|
Article Excerpt
It stands to reason that an employee who speaks up about a problem or makes a suggestion, usually to a supervisor, and sees some action taken in response, will feel more positively about the employer and the job. Speaking up with negative results should have the opposite effect. What about employees who never speak up? The various ramifications of employee "voice" or lack thereof and the results, or lack of results, was examined in a study of business school students and others who worked at least 20 hours a week. The 185 responses had some expected and unexpected results, which should interest managers seeking to retain their best employees.
**********
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Employee voice has been referred to in both the popular and academic management literature as a powerful source for organizational adaptation and change. Collins (2001), in his popular book Good to Great, discussed the importance of creating an organizational climate in which employees are encouraged to speak the truth. However, according to Gordon (1988), organizations often give mixed messages. For instance, they may say they want innovation, but they actually push for conformity. In interviews with senior executives and employees from a variety of organizations, Perlow and Williams (2003) found that lack of voice in organizations "can exact a high psychological price on individuals, generating feelings of humiliation, pernicious anger, resentment, and the like that, if unexpressed, contaminate every interaction, shut down creativity, and undermine productivity."
Ever since Hirschman introduced the concept of voice in his 1970 book, Exit, Voice and Loyalty, researchers have been trying to identify both organizational and individual factors that encourage employees to speak up to their managers. Due to increased legislation, fear of unionization, and the increased emphasis on employee participation, many organizations have instituted formal mechanisms to encourage voice such as open door policies, grievance systems, suggestion boxes, and quality teams. However, encouraging employees to speak up could backfire if management listens yet takes no action. Previous studies have not investigated whether, from an employee's perspective, is it better to speak up and fail or never to speak up at all. This study compares three groups of employees across a range of organizations (those who have not voiced, those who have voiced successfully, and those who voiced unsuccessfully) in terms of five different outcomes: (1) voice propensity; (2) procedural justice; (3) attitudes toward the supervisor's openness and responsiveness; (4) organizational commitment; and (5) intention to quit.
Three of these outcomes, procedural justice, attitudes toward the supervisor, and organizational commitment, have been investigated previously as predictors of employee voice. Results have shown that if employees are more committed, believe the supervisor is open and responsive, and think that procedures within the organization are fair; they will be more willing to speak up. The purpose of this study is not to dispute these results but to argue that there is another step, which is the implementation of the voiced ideas. This study also investigates whom employees speak to when they see a need for change or innovation.
Employee Voice--Definition and Measures
Beginning with Hirschman (1970), the idea of voice as active dissent due to dissatisfaction dominated the research on employee voice for a number of years.
In 1988, Rusbult and colleagues expanded the scope of the voice definition to include efforts by the employees to improve working conditions. They defined voice as "actively and constructively trying to improve conditions through discussing problems with a supervisor or coworkers, taking action to solve problems, suggesting solutions, seeking help from an outside agency like a union, or whistle-blowing" (1988). In a related vein, Gordon, Infante, and Graham, (1988) defined voice as "promotive behavior that emphasizes expression of constructive challenge intended to improve rather than criticize." This is similar to Detert's and Burris' (2007) recent definition of voice as "verbal behavior that is improvement oriented and directed to a specific target that holds power inside the organization." That is the definition used in this study. Also, this study takes a different approach to measuring voice than most field studies that measure willingness to voice, either generally or in a specific situation. In this study, participants were asked to describe an instance where they actually spoke up to change or improve the work situation.
Voice and Outcomes
Several previous studies have linked employee voice to organizational commitment (loyalty) and intention to quit (exit), testing Hirschman's theory that employees can respond to dissatisfying conditions by either voicing or exiting. He argued that the choice between exit and voice strategies depends on loyalty to the work organization and a belief in the possibility of improvement. The results of these studies have been mixed, and, as mentioned, the definition of voice has been expanded to mean more than just a response to a dissatisfying condition. Also, the possibility of improvement might not be enough to ensure high employee morale. The organizational justice literature makes a distinction between process control (a chance to express one's opinions), and decision control (actually control over the outcome) (Early and Lind, 1987; McFarlin and Sweeny, 1996; Thibaut and Walker, 1972). Studies have shown that both may be related to procedural justice. According to the value-expressive perspective, people value the chance to express themselves, regardless of the outcome. Having the opportunity to voice is seen as more just than having no opportunity at all (McFarlin and Sweeney, 1996). According to the instrumental perspective, voice is only related to procedural justice if the employee has some control over the actual outcome. McFarlin and Sweeney (1996) concluded that studies had found more support...
|
