Giving Knowledge Workers a Voice through Joint Consultative Councils

Pre-voice History—A New HR

In the beginning of 2015, the company hired a HR consultant to streamline and introduce proper HR policies, procedures and practices to meet its future goals of expansion in terms of revenue and people. Until then, the role of the single-person HR department of Precinct X was more administrative. With the recruitment of the new HR consultant, another HR executive was also recruited to assist future changes. As an initial step, the new HR team, consisting of the HR consultant and the two HR executives, conducted a satisfaction survey to understand what employees felt about various aspects such as communication, performance appraisal, reward and recognition, management, compensation and overall satisfaction. It was also expected to provide a base for the HR to plan some future courses of action.

An important point that surfaced from the 110 responses received for the satisfaction survey was the need to increase communication, involvement and engagement of employees. The feedback—marked on a Likert scale for nine specific questions on communication, together with feedback for other aspects of the organization such as attitude towards management, and compensation and rewards—indicated that employees felt that they were not properly heard at the workplace and as a result were not very happy with various aspects of the organization, including the level of communication. In answering the open-ended questions under communication, one employee had stated that “… senior management must dedicate extra time to talk to employees more across all levels on individual as well as on a small group basis” and another employee stated the need for a “… regular method of communication to officially inform the employees of any news/events/achievements/goals/milestone, etc.”, and most importantly employees were of the view that there is a need for a “… company-wide process to involve employees in the decision making process”.

The company had an open-door policy and a flat organizational hierarchy, together with schemes such as a suggestion box, as well as task-based participative mechanisms and upward problem solving methods. Yet, they do not provide avenues to articulate employee problems about management and other issues that concern them and to participate in decision making that concerns them. This need to improve the existing communication and involvement and move beyond the confines of certain limitations in current systems was thus indicated through the comments and ratings of employees to the satisfaction survey. Further, exploration through informal discussions with managers and employees also indicated that many of the dissatisfactions of employees regarding other areas too could be linked to this same issue of lack of communication and involvement. For instance, some employees stated that “… there is no point in complaining of these issues to management, as nothing is going to come out of it”, referring to their need to have more recreational activities and games provided by the company for their use during lunch hours and after work. Employees had been suggesting that the management provide them a carom board or a pool table, in addition to the table tennis facilities provided, in the lunchroom for employees to engage in during leisure hours. However, management was of the opinion that if more activities and games were provided, employees would misuse them and waste time and that it will affect product deliveries. Hence, without considering other alternatives for ensuring that employees would not misuse working hours to play games, management has postponed providing a carom board until a proper monitoring system is installed in the lunchroom. This also indicates management’s lack of trust in employees. Hence, while management had never rejected the idea of a carom board or a pool table, and had simply postponed the idea until a proper system was in place, they had not communicated their fears and plans to employees. Thus, employees were of the view that management was simply ignorant of their wants, and felt that they were not heard in the upper echelons of the company. There were many such instances, which pointed towards a lack of communication and involvement of employees in decisions related to them.

Decision to Establish a JCC—Introducing a JCC in Precinct X

The HR consultant, after careful analysis, decided to introduce a form of formal indirect NER in the form of a JCC in the company to promote communication and increase employee involvement while enhancing employee voice and participation in decision making (Wilkinson et al., 2007). As there was no trade union or a possibility of a formation of a trade union in the company, by no means was the JCC thought to be a union avoidance strategy (Dundon & Gollan, 2007; Dundon et al., 2015). Neither was it a reaction to an increase in employee complaints (Batt et al., 2002) nor an employee request (Nienhuser, 2014).

The HR consultant has had exposure to JCCs both academically and practically where she has carried out research on the implementation and effectiveness of JCCs in BOI companies and has been involved in implementing JCCs during previous employment. Further, the HR consultant identified that the environment in Precinct X was conducive for the formation of a JCC, where specifically, trust and perception of fairness towards management by the employees were seen to be present through the satisfaction survey (where the average perception towards management was ‘agree’ and specific questions about trust were rated high) and informal discussions with the employees. Trustworthiness and fairness judgement is identified to be important for the success of a JCC, especially at the formation stage (Dietz & Fortin, 2007).

With this background, the HR consultant together with the HR team, presented a proposal for a JCC to the management team. The management team consists of 12 managers, all males. All the managers have their first degrees in engineering and computer science/IT with six managers also having post-graduate qualifications in business management. Surprisingly, all the managers accepted the fact that there was a lack of communication in the company and realized the need to address the issue. Yet, while many were very receptive towards the concept of a JCC, few managers were sceptical about the idea. The managers who were sceptical about the idea were of the view that a JCC would increase employee power, initiate increased demands from employees, and would lead to additional work and time spent on these councils. A few managers were also of the view that a JCC could lead to trade union activities, creating a problem that was absent in the company. However, after some discussion and convincing of management for the need for a platform for employee voice, the HR consultant was able to persuade the management to try out the JCC in the company as an experiment. Once the management agreed to this concept, the HR team drew up guidelines/protocols to introduce the JCC (see Appendix A).

Design of the JCC—Getting Ready

Accordingly, it was decided to select nine council members from employees, representing all employees from different sections/departments of the company. Due to the gender imbalance inherent in the IT industry and gender-specific issues that these underrepresented women employees would have, a representative of women employees was specifically included in the council. The HR team met with all nine teams separately, briefed them of the intention of starting the JCC in the company and the advantages of such an endeavour to the employees and the company. None of the members of the management team was invited for these meetings with teams to ensure true employee representation and democratic selection. All the teams welcomed the idea of a JCC with much enthusiasm and thought it would be an excellent means by which to be heard in the company. Then each team was asked to nominate a member, disregarding seniority of employees. The teams were specifically advised to select a person who had good communication skills and whom the team thought could represent their issues effectively. All the teams thus selected their representatives unanimously. The representatives were then asked to have continuous discussions with the team to identify the issues they wanted to present and discuss at the JCC.

The management too was separately asked to select a team of six members to represent the management from the 12-member management team. The General Manager (GM) who heads the Sri Lankan operation and five more managers were selected as the management team for the JCC. They were also asked to discuss and present the issues and points they wanted to discuss at the JCC. It was decided that the HR consultant should be the moderator of the JCC and that the HR executive should be the coordinator and secretary of the meeting. A date was decided on which to hold the first JCC and this was communicated to the relevant parties.

First Meeting—An Uphill Task

The first JCC was thus held with the participation of 17 members in the Board room of Precinct X. The management representatives and the employee representatives were asked to sit around the circular main table in the board room in a manner that ensured equality, which the HR thought was a key to open discussion and joint decision making. The meeting started with the HR consultant, as the moderator of the session, thanking all the members and briefing them on the reasons for the formation of a JCC at Precinct X. Then, each point was tabled for discussion. The common issues were first presented by the moderator with time given for the employee representatives to elaborate the background and rationale. After each point, the management asked for further clarifications, presented their thoughts on the issue and stated what the management could do to address the issues. Then, the unit-specific issues were presented by the relevant representatives, followed by the same procedure where clarifications were sought, and opinions presented. In many instances the moderator had to intervene to summarize the points, prompt deeper thought, promote discussion and conclude a point. For example, employees had a common issue of transportation, where they stated that heavy traffic from certain cities and delays in bus services made it difficult for many employees to report to work on time and was a serious inconvenience to them. They also highlighted the fact that some other IT companies provide office transport to employees. The management inquired into this a little more by asking “from where the transportation is needed?”, “what sort of a transportation is needed?” and “how many will use this facility?” and stated that it was difficult to provide transportation to employees who come from different areas/cities, while they also questioned the practicality of office-transport (such as, how to ensure that all the employees would be on time to make use of the office transport). Employees in response stated that there are only certain main cities and points such as main railway stations or bus stops from where transport needs to be provided. At this point, the moderator intervened and asked employees to provide more information about the request such as how many employees require such transportation, from where, and other alternative solutions for this issue, such as the possibility of introducing the concept of car pooling. Employees agreed to provide this information in the next JCC. Similarly, other issues were also discussed.

While many issues needed more information to be resolved, there were certain issues which required the employee representative to go back and obtain the groups’ thoughts about the management’s offer. For example, the ‘trainees’ wanted to streamline their leave system where they were of the opinion that different managers handle leave differently and hence they experience unequal treatment related to granting of leave. While some managers allowed a few days study leave and leave on the day of the exam (as special leave), some other managers only approved leave for the day of the exam (some as special leave or as part of casual leave). Similarly, while some managers approved a full day’s leave for 1–2 hour exams, some other managers only approved a half-day leave. After listening to the representative of the trainees, the management offered to increase the current amount of leave from six days to 12 days so that leave was increased and equality could be ensured, rather than giving the management the discretion to decide the amount of leave granted to trainees. The representative of the trainees wanted to discuss this offer with the group and to provide their comments at the next JCC meeting.

All in all, from the 28 matters discussed, about 10 issues were settled or agreed upon by the management then and there (for example, employee requests to allow colourless t-shirts to be worn to work, two company outings and conducting a toastmasters programme to improve public speaking of employees) with another eight points being postponed for the next session as more facts and evidence were needed or agreements of groups were needed for management offers (for example, employee requests to streamline leave of trainees, provide transportation and to decide which badminton tournaments the company should allow the employees to take part in). About 10 points were dismissed due to insufficient space or finances to carry them through (for example, employee requests for new computers and laptops, a sick room, a shade for motorbike parking, and short-eats for tea, instead of the biscuits provided). This first JCC took about two hours and after summarizing the main points discussed and deciding on the action items, the meeting concluded. Within a week of the meeting, the minutes of the meeting were sent to all the employees of the company.

After the session, feedback was sought about the employees’ and managements’ perceptions of the JCC and the manner in which it was conducted. Bringing different suggestions for improvement, all the employee representatives were very positive and happy about the JCC and wanted to continue the concept.

“I thought that it was very effective and yesterday was a good start. I believe that this would clearly address the communication barrier that exists between the management and the employees,” said the representative of the trainees. The representative of the women in the company said,

It was useful. However, I feel that representatives should be more mature when filtering the issues. There were certain issues such as the “dust on computers” issue, which I think are individual issues and should be handled individually. I feel that those are not issues to be discussed in such a forum. I hope they learn their responsibilities quickly.

Another representative said, “I feel it will be good to think of a way to discuss certain matters that cannot be taken to the JCC to talk in public.” She was referring to an issue that her team had raised, at the unit level discussion, but which was not tabled at the JCC as it referred to an individual manager’s shortcomings. While an advantage of employee voice such as the JCC is to help “weed out supervisors who treat workers badly or are poor at communications, and so help to improve productivity through the provision of fairer deals at work” (Marchington, 2007, p. 233), it appears that representatives of the Precinct X JCC were not ready for such discussions on management styles.

The managers too appeared positive and one manager stated “… it was not bad at all. I was expecting something more confrontational”. It appeared that the management had expected strong demands from the employees together with disagreements and conflicts. They were thus satisfied with the outcome of the first JCC and were willing to continue the concept.

Subsequent Meetings—JCC Continues on Shaky Grounds

Hence, with the positive feedback for the first JCC, the second and the third JCCs were held in subsequent months. There were many new issues that were forwarded to the JCC as well as a continuation of discussions of previous JCCs. As the meetings proceeded, the HR team realized that the management was becoming more antagonistic towards the representatives and that the representatives were slowly losing trust in the JCC. The JCC was becoming a platform for forwarding an endless list of issues (which one manager called a wish-list: for example, salary increases, changes in the interior, transport, more recreational facilities, more welfare facilities such as office trips and get-togethers) without any effective discussion, involvement or joint decision making. The meetings were slowly losing sight of the initial objectives of the JCC. The JCC was becoming a forum where representatives were presenting issues one after another with the management merely giving unilateral solutions, or rationalizing the company’s standpoint. There was hardly any open discussion or joint decision-making. Moreover, the issues that were discussed at the JCC were just mainly ‘tea, towels and toilets’ issues and higher order problem solving and creative thinking were absent. The management’s manner of addressing the issues presented at the JCC also indicated an autocratic leadership and management style, rather than empowerment and participation.

One representative was heard saying, “… nothing is really happening. We got nothing that was promised”. Another representative said, “… they talk about empowering employees all the time at the JCC, but we really don’t see that happening even within the JCC meetings. They need to walk the talk”. “They always have a reason not to provide us what we want. And it is mostly lack of infrastructure’” was another representative’s voice.

The HR team also identified the fact that while the management had promised to fulfil certain needs of employees that were presented at the JCC, such as providing a carom board for recreational activities and providing a coffee machine at the cafeteria, it took time. This led to employees thinking that nothing was being done. Further, referring to the third JCC held, one representative said, “I think the Management is all prepared and ready to fight. We could see that they were well prepared. They had a plan and were attacking from different directions. So we just kept quiet.”

From the management perspective, mangers felt that employees were just presenting issues without proper consideration for feasibility or without a real need.

They want all the facilities Google gives. They don’t realize we are not Google. There are IT companies in Sri Lanka which give certain attractive facilities, they have attractive interiors, but we are still not up to that financially. So how can we give them all they want? They have to think of these facts more rationally.

was what the General Manager, a member of the JCC, had to say. He further stated, “I don’t know whether the management really believes in this now (JCC). They don’t really know what the JCC is about at all. But they do trust the HR consultant. So they want to try this out”, further indicating how the management was losing trust in the JCC. Management really did not see value addition through the JCC, as time went on, but rather cumbersome and time-consuming committee meetings where they constantly have to rationalize the company’s standpoint to employees’ endless “wish-list”.

Hence, the HR consultant faced a situation where she had to either put an end to JCC or change it for the better and take it back on track. She decided to change it for the better and thus decided to have a discussion with representatives regarding the future of the JCC. Thus, the HR consultant convened a meeting with the employee representatives and discussed the matter. While the employees were beginning to feel disheartened about the conducting of the JCC, they still believed in the JCC and wanted to continue the practice, which gave the HR consultant further confidence on the need to carry on the JCC. At this meeting, the HR consultant once again emphasized the intention of the JCC and how employees could present their issues as suggestions in a more constructive manner, rather than as demands, to encourage joint decision-making and improved communication. The HR consultant showed the representatives how they could, together with other employees, think of alternative and creative solutions to their issues, without waiting for the management to provide them with solutions and how they could initiate a discussion on a few selected points at the JCC, getting the management’s feedback and buy-in. The representatives agreed to try this in the next JCC meeting. While the representatives were not as enthusiastic about the JCC as they were initially, they still wanted to give the concept a greater opportunity to succeed. Similar discussions were held with the management who were more sceptical towards the JCC than the employees were, but still agreed to continue the practice. They further thought it would be good to reduce the management representation at the JCC to three members who worked more directly with human relations issues. This was also thought to help balance “power issues” at the JCC. Management was specifically advised to give employee representatives more time and encouragement to initiate and carry out discussions and for management not to “jump the gun” with their solutions.

Towards Success

Hence, the next JCC saw a notable change in atmosphere and conduct. At this meeting, only three main issues were presented by employees as agenda items. Rather than presenting issues for the management to settle, employee representatives came with their own alternative solutions to the problems and assumed leadership in conducting the meeting. This indicated the ownership of the JCC by employees. The representatives had had several meetings with their respective team members and amongst the representatives themselves in deciding on the key priority issues and solutions. It was evident that a lot of hard work and preparation had gone into presenting the issues, unlike in the earlier instances. This was a considerable improvement from the mere presentation of an endless list of issues. With this more prepared and rationalized presentation of issues, the discussions were carried out amicably without either the representatives or the management being antagonistic towards each other. More joint decision-making was evident. Employees appeared more comfortable with the three management representatives present. The three agenda items discussed were not mere issues and were presented as “suggestions to management” rather than as “issues/demands”. For example, the representatives suggested an innovative-idea generating mechanism for the company to encourage creativity and innovation with many options such as brain storming, making available an “idea board” and “wall of fame” to recognize the best ideas. The management also contributed to this by sharing their own ideas and suggestions. Ultimately, it was decided to start the concept immediately with the representatives taking leadership in the endeavour. At the end of the discussion on employee issues, the management also presented a few issues that they needed addressed through the representatives, indicating that they recognized the JCC as a form of communication channel.

After this JCC session, one representative said, “… today’s meeting went relatively well”, while another stated “I felt more comfortable and welcoming to speak today and I think the others felt the same. I guess this time we were properly focused on the points and had good facts to discuss than in the previous sessions.” While the management remained positive, this is the General Manager’s perceptions of the concept of the JCC

JCC is a good concept. But the two parties should be more aligned. It will take time. Both parties should experience the benefit of this concept. If both parties align to the common goal of the organization, the JCC will be a very powerful mechanism.

According to him, “… it will take another 6 months or so to see the real benefit of the committee”.

The Perception of Trust and Justice

Trust and justice perception are important elements for the success of the JCC at each stage (Dietz & Fortin, 2007). According to Dietz and Fortin (2007), “The setting of trustworthiness and justice expectations, whether parties share common or conflicting expectations, and whether expectations are confirmed or disconfirmed, determine whether a JCC will be effective, in terms of conduct, process and outcomes” (p. 1170). If performed erroneously, JCC can harm the trust that already existed before the introduction of the JCC. If successful, JCC will definitely lead to increased employee engagement, trust, cooperation and team work (Kochan & Osterman, 1994 as cited in Pyman, 2014). One means of building trust and procedural justice of the system is through the introduction of the mechanism/concept through a body, which is seen as impartial and trustworthy. While prior research generally talks about employee instigated or employer instigated JCCs (e.g., Dietz & Fortin, 2007) and has not address the role of HR in introducing and facilitating JCCs, I believe that HR should take the initiative in introducing JCCs and act as the coordinator. Yet, for HR to take this initiative in JCC, both parties have to trust HR and JCC should not be seen as a tool used by HR to reinforce management prerogatives (Wilkinson et al., 2007). Being the initiator and coordinator, HR can take a more balanced view of the matter and can address the issues related to JCC along the way, maintaining its position as a third party.

The Composition of the JCC

Composition of the JCC and the selection process is very important (Adam et al., 2014). The selection process should ensure fairness. There should be no management involvement in the selection of employee representatives and it should be done in a democratic manner. The selected employee representatives should have very effective communication skills, convincing skills as well as leadership skills. They should be accepted by employees as well as management as being credible, fair and honest (Johnstone, Ackers & Wilkinson, 2010). If employees lose faith and trust in their representatives, for example, believing that they are following the management prerogative or that they do not truly represent or stand up for employee issues, the JCC can become ineffective. At the same time, if management believes the representatives to be troublemakers, dishonest or unfair, that too will lead to the JCC becoming unsuccessful.

Selection of the management team is also very important, where the management representatives should have the power to take decisions based on the discussions of the JCC, for employees to believe in the success of the JCC. Otherwise, it will be seen as a waste of time by both parties and can lead to further dissatisfaction. As Forsyth and colleagues (2006) state, “[t]he level of management involved in JCCs has clear implications for whether the discussions in the committees are likely to be of a strategic or operational nature, or focused on trivial matters”. The presence of the GM in the Precinct X JCC together with senior managers like the facilities manager, who had decision making power, was an important factor that lead to the continuation and success (at a certain level) of the process (Ramsay, 1991).

Make Employees Feel Involved

As Pyman (2014) affirms, “[e]mployee voice must be substantive, not merely procedural, and it must be enbedded within the entire netwrok of actors to the employment relationship (longevity) in order to ensure that employees have a genuine influence on organizational decision making” (p. 264). Employees have to feel involved in decisions and should feel that they are taken seriously by the management. For this, management too should present points that need to be discussed without waiting for employees alone to present points for discussion. Managers should be prepared to ask the committee for their opinions and advice on issues or problems the management has (Adam et al., 2014; Johnstone, Ackers & Wilkinson, 2010).

A Few Issues under a Range of Areas

For employees such as knowledge workers, the JCC should escalate from the normal “tea, towel and toilet issues” to a more participative type of decision making, involving higher order level production, quality and welfare issues. While many agenda items need to be taken as to indicate employees’ active support for the JCC (Dietz & Fortin, 2007), such a long agenda list might make managers more defensive or question the mutual benefits through the system of JCC. While the sentiments of the management can well be understood, McGraw and Palmer (1995) mention that, “[f]or managers, trivial issues may well be frustrating to deal with, and sometimes costly, but their resolution can greatly enhance the morale and trust of committee members” (p. 100). While selection of issues of common interest may solve this frustration of management, it can result in real important issues of employees not being addressed, leading to employees losing interest in the concept (Ramsay, 1977). Hence, the issues discussed at the JCC should be carefully thought of to ensure that interest of both the employees and management is maintained. The best practice would be to address a few issues covering a range of areas (such as productivity and quality as well as the Three T issues) which are beneficial to both parties. The agenda should not be too long and should provide sufficient time for effective discussions.

Regular Meetings

Regular discussion is needed, which would indicate the activeness of the committee and the commitment of all parties making it easy to embed the process into the organization (Adam et al., 2014).

Communication

Good communication mechanisms are needed (McGraw & Palmer, 1995) for employee representatives to communicate with their team members and also among themselves (Precinct X JCC members were seen using mechanisms such as face to face meetings, Skype group chats—which are very common modes of internal communication in the company, as well as Yammer) and to communicate with employees after the JCC (e.g., meeting minutes sent to all employees; representatives sharing information through Skype groups).

Training Might not be an Urgent Need

While McGraw and Palmer (1995) suggest training for representatives in aspects such as enterprise bargaining, problem solving and communication for the success of the JCC, these might not be urgent needs for knowledge workers. These aspects could also be covered when selecting representatives to the JCC.

Overall, it was seen through the case study that all the benefits of introducing a JCC cannot be reaped immediately, but rather takes time. While schemes such as JCCs generally start with high enthusiasm from both employers and employees, it can frustrate the parties after some time if mutual benefits are not reaped, power differences are highlighted (Ramsay, 1980) or if expectations are not met. Any new employee participation mechanism would need time to get off the ground and gain the trust of employees as well as managers. Being patient is a key to success. Since a mismatch in stakeholders’ expectations can make a JCC fragile (Broad, 1994 as cited in Dietz & Fortin, 2007), HR should ensure that employees’ and employers’ expectations are in line. For this, continuous evaluation of the process and a constant dialogue between the two parties should exist together with appropriate intervention through communication. JCC should be seen as a partnership by both parties (Johnstone, Ackers & Wilkinson, 2010).