Title: Employee Voice Based Employee Involvement and Participation
Employee voice seems to be gaining prominence in the modern business environment. In the previous centuries, the stakeholders recognized that giving workers a say had a positive impact on their experience and performance. According to Wright (2010), employee voice remains the important aspects of industrial relations that have been protected by the labour laws across the world. Nonetheless, this topic seems to be intricate in broad terms. For instance, Wilkinson and Fay (2011) viewed employee voice as giving workers an opportunity to express their opinions. CIPD (2017) defines employee voice as “the means by which employees communicate views on employment and organizational issues to their employer” (par. 1). By voicing their views, the organizations would gain from improved business, productivity, and innovation. Conversely, employee voice ensures workers gets greater influence, job satisfaction, and opportunities for their development (CIPD 2017). This article analyses employee voice based on their involvement and participation.
Perspectives on the Management of Employee Relations
Employee relations define the relationships between employers and the managers or employers. In the modern world, employee relations seem to focus on collective and individual relationships in the workplace. It has put emphasis on the significance of line managers in developing the best trust-based relationship with workers. CIPD (2016) maintained that the industrial relations are declining as the employee relations concept is taking shape. Corporate communication defines the aspects of voice in all employees. According to CIPD (2017), the collective representation is becoming irrelevant in the modern society. Based on the business case study, the collective voice mechanisms remain in use. Employees seems to organize themselves so that the can operate in different forums.
The employment relation issues have attracted the attention of many scholars who have focused on the relationships with employers, government, trade unions, and employees (TUC Commission on Vulnerable Employment 2007). Studies have indicated three perspectives that can be used to determine the level of engagement including radical, pluralist, and unitarism, which offer special perception regarding workplace relations (Morrison 2014). Through these perspectives, it has been possible for the stakeholders to give statements and explain actions relating to trade unionists and employer behaviours including job regulation, role of unions, and workplace conflict. Based on the employment relations structure of the UK, this task analyses the perspectives relevant for employee relations.
In the United Kingdom’s employment structure, the unitary perspective has been defined based on an assumption that businesses can be harmonious and integrated as happy family. In this perspective, the management and employees share common organizational purpose thus emphasize cooperation as explained by Purcell (2014). From this perspective, there are important implications that are eminent. In a conflicting environment, the organization can rarely perform. To this effect, the management should use coercive means to supress the conflicts (Wright 2010). Apart from the conflict, trade unions appears unnecessary as in the United Kingdom, the loyalty between organizations and employees are mutually exclusive.
Conflict is naturally disruptive because it results from interpersonal friction, agitation, and communication breakdown. To this effect, it is critical to deny the trade unions an opportunity to operate within an organization. However, in various instances, trade unions have compelled managers to the employment conditions relating to pay determination (CIPD 2017). Such initiatives would check the managerial prerogatives (LRD 2009). Without a doubt, the unitary perspective can help in identifying the industrial relations environment in any organization. In the 2000s, different businesses opted for a modified unitary perspective. For instance, even companies that had appeared to be neo-paternalist like Marks & Spencer valued their workers by treating them beyond the reproach.
Under this perspective, companies are perceived as a conglomeration of divergent and powerful sub-groups. Each group is depends on its leaders to design its objectives. The trade unions and the management are the leading groups in this perspective (Nowak 2009). In the 20th century, the pluralist perspective focused on the industrial conflicts, separation of ownership from management, power and authority distribution in the society, and political separation (CIPD 2016). It further endorsed institutionalization and acceptance of conflict as part of organizational operations. The pluralist assumption is that everyone in an organization pursues personal interests, aims, and leadership. Butler (2009) maintained that pluralist companies boast of different sources of authority and loyalty in various sectional interests, trade unions, and groups.
Compare the pluralist businesses view the disagreements between workers and employers and conflict of interests as normal and cannot in anyway with profit distribution. This makes management-worker conflict to be inevitable, inescapable, and rational. These conflicts originate from the diverse managerial roles and employee groups (Heery 2002). To this effect, organizational conflicts can be addressed through the collective bargaining initiatives. Managing conflicts using the trade unions could be critical in creating change, especially when conducted in good faith. Therefore, realistic managers have no powers to prevent conflicts from occurring because they understand that in any environment, the chances for conflict supersede harmony (CIPD 2016).
This perspective is critical because of its broadness and scope thus accommodates collective actions and defines organization using the mobilization theory (Achur 2011). Interestingly, when this perspective pursues change, surely the society will realize the change. The Marxists defines the capital society based on exchange, distribution, and production systems. In fact, the perspective analyses the industrial relations with regard to economic, political, and social terms rather than organizational job regulations. The capitalists always want a win-lose situation thus making their competition contentious (Heery 2002).
The perspective acknowledges the presence of economic inequalities that have caused social conflicts in an industrial relations environment. Because of the inequalities, the industrial conflicts are eminent in the business (Bach 2011). Under the Marxists perspective, any changes in the society would precipitate class conflict. These conflicts are essential in creating change. Butler (2009) held that the inequalities have caused class conflicts as it affects the aspect of economic power distribution in the society. The Marxists defines the economic inequality based on the capital ownership and the supplier or seller of the labour (Marchington, Wilkinson & Ackers 2001).
Based on this perspective, it appears that conflicts and tensions are necessary and structural. This makes the industrial conflict to be relevant in the workplace. According to Grates (2009), many industrial conflicts are evident through go-slows and strikes among other collective actions. Due to divisions and imbalances in an organization, industrial conflicts will remain inescapable because it borders social and political conflicts. This makes conflicts unavoidable in an organization. Through the trade unions, it has become possible for employees to reduce competition as the union invests in the collective industrial power (Achur 2011).
In comparing the three perspectives regarding the employee relation, the unitary perspectives seems to have created uniformity as every stakeholder pursues a common goal and interests. This perspective promotes teamwork and conflicts are untenable because of their disruptive nature (Guest & Conway 2002). On the other hand, the Marxists maintain that the division of labour and capital would define the workplace relationship (CIPD 2009). To the Marxists, conflict in an employment relationship determines the structure of the society or organization (Frauenheim 2009).
Key Contextual Influences for Employee Involvement and Participation
Employee involvement and participation has proved critical in maximizing the productivity and performance of the workforce. In the service industry, it is critical to maximize the knowledge and skills of employees by minimizing costs. Hence, the organization opted for the best models to encourage employee engagement and involvement. Despite these benefits, there are some ramifications that the management must understand (Bach 2011). Without a doubt, investigating the effective worker involvement methods confirms how employees are valuable assets to the organization. According to Purcell (2014), employee involvement and participation seems to empower workers and create democracy in the organization. Consequently, the employees feel motivated thus become ready to accept more responsibilities. Currently, the economic situation is having adverse impact on the employees. This is evident in their low confidence levels. The management needs to respond by motivating them through employee involvement and participation thus deliver the quality customer services that will results into outstanding profitability. Therefore, it is important to understand the role of employee involvement and participation in the service industry.
In any organization, employees are the most important assets because they contribute directly towards the organization’s prosperity and success. Price (2004) holds that by involving them in the various organizational operations, the workers feel motivated and appreciated. They thus give their best to the organization in term of production. Price (2004) further defines employee involvement as the process where the management considers the views of workers in making decisions. According to CIPD (2009), the employee participation shows the level of employee commitment towards the organization. For the management to consider workforce engagement as a priority, the organization structure must have been designed to accommodate the divergent views. Nevertheless, employee engagement has created an environment where workers wield a lot of power that they can easily influence decisions touching on their roles.
Employee participation and involvement are distinct concepts but they supplement each other. According to CIPD (2009), employee participation and involvement may stand-alone. For instance, participation involves sharing ideas, opinions, and information while the involvement captures the aspects of daily activities or an organization. For some scholars, participation refers to the employee voice in all the decisions (Bach 2011). Participation is possible where workforce share ownership of an organization with the management or owners. However, Ang (2002) believes that employee involvement can never thrive where participation is limited. This implies that without involvement, the chances of participation become slim.
Employee involvement is a managerial-driven initiative that is meant to inspire workers. It instils the wining mentality and commitment among the workers. As such, they engage in the industrial democracy thus increase their participation in the managerial decisions. According to CIPD (2009a), employee involvement enhances employee morale thus improves the chances of an organization to attract and retain labour. The initiative or strategy has helped organization to reduce attrition rates.
Employee empowerment and employee involvement are related as explained by CIPD (2009a). In the modern world, especially in the United Kingdom, employers have focused on different strategies to inspire and motivate their workforce. They have introduced the concept of employee involvement. By empowering workers, the managers are involving them so that they become part of the organization. An empowered worker has the power to make sensitive decisions for an organization. For example, in a teamwork environment, each member should be viewed as partner. This can help in fast tracking the determination of the organisation’s success and failures. Without a doubt, empowering g workers ensures the company taps into the underutilized potential including knowledge and skills. It is a motivational power that can transform an organization beyond the reproach.
In the technological age, companies have experience fierce competition that threatens their survival. In response, they have opted for the best talents with relevant skills to help them match the expectations of the customers. In fact, the competitive environment has demanded creativity, flexibility, and high skills from its workforce. The competitive environment calls for different strategic models to manage and inspire workers (CIPD 2009). Thus, these businesses have made job restructuring by embarking on proper planning that can improve performance. These circumstances have promoted the formation of teams that have performed based on the expectations as explained by CIPD (2009a). Many employers have opted to a participative management approach thus adopting employee involvement and participation (Marchington 2001).
Employee involvement has the potential to increase the job security. Since employee’s value job security, introducing a participatory management approach would guarantee them the safety of their position in the organization (Judge, & Gennard 2005). Most employers have exposed employees to relevant training that imparts the knowledge demanded in the job market. Indisputably, committed employee has high expectancy leading to better job performance and satisfaction. Indeed, companies in the current competitive market have found it knotty to improve performance without ensuring the workers are committed to their objectives and missions (Grates 2009). Consequently, employee involvement ensures employees put their ideas on performance thus improve the quality of work. In the world, nobody would wish to work in a failing organization.
Studies have indicated that employee involvement can prove to be an expensive affair (CIDP 2009). For instance, an organization must have enough resources to cater for the overhead costs. Training workers is never an easy task and it requires massive resources. Similarly, this method of engagement is risky and can easily collapse thus running the organization down. For example, if the organization lacks sufficient resources to support and motivate its workers. Sometimes the employees can get demoralized, especially when the management avoids implementing their recommendations.
The Roles and Objectives of the Different Parties in Employee Relations
Trade unions
In the future workplace relations, trade unions would play a crucial role as reported by Wright (2011). In the last three decades, the trade union objectives and roles have changed. This is because; of the global competition, legal constraints, outsourcing trends and the presence of employer sponsored worker participation. These significant changes have almost rendered the trade unions irrelevant. For instance, the trade unions have lost membership thus making the collective bargaining cover insignificant. In the future, the situation would be challenging and the trade union movements must prepare for the hard times ahead. Nevertheless, the situation would be dependent on the way these movements respond to the modern opportunities and challenges in equal measures (CIPD 2009).
Recently, many British companies have been compelled to respond to the market pressures leading to the fall of union membership. However, companies are adopting internal strategies that have enabled them to recognize the legitimacy of trade unions. According to Wright (2009), the employers are formulating regulations and adopting regulation laws to make unions relevant in their operating environment. Indisputably, the nature of employment relations seems to change thus exposing the trade unions to various opportunities and challenges. In fact, the world is experiencing the moment where industrial actions are becoming restricted. This has affected the national bargaining structures thus affecting the collective agreements. With the employer have the highest opportunity to deal with employees without involving unions. Brown, Bryson and Forth (2009) have recognized that the adoption of enterprise-level bargaining and individual contracts have regulated the workers’ conditions and compensation. To this effect, the trade unions are struggling to remain relevant by engaging in activities that focusing in the enterprise level.
In the UK, the 1999 Employment Relations Act has represented a favourable legal platform for the development of unions as elaborated by LRD (2009). This Act ensured the unions use statutory recognition to gain footholds even after the introduction of an enterprise-level bargaining (Wright 2011). With this law, the employers were barred from derecognising trade unions. Since the adoption of the law, the UK has seen more than 3000 volunteer unions emerge thus registering over 1.3 workers (Nowak 2009).
Despite the legal reforms in the UK labour market, the economic changes experienced in the UK market have had a negative impact on the union membership. Ang (2002) argues that employers have introduced tighter control measures over their employees thus preventing them from joining unions. To Brown and Marsden (2010), some workers view the trade unions as passive consultants that have failed to improve their welfare while organizations view these trade unions threats to their productivity. Since the law is clear on trade unions, the companies have thus found themselves in an unfamiliar corner where they have to accept a dual voice regime that combines non-union and union mechanisms (Gall 2006).
The declining unionized workplaces reflect the problem the employees experience in these organizations. It reflects the preferences of employers that are against the union voice mechanisms as explained by Willman, Gomez and Bryson (2009). Studies have expressed concern at an alarming rate of substituting the unionized workers with non-unionized workforce (Ang 2002). Despite these fears, studies have indicated that unions are the best approaches to represent the interests of workers (Heery 2010). Then, firms in the UK use non-unionized workforce to maximize control. The union-only mechanisms have allowed many workers and employers to pursue similar objectives. Indeed, with the adoption of I&CE regulations have given union’s lifeline and respect. This regulation allows even firms with 50 employees to form unions. Such a body always have the right to represent the interests of workers based on the economic situation and activities. The trade unions are the voices of workers as they consult with the membership to guide their contractual arrangements, staffing, and work conditions.
These unions promote employee dialogue and representation with the management. However, the I&CE Regulations are yet to create impact because the workplace dialogue is yet to take shape. For instance, Purcell and Hall (2011) discovered in their study that many unions are disregarding the interests of workers. They thus use the new regulation to achieve their interests. this has made the employers to disregard them by opting to work with the non-unionized staff.
The unions, civil society, and community groups have opted for alliances to protect the interests of workers. For example, the recent “living wage campaign” confirmed the significance of a coordinated effort between community groups and unions (Wright 2011: 8). This campaigned called for a better pay for employees across the UK cities including London. With these coordinated campaigns, it has been possible to address the issues pressing workers. For example, the working conditions are becoming pathetic and the need for action was eminent. The community groups such as charities and trade unions in the UK have pressured even banks, hotels, hospitals, schools, museums, and government authorities to pay their contractors and workers better. Through these coordinated efforts, many employees in major employers have won such as Barclays, KPMG, and the Olympic Development Authority and other local authorities. In the coordinated campaigns, unions such as RMT, Unite, and UNISON have participated in these efforts (UNISON 2008). Nevertheless, some non-unionized workers have won to earn high living wages without involving unions (Wills 2009).
Processes and Procedures Used In Manipulating Cooperation
Unions have adopted revitalization strategies to improve their engagement with workers and employers. They have realized that it would be possible for the trade unions to lose their membership and rendered irrelevant in the future. Although the market is becoming fragmented, the unions are adopting new strategies to justify their level of flexibility. They have focused on improving their economies of scale as reported by EIROline (2009). The important strategies unions are resorting to include partnership, workplace learning, organization, and engaging in the procurement processes to avoid being rendered useless. For instance, the Guardian (2009) reported that Unite was offering community memberships to various stakeholders such as students, jobless and single parents for about 50 pence per week. The union intends to apply these schemes to provide legal education and support to through an exchange of collective community action.
The fragmentation of the market has seen many unions moving faster ad quick to retain and attract new membership around the UK (The Guardian 2011). Partnership is among the strategies that has help in avoiding conflicts and improve engagement. To this effect, the unions have invested in organizing agenda. This renewal strategy goes beyond membership recruitment. It emphasizes the significance of empowering employees instead of instilling servicing (Wright 2011). The trade unions use organising strategy to instil the culture of activism and provide relevant skills to allow them strengthen organizational movements. The reorientation and investment efforts of the unions confirm that members can operate without the support of the union officials. Heery and Simms (2010) affirmed that employees are responding positively to the supportive agenda that unions continue to present. It is evident that hostility is evident in the workplaces with weak unions. The unions have decentralized their internal structures and embedded their servicing culture thus avoid internal oppositions. The organizing agenda seems to have attracted the attention of many activisms (Simms 2010).
The unions have put on a brave face to avoid being underestimated in the United Kingdom. The unions have responded to the pressures by establishing different bodies including the Partnership Fund, the Union Learning Fund, and the Union Modernization Fund to help in funding its activities. These organizations have helped the unions to expand to new areas. For instance, the Union Modernization Fund has facilitated cultural change thus helping to connect unions with members. The unions have used such projects to establish new strategies that represent the needs of workers and improve communication structures with social media platforms as explained by Stuart, Lucio, and Charlwood (2009).
Initially, governments tricked unions into signing the voluntary partnership agreement with employers” (Wright 2011: 10). The authors of this agreement had believed that such an approach would enhance cooperation thus improve financial performance and produce efficient working practices. As a result, companies would share profits with employees as reported by Terry (2003). Samuel and Bacon (2010) have identified the hundreds of partnership agreements signed between employers and employees. Unfortunately, experts have poked holes in these agreements for being hollow as employer’s arm-twisted workers. For example, the employers offered employees job security by allowing flexible working conditions (Wright 2011). Undoubtedly, partnership agreements have enhanced modest trade-offs that guaranteeing unions involvement in all the major managerial decisions.
Partnership agreements are no longer the documents that employers can use to intimidate workers into accepting bad working conditions as anticipated by Samuel and Bacon (2010). Following the election of the partnership critics into the union positions gave the approach a renewed feel. The unions are now using it to protect the interest of members.
Conclusion
Today, the labour market fragmentation, single employer models, production system, and the international product market integration have rendered trade unions in the United Kingdom irrelevant. However, the Unions have opted to adopt an international regulatory strategies and instruments to help in protecting an improving labour standards and wages across the workforce. The Unions have a hard task ahead as they try to appeal to the new employees operating in an ever-shifting and dynamic labour market. In the light of continued hostility from the employers, especially among the unorganized industries and employers and occupational licensing, the operations of trade unions have changed. This has made the decision by employees to engage in voice difficult because of the implications within the organization. As evident in this article, the employers should allow the employee voice to thrive so that they can be productive.
Achur, J. (2011) Trade Union Membership 2010. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills: London.
Ang, A. (2002) “An eclectic review of the multidimensional perspectives of employee involvement.” The TQM Magazine, vol. 14, iss. 3, pp.192-201.
Bach, S. (2011) “A new era of public service employment relations? The challenges ahead.” Acas Policy Discussion Papers, Acas: London.
Brown, W. & Marsden, D. (2010) “Individualisation and growing diversity of employment relationships.” CEP Discussion Paper No. 1037, Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics and Political Science
Brown, W., Bryson, A. & Forth, J. (2009) “Competition and retreat from collective bargaining.” in William Brown, Alex Bryson, John Forth and Keith Whitfield (eds), The Evolution of the Modern Workplace, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Butler, P. (2009) “Non-union employee representation: Exploring the riddle of managerial strategy.” Industrial Relations Journal, vol. 40, no. 3, pp.198-214.
CIPD. (2009) Employee engagement (available at https://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/empreltns/general/empengmt.htm?IsSrchRes=1)
CIPD. (2009a) Psychological contract (available at: https://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/empreltns/psycntrct/psycontr.htm)
CIPD. (2016) “Employee relations: an introduction.” CIPD.CO, July 1. (available at https://www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/fundamentals/relations/employees/factsheet)
CIPD. (2017) “Employee voice.” Factsheet, March 23. (available at https://www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/fundamentals/relations/communication/voice-factsheet)
EIROnline. (2009) “United Kingdom: industrial relations profile.” European Industrial Relations Observatory Online. (available at https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/country/united.kingdom.pdf
Frauenheim, E. (2009) “Downturn puts new emphasis on engagement.” Work force Management, vol. 88, iss.8, pp.8-10.
Gall, G. (2006) “Introduction.” In G. Gall (ed), Union recognition: organising and bargaining outcomes, Routledge: London.
Gennard, J. & Judge, G. (2005) Employee relation. Charted Institute of Personal and Development, London.
Grates, F. G. (2009) “Engagement: why it shouldn’t be forgotten.” Strategic Communication Management, vol. 13, iss.1, p.7.
Guest, D.E. & Conway, N. (2002) Pressure at work and the psychological contract. CIPD, London.
Heery, E. & Simms, M. (2010) “Employer responses to union organising: Patterns and effects’, Human Resource Management Journal, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 3-22.
Heery, E. (2002)”‘Partnership versus organising: alternative futures for British trade unionism.” Industrial Relations Journal, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 20-35.
Heery, E. (2010) “Worker representation in a multiform system: a framework for evaluation.” Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 543-559.
Labour Research Department (LRD). (2009) Manpower, 31 January. (available at https://www.fairtoagencyworkers.org/good-practice-for-agency-workers/manpower)
Marchington, M. (2001) “Employee involvement at work”, in J. Storey(ed) Human resources management: A critical Text, 2nd Ed. Thomson learning, London.
Marchington, M., Wilkinson, A. & Ackers, P. (2001) Management choice and employee voice. CIPD, London.
Morrison, E.W. (2014) “Employee voice and silence.” Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behaviour, vol. 1, pp. 173-197.
Nowak, P. (2009) “Building stronger unions: A review of organising in Britain.” In G. Gall (ed), Union Revitalisation in Advanced Economies: Assessing the Contribution of Union Organising, Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke, 131-153.
Price, A. (2004) Human Resource Management in a Business context. Thomson Learning, London.
Purcell, J. & Hall, M. (2011) “The effect of the information and consultation directive on industrial relations in the EU Member States five years after its transposition: The UK.” European Industrial Relations Observatory Online. (available at https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/studies/tn1009029s/uk1009029q.htm)
Purcell, J. (2014) “Can employee voice and participation unlock employee engagement?” Faculty of Business and Economics, vol. 15, April, pp. 23-29.
Samuel, P. & Bacon, N. (2010) “The contents of partnership agreements in Britain 1990-2007.” Work, Employment and Society, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 430-448.
Simms, M. (2010) “Trade union strategies to recruit new groups of workers-United Kingdom.” European Industrial Relations Observatory Online, (available at https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/studies/tn0901028s/uk0901029q.htm)
Stuart, M., Lucio, M. M. & Charlwood, A. (2009) “Union Modernisation Fund-Round One: Final evaluation report.” Employment Relations Research Series No.104. Department of Business, Innovation and Skills: London.
Terry, M. (2003) “Can “partnership” reverse the decline of British trade unions?” Work, Employment and Society, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 459-472.
The Guardian. (2010) “Asda and Unite to tackle migrant discrimination.” Felicity Lawrence, 4 March.
The Guardian. (2011) “Unite launches cut price membership for students and the unemployed.” Dan Milmo, 17 July
TUC Commission on Vulnerable Employment. (2007) Hard work, hidden lives: the full report of the commission on vulnerable employment. Trades Union Congress, London.
UNISON. (2008) From Commissioning to Contract Evaluation: UNISON’s Guide to Campaigning and Negotiating around Procurement. UNISON, London.
Willman, P., Gomez, R. & Bryson, A. (2009) “Voice at the workplace: where do we find it, why is it there and where is it going?” in William Brown, Alex Bryson, John Forth and Keith Whitfield (eds), The Evolution of the Modern Workplace, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 97-119
Wills, J. (2009) “Subcontracted employment and its challenge to labour.” Labour Studies Journal, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 441-460.
Wright, C.F. (2010) Swords of justice and civic pillars: the case for greater engagement between trade unions and community organisations, trades union. Congress, London.
Wright, C.F. (2011) “What role for trade unions in future workplace relations.” ACAS Future of Workplace Relations Discussion Paper Series, September. (available at https://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/g/m/What_role_for_trade_unions_in_future_workplace_relations.pdf)
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download
