Informed Employee Voice and Organizational Engagement

Exploring the connection between informed employee voice and

organisational engagement

1. Introduction

The term “employee voice” has a relatively long history in academic literature, dating

back to the 1970s when Hirschman (1970) used it in relation to employees' efforts to

change dissatisfying work situations. This was a focus on declining firms and

employees in terms of exit and voice. According to Wilkinson et al (2004) the word

‘voice’ was popularised by Freeman and Medoff (1984) who argued that it made

good sense for both company and workforce to have a ‘voice’ mechanism. Spencer

(1986) developed this theme and concluded that giving employees opportunities to

voice their dissatisfaction increased the likelihood that they would stay with the

organisation. However, Spencer (1986, p. 500) also noted that “…On the

organizational level of analysis, future research should consider not only formal voice

mechanisms and their quality, but also informal organizational cultures that create

and sustain those mechanisms”. This has led to wider thinking about employee voice

and according to Van Dyne et al (2003, p. 1369) the management literature contains

two major conceptualizations. The first approach describes speaking up behaviour

such as when employees proactively make suggestions for change. The second

uses the term to describe procedures that enhance justice judgments and facilitate

employee participation in decision making. This implies both informal and formal

mechanisms are required, though little attention has been given in the literature to an

open organisational culture that accepts and promotes voice in these ways.

Summarising the literature, Van Dyne et al (2003, p. 1370) conclude that the term

voice is used to “represent the intentional expression of work-related ideas,

information, and opinions”. Budd et al (2010, p. 305) argue that there is now a

renaissance in interest in participation, based on economic (generation of higher

levels of performance in the post mass production era), moral/ethic, and pragmatic

grounds.

This paper explores different dimensions of voice and argues that voice is dependent

upon employees being well informed; employees can only use their voice effectively

if their ideas and suggestions are based upon a strong understanding of what is

happening in the organisation. This leads on to the concept of informed employee

voice, which in turn, can potentially contribute to higher levels of employee

engagement.

Copyright: Kevin Ruck Contact: [email protected]

2. Employee voice is a multi-dimensional construct

According to Van Dyne et al (2003, p. 1370) it is incorrect to think of employee voice

as a single construct and they propose three specific types of voice; ProSocial Voice,

Defensive Voice, and Acquiescent Voice (see table 1 below).

PROSOCIAL VOICE DEFENSIVE VOICE ACQUIESCENT VOICE

Examples:Expressing solutions to problems based on cooperation

Suggesting constructive ideas for change to benefit the organization

Examples:Expressing ideas that shift attention elsewhere based on fear

Proposing ideas that focus on others to protect the self

Examples:Expressing supportive ideas based on resignation

Agreeing with the group due to low self efficacy to make a difference

Table 1 ProSocial Voice, Defensive Voice, and Acquiescent Voice

This approach is based on three specific employee motives within the existing

management literature on silence and voice: disengaged behaviour based on

resignation, self-protective behaviour based on fear, and other oriented behaviour

based on cooperation. It is a useful extension of the concept that illustrates some of

the underlying reasons that drive the way that employees express their voice. For the

purposes of this paper, informed employee voice is discussed primarily from the

concept of ProSocial voice as this is where organisational wide practices are

focused. This is not to downplay the importance of understanding Defensive and

Acquiescent Voice. Indeed, effective employee engagement practices need to

ensure that fear and resignation are minimised in order to gain maximum benefits for

the employee and the organisation.

In an alternative approach, Dundon et al (2004, p. 1152) suggest four categories of

employee voice; individual dissatisfaction, collective organisation (as a counter to the

power of management), management decision-making, and mutuality (a partnership

for long term sustainability). This extends the concept to include the idea that

employees work in partnership with senior managers for the benefit of the

organisation. Liu et al (2009, p. 191) point out that there are three alternative

characteristics of voice; discretionary (it’s not actually required), challenge oriented,

and potentially risky (it may be viewed negatively or damage relationships). The risks

involved may explain why employees are “usually reluctant to voice their thoughts”


(Liu et al, 2010, p.189). These perspectives on voice highlight the complexity of the

concept and the differing reasons why voice is, or is not, used.

Wilkinson et al (2004, pp. 6-7) take a broader, multi-dimensional approach to

employee voice, suggesting that is based upon five factors:

1. communication/exchange of views (an opportunity for employees and

managers to exchange views about issues)

2. upward problem-solving (an opportunity for employees to provide feedback

on specific topics)

3. collective representation (an opportunity for employee representatives to

communicate the views of the workforce to managers)

4. engagement (a feeling on the part of staff that they are able to express their

views to managers in an open environment)

5. a say about issues (the opportunity not just to have a ‘voice’ on issues but an

expectation that these views will be taken into account and may lead to

changes in how decisions are made).

This is essentially a communicative process with an emphasis on openness and

upward feedback that is taken seriously. In a qualitative study of employee voice,

Wilkinson et al (2004, p.7) conclude that voice as communication was by far the most

common immediate response to the question asking managers to explain their

understanding of the term ‘voice’. For example, the HR Manager at Eiretel is quoted

as saying that, “voice is about corporate communications and the strategy is

designed in such a way that all employees can represent their views to management,

rather than it just being the other way around”. However, the importance of informing

employees so that they are able to make an effective contribution is omitted from this

discussion. The critical importance of being well informed is supported by academic

research conducted for the CIPD by Truss (2006, p. 45) that identified the three main

factors that influence employee engagement as; 1) having opportunities to feed your

views upwards, 2) feeling well informed about what is happening in the organization,

and 3) thinking that your manager is committed to your organization. The third

aspect, management commitment to the organization, points to the importance of the

quality of the processes rather than the processes themselves.


Employee voice is also a term that overlaps with others such as involvement,

empowerment and democracy and is linked to participation in organizations (Budd,

Gollan, and Wilkinson, 2010). Marchington and Wilkinson (2005) suggest that there

are three dimensions; direct communication, upward problem-solving and

representative participation. Peccei et al (2010) take a similar approach, based on

three voice mechanisms: the recognition of a union for collective bargaining, the

presence of joint consultation through an establishment-level joint committee or

works council, and the existence of formal mechanisms of direct participation, such

as team briefings, quality circles, and problem-solving groups. However, there is little

attention given to how these three mechanisms are best integrated within an

organisation, the significance of more informal levels of voice, or the importance of

employees being suitably well informed to be able to make an effective contribution.

In a longitudinal study in the UK, Peccei at al (2010, p.433) found an upward trend in

information disclosure between 1990 and 1998, followed by a levelling off between

1998 and 2004. Importantly, according to Peccei at al (2010, p.432) “disclosure does,

in fact, seem to have a positive effect on financial performance…nevertheless, many

managers are clearly disinclined to share information with employees”. Peccei at al

(2010, p. 436) conclude that “there is, therefore, a need for management to learn

about, and to come to terms with, the processes of information-sharing”. How this is

to be achieved is not tackled in the paper.

Edmondson (2006) argues that the ubiquitous employee survey is an

overlooked voice mechanism as it offers a safe and ethical way of employees

being able to voice their concerns. Edmondson (2006, p. 307) offers three

general principles to guide future researchers in helping overcome organizational

communication problems:

1) build trust in the organizational survey process, the researcher(s), and the

organization, 2) eliminate the adversarial relationship that often exists between

management and employees who speak up and 3) provide evidence that the

organization does more than purport to value the things that it says it values.

However, the validity of an employee survey is dependent on the research

methodology (usually quantitative) and asking the right questions. This is not as

straightforward as it may seem. For example, Macey and Schneider (2008, p. 21)

argue that “…any measure that asks how satisfied an employee is with conditions at

or of work or asks about the presence of particular conditions of or at work is not a

measure of any of the three facets of the engagement construct we have elucidated”.


Different approaches to employee voice are integrated at three levels in table 2

below: individual/informal group, formal group, and organisation.

Individual/informal

group

Formal group Organisation

Exchange of views on

specific issues

Problem solving

Management decision

making

Collective bargaining

Joint consultation

Team briefings

Problem solving

Management decision

making

Opportunity to have a say

as part of the culture

Partnership approach for

long term sustainability of

the organisation

Survey

Table 2 A summary of different levels of employee voice

MacLeod and Clarke (2009, p. 75) reflect that of the people consulted for their report

to the UK government, most highlighted four broad engagement drivers/enablers;

leadership, engaging managers, integrity and voice. Voice is described as

“employees’ views are sought out; they are listened to and see that their opinions

count and make a difference. They speak out and challenge when appropriate”. At a

basic level, according to Royer et al (2008, p. 238) “the utilisation of different

employee voice mechanisms improve managerial responsiveness to employee

needs, improve employee control over their jobs and assist employees in influencing

job rewards”. Liu et al (2010, p. 191) highlight the importance of “transformational

leadership” that incorporates an approach whereby “employees are allowed more

leeway in communicating and challenging the status quo”. In their questionnaire

based research in China with 324 MBA students, Liu et al (2010, p. 199) found that

“strong personal identification with the leader might encourage followers to speak up

(e.g. share critical thinking with the leader) rather than keep silent”. This is important,

as Tourish and Hargie (2004, p. 194) suggest that “The danger is that top managers

can become like rock stars surrounded by a sycophantic entourage”. The move from

transactional to transformational styles of leadership with an inherent tolerance of

more dissent in the workplace may mitigate against this. However, resistance or

critical feedback may still be seen as something to overcome rather than as useful

insight to inform strategy.


Dundon and Gollan (2007, p. 1186) highlight the link between voice and trust and

claim that, “The evidence suggests that more effective non-union voice channels are

based on managerial strategies that place a premium on high levels of trust between

management and employees”. An absence of opportunities for voice may be

symptomatic of a view emanating from the strategic management literature that only

senior managers are critical resources (Royer et al, 2008, p 240). Dundon and Gollan

(2007, p. 1188) go on to argue that a “lack of voice or a perception among

employees that their voice arrangements afford little utility, could be interpreted as a

sign that management is untrustworthy”.

The CIPD (2010, pp. 11-12) reinforces Dundon at al’s (2004) view on voice as

mutuality and notes that there is an appetite for a collective voice at work that is

similar to partnership working where “employees are at the heart of strategy

development and delivery”. The report suggests (2010, p. 16) that employers are

“increasingly looking to OD specialists to develop internal communications” though it

does not explain how OD consultants are more qualified to do this than corporate

communication professionals. Though collective voice may be enjoying a

renaissance (albeit through non-union forms), it is the appetite for critical upward

feedback that is the nub of the matter. Establishing employees as partners includes

the willingness to express things that senior managers may not wish to hear. As

Tourish and Hargie (2004, p. 197) point out, “…senior managers have a tendency to

over-critique negative feedback, while instantly agreeing with positive feedback”.

Deetz and Brown (2004, pp. 173-8) raise further concerns about involvement,

participation and workplace decision processes by suggesting that “…communication

has been largely treated as unproblematic, thus leading to a focus on developing

participation forums”, whereas the challenge is in “providing new ways to think about

and do communication in places where participation is genuinely favoured”. The lack

of understanding about the nature of the communicative process is compounded by

the fact that “Business schools more often require public speaking and presentation

skills rather than listening or negotiation skills” (Deetz and Brown, 2004, p. 177). It is

not so much about giving employees a voice per se as it is allowing them more

freedom about how they use it on the basis that senior managers are prepared to

accept, or better still, welcome, critical commentary. As Deetz and Brown (2004, p.

179) highlight, “talking to have a say is very different from talking to invent a choice to

which all can commit”. In the next section, the question of how information is shared

is examined in more detail.


3. Informed employee voice – beyond platitudes

In this paper it is argued that employee voice can and does, in itself, contribute to

employee engagement and improved financial performance. However, unless it is

based on highly effective information sharing the gains are going to be limited. Truss

(2006, p.18) reports that only 32 per cent of employees feel that they are both

fully/fairly well informed and also have opportunities for upward feedback. This is

group is, unsurprisingly, highly engaged. Truss (2006, p.41) goes on to argue that

“allowing people the opportunity to feed their views and opinions upwards is the

single most important driver of engagement”. However, the basis on which views and

opinions are expressed has to be a transparent, authentic and timely approach to

information sharing, otherwise any views or opinions expressed may not be well

enough informed. As Dundon and Gollan highlight (2007, p. 1186), “Effective

employee voice is about affording employees the opportunity to develop their

knowledge and skills so that they can contribute to decisions normally reserved for

management…”.The concept of informed employee voice is therefore introduced to

emphasise the dual importance of effective information sharing and opportunities to

express work-related ideas, information, and opinions.

In academic research, Forth and Millward (2002, p. 1) note that direct communication

between managers and employees is growing and communication through employee

representatives is declining. Between 1984 and 1998, based on evidence from

Workplace Employee Relations Surveys that involve 2000 workplaces in Great

Britain, “the proportion of workplaces where managers relied solely on direct

communication increased from 11 to 30 per cent” Forth and Millward (2002, p. 1). In

the same period, the use of newsletters increased from 34 to 50 per cent and the use

of more two-way communication in the form of “briefing groups” was noted as a

“pervasive phenomenon”, increasing from 36 to 65 per cent” Forth and Millward

(2002, pp. 4-5). This is useful as a reflection on the way that information sharing is

changing, though it does not investigate the content of the communication and gives

no indication as to whether employees feel that they are adequately informed to

participate fully in briefing groups. Peccei et al (2005, p. 12) raise some concerns

about the way that “information-sharing is often operationalized in process rather

than in content terms”. Furthermore, in a recent study on voice and engagement, the

CIPD (2010, p. 2) highlight the need for employers to focus on “the quality of voice

across their organisation, not just the process of consultation”. For example, some


employees say that “Employer’s newsletters can often be seen as management

propaganda” (CIPD, 2006, p. 7). Peccei et al (2005, p. 12) claim that “few studies

focus explicitly on the substantive content of disclosure practice” and that the impact

of disclosure “…varies depending on the level of commitment of employees, the type

of information disclosed and the performance outcome involved”.

Peccei et al (2005, p. 33) claim that, “… management’s systematic sharing of

information on performance targets relating to various aspects of the operation of the

organization can help to enhance employee commitment”. However, Deetz and

Brown (2003, p. 173) attribute the lack of voice, among other things to “inadequate or

distorted information.” This reflects a need to focus on the quality of information

sharing and trust in it. Despite the trend towards more direct communication between

managers and employees and the clear links to engagement, there is still some way

to go to get this to acceptable levels. According to Truss (2006, p. 13-14), 25 per cent

of employees say that their manager rarely or never makes them feel their work

counts. And only around half of all employees say that their manager usually or

always “consults me on matters of importance” or “keeps me in touch with what is

going on”. In general, 42 per cent of employees say that they are not kept very well

informed about what is going on in their organisation (Truss, 2006, p. 17) and this

applies to both the public and private sectors. If a large number of employees do not

feel very well informed there is only limited benefit to be gained (by the organisation

and the employee) from upward feedback sessions.

4. The connection between informed employee voice and organisational

engagement

In this section, the connection between informed employee voice and organisational

engagement is examined in more detail. The term informed employee voice is used

to describe organisational processes that enable employees to feel well informed and

to have a say about what goes on that is genuinely welcomed and seriously

considered. The term organisational employee engagement is used to focus on the

connection between the employee and the organisation. This is linked to

organisational identification (Edwards 2009) and organisational commitment. It is

different from some academic definitions of work engagement that are suggested by

Schaufeli and Bakker (2010, p. 13) to focus either on the individual role or the work

activity with both approaches incorporating behavioural-energetic (vigor), emotional

(dedication) and cognitive (absorption) dimensions. Indeed, in an examination of

concepts related to work engagement, Schaufeli and Bakker (2010, pp. 13-15)


suggest that “when engagement is considered to be equivalent to organizational

commitment, as in some definitions that are used in business, the very notion of

engagement is superfluous”. In contrast to this, it can be argued that when employee

engagement is linked solely to the individual and his/her role and work activity it is

too individualistic and diminishes the impact of social groups and organisational

factors. Other concepts that, according to Schaufeli and Bakker (2010) are linked, but

not equivalent to work engagement are extra-role behaviour, personal initiative, job

involvement, job satisfaction, positive affectivity, flow, and workaholism. This paper

argues that if organisational identification is not equal to employee engagement then

it is at least is a critical component, one that is worthy of special attention in the

context of informed employee voice as without it role and work activity have less

meaning. As Leiter and Bakker (2010, p. 2) acknowledge, “Employees’ responses to

organizational policies, practices and structures affect their potential to experience

engagement”. It is precisely the input to and response to organisational strategy and

practices that determines levels of vigor, dedication and absorption at work. This is

illustrated in a social identity theory approach to organisational identification adopted

by Millward and Postmes (2010, p. 335) in an academic study involving 51 business

managers in the UK. They reported that “The fact that identification with the

superordinate grouping of “the organisation” was particularly relevant to performance

is important for theoretical, empirical and pragmatic reasons”. This reinforces

research by Wieseke (2009) that found the higher the level of organisational identity

of sales managers the greater the sales quota achievement. Furthermore, a lack of

organisational identification has, according to Knight and Haslam (2010, p. 721) been

associated with increased stress and burnout, withdrawal, and sickness. This

thinking is based on social identity theory that argues that a person’s sense of self is

multidimensional (personal, social and human) and a shared social identity is a key

determinant of social behaviour. If a shared social identity in an organisational setting

is important it begs the question as to how it is developed. The concept of internal

corporate communication has been introduced by Welch and Jackson (2007, p. 186)

to link internal communication to employee engagement:

The internal corporate communication dimension is defined as

communication between an organisation’s strategic managers and its internal

stakeholders, designed to promote commitment to the organisation, a sense

of belonging to it, awareness of its changing environment and understanding

of its evolving aims.


Welch and Jackson (2007, p. 186) go on to state that academics and practitioners

“emphasise the role of clear, consistent and continuous communication in building

employee engagement”. However, clarity and consistency is just the starting point. A

lack of clarity and inconsistent communication is confusing for employees. However,

internal communication can be clear, consistent and distorted. It is the content and

tone of internal corporate communication that is more important. Internal corporate

communication, by its very nature in large organisations, is likely to be one-way

(though it can also be two-way). Feeling “well-informed” relies on receiving relevant,

timely, honest, information, though for it to be fully understood some element of two-

way discussion (with managers or peers) is also required. So, a combination of one-

way internal corporate communication with more localised team peer, project peer

and line manager is required to offset a potential cynicism with an overload of one-

way communication (Welch and Jackson, 2007, p. 185). This is encapsulated in

diagram 1 (see below) of continuous employee dialogue that emphasises the

combination of sharing information, providing opportunities for it to be discussed for

clarification (with more information provided if necessary), providing opportunities for

concerns to be raised and suggestions made, having these seriously considered, and

taking action or providing feedback on the concerns or suggestions. In some ways

this is a wider, alternative, application of creative problem solving, often summarised

in the literature (Henry 2001, pp. 45-6) as involving three phases;

Preparation – understanding and identifying the problem

Production – development of different solution alternatives

Judgment – choice of best solution


Diagram 1 Continuous employee dialogue

The key point is that providing information in itself is not enough. It has to be timely,

relevant, clear, and consistent and above all else it has to be honest and wholesome

to be trusted. The information shared needs to be discussed, put into context and

opportunities provided for employees to clarify what is being said. Only after this has

been done is it meaningful to provide opportunities for voice, where, in MacLeod and

Clarke’s terms (2009, p. 75), “employees’ views are sought out”. These views have to

be taken seriously and, to demonstrate it, employees are told what action is taken as

a result, or if no action is proposed the reasons for this are explained. The linkages of

this process are shown in diagram 2 below.


Diagram 2 Informed employee voice and employee engagement

The implications of adopting an informed employee voice approach to internal

communication are significant. It requires an understanding of the value of

communication within organisations, going beyond thinking of communication as an

add-on to the day job; it is fundamentally part of the day job. Every day. Levels of

employee engagement in the UK (as elsewhere) are low and this is impacting UK plc

productivity. However, approaches that reduce employee engagement to an

individual’s role or job are too limited. Low levels of information sharing need to be

addressed and, furthermore, opportunities for clarifying understanding need to be

provided before employee voice can become a genuine partnership between the

employee and the organisation.


Bibliography

Budd, J., P. Gollan, et al. (2010). "New approaches to employee voice and participation in organizations." Human Relations 63(3): 303.

CIPD (2010). "Voice and engagement: how does collective consultation contribute?": 1-21.

Deetz, S. and D. Brown (2004). "Conceptualising involvement, participation and workplace decision processes: A communication theory perspective." Key issues in organizational communication: 172-187.

Dundon, T. and P. Gollan (2007). "Re-conceptualizing voice in the non-union workplace." The International Journal of Human Resource Management 18(7): 1182-1198.

Dundon, T., A. Wilkinson, et al. (2004). "The meanings and purpose of employee voice." The International Journal of Human Resource Management 15(6): 1149-1170.

Edmondson, V. C. (2006). "Organizational Surveys: A Systsem for E,ployee Voice." Journal of Applied Communication Research 34(4): 307-310.

Edwards, M. (2009). "HR, perceived organisational support and organisational identification: an analysis after organisational formation." Human Resource Management Journal 19(1): 91-115.

Forth, J. and N. Millward (2002). The growth of direct communication, CIPD Publishing.

Freeman, R. and J. Medoff (1984). "What do unions do." Indus. & Lab. Rel. Rev. 38: 244.

Henry, J. (2001). Creative management, Sage Publications Ltd.Hirschman, A. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms,

organizations, and states, Harvard Univ Pr.Knight, C. and S. Haslam (2010). "Your Place or Mine? Organizational

Identification and Comfort as Mediators of Relationships Between the Managerial Control of Workspace and Employees' Satisfaction and Well-being." British Journal of Management 21: 717-735.

Leiter, M. a. B., A.B., Ed. (2010). Work engagement: Introduction. Work Engagement, A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research. Hove and New York, Psychology Press.

Liu, W., R. Zhu, et al. (2009). "I warn you because I like you: Voice behavior, employee identifications, and transformational leadership." The Leadership Quarterly.

MACEY, W. and B. Schneider (2008). "The meaning of employee engagement." Industrial and Organizational Psychology 1(1): 3-30.

MacLeod, D. and N. Clarke (2009). Engaging for success : enhancing performance through employee engagement : a report to Government. [Great Britain], Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Marchington, M. and A. Wilkinson (2005). "Direct participation and involvement." Managing human resources: personnel management in transition: 398.

Millward, L. and T. Postmes (2010). "Who we are affects how we do: the financial benefits of organizational identification." British Journal of Management 21: 327-339.


Peccei, R., H. Bewley, et al. (2005). "Is it good to talk? Information disclosure and organizational performance in the UK." British Journal of Industrial Relations 43(1): 11-39.

Peccei, R., H. Bewley, et al. (2010). "Antecedents and outcomes of information disclosure to employees in the UK, 1990--2004: The role of employee voice." Human Relations 63(3): 419.

Royer, S., J. Waterhouse, et al. (2008). "Employee voice and strategic competitive advantage in international modern public corporations-an economic perspective." European Management Journal 26(4): 234-246.

Schaufeli, W. B. a. B., A. B, Ed. (2010). Defining and measuring work engagement: Bringing clarity to the concept. Work Engagement, A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research. Hove and New York, Psychology Press.

Spencer, D. (1986). "Employee voice and employee retention." Academy of Management Journal 29(3): 488-502.

Tourish, D. and O. Hargie (2004). Key issues in organizational communication, Routledge.

Truss, C. (2006). Working life : employee attitudes and engagement 2006 : [research report]. London, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

Van Dyne, L., S. Ang, et al. (2003). "Conceptualizing Employee Silence and Employee Voice as Multidimensional Constructs*." Journal of Management Studies 40(6): 1359-1392.

Welch, M. and P. Jackson (2007). "Rethinking internal communication: a stakeholder approach." International Journal 12(2): 177-198.

Wieseke, J., M. Ahearne, et al. (2009). "The role of leaders in internal marketing." Journal of Marketing 73(2): 123-145.

Wilkinson, A., T. Dundon, et al. (2004). "Changing patterns of employee voice: Case studies from the UK and Republic of Ireland." Journal of Industrial Relations 46(3): 298.


Documents

Informed Employee Voice and Organizational Engagement