collective bargaining, or to include suggestion schemes, employee ownership of stocks and so on. For example, several case studies on participative schemes were presented at a
national seminar on workers' participation in management held in Delhi under the auspices of large government enterprises and the Ministry of Labour in December 1981. The Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) representative stated that its joint negotiating committee was an example of participation. The representative from Hindustan Electrographics proudly touted its suggestion scheme as a participative one. The Fertilizer Corporation of India representative cited the establishment of safety and vigilance committees as examples of participation. This illustrated clearly that there was neither consensus nor clarity on the concept of participation
The various types of involvement with employees varied greatly, though, as several
organizations established different practices in India. Information-sharing, suggestion schemes, consultation and, only in a few cases, co-determination or participation in its true sense, exist in many organizations.
New terms also emerged to define or describe these variations and deviations from real participation in decision-making, such as employee involvement, employee empowerment and employee engagement.
The issues on which workers or employees are to be consulted have also varied
widely. Broadly speaking, the range of issues in any enterprise on which decisions need to be taken from time to time can be classified under five major heads: safety and welfare
issues; work-related issues (production on the shop floor, quality, machine maintenance);
sharing of gains (wages, incentives, allowances); production-related issues (product-mix,
plant production targets, technology) and; business policy (expansion, contraction,
pricing). Even the most reluctant managers agree that workers should have some say in the first three categories, although there may again be doubts about the second category. The third category obviously gives workers some influence through the process of collective bargaining, wherever it exists. There is, however, much difference of opinion as far as the last two categories are concerned
t two categories are concerned
There are four types of participation :
Superficial participation, comprising information-sharing and suggestion
Scheme
Intermediate participation, comprising collective bargaining in both traditional
and non-traditional areas, and consultation on restricted issues; and
Real participation, comprising consultation on unrestricted issues and codetermination on restricted and unrestricted issues.
Why participation
The objective of participation for management was initially limited to attaining higher productivity through a more committed workforce; later, as behavioural theories evolved, participation was thought and expected to achieve more elaborate organizational ends, such as improvement in employee morale, improved industrial relations, motivation and commitment, and quality of work life or even what Abraham Maslow termed selfactualization. One achievement that enterprises accidentally discovered was that the quality of decision-making improved. This had major advantages in a complex or unstable
environment, since more variables and consequences were taken into account during decision-making itself. Managers also discovered that decisions taken jointly were more 3 acceptable to workers and could be implemented more easily. This, too, had implications for difficult decisions or decisions which are normally not easily acceptable to workers, such as redundancy. Virmani (1988) felt that the perceived differences in the objectives of participation had led to its failure in many cases.
One of the problems of participation is the lack of concrete and substantial evidence on the link between participation and production. Productivity depends on many factors other than worker motivation. In some cases, customer services have been known to improve with participation. But such improvements have also been achieved with other types of intervention, such as more facilitating organizations or better working
Controversies
The arguments and counter-arguments on participation do not appear to end with the depth of involvement and issues for discussion. Three other controversies have emerged in India over relatively simple problems:
1) Collective bargaining versus workers' participation;
2) Statutory versus voluntary participation; and
3) Trade union versus direct worker representation.
These are also issues which have bothered managers, unionists, workers and the
government during actual practices.
Collective bargaining vs participation
Unions have in general sought to promote collective bargaining rather than participation. As early as 1952, the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) declared at the Indian Labour Conference that compulsory recognition of unions by employers and an obligation to negotiate would render participation unnecessary. In 1954-55, the Hind Mazdoor Sabha (HMS) observed that worker directors may enhance the prestige of some leaders, but would not help in protecting labour interests . It was primarily the Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC) which expressed some enthusiasm for participation as distinct from bargaining. But unions in India have hotly protected their bargaining domain and refused to allow participation on issues which impinge even faintly on the matter of bargaining. The evidence in India is that, despite the absence of all-India statutory provisions on union recognition or the right to bargain, collective bargaining has grown while employee participation has either stagnated or failed.
Statutory vs voluntary participation
This controversy also touches the question of whether participation needs to be
institutionalized or structured through permanent bodies. Many, and managers in
particular, feel that participative styles of management are sufficient to achieve results. This is equivalent to what managers call an open door policy, where employees are encouraged to walk in at any time and discuss any issue with a manager. But organizations which have tried this know how varied managerial perceptions on a participative style are. One high-profile Indian managing director is reported to have joked at a seminar on participation that he allowed his employees to agree with him through participation.
In such a situation, it is conceivable that a participative style would be ephemeral,
unless there is some institutionalization. It is also clear that, to have a uniform management approach towards a participative style through informal participation, it would require a very high degree of centralization in the management value system. While institutional forms of participation have their place in a participative system, the controversy focuses on
the question of whether the institutional form itself should be statutory or voluntary and left to mutual agreement. The evidence is mixed.
Trade unions vs workers' representatives
Much of the representation of workers in participative bodies has been through union representatives. In 1990, unions debated this issue at a two-day national seminar called expressly for this purpose. It was reported that except for INTUC, all the union centres agreed that worker representatives should be chosen through secret ballot (Business Standard, 10 January 1990). The selection would, therefore, depend not on union representatives but on workers' choice of representatives. Union representation creates a dual problem. First, in many cases, leaders may be outsiders and not real worker participants. The problem is compounded by the fact that many of the outside leaders are actually politicians who have never worked in industry, and never been workers in the real sense. The second problem is more fundamental to the purpose of participation. One of the basic objectives of participation is said to be the development of workers. Bhattacharya writes: "industrial democracy … will also create an
atmosphere for the production of something of even greater value - human beings of better quality" . When outsiders participate, workers do not get this
opportunity. Advocates of union representation contend, on the other contrary, that workers are less knowledgeable and would not be able to participate fully with representatives of management, who would be able to manipulate them. The problem can be illustrated from some experiences. In the Bhilai Steel Plant, union representatives were found to be very satisfied with the participative schemes, but most rank-and-file workers did not even know that there were such forums. The workers were also heard to complain that all the information given by the company or unionists about these forums was received through circulars or notice boards, and never through face-to-face communication. Hence, while about half the workers knew nothing about the schemes, the other half felt alienated, even
though they knew about them. The position was better in Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd., Bhopal, where workers were elected directly to the shop councils. Since there were three worker representatives in each council, election was held if the number of worker nominations exceeded three. The secretaries of all the shop councils were in turn ex officio members of the joint council for the plant. Hence, union representation was only incidental, and it appeared to work quite effectively
It is obvious that participation is not easy in India for a variety of reasons:
1) For union or worker representatives, the double roles they are required to play make participation quite difficult;
2) Managements are often reluctant to share responsibility;
3) There are often perceived differences in social status, education and awareness between the two parties in employee participation. This obstructs transparency and trust;
4) The unions find themselves party to decisions which they are not really influencing. In fact, a mere scheme of participation without an accompanying system of regular communication does not work anywhere
5) It is also clear that real participation cannot be continued for long in the current
context. It may prove successful in a particular context, and in a particular crisis, but is very difficult to sustain when conditions improve or change completely.
Preparing for participation - workers' education
The contention that workers were often ill equipped to participate in decision-making due to their low level of education was sought to be offset by the Indian government through the Workers' Education Scheme launched in the late 1950s. Although the scheme itself was not formulated to counter the contention, the general drift of labour policy was that workers were an integral part of the industrial establishment and should be equipped to take part in it effectively. The Indian Labour Conference at its 16th session in 1958 adopted a resolution to make it a reality. The scheme was launched that year with the setting up of a Central Board of Workers' Education, supported by the National Institute of
Labour and the Institute for Training
The scheme developed by the board was three-tier. At the topmost level were
education officers or instructors, selected and trained by the board. At the next level, the education officers would be responsible for selecting and training worker teachers from different industries who would then instruct their own colleagues. At the last stage, the worker teachers would be deputed to their respective enterprises to conduct classes for their co-workers. Union leaders would be involved at every stage of the training programmes and play a major role in both the second and third stages.
The first training was held in May 1958 in Bombay. The original batch of 502 officers included 140 union nominees. From February 1959 onwards, these officers fanned out and were posted at different centres, training worker nominees in batches of 25-30 for three months each. The minimum education level of worker teachers was class VII. Both the number of training programmes and centres expanded over the years. Employers became involved at the third stage of the process, since they were expected to provide facilities for the training programmes in their own premises. The programmes were held for one hour a day after working hours.
Participative schemes in India
The need for some form of worker involvement was felt in the mid-1950s and 1960s, well after independence, and more by the Government than by the employers, because of the need for rapid industrialization. Workers' participation in management came to India through government intervention. There was no urge among unions for greater involvement in the management of industrial enterprises. This is a characteristic feature of most participative schemes in the country, and has had enduring effects on the functioning
of the schemes themselves.
The introduction of works committees through the Industrial Disputes Act in 1947 was hailed by many as an encouraging measure for participation. But section 3 of this Act states that the works committee is meant "to promote measures for securing and preserving amity and good relations between the employer and the workmen and to that end comment upon matters of their common interest or concern and endeavour to compose any material differences of opinion in respect of such matters." The objective was clear. The works
committee was envisaged as an industrial relations (IR) tool to resolve or reduce
differences between managements and labour. It was not a participative body at all, and was not meant to be so. From the point of view of structure, the body had some participative pretensions. It was to be introduced in all enterprises with 100 or more workmen and composed in such a way that the number of representatives of workmen was not less than that of management representatives. The workers' representatives were to be elected for two years by the workmen of the enterprise, and had to be workers. They could in addition be unionists or union leaders.
The objectives of the JMCs were to promote cordial relations between managements and labour and build up trust and understanding, but also to increase productivity, secure effective welfare and other facilities, to train workers to understand and share responsibilities, and in general function as a consultative body. More specifically, the joint council was to:
1) Have equal representation from workers and the management;
2) Be entitled to be consulted on certain specific matters including administration of standing orders and their amendments when needed, retrenchment, rationalization, closure, reduction in or cessation of operations;
3) Be entitled to discuss and give suggestions on certain other matters such as the general economic situation of the concern, the state of the market, production and sales programmes, methods of manufacture and work, the annual balance sheet and profit and loss statements as well as long-term plans for expansion; and
4) Be entitled to have responsibilities for the administration and supervision of welfare and safety measures, vocational training and apprenticeship schemes, suggestion schemes, schedules for working hours, breaks and holidays etc.
Conclusions
India is no stranger to employee participation and all the stakeholders in labour relations have been familiar with the concept and practice since 1957, though interpretations have varied. The initiative was taken in 1958, primarily by the Government, with tripartite concurrence, but thereafter participative practices petered out or failed in most organizations. The idea and spirit did not die down completely, however, re-emerging after globalization along with other HRM and IR practices. Clearly, this was propelled by the need to become or remain competitive in the more market-driven economic situation.
During the last two decades, the country has seen many employee involvement
processes evolve, but with certain specific features. For instance, out of the five major categories of organizational decision-making outlined in the first chapter, we find today that involvement or consultative schemes related to safety and welfare and shop-floor and work-related categories predominate, with less evidence of plant-related or policy issues being covered, and mostly in the public sector units discussed. At the same time, we find that confusion on the concept of participation remains. While some organizations continue to categorize suggestion schemes as employee participation, others dub safety or welfare committees as participation. The case studies show that quite a few HRM practices and Japanese production techniques have also been integrated into employee involvement processes. In the public sector units, structured
meetings with unions on a regular basis are being included in the practice of participation. However, it is also true that diverse organizations have established formal systems voluntarily, though each may have devised their own structures, forms, levels or issues. All have elaborate structures. To some extent there is some uniformity in the matter of representation, in that equal representation of unions/employees and the management has been a common feature.
More specifically, the six case studies bring out certain characteristics
None of the companies studied have relied on optional forms or informal processes or just style to ensure participation. There are informal or unstructured processes, but as supplements to the structured formats. It is also to be noted that participative structures in these six do not conform to the Government's schemes except in the case of ECL, and board-level representation in the case of United Bank of India (UBI) is out of statutory compliance.
