To date, little is known about the financial condition of the firms with EI programs. Although the popular literature suggests that EI has been implemented in firms in distress and has been effective in restoring financial health, there is little evidence to support this assertion. Cooke (1989a) suggests that competitive market forces provide the impetus to initiate EI programs, but there are few indicators that these frans are in financial distress.
In terms of the types of programs in operation, quality circles seem to be the most prevalent. From Conference Board data, Freedman (1985) reports that 56 percent of the unionized firms had "quality-circle discussion groups," and Eaton and Voos (1989) report that 71 percent of unionized and 48 percent of nonunion firms have quality circles, according to the GAO.

Despite the interest in more complex types of programs, such as gain sharing and ESOPs, in the popular literature, it appears that they are considerably less prevalent. Cooke, in two separate studies, reports that less than 1 percent (1988) and 7 percent (1986) of his sample involve gain sharing, while Voos (1987) places the number in her study at 13 percent. In research among local unions, Eaton (1990) reports that 81 percent of gain sharing programs lacks a formal method of sharing in financial gains produced by cooperative efforts.

The literature indicates that E1 programs improve both social-psychological factors, such as communications and job satisfaction (Driscoll, 1980; Kochan et al., 1984; Lawler and Mohrman, 1987), as well as productive and economic ones, such as productivity and quality (Katz et al., 1983; Voos, 1987), as reported by management. Neither the magnitude of these effects nor their longevity is clear. For example, Griffin (1988) reports that, although the quality circle program he studied initially resulted in enhanced job satisfaction, organizational commitment, performance, and reduced intention to quit, these improvements dropped back to their previous level after 18 months. Similarly, Cooke (1989b) suggests that improvements in quality are also subject to a leveling off process.

There are also indications that more intensive programs, measured by the frequency of meetings or percentage of employees involved, have a greater impact (Cooke, 1990). Voos (1989) indicates that, as involvement in the program is increased, the program becomes more effective. Similarly, Drago (1988) finds that survival rates for quality circles increased as opportunities for participation in managerial decision making increased.

The relationship between E1 programs and unions remains unclear, in part because of a lack of research. The labor movement has expressed varying degrees of concern about the negative effects of El on local unions and their members which range from moderate concerns about the independence of the grievance procedure and the union's ability to maintain its identity to more serious concerns about weakening the union's bargaining power and outright union busting (Wells, 1987). There is. however, little evidence that El programs have a strong negative impact on local unions. A recent study by Eaton (1990) illustrates that, although unions have expressed these concerns, few have instituted safeguards.

In terms of the effect of union involvement on EI, Kochan et al. (1984) report that union involvement in quality circles enhances the circle's performance. Kochan et al. (1986) state that greater union participation results in more extensive innovations. Research by Verma (1989) suggests that union participation in EI programs reduces the possibility that the union will be adversely affected by EI. This has recently been recognized by the labor movement with what has been called the "union-empowerment" model for EI (Banks and Metzger, 1989).

Although the literature is beginning to show some theoretical and methodological sophistication, the major drawback is the data on which the research is based. Most studies use small samples drawn almost exclusively from large manufacturing firms in the private sector. Little is known about EI in the service sector, in small firms (Sorensen, 1985), or in the public sector (Sulzner, 1982), where the majority of Americans work. An enhanced understanding of the operation and impact of EI programs, requires more varied data from a wide spectrum of workplaces.
There has been no attempt to structure current research to determine if there are conflicting views about individual programs. Consequently, we are left with invalidated, one-sided evaluations of EI. Particularly because it is often in the respondents' interests to respond in certain ways, this kind of data is inadequate.

For management, the most important impact of EI appears to be on social-psychological factors, such as morale and the relationship between union officers and plant managers, or on workplace issues, such as safety and health and quality. But EI programs have a much smaller impact on macroeconomic factors, such as profitability and labor costs. Recalling the relatively low intensity of our sample and the prevalence of "quality circle" structures, this seems reasonable.
What is striking, however, is that management and labor have completely different views on the impact of their EI program on worker morale, worker/supervisor relations, productivity, and quality, with no significant correlation between labor and management responses. This divergence on perhaps the most frequently discussed outcomes of EI raises serious questions of conventional understandings of labor-management cooperation.

Management indicated that these programs have a positive impact on a variety of factors in the workplace. The greatest impact is in terms of social-psychological issues, such as worker morale and the relationship between plant managers and union officers, and production-centered issues, such as quality. The least impact was among more basic economic issues: job security, labor costs, and profitability. Given the limited structure and the low intensity of most of the programs, this makes a great deal of sense, and we have little evidence of the large scale economic changes suggested by some of the popular literature.

How To Involve Employees

Managers are charged with the responsibility of "motivating" their people. Most often managers find it extremely difficult. It's a lot easier, of course, to recruit and hire motivated people right from the start.
That's what we want to try and do, but we all know, realistically, that it's not always possible to do this. And if you're "inheriting" a situation, the task may be even more difficult. An individual who is motivated is looking for something to change in his/her life. There is a sense of dissatisfaction with the direction in which he is going.
Getting an employee to the point where he is dissatisfied with their current performance can take a little time. Comfort zones create complacency. We become vulnerable to accepting the status quo as the now and future standard of achievement. Through nudging and coaching, the manager can help an employee raise their level of expectations. (Tucker, McCarthy, & Benton 2002)
The evolving level of dissatisfaction can be converted into real, productive change. Helping employees realize they can do more provides one of the greatest challenges and, at the same time, one of the greatest rewards for a manager.

It's going to be pretty exasperating if you use the same techniques to "motivate" everybody. The old adage that everyone marches to the tune of a different drummer is a pretty good guideline to follow. To address this reality, a manager should have a variety of methods in his bag. If one doesn't work, you can try a different approach. (Tucker, McCarthy, & Benton 2002)
Let's look at a variety of motivational options that should be considered in building high-performance organizations.
• Remember that people do things for their reasons. Try to understand where the person is coming from. Our experiences have a tremendous impact on our motives for behaving the way we do.
• Discuss roles and goals. Help individuals set goals and then help them understand that certain roles have to be played if those goals are to be achieved. Being an effective team member, for example, requires an employee to think of the team and not just him.
• Change seems to work best when it's incrementally introduced.
• Help employees understand that perceptions lock us into certain behaviors. Discuss with them how these perceptions can cause us to underachieve.
• Give an individual a reputation to live up to.
• Continually work on an employee's self-image. An individual can only achieve what he thinks he is capable of achieving. We will always be true to our self-image. Encourage your people to think higher of them.
• Inspect what you expect.
• Praise performance you want repeated.
• Treat each employee the way he would like to be treated -- based on his interpersonal style.
• Engage in career path planning. Employees need to know the organization has a memory and looks favorably upon solid performance.

• Enrich an individual's job as much as possible. Give employees more autonomy, task variety and the opportunity to use more of their skills,
• Share as much information with employees as you can. Information can be very motivating.
• Manage effort. Effort is the key to high performance. That performance should then be rewarded with outcomes that are pleasing to the employee.
• Provide feedback on a regular and timely basis.
• Help individuals become the "person they're in the process of becoming." If you're managing a salesperson, for example, treat the individual like a top performer and you've increased the chances of them getting there.
• Help your people "fail toward success." Many individuals are afraid to try anything because of fear of failure. Failure is an attitude and it should be seen as a stepping-stone to success and not a stumbling block.
• Don't over manage competent employees. Don't under manage learners.
• Try to coach instead of "just telling."
• You have to unfreeze the old habits -- introduce the new habits -- and refreeze with positive reinforcement. (Tucker, McCarthy, & Benton 2002)
Change doesn't come without some discomfort. We have to get used to doing things that may not seem comfortable. There are new expectations. We have to "live" at a higher standard.
But as the change becomes the standard, we start to adjust. Your employees once again start to become comfortable -- at a higher level. As this scenario unfolds over time, the job of the manager once again shifts to the creation of dissatisfaction -- the avoidance of complacency in his employees. Whether the situation calls for organizational change or individual change, you must take your employees up the motivational stair steps -- one step at a time!

• Flexibility. When flexibility is high, employees feel free to innovate; to do their personal best without being tied up in red tape. Some strategies to try:
Real or perceived red tape irritates workers and slows or shuts them down. Explain why specific rules and procedures are in place. People can feel they are experiencing red tape when a rule or procedure is not clear. Rules and procedures may not need changing, just clarifying. Be open to tough, challenging questions about those. Encourage employees to explore alternative ways of doing things to get faster, better results. Implement and reward good ideas; explain why when an idea can't be utilized. Look for and get rid of duplicative or add-on procedures that cause employees to waste time and energy.
• Responsibility. When the responsibility factor is high, employees feel ownership of their work outcomes, both positive and negative. They feel they can make decisions appropriate to their level of authority without checking everything with their boss. Some strategies to try: Develop people sufficiently so you can delegate authority to the lowest possible level. Protect people from the negative outcomes of appropriate risk-taking. Coach people to plan, to manage their time well, and to see their fellow employees as team members and resources for help. Then, give them room to act and hold them accountable for their work outcomes.
• Standards. When the standards factor is high, employees feel that the goals they have to meet are both challenging and realistic. They know how well they are performing at times in addition to, not just at, their performance appraisal. Some strategies to try: Set goals and objectives with employees so they understand the rationale and the resources they have. Tell employees which job activities they should focus the most time and energy on and which are less critical. Ensure that performance standards are clear and are fairly applied to all employees. Don't demand high performance from some and accept mediocre performance from others. Give frequent constructive feedback, positive and negative, about where employees stand versus their performance targets.

• Rewards. When the rewards factor is high, employees feel that the rewards available in the workplace are linked to performance rather than to subjective and/or political issues. Some strategies to try: Make sure rewards, both verbal and tangible, are linked to an employee's specific performance results. Make sure the amount of recognition and encouragement exceeds the amount of criticism and negative feedback given. Reward team performance, but remember to highlight individual contributions to the team's success. People need personal feedback about how they are doing to be motivated to do better. Use rewards as a teaching tool to help employees learn what the standards look like when they are delivered well.
• Clarity. When the clarity factor is high, employees understand the big picture about the company's goals and strategies and understand how their own function, department and job fit into the scheme of things. Some strategies to try: Spend time communicating the "whys" to employees so they will understand the business reasons for their department's objectives. Communicate changes in strategy or work priorities. Make sure the structures of teams and jobs support the priorities. Invite questions about how things are organized and how things could be improved. Make sure lines of authority are clear.
• Team Commitment: When the team commitment factor is high, employees feel everyone is pulling together and pulling in the same direction. Some strategies to try:
Speak positively and enthusiastically of the organization and of your group as part of a winning team.
Recognize employees who are good team players.
Create symbols of team spirit that generate energy, excitement and pride in the performance of the team.

Managing these factors doesn't require that supervisors relinquish their personal power. It requires that they think about better ways to use that power to influence the context (the environment) in which the work is assigned and accomplished. That process is not an instant one. It takes almost as long to create a motivating work climate as it took to create a de-motivating one. Supervisors who want to take the first steps in influencing the environment will need to:
• Assess the condition of each of the six factors, one at a time, and objectively. The clarity factor is a good place to begin. When people understand the big picture from the same perspective as the top leadership of the organization, they can better understand the whys behind the company's business decisions, and rationales for their own roles, goals and performance standards. They are able to manage themselves and their decision-making better, without close supervision. Spend time sharing information and checking for understanding. Get clarity for themselves, from their own supervisor.
• When people begin to understand how their jobs fit into the big picture, assess the standards factor. Describe the levels of performance they need to deliver in order for their jobs to make the needed contribution to the business. Set objective business and development goals with employees that will help them reach their targets. Give frequent, data-focused feedback so that employees always know where they stand versus those targets. Be a resource for their success.
• In order of priority, the responsibility factor would come next in an assessment of the workplace. The level of trust supervisors have in the ability of their people to make the right decisions and to use alternative ways of getting the job done is key.

If experienced adult workers feel they can't exercise reasonable judgments about their job tasks without a supervisory watchdog, they might as well sit still and wait for the next discrete item on the supervisor's "To Do" list. That's wasteful of both time and talent. And, if supervisors feel that it would be high risk to let employees exercise more judgment, that's a coaching job that needs to be undertaken. Train and develop people, make their accountabilities clear, give positive or negative feedback as needed. Make employees the owners of their jobs and supervisors will just need to coach from the sidelines.
Flexibility, rewards and team commitment tend to get better when the other three factors start to improve. Employees then have enough understanding of the "big picture" to:
Know what's red tape and what isn't.
Find personal satisfaction in seeing his/her accomplishments recognized, and moving the department's goals forward.
Feel that they are part of a winning team.
But, where will the supervisor's sense of personal accomplishment, his/her feeling that s/he has reached a personal best come from? Those terms will need to be re-defined in the supervisor's (and sometimes in the company's) work objectives and in his/her mind. They will need to:
Accept that his/her success is ultimately measured by the employees' results, not just his/her own.
Spend more time coaching and developing employees that they can deliver those results and more.
Set long-term goals for making the work environment' an easier place in which to be successful.
Supervisors' transition from a "me" management' style to a "we" management style will be a good change for everyone, and for the business.