Giving employees a voice in the workplace is something that many employers offer. Unfortunately, research from the University of Michigan demonstrates that many of the schemes designed to facilitate this are little more than show, with suggestions seldom resulting in anything meaningful.
The researchers explored the use of internal crowdsourcing technology designed to help organizations to solicit opinions from the workforce. They found a general decoupling of any employee solicitation scheme and strategic decision-making.
Despite the lack of any real practical use of such performative measures, the researchers nonetheless found that public disclosure of the schemes led to favorable appraisals by analysts, especially when the use of technology to support the scheme was highlighted. What’s more, the use of such schemes was linked with fewer questions being asked of leaders’ decision-making and even an increase in the earnings forecasts provided by the analyst.
Participative bonus
“Talk about participative decision-making and new technology appears to be a potent combination: PSDM seems democratic and thorough, and the use of new technology makes the process seem innovative and cutting edge,” the researchers explain. “It also puts people in an optimistic, hopeful and less critical frame of mind—on a subconscious level.”
The researchers measured both the adoption of internal crowdsourcing programs and how closely linked they were to the decision-making of the organization. This showed that the adoption of employee input schemes is generally neither random nor an accident, even if it is largely for show. Instead, they are more commonly deployed when the CEO has personal friendships with bosses at other firms who have deployed similar approaches.
The research builds on previous work by the team that explored the symbolic nature of various corporate policies to understand how effective these approaches were, even if they are largely for show.
Ultimately, the researchers conclude that technology shouldn’t be viewed as agnostic, despite a cultural assumption that it is. Instead, crowdsourcing tools are often viewed as prompting transparency, objectivity, and quality of decision-making. What’s more, the way such technology is communicated externally can also bias any evaluations made of the firm by analysts, journalists, and investors.
“Making PSDM more genuine and substantial on a large scale would probably require activism of the kind that we currently see for certain social and environmental causes,” the researchers conclude. “That’s in addition to widespread education about the strategic benefits of these programs—particularly in strategy courses, where it’s not currently emphasized or rarely even discussed.”
