Decision-Making in Social Enterprises: Exploring the Link Between Employee Participation and Organizational Commitment

http://nvs.sagepub.com/Quarterly

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector

http://nvs.sagepub.com/content/42/6/1092The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0899764012451368

September 2012 2013 42: 1092 originally published online 17Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

Marc Ohana, Maryline Meyer and Sophie SwatonEmployee Participation and Organizational Commitment

Decision-Making in Social Enterprises: Exploring the Link Between

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action

can be found at:Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector QuarterlyAdditional services and information for

http://nvs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://nvs.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://nvs.sagepub.com/content/42/6/1092.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Sep 17, 2012OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Nov 21, 2013Version of Record >>

at Scientific library of Moscow State University on February 15, 2014nvs.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Scientific library of Moscow State University on February 15, 2014nvs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://nvs.sagepub.com/


http://nvs.sagepub.com/content/42/6/1092

http://nvs.sagepub.com/content/42/6/1092



http://www.arnova.org

http://www.arnova.org

http://nvs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://nvs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://nvs.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://nvs.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://nvs.sagepub.com/content/42/6/1092.refs.html

http://nvs.sagepub.com/content/42/6/1092.refs.html

http://nvs.sagepub.com/content/42/6/1092.full.pdf

http://nvs.sagepub.com/content/42/6/1092.full.pdf

http://nvs.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/09/13/0899764012451368.full.pdf

http://nvs.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/09/13/0899764012451368.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml





Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly42(6) 1092 –1110

© The Author(s) 2012Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0899764012451368

nvsq.sagepub.com

451368 NVS42610.1177/0899764012451368Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector QuarterlyOhana et al.

1BEM Bordeaux Management School, CREG, UPPA, Talence, France2Groupe Sup de Co Montpellier Business School, Montpellier Research in Management, Montpellier, France3Centre Walras-Pareto, Université de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

Corresponding Author:Maryline Meyer, Groupe Sup de Co Montpellier Business School, Montpellier Research in Management, 2300 avenue des Moulins, 34185 Montpellier, Cedex 4, France. Email: [email protected]

Decision-Making in Social Enterprises: Exploring the Link Between Employee Participation and Organizational Commitment

Marc Ohana1, Maryline Meyer2, and Sophie Swaton3

Abstract

This article studies the influence of the procedural justice resulting from participation in decision-making on employees’ affective commitment in social enterprises. It also examines whether any potential link between participation and commitment is due to social exchange, as is the case with for-profit companies. The study is based on data from employees of French work integration social enterprises. The results confirm the positive relationship between procedural justice and affective commitment and the mediating role of perceived organizational support and leader–member exchanges. Managerial recommendations are then given to best maintain or increase employees’ involvement in the decision-making processes of social enterprises.

Keywords

participative decision-making, procedural justice, organizational commitment, social exchange, social enterprises, participative management

Article

at Scientific library of Moscow State University on February 15, 2014nvs.sagepub.comDownloaded from



Ohana et al. 1093

The last two decades have seen an increasing number of innovative entrepreneurial initiatives to combat social exclusion and poverty in Europe (Defourny, Develtere, Fon-teneau, & Nyssens, 2009). These organizations, known as “social enterprises,” combine a variety of resources from the market and the public and civil spheres to achieve not-for-profit economic activity (Herranz, Council, & McKay, 2011). They are particularly active in the areas of social services and work integration (OECD, 2009).

Participation in decision-making is a characteristic of the “ideal type” of European social enterprise (Borzaga & Defourny, 2001); this participation is an asset for this type of not-for-profit business. It fosters employee perceptions of procedural justice in the organization, which is a factor of performance. Rhodes and Steer (1981) high-lighted this “participation effect” in a comparative study of attitudes in cooperatives and capitalist firms. As the decision-making process in not-for-profit organizations includes workers, it can increase job satisfaction (Benz, 2005; Borzaga & Tortia, 2006), enthusiasm for work (Frohlich, Godard, Oppenheimer, & Starke, 1998), and organiza-tional commitment (Bacchiega & Borzaga, 2001). Organizational commitment is of particular importance for an organization because it can affect outcomes such as turn-over and generates many citizenship behaviors, among others (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002). It is also crucial for social enterprises for several reasons. First, employees of social enterprises identify more readily with their organi-zation (Ridder & McCandless, 2010). Second, social enterprises are underpinned by their employees’ affective commitment to the organization (Ohana & Meyer, 2010). Finally, not-for-profit employees are partly values driven (De Cooman, De Gieter, Pepermans, & Jegers, 2011; Ridder & McCandless, 2010). Thus, the link established between the employee and the organization is essential in the social economy, as it strengthens commitment to the social mission and its inherent values. Social enterprise managers have a particular stake in supporting this commitment, especially because the limited financial resources make it difficult to award conventional monetary incentives.

However, participation in decision-making is far from pervasive in social enter-prises; it is currently threatened by factors both inside and outside the organization. In particular, as is true for other not-for-profit organizations, social enterprises have become more market oriented (Defourny & Nyssens, 2008). Their leaders tend to adopt an approach that does not use a participative management style. This can make the organization appear unfair and may risk losing the commitment of employees who were initially attracted by its mission.

Thus, there are two opposing forces: one in favor of a culture that includes partici-pation in decision-making and another that is against. The purpose of this article is to analyze the link between the perceptions of procedural justice resulting from participa-tion in decision-making and employee organizational commitment in social enterprises. If a relationship demonstrates the necessity of a participative environment, we will attempt to discover the reasons for this relationship. More precisely, social exchange mediation will be tested (Allen, Shore, & Griffeth, 2003; Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000; Rhoades, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 2001). Indeed, a two-phase social




1094 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 42(6)

exchange process may explain the link between procedural justice and commitment (Lavelle, Rupp, & Brockner, 2007): employee participation is perceived as support from authority and, in turn, reciprocated as commitment.

There is a growing literature on governance of not-for-profit enterprises (Cornforth, 2003; Enjolras, 2009; Van Puyvelde, Caers, Du Bois, & Jegers, 2012), particularly in social enterprises (Low, 2006; Mason, 2009; Ridley-Duff, 2010; Spear, Cornforth, & Aiken, 2009). Yet the impact of governance on employee management in social enter-prises has never been properly addressed. This article aims to fill this gap by analyzing the consequences of procedural justice in terms of commitment within social enter-prises and the mechanisms responsible for it.

The following section deals with employee involvement in the decision-making process within social enterprises. The theoretical model and hypotheses are described in the section “Theoretical Model and Hypotheses.” The section “Method” explains the methodology, and the penultimate section presents the results. The last section analyzes the results and outlines some managerial implications.

Participation in Decision-Making Within European Social Enterprises: From Principles to RealityIn Europe, social enterprises are not-for-profit organizations that work toward social goals, such as the integration of disadvantaged people, in an entrepreneurial way. The EMES European Research Network has defined a set of social and economic criteria for social enterprises (Borzaga & Defourny, 2001). The economic criteria include the production of goods and/or services on a continuous basis, the willingness to under-take economic risk, a high level of autonomy, and a certain percentage of paid work-ers. The social criteria include an explicit goal to serve the community, an initiative launched by a group of citizens, decision-making power not based on capital owner-ship, a participatory structure that involves various groups of stakeholders, and lim-ited profit distribution.

Social enterprises are deeply embedded in the culture of participation in decision-making (Defourny et al., 2009). Decision-making power in social enterprises descends from the cooperative tradition, which generally means “one member, one vote,” or at least that each member has voting power not based on capital shares. Stimulating stakeholder involvement in general, and employee involvement in particular, helps build the social, economic, and sometimes environmental aspects of the mission. It makes it easier to identify new needs, seek innovative solutions, and commit the financial resources needed to offer a quality service (Siciliano, 1996). But several factors may keep employee involvement in decision-making from producing the expected results.

First, social enterprises, like most businesses, want to develop. Yet, as the organiza-tion grows, the procedures for collective decision-making become denser and more complicated (Cornforth, Thomas, Lewis, & Spear, 1988; Rothschild & Whitt, 1986). Employee representation on the decision-making bodies may also be problematic,




Ohana et al. 1095

primarily due to the worker profile (Davister, Defourny, & Grégoire, 2004). Employees with demanding supervisory roles often lack the time to become involved, feel discon-nected from economic issues, and may feel incompetent at strategic decision-making. Moreover, the paternalistic culture of some social enterprises, mainly in France, will hinder participation in decision-making as employees in this type of organization tend to cede power to the leaders, whom they deem more competent (Eme & Gardin, 2003). The legitimacy of a participative decision-making process is also currently being undermined by the changing context of social enterprises. The sharp drop in public funding has prompted social enterprise leaders to intensify their search for private financing and to develop their commercial activity. Participation in decision-making no longer seems to be a managerial priority (Dart, 2004; Eikenberry, 2009).

Due to the difficulties in maintaining participatory decisions within social enter-prises, a crucial question arises: Is it really beneficial for social enterprises to involve employees in the decision-making process? The next section presents the expected positive consequences of such practices on employees’ commitment to their organiza-tion. It is framed as a series of hypotheses to be tested to assess their adequacy in the context of social enterprises.

Theoretical Model and HypothesesProcedural Justice and Affective Commitment to the Organization

Procedural justice refers to the perception of justice with regard to decision-making procedures (Folger & Greenberg, 1985); that is, how a given result is achieved. Participation in decision-making (or “voice”) is thus an operationalization of proce-dural justice. It is subsumed in Thibaut and Walker’s “process control effect” (1975), defined as having control over the presentation of our arguments and having sufficient time to present our case, and Leventhal’s “representativeness” criterion (1980), defined as the assurance that the opinions of the various groups affected by a decision have been taken into account. Employees will be more likely to perceive the decision-making process as fair if they participated (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998; Korsgaard & Roberson, 1995). In social enterprises, where participation in decision-making is a principle, the strength of this perception will vary according to the extent to which employees are involved in decision-making. The meta-analyses carried out by Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001) and Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, and Ng (2001) have shown the wide variation in attitudes and behaviors of employees affected by proce-dural justice, such as the intention to quit (Aryee, Budhwar, & Chen, 2002), citizenship behavior (Podsakoff, MacKensie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000), intention to volunteer (Price, Lavelle, Henley, Cocchiara, & Buchanan, 2006), and organizational commit-ment (Viswesvaran & Ones, 2002). Recent empirical findings confirm that voice has an effect on outcomes (Wood & Wall, 2007), including job satisfaction (Farndale, Van Ruiten, Kelliher, & Hope-Hailey, 2011) and organizational commitment (Holland, Pyman, Cooper, & Teicher, 2011).





Organizational commitment refers to the extent to which an employee identifies with his or her organization and is committed to it (Steers, 1977). There are several types of organizational commitment: affective, continuance, and normative (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Affective commitment implies an affective connection between indi-viduals and the organization, expressed through common values and goals and a feel-ing of belonging that produces a sense of pride. People remain in the group because they want to. Continuance or rational commitment involves the use of reason. Individuals stay in the group because they have performed a cost–benefit calculation based on their rational or financial interests. Finally, normative commitment is a norm- or value-based type of commitment (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). Those who remain do so out of a sense of duty, obligation, or guilt. In this article, we will only consider affective commitment to the organization.

Affective commitment is the type of commitment that is the most empirically linked to our study’s variables of interest. Procedural justice and organizational sup-port, as well as various outcomes with vital implications for social enterprises such as turnover, absenteeism, and citizenship behaviors, are primarily related to the affective form of commitment (Meyer et al., 2002). Affective commitment is also more appropriate when studying social exchange mediation variables. As Kacmar et al. state, “feelings of affective commitment toward the organization can be con-sidered an important part of reciprocating perceptions of fair treatment, whereas continuance or normative commitment occurs because of a felt need or obligation” (Kacmar, Andrews, Blakely, & Bucklew, 2008, p. 740). With regards to organiza-tional commitment, factors relating to the organization’s structure or employee per-sonality traits have less impact than work experience, which includes procedural justice (Meyer & Allen, 1997; Rhoades et al., 2001). Thus, procedural justice is expected to be a determinant of affective commitment, as has been shown in numer-ous studies.

A first explanation lies in the group value model (or relational model) of justice (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler & Lind, 1992). Being given the opportunity to express an opinion about a decision that needs to be made reinforces self-esteem and identity. When the organization applies fair procedures, it spreads information about the quality of the relationship with its employees. Employees who are involved in decision-making by their organization or supervisors assume that they have a certain status in relation to the authority in question. This will foster positive attitudes such as organizational commitment.

A second explanation can be found in the social exchange literature. The two-phase social exchange relationship of the target similarity model (Lavelle et al., 2007; Lavelle et al., 2009a; Lavelle, McMahan, & Harris, 2009b) can help to understand the mecha-nism. Employees who contribute to organization decision-making will positively inter-pret the exchanges that occur and believe the organization is taking care of them (Wayne, Shore, Bommer, & Tetrick, 2002). They will have a positive perception of the support of their organization (Phase 1). In return, the employees will feel attached to their organization as a result of reciprocity (Phase 2).




Ohana et al. 1097

Hypothesis 1: Procedural justice is positively related to affective commitment in the context of social enterprises.

Theory of Social Exchange and the Mediating Effect of Perceived Organizational Support (POS) and Leader–Member Exchange (LMX)

The relationship between procedural justice and affective commitment can be explained in terms of social exchange (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960). From this per-spective, there are two types of exchange: economic and social. Economic exchanges refer to exchanges where the parties focus on the output of the exchange relationship. These exchanges are usually short-lived and impersonal and the interests of the other party are not a major concern (Balkin & Richebé, 2007; Sparrow & Liden, 1997). On the contrary, social exchanges are long term. The obligations of each party, whether in terms of type or duration, are not specified in advance. Social exchange can take two forms depending on whether it takes place between the employee and the organi-zation, or between the employee and the supervisor (Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997). These relations refer respectively to the theories of perceived organizational support (POS) and leader–member exchange (LMX).

One concept deriving from the theory of social exchange is the concept of organi-zational support (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986). POS represents employee perceptions of how much the organization values their contributions and cares for their welfare. Thanks to social exchange, POS induces employees to feel indebted to their organization. This feeling becomes personified and, because of this personification (Levinson, 1965), the norm of reciprocity is activated to return the favor. This reciprocity engenders employee attitudes and behaviors that are beneficial to the organization. For example, high levels of POS lead to high levels of perfor-mance (whether in-role or extra-role), involvement, commitment, and lower levels of absenteeism and staff turnover (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). More specifically, POS is positively correlated with affective commitment to the organization. Social enterprise employees, who feel that their company is committed to them, will commit to their company on a reciprocal basis.

A second concept arising from the theory of social exchange is that of the LMX (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). This refers to the quality of exchanges between employees and supervisors (Graen & Scandura, 1987). Unlike with standard theories, there is no average leadership style; there are as many management styles as there are employee–supervisor dyads (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975). The LMX theory posits that both parties exchange tangible and intangible assets that they deem to be fair. The more exchanges there are, the better the employees’ perception of LMXs. Employees with high LMX thus receive preferential treatment with more trust, respect, and obligation (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). This is beneficial for them and will improve their job sat-isfaction (Lapierre & Hackett, 2007). They will then reciprocate with positive attitudes





and behaviors toward the originator. The consequences will differ depending on who is determined to be responsible for this positive treatment. For example, if the superior is not seen as representative of the organization as a whole, the LMX will have no direct effect on organizational commitment (Masterson et al., 2000). However, social enterprises tend to be small-scale structures and there is significant ideological prox-imity with the manager. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the superior will be seen as representative of the organization. We thus hypothesized a correlation between LMX and affective commitment.

Hypothesis 2a: POS is a mediator between procedural justice and affective com-mitment in the context of social enterprises.

Hypothesis 2b: LMX is a mediator between procedural justice and affective commitment in the context of social enterprises.

The hypotheses are represented in the model depicted in Figure 1. The next sections of the article consist of testing the relationships assumed in the hypotheses and repre-sented in the model.

MethodPopulation

The data were collected through a survey of work integration social enterprises. These organizations aim to facilitate the integration of disadvantaged people through work. They provide social or environmental services such as recycling waste or maintaining public spaces.

Figure 1. Hypothesized model.




Ohana et al. 1099

Following initial telephone contact, a questionnaire was mailed to the directors of French WISEs between October 2007 and July 2008. Permanent staff responded to the questionnaire in writing and returned it in a prepaid envelope. Subjects were informed that their anonymity was guaranteed.

In total, we contacted 27 companies with 261 permanent employees. We received 101 replies, yielding a response rate of about 39%. The median age category of the respondents was 36 to 45 years. Seniority in the company was relatively evenly dis-tributed, ranging from less than 2 years to over 10 years. About two thirds of respon-dents had pursued post–high school studies and 54% were male.

MeasurementProcedural justice. Procedural justice is measured using the scale devised by Beehr,

Walsh, & Taber (1976) and later applied by Rhoades et al. (2001). It contains three items measured on a scale ranging from 1 to 7. An example item from this scale is “Decisions in work are usually made without consulting the people who have to live with them” (reverse coded). Cronbach’s α is 0.67, which is slightly below the thresh-old of 0.7. However, this concurs with previous studies where Rhoades et al. (2001) found a α of 0.62.

POS. POS is measured using a reduced version of the scale devised by Eisenberger et al. (1986), proposed by Tekleab, Takeuchi, and Taylor (2005). An example item included is: “My organization cares about my general satisfaction.” The scale has three items and Cronbach’s α is 0.82.

LMX. LMX is measured using the LMX–MDM scale devised by Liden and Maslyn (1998). This is a Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 to 7. We selected 11 of 12 items from the original scale after removing one item that correlated poorly with the others. As an example, one item asked participants: “My supervisor would defend me to oth-ers in the organization if I made an honest mistake.” Cronbach’s α is 0.93.

Affective commitment. Affective commitment is measured through the work of Hartline and Ferrell (1996) and Netemeyer, Boles, McKee, and McMurrian (1997). The scale is one used by Ackfeldt and Coote (2005), and it has four items with responses ranging from 1 to 5. It refers specifically to affective commitment. As an example, one item is “This company has a great deal of personal meaning for me.” Cronbach’s α is 0.79.

Control variables. We also included several control variables that may influence the relationship, such as age, gender, seniority in the company, years of study, and type of contract.

ResultsWe first conducted a CFA with Lisrel 8.8 to test for convergent and discriminant valid-ity. Given the small sample, we employed structural equation modeling using item parceling (Aryee et al., 2002; Bagozzi & Heatherton, 1994). An exploratory factor





analysis was used to create item parcels for the constructs. Parcels were created by averaging items with the highest and lowest loadings for each construct, followed by the items with the next highest and lowest loadings until all of the items were included. This procedure is necessary to reduce the number of parameters estimated in the measurement models. We then conducted the CFA with the parceled items (detailed results available upon request). All individual path loadings from an item to its speci-fied latent construct were significant, providing evidence of convergent validity. Moreover, the hypothesized four-factor model produced a good and significantly better fit compared with the one-factor model (for the four-factor model: χ2 = 26.4, df = 21, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.04, GFI = 0.95; compared with the one-factor model: χ2 = 155.6, df = 27, RMSEA = 0.22). In addition, we compared our initial four-factor model with all possible alternative measurement models. The hypothesized model produced significantly the best fit with the data (for PJ and POS together Δdf = 3, Δχ² = 21.7***; PJ and LMX Δdf = 3, Δχ² = 45.7***; PJ, POS, and LMX Δdf = 5, Δχ² = 69.2***; POS and LMX Δdf = 3, Δχ² = 45.3***; POS and OC Δdf = 3, Δχ² = 39.8***; LMX and OC Δdf = 3, Δχ² = 56.3***; POS, LMX, and OC Δdf = 5, Δχ² = 92.6***).

To test our hypotheses, we used a series of regressions. To test the mediation hypotheses, we applied the Baron and Kenny (1986) method, including a four-step strategy for establishing that a variable is a mediator. This leads to the analysis of three regressions. The first step involves showing that the independent variable is correlated with the dependent variable. The second step aims to show that the independent vari-able is correlated with the mediating variable. The third step demonstrates that the mediator affects the dependent variable. The fourth step involves proving that the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable is reduced (partial media-tion) or zero (complete mediation) when the mediating variable is introduced. To fol-low this process, we tested the effect of the control variables on affective commitment. We then introduced the independent variable (i.e., procedural justice) and then the mediating variables (i.e., POS and LMX).

The first model in Table 2 shows that none of the control variables have any impact on affective commitment. The second model of Table 2 shows that Hypothesis 1 is confirmed. There is indeed a significant positive relationship between procedural jus-tice and affective commitment (B = 0.16, p < .01).

To test Hypotheses 2a and 2b, we used the Baron and Kenny (1986) method. Procedural justice was correlated with affective commitment and with POS and LMX (see Table 1). The third model in Table 2 shows a significant positive relationship between affective commitment and the mediating variables (i.e., POS [B = 0.32, p < .01] and LMX [B = 0.21, p < .01]). Moreover, introducing the mediating variables reduced the effect of procedural justice (B = 0.02, p > .05).

The Sobel tests of the indirect effect of procedural justice on commitment revealed significant statistics. Specifically, Sobel z-statistics equal 2.64 for POS (p = .01) and 2.04 (p = .04) for LMX. The statistics satisfy all the prerequisites for a partial mediat-ing role of the support variables between procedural justice perception and affective commitment. We can therefore accept Hypotheses 2a and 2b.




Ohana et al. 1101

Table 2. Regression Analysis of Affective Commitment.

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Step 1. Control variables Age 0.15 0.11 0.06 Gender −0.16 −0.18 −0.11 Years of study 0.14 0.11 0.09 Type of contract −0.19 −0.27 −0.08 Organizational tenure 0.11 0.11 0.20**Step 2. Independent variable Procedural justice 0.16** 0.02Step 3. Mediator POS 0.32** LMX 0.21**R² 0.07 0.15 0.47DR² 0.07 0.08 0.32R² adjusted 0.02 0.1 0.42DF 1.35 9.21** 26.94**F 1.35 2.77* 9.97**

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 1. Variable Correlations.

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Procedural justice 4.49 1.59 (0.67) 0.49** 0.26** 0.31** 0.02 0.09 0.13 0.12 0.022. POS 3.46 1.02 (0.82) 0.69** 0.59** 0.02 0.04 0.11 −0.07 −0.133. LMX 4.85 1.29 (0.93) 0.57** 0.06 −0.08 −0.01 −0.13 −0.144. Affective commitment 3.56 0.86 (0.79) 0.12 −0.07 0.08 −0.04 0.135. Age (−) −0.14 −0.43** −0.01 0.21*6. Gender (−) 0.25* 0.03 −0.047. Years of study (−) 0.16 −0.22*8. Type of contract (−) 0.179. Organizational tenure (−)

Note. Cronbach α’s are in diagonal.*p < .05. **p < .01.

Discussion and Managerial Implications

As participation in decision-making is a controversial issue in the current context of social enterprises, identifying its potential effect on employee attitudes is essential. Our research accomplished this challenge by showing that participation in decision-making leads to greater employee commitment to the organization. First, this research





was the first that empirically studied the effect of voice on commitment in nonprofits. Second, the mediating effect of social exchange variables was explored.

Several results merit further discussion. First, we find a direct positive relationship between procedural justice, LMX, and organizational affective commitment. This runs counter to the empirical results of Masterson et al. (2000), which show no significant link between procedural justice and LMX. Wayne et al. (2002) explain this latter result as the supervisor being perceived as having no control over organizational policies and thus not responsible for deciding whether employees are allowed to voice their opin-ions. However, social enterprises are generally small-scale operations, essentially headed by the manager who is, at least in part, the guarantor of the firm’s participative management. In this case, employees may well attribute responsibility for their sense of procedural justice to the manager. Also, our measure of procedural justice does not stipulate whether the supervisor or the organization is accountable for the procedures. In their target similarity model, Lavelle et al. (2007, 2009a, 2009b) show that relation-ships will be stronger when targets are matched across the constructs of procedural justice, support, and commitment, and the model allows for weaker cross-foci effects. The fact that the source of justice is not explicitly specified could explain why proce-dural justice and LMX are strongly linked. More research about these kinds of cross-foci effects are needed to better understand the consequences of LMX.

Second, our investigation supports the mediating role of social exchange between procedural justice and affective commitment. This means that when employees can express their views about their organization, they feel indebted and will reciprocate through their commitment to the organization. Although demonstrated in many studies (Masterson et al., 2000), this result should not be overlooked as it relates to social enterprises. While much organizational behavior research has studied public or private organizations, there has been little focus on social enterprises (with the exception of Borzaga & Tortia, 2006 and Ohana & Meyer, 2010). The results from social enter-prises may differ from those obtained in conventional firms. For example, Meyer and Ohana use the context of social enterprises to explain the specificity of their results concerning the relationship between organizational justice and both organizational citizenship behavior (Meyer & Ohana, 2009) and the intention to quit (Ohana & Meyer, 2010). In fact, a recent trend in management research has been to study man-agement issues in specific contexts (Antonakis & Liden, 2009; Helmig, Spraul, & Tremp, 2012). Boundary conditions to known relations by studying them in a differ-ent environment may be found. It is also necessary to question the application of for-profit business tools to the context of not-for-profit organizations, as this can lead to unintended negative consequences (Beck, Lengnick-Hall, & Lengnick-Hall, 2008). More specifically, the social exchange phenomenon observed in this article in the con-text of social enterprise is sound.

From a practical standpoint, safeguarding participative decision-making requires an approach to human resource management that encourages social enterprise employ-ees to express themselves, not only in governing bodies but also in local discussion forums. First, individuals need to learn how to participate in decision-making. In




Ohana et al. 1103

addition to technical skills, certain social and intellectual skills appear to be essential to contribute to decision-making effectively. Nevertheless, these skills cannot be acquired through practice alone. The challenge is therefore to provide staff training in listening, speaking, and discussion skills. Employees may perceive this training as a gift that they will repay through their commitment to their employers (Balkin & Richebé, 2007).

However, voting is not the only way to exercise democracy. Not all employees can be involved in the development of corporate strategy. Therefore, employees need to be offered other ways to be involved in the life of their organization. Employees may directly contribute to the activities of the group in which they work. Social enterprise managers can thus involve employees in setting goals for the enterprise and defining the content of their activities. A participatory approach to management is appropriate, given the specific profile of social enterprise employees; this can be accomplished by the establishment of local discussion forums that work toward achieving the mission.

When people work together on a project and learn from each other through their joint efforts, they become what sociologists call “a community of practice” (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Lave & Wenger, 1990). Based on three basic principles—commitment, shared culture, and practice—these communities operate independently and their strength lies in the social bonds they create or consolidate. They also lead to collective learning without the production of knowledge being a declared objective. In the con-text of WISEs, communities of practice may emerge in multidisciplinary working groups in which technical employees mingle with administrative and managerial staff. This may happen without stigmatizing those who are just returning to the labor market and who are instead seen as genuine stakeholders. Collective discussion becomes pos-sible and makes sense within these smaller and more diverse communities. It focuses on simple, local problems that are not directly related to the production of goods or services, such as redesigning workstations or fitting out premises (i.e., problems about which everyone can express an opinion). The community of practice emerges from a spontaneous joint initiative. Because it has not been set up arbitrarily, employees feel supported by their superiors and, more generally, by their organization. LMX is thus enhanced through opinion sharing and the exchange of viewpoints. Employees are encouraged to speak, understand the other’s point of view, codesign a project, and think about how they can bring it to fruition. By working together, they not only learn about each other but also about themselves. Collective discussion makes them more independent and gives them a feeling of competence. A deliberative participatory decision-making process at a local level strengthens the ties between employees and their organizations and enhances individual skills.

ConclusionThe data collected from French social enterprises support the positive relationship between participation in decision-making and employees’ affective commitment, as well as the mediating role played by POS and LMX.





Our results give a better understanding of the interdependence between governance and management, representing an important issue for the future of social enterprises (Spear et al., 2009). The participative decision-making process must be preserved in a competitive environment and adapted to the specific profile of social enterprise employ-ees. Managers should develop a new approach to participation in decision-making that is local, permanent, and informal. This will foster organizational efficiency. Furthermore, given the crisis of democracy experienced by our modern societies, employees’ involvement in the management of social enterprises can play a crucial role because it builds both the individual and the collective capacity to exercise citizenship (Rothschild, 2009).

Some limitations of our study should be noted and can be improved through further developments. The first is methodological. All data were obtained from the same source in a cross-sectional design. This could have caused inflated relationships due to common method variance (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Other studies could use a longitudinal design to minimize this bias and obtain more robust results.

The second limitation concerns the ability to generalize our research. Social enter-prises are a special type of nonprofit and we cannot guarantee that our results apply to all types of nonprofits. Although understanding how to manage social enterprises is necessary, it is also beneficial to research and understand this phenomenon for other types of nonprofits, such as cooperatives.

In addition, we only considered the procedural form of fairness in this study, although three other forms exist: distributive, interactional, and informational (Colquitt, 2001). It would be of interest to study their respective impacts in the con-text of nonprofits. Indeed, the peculiarities of nonprofits provide a stimulating envi-ronment for discovering new reactions to perceptions of justice. For example, an employee’s identity derived from belonging to a not-for-profit organization or an employee’s nonpecuniary motivation make interactional and distributive justice, respectively, particularly interesting to explore. Moreover, recent research has decom-posed procedural justice depending upon the source of the fairness (Lavelle et al., 2007, 2009a). Participation in decision-making can be due to the organization, the supervisor, or the work unit. Each of these sources may have distinctly different con-sequences. A multisource procedural justice study in nonprofits may be necessary to better understand this process. The “target similarity” model of Lavelle et al. (2007) predicts that the perception of procedural justice due to a certain source would have consequences regarding the same source. Nevertheless, our study has shown cross-foci effects. A multisource research study with respect to nonprofits seems to be par-ticularly interesting, given the importance of participation in decision-making in this kind of organization.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Kathleen Bentein, Christian Vandenberghe, and three anonymous referees for their helpful comments. Of course, any errors are the authors’ responsibility.




Ohana et al. 1105

Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

FundingThe authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Ackfeldt, A. L., & Coote, L. V. (2005). A study of organisational citizenship behaviors in a retail setting. Journal of Business Research, 58, 151-159.

Allen, D. G., Shore, L. M., & Griffeth, R. W. (2003). The role of perceived organizational sup-port and supportive human resource practices in the turnover process. Journal of Manage-ment, 29(1), 99-118.

Antonakis, J., & Liden, R. (2009). Considering context in psychological leadership research. Human Relations, 62, 1587-1605.

Aryee, S., Budhwar, P., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 267-285.

Bacchiega A., & Borzaga, C. (2001). Social enterprise as an incentive structure. In C. Borzaga & J. Defourny (Eds.), The emergence of social enterprise. London, UK: Routledge.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). A general approach to representing multifaceted personality constructs: Application to state self-esteem. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 1(1), 35-67.

Balkin, D., & Richebé, N. (2007). A gift exchange perspective on organizational training. Human Resource Management Review, 17(1), 52-62.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Beck, T. E., Lengnick-Hall, C. A., & Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2008). Solutions out of context: Examining the transfer of business concepts to nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Manage-ment and Leadership, 19(2), 153-171.

Beehr, T. A., Walsh, J. T., & Taber, T. D. (1976). Perceived situational moderators of the rela-tionship between subjective role ambiguity and role strain. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 35-40.

Benz, M. (2005). Not for the profit, but for the satisfaction? Evidence on worker well-being in non-profit firms. Kyklos, 58, 155-176.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.Borzaga, C., & Defourny, J. (2001). The emergence of social enterprise. London, UK:

Routledge.Borzaga, C., & Tortia, E. (2006). Worker motivations, job satisfaction, and loyalty in public and

nonprofit social services. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35, 225-248.





Brown, J., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities of practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40-57.

Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278-321.

Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400.

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425-445.

Cornforth, C. (Ed.). (2003). The governance of public and non-profit organizations: What do boards do? London, UK: Routledge.

Cornforth, C., Thomas, A., Lewis, J., & Spear, R. (1988). Developing successful worker coop-eratives. London, UK: Sage.

Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Orga-nizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46-78.

Dart, R. (2004). The legitimacy of social enterprise. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 14(4), 411-424.

Davister, C., Defourny, J., & Grégoire, O. (2004). Work integration social enterprises in the European Union: An overview of existing models. Liège: EMES European Research Net-work Working Papers, 04/04.

De Cooman, R., De Gieter, S., Pepermans, R., & Jegers, M. (2011). A cross-sector comparison of motivation-related concepts in for-profit and not-for-profit service organizations. Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 296-317.

Defourny, J., Develtere, P., Fonteneau, B., & Nyssens, M., (Eds.). (2009). The worldwide mak-ing of the social economy, innovations and changes. Leuven, Belgium: Acco.

Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M., (2008). Social enterprise in Europe: Recent trends and develop-ments. Social Enterprise Journal, 4, 202-228.

Eikenberry, A. (2009). Refusing the market: A democratic discourse for voluntary and nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 582-596.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507.

Eme, B., & Gardin, L. (2003). National profiles of work integration social enterprises. EMES Working Papers, France.

Enjolras, B. (2009). A governance-structure approach to voluntary organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 761-783.

Farndale, E., Van Ruiten, J., Kelliher, C., & Hope-Hailey, V. (2011). The influence of perceived employee voice on organizational commitment: An exchange perspective. Human Resource Management, 50, 113-129.

Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Folger, R., & Greenberg, J. (1985). Procedural justice: An interpretive analysis of personnel systems. In K. Rowland & G. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (pp. 141-183). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.




Ohana et al. 1107

Frohlich, F., Godard, J., Oppenheimer, J. A., & Starke, F. A. (1998). Employee versus conven-tionally-owned and controlled firms: An experimental analysis. Managerial and Decision Economics, 19, 311-326.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociologi-cal Review, 25, 161-178.

Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 9, 175-208.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of LMX theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspec-tive. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 210-247.

Hartline, M. D., & Ferrell, O. C. (1996). The management of customer-contact service employ-ees: An empirical investigation. Journal of Marketing, 60, 52-70.

Helmig, B., Spraul, K., & Tremp, K. (2012). Replication studies in nonprofit research: A gener-alization and extension of findings regarding the media publicity of nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(3), 360-385.

Herranz, J., Council, L., & McKay, B. (2011).Tri-value organization as a form of social enterprise: The case of Seattle’s FareStart. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 829-849.

Holland, P., Pyman, A., Cooper, B. K., & Teicher, J. (2011). Employee voice and job satisfaction in Australia: The centrality of direct voice. Human Resource Management, 50(1), 95-111.

Kacmar, K. M., Andrews, M. C., Blakely, G. L., & Bucklew, N. S. (2008). Group cohesion as an enhancement to the justice-affective commitment relationship. Group & Organization Management, 33, 736-755.

Korsgaard, M. A., & Roberson, L. (1995). Procedural justice in performance evaluation: The role of instrumental and non-instrumental voice in performance appraisal discussions. Journal of Management, 21, 657-669.

Lapierre, L., & Hackett, R. (2007). Trait conscientiousness, leader-member exchange, job satis-faction and organizational citizenship behaviour: A test of an integrative model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 539-554.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1990). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NJ: Cambridge University Press.

Lavelle, J. J., Rupp, D. E., & Brockner, J. (2007). Taking a multifoci approach to the study of justice, social exchange, and citizenship behavior: The target similarity model, Journal of Management, 33, 841-866.

Lavelle, J. J., Brockner, J., Konovsky, M. A., Price, K., Henley, A., Taneja, A., & Vinekar, V. (2009a). Commitment, procedural fairness, and organizational citizenship behavior: A mul-tifoci analysis, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 337-357.

Lavelle, J. J., McMahan, G., & Harris, C. (2009b). Fairness in human resource management, social exchange relationships, and citizenship behavior: Testing linkages of the target similarity model among nurses in the United States. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20, 2419-2434.

Levinson, H. (1965). Reciprocation: The relationship between man and organization. Adminis-trative Science Quarterly, 9, 370-390.





Leventhal, G. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationship. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York, NJ: Plenum.

Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24, 43-72.

Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York, NJ: Plenum Press.

Low, C. (2006). A framework for governance of social enterprise. International Journal of Socio-Economics, 33, 376-385.

Mason, C. (2009). Governance and social enterprises. In B. Doherty (Ed.), Social enterprise management (pp. 212-239). London, UK: Sage.

Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relation-ships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738-748.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational com-mitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61-89.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and appli-cation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299-326.

Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20-52.

Meyer, M., & Ohana, M. (2009). Do perception of organisational justice foster organizational citizenship behaviours in social enterprises? International Journal of Economics and Busi-ness Research, 1, 400-408.

Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J., McKee, D., & McMurrian, R. (1997). An investigation into the antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviors in a personal selling context, Journal of Marketing, 61, 85-98.

OECD (2009). The changing boundaries of social enterprises. Local Economic and Employ-ment Development: OECD.

Ohana, M., & Meyer, M. (2010). Should I stay or should I go now? Social enterprises perma-nent staff’s intention to quit in a changing environment. European Management Journal, 28, 441-454.

Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.

Podsakoff, P., MacKensie, S., Paine, J., & Bachrach, D. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513–563.




Ohana et al. 1109

Price, H., Lavelle, J., Henley, B., Cocchiara, K., & Buchanan, R. (2006). Judging the fairness of voice-based participation across multiple and interrelated stages of decision making. Orga-nizational Behaviour and Human Decision Process, 99, 212-222.

Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the litera-ture. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698-714.

Rhoades, L., Eisenberger R., & Armeli S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organization: The contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 825-836.

Rhodes, S. R., & Steers, R. M. (1981). Conventional vs worker-owned firms. Human Relations, 34, 1013-1035.

Ridder, H.-G., & McCandless, A. (2010). Influences on the architecture of human resource management in nonprofit organizations: An analytical framework. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(1), 124-141.

Ridley-Duff, R. (2010). Communitarian governance in social enterprises: case evidence from the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation and School Trends Ltd. Social Enterprise Journal, 6(2), 125-145.

Rothschild, J. (2009). Workers’ cooperatives and social enterprise: A forgotten route to social equity and democracy. American Behavioral Scientist, 52, 1023-1041.

Rothschild, J., & Whitt, J. A. (1986). Workers-owners as an emergent class: Effects of coopera-tive work on job satisfaction, alienation and stress. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 7, 297-317.

Siciliano, J. I. (1996). The relationship of board member diversity to organizational perfor-mance. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 1313-1320.

Sparrow, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and structure in leader-member exchange. Acad-emy of Management Review, 22, 522-552.

Spear, R., Cornforth, C., & Aiken, M. (2009). The governance challenges of social enterprises: Evidence from a UK empirical study. Annals of Public and Co-operative economics, 80, 247-273.

Steers, R. M. (1977). Organizational effectiveness: A behavioral view. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.

Tekleab, A. G., Takeuchi, R., & Taylor, M. S. (2005). Extending the chain of relationships among organizational justice, social exchange, and employee reactions: the role of contract violations. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 146-157.

Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experi-mental Social Psychology, 25, 115-192.

Van Puyvelde, S., Caers, R., Du Bois, C., & Jegers M. (2012). The governance of nonprofit organizations: Integrating agency theory with stakeholder and stewardship theories. Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(3), 431-451.

Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2002). Examining the construct of organizational justice: A meta-analytic evaluation of relations with work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 38, 193-203.





Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2002). The role of fair treatment and rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 590-598.

Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 82-111.

Wood, S. J., & Wall, T. D. (2007). Work enrichment and employee voice in human resource management-performance studies. The International Journal of Human Resource Manage-ment, 18, 1335-1372.

Author Biographies

Marc Ohana is professor of organizational behavior at BEM Bordeaux Management School (France). His research mainly deals with the consequences of organizational justice on motiva-tion by using laboratory and survey studies.

Maryline Meyer is assistant professor in HRM at GSCM-Montpellier Business School (France). Her research mainly focuses on the management of workers’ motivations and organi-zational citizenship behaviors in social enterprises.

Sophie Swaton is a post-doc research assistant with the Walras Pareto Center (University of Lausanne, Switzerland). Her research focuses on social economy and social entrepreneurship.




Documents

Decision-Making in Social Enterprises: Exploring the Link Between Employee Participation and Organizational Commitment