Joint Decision-Making in Employee Participation: The Complementary Roles of Bargaining and Participative Decision-Making

Employee participation is widely recognised as a crucial element in industrial relations. Diverse disciplinary perspectives highlight its importance for employee well-being and self-fulfilment, industrial democracy, labour productivity, and company profitability (Kearney and Hays, 1994; Gonzalez, 2010; Franca and Pahor, 2014). However, one of the major obstacles to fostering debate, encouraging experimentation, and enhancing the diffusion of employee participation in workplaces is the multiplicity of meanings and interpretations associated with this concept (Abilgaard et al., 2020; Child, 2021). In particular, misunderstandings often arise concerning the degree, or depth, of participation, which refers to the extent of employees’ control over decision-making (Knudsen et al., 2011) and reflects how much power is shared between employers and employees (Lundmark, 2023). While less intensive degrees of participation, such as information and consultation, raise concerns regarding the actual inclusion of employees in decision-making processes concerning their workplace (Pateman, 1970), joint labour-management decision-making stands at the core of employee participation, and greater attention from researchers, institutions, and social partners would therefore be expected. However, despite its relevance, joint decision-making remains conceptually ambiguous, especially in terms of the processes it entails. This paper highlights how, although only a minority of authors openly acknowledge it (Hyman and Mason, 1995; Busck et al., 2010), joint decision-making actually includes two mechanisms: participative decision-making (PDM) and bargaining. Participative decision-making refers to the involvement of employees in shaping workplace policies, organisational strategies, and operational decisions through dialogue and collaboration with management. It includes mechanisms such as works councils, direct employee involvement initiatives, and other joint committees that facilitate communication between employees and employers. On the other hand, bargaining—especially in its collective form—focuses on the negotiation of wages, working conditions, and employment terms through trade unions and employer associations. Both mechanisms rely on mutual adjustment as a form of organic coordination (Mintzberg, 1979). However, they serve different purposes: bargaining functions as an ex-ante coordination mechanism, providing agreed standards for future operations, whereas participative decision-making facilitates in-progress coordination by addressing unforeseen developments as they arise (Marsden and Calibaño, 2010). This dichotomy between PDM and bargaining has resulted in fragmented approaches to research and policy, with studies and discussions often privileging one form of participation over the other. Yet, PDM and bargaining are intimately connected, and an artificial separation risks overlooking the potential synergies that arise from their interplay. Bargaining establishes the overarching framework that governs employment relationships and sets the parameters for PDM, while PDM operates as a mechanism for continuous organisational adaptation to evolving conditions, possibly informing subsequent bargaining cycles. Recognising the interdependence between PDM and bargaining suggests that enhancing employee participation requires an integrated approach that acknowledges and leverages their synergies. Nevertheless, industrial relations systems often fail to adopt a holistic perspective. One-channel representation systems tend to prioritise bargaining, often focusing on distributive concerns and relegating participative decision-making to a secondary role (Telljohann, 2010). Conversely, two-channel systems risk overlooking potential synergies by assigning bargaining and participative decision-making to separate representative bodies (Marsden and Calibaño, 2010). This structural division may hinder the effective coordination of labour-management relations, thereby limiting the overall efficacy of joint decision-making. Trade unions also exhibit ambivalence regarding the inclusion of PDM practices within employment contracts. Their stance varies between accepting monitoring roles in PDM bodies where union representation is absent, to advocating for joint decision-making only when union representatives are included, to outright rejecting PDM due to concerns over independence and credibility (Ackers, 2010). These diverging positions further complicate the implementation of a cohesive joint decision-making framework that effectively integrates participative decision-making and bargaining. This paper contributes to both the academic literature and public debate on employee participation in two ways. First, it conceptualises PDM and bargaining as two inseparable dimensions of joint decision-making. Second, it highlights their complementary nature, arguing that a more integrated approach could enhance the depth and effectiveness of employee participation. By adopting a holistic perspective, policymakers, trade unions, and management can foster a more coherent and effective system of employee participation that balances structured negotiations with flexible, adaptive decision-making processes. The paper is structured as follows. Following the introduction, which presents the research question and the underlying rationale, a literature review situates joint decision-making within the broader context of employee participation. The next section delineates the distinction between PDM and bargaining, clarifying their respective roles and functions. Subsequently, the complementarity between these two types of joint decision-making is examined, illustrating how their interplay can enhance employee participation. The concluding section identifies limitations of the analysis, outlines future research directions, and provides final remarks on the implications of adopting a more holistic approach to joint decision-making.