The greatest benefit of participative is that the employee identifies himself or herself with the work and this lead to an improved performance . As shown in fig, the employee psychological result is participation which in turn, leads to an improved performance, manifesting itself in an increased output and an improved quality.
Participation tends to improved motivation because employees feel more accepted and involved in the situation. Their self-esteem, job satisfaction, and cooperation with more commitment to goals, and better acceptance of a change. Employees may also reduce turnover and absence when they begin to feel that working conditions are satisfactory and that they are becoming more successful in their jobs. Finally, the act of participation in itself establishes better communication, as people mutually discuss work problems. The management tends to provide workers with increased information about the organization’s finances and operations, and this helps employees to give better quality suggestions. Whatever may be the objective the form or the level of participation, there is hardly a study in the entire work literature which fails to demonstrate that satisfaction in work in enhanced, or that generally acknowledged beneficial consequence accure from a genuine increase in the workers decision-making powers. It is not really difficult to explain why participation workers . It is almost a matter of common sense that humans will take greater pride and pleasure in their work if they are allowed participatory freedom in shaping the policies and decisions which affect their work.
The first ethical principle stems from the fundamental objective of any morality- the impartial promotion of human welfare. This impartiality requires a fair hearing for the interest of every person in decisions concerning policies that affect their lives. As Is well known, many decisions at work wield considerable impact on the lives of employees. For instance, an employee’s privacy and health, both mental and physical, can be threatened in his or her working life. Morality, therefore, requires that there are some attempts to guarantee fair treatment for workers and their interest. Government regulation is one such measure Government mechanisms and HR intervention, like employee participation guarantee human welfare.
The second principle requires the need to recognize the inherent value and dignity of the human being one traditional basis for that belief in dignity of the human being derives from the fact that individuals are agents capable of free and rational deliberation. We move towards respect for the dignity of the individual when we allow individuals from humanly alterable interferences that jeopardize important human goods, and when we protect individuals from humanly alterable interferences that jeopardize important human goods, and when we allow them freedom from other interferences. Individuals with this freedom from interference are able to direct the course of their own lives without the treat own lives without the treat of external control or coercion.
The moral commitment to the dignity of human beings as autonomous agents has significant implications for corporate governance. Most of our lives are spent at the places of employment. If we do not possess control over that portion of our lives because we are denied the power to participate in deciding corporate policy, then at work we will not become autonomous agents. Instead we become merely autonomous and replaceable elements in the production process, elements with a moral standing little different that of the inanimate machinery. The moral importance of autonomy in respecting the dignity of individuals should make us critical of these traditional patterns of work and should move us in the direction of employee participation. The commitment to the autonomy and the dignity of human beings requires that workers have the ability to co-determine an policy that has bearing on corporate governance.
The third ethical perceptive relates to the assumption that employee who believe themselves powerless will lose psychotically good of self-respect. If all persons should be treated with dignity, they deserve the conditions that contribute to their sense of dignity or self-efficacy. An individual not possessing self-worth feels uncomfortable to any attempt to treat him or her with dignity. The self- worth of the individuals enhances when he or she is allowed to exercise his or her capacities in complex and interesting activities. Such activities exhibit him or her as an autonomous human being. This necessitates by workers in corporate decisions. In other words, an employee’s sense of self-respect depends on his or her participation in decision making.
The forth ethical principle supporting participation relates to the mental an psychical health of employees. It is well known that repetitive work without control over one’s own activities cause worker alienation. Alienated individuals suffer from mental disturbance and stress-related physical illness. On the contrary, employees who are satisfied because they feel able to contribute to corporate policy tend to suffer from less alienation. Since mental and physical health are important human assets, there is moral justification to protect them. Worker participation on corporate decisions is a sure way to minimize the effects of alienation at workplace.
Finally, ethical justification for worker participation is derived from the negative consequence of hierarchical and authoritarian organization. Such organizational structure deny the workers their voice in decision-making. Such deprived employees develop apathy towards any democratic process. Back home, such apathetic employees imbue similar views to their children. In other words, democratic process denied at the workplace spreads to society. Political theorists are right when they express fears about voter apathy. They worry that apathy the political process will be democratic in name only that the actual business of government will be controlled by powerful and private economic interest.