English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background and purpose: Although employee share ownership (ESO) deserves of a long tradition, we still know little about employees’ perspectives about ESO. The lack of knowledge about the employees’ attitudes towards ESO is discursively filled in the ESO debate. This paper challenges that deficit by carrying out a semantic analysis of the literature with the aim to identify the various actor constructions used implicitly in the ESO discourse.Design/Methodology/Approach: We conduct a semantic analysis of the ESO discourse. To unfold the order of this discourse we draw on the distinction between surface and underlying structure of communication in the sense of Michel Foucault. We interpret some semantic lead differences, a term coined by Niklas Luhmann, to constitute the underlying structure of communication.Results: We can identify six different streams on the ESO discourse’s surface level each defined by the ends pursued. The discourse’s underlying structure is made up of the distinctions production-consumption, capital-labour, and ownership-control that also determine the actor models implicitly in use.Conclusion: We can identify five different actor models implicit in the ESO discourse. While the CEE discourse differs on the surface level in as far as it is more concerned with questions of political legitimation of the privatisation process than with questions of economic efficiency, thus introducing political distinctions in the discourse rather missing in the west, it shares the underlying semantic lead differences with the Western discourse as well as the actor models anchored in those differences.Ozadje in namen: Čeprav ima lastništvo zaposlenih dolgoletno tradicijo, še vedno ne vemo veliko o pogledih samih zaposlenih na to obliko lastništva. Pomanjkanje znanja o odnosu zaposlenih do lastništva zaposlenih spodbuja nadaljnjo razpravo. S tem člankom želimo prispevati k temu, da zapolnimo omenjeni primanjkljaj tako, da smo izvedli semantično analizo literature z namenom, da prepoznamo različne strukture akterjev, ki se posredno pojavljajo v tem diskurzu.Zasnova / metodologija / pristop: Izvedli smo semantično analizo diskurza o lastništvu zaposlenih. Z namenom sistematične analize smo potegnili ločnico med površinsko in poglobljeno strukturo komunikacije v smislu Michela Foucaulta. Interpretiramo nekatere vodilne semantične razlike - izraz, ki ga skoval Niklas Luhmann - da bi predstavili osnovno strukturo komunikacije.Rezultati: Lahko identificiramo šest različnih tokov na površju diskurza o lastništvu zaposlenihvsak od njih je opredeljen z nameni, ki jim sledi. Temeljno strukturo diskurza tvori razlikovanje med proizvodnjo-potrošnjo, kapitalom-delom in lastništvom-nadzorom, kar tudi določa katere modele akterji implicitno uporabljajo.Zaključek: Implicitno lahko v diskurzu identificiramo pet različnih modelov akterjev. Diskurz v državah srednje in vhodne Evrope se razlikuje na površinski ravni, saj je bolj usmerjen v vprašanja politične legitimacije procesa privatizacije kot v vprašanja ekonomske učinkovitosti, s čimer uvaja politično razlikovanje v diskurz, kar se običajno ne kaže na zahodu. Skupna pa je semantična interpretacija razlik kot tudi modeli akterjev, ki izhajajo iz v teh razlik

The Employee as the Unknown Actor? A Discourse Analysis of the Employee Share Ownership Debate with Special Emphasis on Central and Eastern Europe