a works council. This is in the interest of the functioning of the enterprise in all of its objectives. The entrepreneur is responsible for the establishment of the works council. Thereby, employees and trade unions can request a cantonal judge to require the entrepreneur to establish a works council within a certain period of time, usually a period between three to six months (WOR, art. 2:1). Employees who have taken the initiative to establish a works council are protected by law against injury regarding their positions.
The Social and Economic Council can permit dispensation for 5 years with regard to the establishment of a works council under specific, exceptional circumstances. However, the amount of dispensations in the Netherlands is very few. Only 4 dispensations have been provided within a period of 18 years (Vink & Van het Kaar, 2009). In addition, motives for a dispensation cannot be the existence of another form of co-determination / participation and the absence of interest by the employees (WOR, art. 5).
Requirements for the obligation of the establishment of a Works Council
Situation Ars Bene Laborandi
Enterprise as described in the WOR √
Presence of formal labour-contracts √
50 or more employees working √
Table 2: Overview of requirements for the establishment of a Works Council
4.2.3 COMPLIANCE OF THE DUTCH WORKS COUNCILS ACT WITHIN THE NETHERLANDS
Visee & Meevissen (2009) have researched the compliance of the Dutch Works Councils Act by organisations within the Netherlands. The most important result of this research is the low percentage of organisations which have established a works council, in case they are obliged to do so. At the end of 2008, from the organisations with 50 employees or more, only 70% has established a Works Council. This percentage seems to be rather stabile in the period from 2001 to 2008. In 2001 and 2002 it was 71%, in 2005 it was 76% and in 2008 as mentioned before, it was 70% of the organisations with 50 employees or more. In the majority of the organisations, the establishment of a Works Council is mainly caused by the legal obligation. The absence of the need by employees for a works council is the most mentioned reason for not establishing a works council. On the contrary, the need by the owner or by the personnel is the most occurring reason to establish a works council. An overview of the mentioned reasons for the establishment and the reasons for the absence of a Works Council is shown in appendix C.
From the results of the research of Visee & Meevissen appears that the absence of the need by the employees is the most occurring reason for not establishing a Works Council. However there may be some doubt with regard to the reliability of this number (51%) because for this research obviously not all the employees of these organisations are asked to their needs. In 53% of the responding organisations, the questions are asked by the head of the personnel department. In 23%, the questions were answered by the management and in the other 24% they were answered by another employee. In addition, the most occurring reason for the establishment of a Works Council, is the obligation by law. This was the case by 73% of the respondents.
4.2.4 INTERVIEW SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC COUNCIL (SER)
SER officer mentioned explicitly that the absence of the need by the employees cannot be a reason for not establishing a Works Council. The employer is even obliged to take the initiative for the establishment of a Works Council and has to inform and to enthuse the employees. The employer should provide support to the employees with regard to the establishment of a Works Council. Only when there is still not enough interest after the efforts of the employer, the absence of interest by the employees might be a reason for not establishing a Works Council. Thereby it may be wise to record these efforts by the employer so these records may function as an important objection if a dispute would appear later on.
After the questions with regard to the objection of the employer, the SER officer was asked to what the employees could do to establish a Works Council. In the first place employees can take the initiative to establish a Works Council, by themselves. Therefore they should approach the employer with their initiative. To support their proposal, it may be wise to approach the employer well-prepared, for instance by making an inventory of possible candidates and other preparatory activities.
When employees do their proposal for the establishing of a Works Council to the employer, it may not be obvious that the employer will meet the needs of the employees. Which alternatives could employees utilize in this case? In the first place employees can ask a union for support. In the extreme, they can go to court to enforce the employer to establish a Works Council. Nevertheless, such a situation is seen as rather undesirable, in view of the amount of conflict which may appear from these kind of situations. Such an atmosphere may have a negative influence on the functioning of a Works Council.
As described above, there are legal opportunities to accomplish the establishment of a Works Council. However, in this case the initiative of the employees is still necessary. In addition, the SER was asked if there exists a supervising institution which can oblige an entrepreneur to meet the obligations with regard to the WOR. Nevertheless, there is no supervision institution which is allowed to sanction entrepreneurs who do not meet the obligations of the WOR.
initiative as well. They can come up with a proposal for the establishment and if the employer does not meet the needs of the employees with regard to the Works Council, the employees can request a union for support en in addition they can go to court. At last, the SER officer pointed out that there is no supervising institution which can oblige an entrepreneur to establish a Works Council.
4.2.5 INTERVIEW LOE SPRENGERS, EXPERT IN CO-DETERMINATION LAW
To verify the findings in this chapter further, another interview has been taken from mr. Loe Sprengers, a lawyer who is specialised in the co-determination / participation law. A number of questions have been asked to mr. Sprengers by phone.
In the first place, mr. Sprengers acknowledged the requirements for the obliged establishment of a Works Council. He mentioned further that a lack of interest of the personnel for a Works Council, may not be a reason for not establishing one. However he acknowledged that for the functioning of a Works Council, available candidates are a necessary condition. The entrepreneur should encourage the interest and knowledge of the personnel with regard to the Works Council. An organisation with the characteristics of ABL is according to the law obliged to establish a Works Council. The establishment and design of a Works Council can be adapted to the characteristics of the organisation. In such an ‘adapted’ Works Council, agreements can be made for instance with regard to the topics and the frequency of consultation.
4.3 RESULTS WRITTEN QUESTIONNAIRE
An email containing a hyperlink referring to the written questionnaire, has been sent to 165 respondents by email. After two weeks, a reminder was sent to the respondents. Within the supposed period, 53 questionnaires have been completed via the internet. The total amount of returned questionnaires is 53 and the response rate is 32%.
4.3.1 CHARACTERISITICS OF THE RESPONDENTS / REPRESENTATIVINESS
The representativeness of this questionnaire is verified by comparing the characteristics of the respondents with the characteristics of all the employees. These characteristics are: position within the organisation, age and the length of employment. In the ABL organisation, the employees can be divided into 4 groups of positions: writers, editors, e-coaches and management. The next table contains the numbers of employees of each group, compared to the number of respondents.
Group Percentage Respondents
Writers (n=140) 85% 33 (24%)
Editors (n=16) 10% 11 (69%)
E-coaches (n=5) 3% 5 (100%)
Management (n=4) 2% 4 (100%)
Total (n=165) 100% 53 (32%)
Table 5: Comparison of the employees of ABL and the respondents of the questionnaire with regard to their position.
The response rate differs between the different groups of employees. Among the management and the e-coaches the response rate is 100%. In the group ‘editors’ the response rate is 69% and the response among the writers is 24%. This group is underrepresented. On the contrary, the editors, management and coaches are overrepresented. From the respondents, 9% is e-coach and 8% of the questionnaires is filled out by the management. Further, 10% of the employees are editors, while 21% of the questionnaires is filled out by editors.
Age category Percentage Respondents
< 21 years (n=2) 1% 1 (50%)
21-30 years (n=140) 85% 39 (28%)
> 30 years (n=23) 14% 13 (57%)
Total (n=165) 100% 53 (32%)
Table 6: Comparison of the employees of ABL and the respondents of the questionnaire with regard to their age.
Taking the division in age categories into account, there is an overrepresentation visible with regard to the oldest group of employees, and an underrepresentation of the ’21-30 years’ group. Thereby the response rate of these group is lower than the other age groups.
The last measured characteristic is the length of the employment of all the employees, compared to the respondents. This length of employment is divided into four categories and is shown in the next table.
Length of employment Percentage Respondents
< 1 year (n=61) 37% 6 (10%)
1-2 years (n=37) 23% 25 (68%)
2-3 years (n=55) 33% 15 (27%)
> 3 years (n=12) 7% 7 (58%)
Total (n=165) 100% 53 (32%)
Table 7: Comparison of the employees of ABL and the respondents of the questionnaire with regard to their length of employment.
In the above table the length of employment is divided into 4 categories. The category ‘< 1 year’ is underrepresented. Category’s ‘1-2 years’ and ‘> 3 years’ are overrepresented and at last the ‘2-3 years’ category is the only category which is reasonable representative. In addition, 43% of the writers belong to the ‘< 1 year’ category.
In the questionnaire, the employees were asked for their needs with regard to co-determination / participation. From the 53 respondents, 25 (47%) do have a need for participation and commitment. On the contrary, 28 (53%) respondents do not have this need. Furthermore, there is a substantial difference in the needs of employees, regarding to their position within ABL. The higher the positions in the organisation, the more the employees are tended to have a need for participation and commitment. An obvious group of employees are the writers. Only 21% of the writers has a need for participation and commitment. Among the other groups, 82% or more has this need. The differences are shown in the following table.
Position within ABL Need for participation and commitment Percentage Management 4 100% E-coaches 5 100% Editors 9 82% Writers 7 21% Total 25 47%
Table 8: Need of employees for participation and commitment by different positions
In the questionnaire, the employees have given several reasons for having a need for participation and commitment. These reasons are clustered into 5 main reasons for having a need for participation and commitment.
Reasons for having a need for participation and commitment Times mentioned by respondents
Influence on decision-making 14
Satisfaction & commitment 8
Knowledge with regard to the organisation 6
Characteristics of the organisation (internet organisation) 3
Support for the management 1
Table 9: Overview of the mentioned reasons for participation and commitment
One of the editors filled out: ‘It would be interesting for me to provide improvement
suggestions’. Three respondents declared they have a need for participation and commitment
organisation. Communication goes mainly through telephone and email. Therefore it is important to stay committed to the organisation’. On the contrary, 28 of the 53 respondents
answered that they do not have a need for participation and commitment. The next schedule shows an overview of the clustered reasons, mentioned by respondents who indicated that they do not have a need for participation and commitment.
Reasons for not having a need for participation and commitment Times mentioned by respondents
Everything is well-organised already / not interested 11
Characteristics of the employment (part-time, homework) 9
Not enough time 5
No answer 3
Table 10: Overview of the mentioned reasons for not having a need for participation and commitment
The most attending reason is that, according to the employees, everything within the organisation is well-organised already. A writer explains this as follows: ‘For so far,
everything regarding the management seems to be well-organised. Therefore, I have never had a need for participation’. Seven respondents answered that their job is only an additional
or temporary job for them. ‘I am satisfied with my job as an editor. Besides this job I have a
family where I spend my time and attention on. I enjoy my work and as good as I can, but I do not have the need to intervene further in the organisation’, according to one of the editors.
Five respondents mentioned that they do not have enough time for participation and commitment with regard to ABL. At last, two respondents mentioned their high distance to the office as a reason and two respondents answered that they are just not interested in participation and commitment. ‘Everything goes well. Because the work is done at home, the
communication goes through email and the distance to the office is large, I do not feel really committed to the organisation’.
4.3.3 MOST APPEALING FORMS FOR THE EMPLOYEES
Preferred forms Appealing to .. respondents
Digital participation forms 33
Work meetings 31
Project groups 19
Works Council 7
Other forms 5
Table 13: Forms which appeal to the respondents (more answers possible)
Digital participation forms and work meetings are the most appealing forms to the respondents. These forms are appealing to respectively 33 and 31 from the 53 respondents. Further, project groups appeal to 19 respondents and a works council appeals to 7 from the 53 employees. There are 5 alternative forms mentioned by the respondents: schooling, personnel trips, a participation council, a suggestion box and direct contact. In addition, the respondents were asked to fill out one form as their most appealing form.
Form Preferred by ..
respondents
Digital participation forms 20
Work meetings 16
Project groups 10
Works council 3
Courses / Personnel trips / Suggestion box 3
No answer 1
Table 14: Overview of the forms preferred by the employees (one answer possible)
possible to communicate face-to-face, so you can measure the reactions of your colleagues immediately’. Thirdly, project groups are preferred by 10 respondents. Respondents had
chosen for this form for instance because it provides the possibility to work together in a team
with clear objectives and during a relatively short-term. Three respondents prefer a works
council. An e-coach motivated the preference for a works council as follows: ‘A works
council has a legal base and can be a ‘go-between’ between the managing director and the employees’. At last, one respondent prefers a suggestion box and two respondents prefer
respectively schooling and personnel trips as form.
There are some obvious differences between the different groups of employees within ABL and their preferred forms of co-determination / participation. From the management, 75% prefers work meetings as form, while 60% of the E-coaches chooses for project groups. Further, 64% of the editors prefers work meetings. The participation form work meetings appears less among the preferred forms of the writers. From the writers, 54% prefer digital participation forms. Taking the different age groups into account, there appear some differences as well. From the group ‘> 30 years’, 15% prefer a works council, while within the age group ’21-30 years’, 3% has this preference. Within the ‘> 30 years’ age group appears more interest for project groups (31%) than within the ’21-30 years’ age group (18%). Among the respondents of the ‘> 30 years’ group, both project groups (31%) and digital participation forms (31%) are the most appearing preferences. At last, 38% of the ’21-30 years’ group prefers digital participation forms, and this form is the most occurring preference among this group.
4.3.4 BEST SUITABLE FORMS FOR ABL, ACCORDING TO THE EMPLOYEES
Besides the most appealing forms, the respondents were asked to the forms which are suitable for ABL in their opinion.
Form Suitable according
to .. respondents
Digital participation forms 42
Work meetings 24
Project groups 17
Works Council 6
Suggestion box 1
From the respondents, 42 mentioned digital participation forms as suitable. Works meetings as a suitable form is mentioned by 24 respondents. Project groups and a works council are mentioned by respectively 17 and 6 respondents. At last, a suggestion box was mentioned by one respondent. In addition, the respondents were asked to fill out the in their opinion most suitable form of co-determination / participation for ABL.
Form The best suitable
form according to .. respondents
Digital participation forms 35
Work meetings 9
Project groups 3
Works Council 2
Suggestion box 1
No answer 4
Table 16: Best suitable form according to the employees (one answer possible)
From the respondents who indicated that digital participation forms suit the best for ABL, 21 respondents suggested this form is the best suiting because ABL is a digital organization,
where the work is generally digital, and the communication is digital as well. One of the
writers has motivated the choice for digital participation as follows: ‘The rest of the work is
also organised digitally and this results in an excellent product’. Another often mentioned
