that these forms of work organization will add value over and above more
traditional methods where workers merely responded to management instructions
(Appelbaum et al. 2000 ). Whilst there is substantial evidence that task-based
participation provides organizational beneWts, there are also claims that even if
workers feel they are working harder under a teamworking regime they are also more
satisWed with their jobs (Wilkinson et al. 1997 ; Osterman 2000 ). Although much
depends on the organizational and managerial context, teamwork does have the
potential to deliver autonomy and responsibility, satisfaction and control. It can also
provide more interesting work if managements are serious about making jobs larger
and more meaningful. However, some tasks oVer little opportunity for job enlarge-
ment because strict safety rules have to be followed or there are diYculties inWnding
ways of redesigning jobs without major technical change.
Although some commentators would regard task-based participation, and
especially teamworking, as the ultimate in direct voice, others see it merely as
increasing pressure on workers to perform. For example, Barker ( 1993 : 408 )
suggests that self-managing teams produce ‘a form of control more powerful, less
apparent and more diYcult to resist than that of the former bureaucracy.’ Under
a teamworking regime, pressure for performance comes from peers rather than
from managers, and whilst some would see this as liberating and genuinely
positive, others view it as management control at its most subversive and unethical
as team members take over responsibility for peer surveillance (Sewell 2005 ).
Upward Problem-Solvingincorporates a range of voice mechanisms which tap
into employee knowledge and ideas, typically through individual suggestions or
through ad hoc or semi-permanent groups brought together for the speciWc
purpose of resolving problems or generating ideas. These oV-line schemes tend
to be ‘bolted on’ rather than integral to the work process (Batt 2004 ) but they have
become much more extensive over the last decade in most developed economies
(Benson and Lawler 2003 ; Kessler et al. 2004 ). They are central to notions of high-
commitment HRM because upward problem-solving is predicated on assumptions
that employees are a major source of competitive advantage. Not only are these
practices designed to increase the stock of ideas, they are also expected to increase
cooperation at work and evidence suggests that workers like being involved
(Freeman and Rogers 1999 ). Despite oVering a greater degree of active voice than
communications cascaded down the management hierarchy, critics view these
practices as problematic precisely because they encourage employees to collaborate
with management in helping resolve work-related problems.
There are two types of upward problem-solving scheme. First, there are sugges-
tion schemes whereby employees receiveWnancial rewards for suggestions that are
outside the domain of their own speciWc job. These schemes have the potential to
create bad feelings as well as good, especially if the workers making suggestions feel
that their idea merits higher rewards. There is a danger, moreover, that paying for
236 mick marchington