Order ready-to-submit essays. No Plagiarism Guarantee!
Note: Our papers are 100% human-written, not AI-generated.
We Write Essays for Students
Tell us about your assignment and we will find the best writer for your paper
Get Help Now!
GUEST EDITORS’ NOTE:
NEW TIMES FOR EMPLOYEE
VOICE?
A D R I A N W I L K I N S O N A N D C H A R L E S F AY
In this review, which also serves as an introduction to this special section, we briefl y discuss the growing interest in employee voice and how and why interest in this topic has emerged over the last few years. “Employee voice” has been used to summarize several different approaches to employee re- lations, and numerous other terms have been used interchangeably with “employee voice.” In this introduction, we discuss the different approaches to voice, and, relying on the literature of HRM, political science, industrial relations, and organizational behavior, we develop a specifi c conceptuali- zation of voice useful to scholars and HRM professionals. We discuss the direction of research in this area and summarize the papers in this issue. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Keywords: employee voice, involvement, participation, employee engagement, empowerment, decision making, unions, diversity, turnover intentions, high- performance work systems, organizational commitment, job design
T he term “employee voice” is one that has become used increasingly in the field of human resource manage- ment (HRM) in recent years. Even smaller organizations, such as the
East Boston Savings Bank (in Peabody, Mas- sachusetts), have developed formal and infor- mal programs to ensure that managers under- stand employee concerns and employees know that managers will hear their voiced concerns. Larger organizations, such as DHL, have developed multiple programs to provide employees with opportunities to express their concerns and have trained managers to re- spond to those concerns (Hirschman, 2008). Providing voice mechanisms to employees may provide concrete advantages to employers. Employees with voice opportunities may be
less motivated to support union organizing drives (Lewin & Mitchell, 1992) and may be less likely to quit (Spencer, 1986).
In general, the term “voice” refers to how employees are able to have a say re- garding work activities and decision mak- ing issues within the organization in which they work. We find that practitioners and academics, however, use other terms for employee voice (participation, engage- ment, involvement, or empowerment) in different ways. Some authors refer to in- volvement, others use participation, while still others use empowerment or engage- ment as if they were interchangeable, often without extracting the conceptual mean- ings or differences used in practice (Parks, 1995).
Correspondence to: Adrian Wilkinson, Business School, Griffith University, Queensland 4111, Australia, Phone: 0061 7 37356792 37356792, E-mail: adrian.wilkinson@griffith.edu.au.
Human Resource Management,Human Resource Management, January–February 2011, Vol. 50, No. 1, Pp. 65 – 74
© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
DOI: 10.1002/hrm.20411
66 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2011
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
A central issue, therefore, is that employee voice is a broad term with considerable width in the range of definitions authors assign (see,
for example, Budd, Gollan, & Wilkinson, 2010; Dietz, Wilkin- son, & Redman, 2009; Poole, 1986; Sashkin, 1976; Strauss, 2006). This width is particularly evident across different disciplinary traditions from human resource manage- ment—political science, psychol- ogy, law, and industrial relations— that have distinct perspectives on voice as well as the other overlap- ping and related terms (Wilkinson, Gollan, Marchington, & Lewin, 2010). So, it seems scholars from diverse traditions often know rela- tively little of the research that has been done in other areas. Perhaps the best exposition of the term voice goes back to Hirschman’s (1970) classic work, although the notion of employee voice could be dated to the ideas of the human relations school. Hirschman, how-
ever, conceptualized “voice” in a very specific way and in the context of how organizations respond to decline, though the term has been used in rather different contexts and applica- tions since. His own definition was “any at- tempt at all to change rather than to escape from an objectionable state of affairs” (p. 30). The point about voice is that its provision may secure general improvements. If exit is reduced, however, this may force the discon- tented to take action within the organization, hence making voice more powerful.
Conceptualizing Employee Voice
We can try to make sense of the elasticity of the terms by seeing employee voice as an op- portunity to have “a say” and, indeed, this is central to most definitions (Freeman, Boxall, & Haynes, 2007; Marchington, 2008). But as Strauss (2006) points out, voice is a weaker term than some of the others, such as par- ticipation, as it does not denote influence and may be no more than spitting-in-the-wind. Voice is a necessary precursor for participa-
tion but does not in itself lead to participation. So voice has multiple “meanings” and can be interpreted in different ways such as being seen as a countervailing source of power on management action or perhaps part of a mu- tual gains process (Dundon, Wilkinson, Marchington, & Ackers, 2004).
But much more important than the no- menclature is what specific practices actually mean to the actors, whether such schemes can improve organizational effectiveness and employee well-being, and the extent to which various practices allow workers to have a say in organizational decisions. Much will de- pend on whether voice initiatives are per- ceived as faddish or are embedded within an organization (Cox, Zagelmeyer, & Marching- ton, 2006). Clearly, forms of employee voice through participation can differ in the scope of decisions, the amount of influence work- ers can exercise over management, and the organizational level at which the decisions are made. Some forms are purposely designed to give workers a voice, but not more than a very modest role in decision making, while others give the workforce a more significant say in organizational governance.
We identify four strands of literature that are useful for our understanding of employee voice. The first relates to HRM literature fo- cused on performance. Here the argument is that informing and allowing employees an input into work and business decisions can help create better decisions and more under- standing and hence commitment (Boxall & Purcell, 2003). This is linked to the substan- tial high performance literature in which voice is seen as a key ingredient in creating organizational commitment (Lewin & Mitch- ell, 1992; Pfeffer, 1998). It also links with re- cent discussions concerning the idea of en- gagement (Emmott, 2005; Welbourne, 2007). These various arguments and prescriptions appear to have clear implications for manag- ing employee participation in organizations. Among these implications are that hierarchy and compliant rule-following are inappropri- ate for employees who are expected to ex- pend discretionary effort. Wilkinson, Dun- don, Marchington, and Ackers’s (2004) research on employee voice suggested there
The point about
voice is that its
provision may
secure general
improvements. If exit
is reduced, however,
this may force the
discontented to take
action within the
organization, hence
making voice more
powerful.
NEW TIMES FOR EMPLOYEE VOICE? 67
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
are three ways in which it can have a positive impact. First, valuing employee contributions might lead to improved employee attitudes and behaviors, loyalty, commitment, and more cooperative relations. Second, it could lead to improved performance, including in- creases in general productivity and individual performance due to lower absenteeism and greater teamwork. Third, it could improve managerial systems by tapping into employ- ees’ ideas, knowledge, and experience and promoting greater diffusion of information.
Royer, Waterhouse, Brown, and Festing (2008) argued that treating employees as stakeholders in the organization bears similar outcomes. Employees who have developed significant firm-specific human capital have invested in the organization and have earned voice just as have shareholders. Providing voice to these employees provides a rationale for further emotional and human capital in- vestment, with the same sorts of outcomes noted by Wilkinson et al. (2004).
The current business narrative is that or- ganizations need to take the high road with high-value-added operations or be dragged down into competing for low-value-added jobs that are in danger of moving abroad (Handel & Levine, 2004). As Strauss (2006) observed, getting workers voice “provides a win-win solution to a central organizational problem—how to satisfy workers’ needs while simultaneously achieving organizational ob- jectives” (p. 778). Theory and practice, how- ever, can diverge (Harley, Hyman, & Thomp- son, 2005). Moreover, the main aim of this approach to voice reflects a management agenda concerned with increasing under- standing and commitment from employees and enhancing contributions to the organi- zation. Thus, while some forms may provide employees with new channels through which their influence is enhanced, facilitating em- ployee voice does not involve any de jure sharing of authority or power; therefore, there is not always a link between voice and decision making. Indeed, it can be voice without muscle (Kaufman & Taras, 2010).
A second strand of literature from politi- cal science sees voice in terms of rights, linking this to notions of industrial citizen-
ship or democratic humanism. First, the con- cept of industrial democracy (which draws from notions of industrial citizenship) sees participation as a fundamental democratic right for workers to extend a degree of con- trol over managerial decision making. More recently, organizational democracy is a term that is beginning to be used (see Harrison & Freeman, 2004). This also brings in notions of free speech and human dignity (Budd, 2004). Indeed, the argument is that work- place democracy allows skills and values to develop, which then have a role in broader society (Foley & Polyani, 2006).
A third strand, drawing from the indus- trial relations (IR) literature and not unrelated to the above, sees voice as representative (and largely union voice). The academic concept of voice used in this strand was popularized by Freeman and Medoff (1984), who argued that it made good sense for both company and workforce to have a voice mechanism. This had both a consensual and a conflictual image: On the one hand, employee voice could lead to a beneficial impact on quality and productivity, while on the other, it could identify and deal with problems (Gollan & Wilkinson, 2007). Trade unions were seen as the best or only agents to provide voice be- cause they were independent. A variation of this strand has looked at representative voice but takes into account non-union forms. Thus, there has been considerable literature on non-union employee representation and the efficacy of such structures (Kaufman & Taras, 2010). The debate on workers’ losing their voice was originally premised on union decline, but unions’ losing their place does not mean employees have a reduced appetite for voice. In many European countries, the state plays a much more active role on top of voluntary collective bargaining. France, for example, has statutory elected workers’ coun- cils, while West Germany has an elaborate system of works councils and workers’ direc- tors known as co-determination. Our focus in this issue is not on this wide aspect of public policies, although it is important to note that voice does extend beyond competitiveness to shaping employees’ psychological and economic well-being. Further, it extends to
68 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2011
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
the health of families and the quality of a country’s democratic process (Budd & Zagel- meyer, 2010).
A fourth strand is rooted in the organiza- tional behavior (OB) literature and relates to task autonomy in the context of work groups’ acquiring a greater degree of control. Creat- ing semi-autonomous work groups, now commonly referred to as teamworking or self- managing teams, gives workers a say in allo- cating tasks, scheduling, monitoring atten- dance, health and safety issues, the flow and pace of production, and even setting of im- provement targets (Wall & Martin, 1987). Teams can also be responsible for recruiting and training, as well as controlling overtime levels. Such groups can have both skill discre- tion (solving problems with the knowledge of the group) and means discretion (choice in organizing the means and tools of work) (Cooper, 1973). These practices have a long pedigree seeking to counter the degradation of work and employee alienation (Proctor & Mueller, 2000); many of these schemes formed part of a series of work psychology experiments in the 1960s and 1970s (e.g., the Tavistock Institute, quality of work life pro- grams in the United States and Sweden; Berg- gren, 1993).
We represent the above categorization in Table I. We acknowledge that these are sim- plistic and there are overlaps, but it is a useful heuristic device. Basically, we represent how each of the strands of literature covers the dimensions of voice. These are the type of
schemes typically discussed, the focus and forms of these vehicles, and the underlying philosophy.
Much of the research relates to how these structures are established, the motivation for them, and how they operate in practice. Other research takes a largely institutional view: that is, that failure is the decline or col- lapse of the structure. The assumption is that setting up a structure itself sorts the problem (Dietz et al., 2009). But many voice systems have “deaf ears” and frustration can be evi- dent (Harlos, 2001). A recent area of research has looked at the antithesis of voice: em- ployee silence, defining silence as an employ- ee’s “motivation to withhold or express ideas, information and opinions about work-related improvements” (Van Dyne, Ang, & Botero, 2003, p. 1361). This literature investigates when and how employees in organizational settings exercise voice and when and how they opt for silence (Milliken, Morrison, & Hewlin, 2003). This approach tends to focus explicitly on the intentional withholding of ideas, information, and opinions with rele- vance to improvements in work and work organization (Van Dyne et al., 2003). But equally, management might, via agenda set- ting, seek to perpetuate voice on a range of issues (Donaghey, Cullinane, Dundon, & Wilkinson, in press). While it is possible that regulatory rules and laws force management to do things that they would otherwise ne- glect (Marchington, Wilkinson, Ackers, & Dundon, 2001), management is likely to re-
T A B L E I Summary of Theoretical Paradigms
Literature Strand Schemes Focus Form of Vehicle Philosophy
HRM Briefi ng, open door policy; suggestion schemes
Performance Individual Effi ciency
Industrial relations
Collective bargaining; works council; social partnership; non- union employee representation
Power, Control Representative Countervailing power
Industrial democracy
Workers on boards Decision making Representative Rights
Organizational behavior
Teams; groups Job redesign Individuals and groups
Autonomy and human needs
NEW TIMES FOR EMPLOYEE VOICE? 69
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
tain some choice, at least in determining the robustness of voice at the workplace level (Willman, Bryson, & Gomez, 2006). Manage- ment behavior then lies at the heart of the debate on managing voice structures.
Blended Voice and New Channels
While the literature may well come from dis- crete camps, there are overlaps of the schemes in practice. Some forms of direct voice coexist and overlap with other techniques, such as suggestion schemes, quality circles, or con- sultative forums. In a European context, col- lective participation remains significant in certain countries, notably Germany and Swe- den. A key issue is how direct and indirect voices coexist and the extent to which they complement or conflict with each other (Pur- cell & Georgiadis, 2006). Further, the context for voice has changed with union decline. As Freeman et al. (2007) noted:
Quality circles and other forms of small group problem solving have become commonplace in the Anglo- American world. These management driven forms of involvement are designed to serve employer goals of improved productivity and fl exibil- ity. However, our data suggests they increasingly meet the desire of work- ers to be involved in the things that relate most directly to them. (p. 215)
Increasingly research suggests that em- ployers have a range of voice structures (Bryson, Gomez, & Willman, 2010), and evi- dence suggests that employees want a range of channels. Equally, while there is talk of voice systems, much of the data suggest em- ployers have ad hoc practices reflecting his- tory rather than a fine-tuned employee voice strategy. So, employee voice is not always embedded in the workplace and can be frag- ile in terms of both the structure and the ef- ficacy. Pyman, Cooper, Teicher, and Holland (2006) argued that a critical issue is the con- figuration of multiple channels of voice rather than a single channel. Furthermore, they questioned how and why different voice
channels complement one another and under what conditions multiple arrangements are sustainable. They concluded that the interac- tion and coexistence of multiple channels of voice and plurality of arrangements are most effective and legitimate from an employee’s perspective in achieving organiza- tional outcomes. Similarly, Han- del and Levine (2004) pointed out that bundles should be more ef- fective than the simple sum of ef- fects for the individual practices; hence, the existence of voice schemes may tell us little about the quality of the process.
As we look across different countries, providing for voice var- ies considerably (Lansbury & Wailes, 2008). Thus, in European countries government policy and legislation provide for a statutory right to voice in certain areas and among both union and non-union establishments. This is by no means typical. Other countries, including America and Australia, place much less emphasis on stat- utory provisions for employee voice and more emphasis on the preferences of managers and unions to establish their own arrangements. In many organizations, the result is a mixed cocktail of direct and indirect voice. It is also worth noting that depending on the societal regime within which employee voice is situ- ated, the benefits tend to be seen from rather different perspectives. Thus, in liberal market economies, voice is seen in terms of contribu- tion to profit and shareholder value at the organizational level and in customer service and in product quality and staff retention at the workplace level. Issues related to worker commitment, job satisfaction, and alignment with organizational goals are often the prox- ies used to measure the success of employee voice schemes, but in themselves these may tell us little about the impact of particular schemes on the bottom line or the consolida- tion of management prerogative. In coordi- nated market economies, the focus is longer- term and more widely defined in terms of a
Similarly, Handel
and Levine (2004)
pointed out that
bundles should be
more effective than
the simple sum
of effects for the
individual practices;
hence, the existence
of voice schemes
may tell us little
about the quality of
the process.
70 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2011
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
range of stakeholder interests including that of the government, employers, trade unions, and workers. The focus is on peak level insti- tution representation. In other words, in these
situations the expectation is more likely to be of mutual gains, either at the level of the individual em- ploying organization or more broadly in terms of citizenship and long-term social cohesion (Wilkinson et al., 2010). As Budd and Zagelmeyer (2010) remind us, voice is not necessarily a private affair, and it is not simply about improving economic perfor- mance.
The Special Issue
In this issue, we present a range of papers to shed light on the topic of voice. Goldberg, Clark, and Henley (this issue) bring together
voice, procedural justice, and social identification literature. Their model incorporates observers’ voice responses to injustices perpetrated on co workers. Based on social identity theory, they argue that the tar- get of injustice influences observer identifica- tion with the target, as moderated by the ob- server’s scope of justice. This, in turn, influences the observer’s perceptions of injustice and decision to express voice. They also suggest that the link between observers’ perceptions of injustice and expressed voice is moderated by the observers’ perceived opportunity to express voice. They argue the decision to express voice individually or collectively depends on the justice climate along with the costs and benefits associated with each option. The new model helps us understand that if a co-worker is treated unfairly, when individuals are likely to engage in expressed voice and whether they are likely to do so on an individual basis or as a group.
Holland, Pyman, Cooper, and Teicher (this issue) examine the relationship between em- ployee voice and job satisfaction. They test hypotheses concerning the relationship be-
tween direct and union voice arrangements and job satisfaction. This relationship repre- sents a gap in the literature and is important from both theoretical and practical perspec- tives. Controlling for a range of personal, job, and workplace characteristics, regression anal- yses suggest that although there was evidence of voice complementarity, direct voice appears to be the central voice arrangement underpin- ning job satisfaction. The paper examines the implications of the study for management practice. It was unclear in previous research whether the benefits of complementary voice arrangements are due to union presence or progressive HRM practices that encourage di- rect voice. Their findings show that although the presence of both union and direct voice arrangements in the workplace may be posi- tively associated with job satisfaction, direct voice appears to be the central mechanism underpinning job satisfaction. The role union voice arrangements played in this relationship remains unclear. HR managers, therefore, must be mindful of the relationship between em- ployee voice arrangements and job satisfac- tion, not only in seeking to build organizations that comprise committed, loyal, and high-per- forming employees, but in developing and implementing arrangements that allow em- ployees to have influence over a range of task- related and organizational issues.
Farndale, van Ruiten, Kelliher, and Hope-Hailey (this issue) examine employee voice using the lens of exchange theory: how perceptions of employee voice, the employee–line manager relationship, and trust in senior management are related to organizational commitment. It is hypothesized that the direct relationship between perceptions of the opportunity for employee voice and organizational commitment is mediated by the longer- term effects of the perceived employee–line manager relationship and trust in senior management. They note the importance of trust in senior management as a partial mediator of the relationship between employee voice and organizational commitment. This study supports the idea that employees perceive the opportunity for voice as an exchange commodity
Based on social
identity theory,
they argue that the
target of injustice
influences observer
identification with
the target, as
moderated by the
observer’s scope of
justice.
NEW TIMES FOR EMPLOYEE VOICE? 71
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
that they reciprocate with organizational commitment. In particular, Farndale et al. have also highlighted that it is important to consider two types of relationship between an employee and the organization: the employee–line manager relationship and trust in senior management. From a practical perspective, this study has highlighted the value of placing a greater focus on employee voice to enhance employee attitudes toward the organization. Line managers also have an important role in ensuring this required belief and trust in the organization and its leaders exists.
Bell, Özbilgin, Beauregard, and Sürgevil (this issue) note that as invisible minorities, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender employees offer a perspective from which to examine the relationship between the increasing diversity of the workforce and employee voice mechanisms. Because sexual minorities are often silenced by what is perceived as “normal” in work organizations, they examine some of the negative consequences of this silencing and propose ways in which the voices of sexual and other invisible minorities may be heard. Clearly, this is relevant to policies and practices in other organizations, given the “don’t ask; don’t tell” policy of the U.S. military to cite just one example. The authors suggest how HR managers can facilitate the expression of voice for sexual minority employees in today’s increasingly diverse organizations.
Avery, McKay, Wilson, Volpone, and Killham (this issue) examine how tenure diminishes the affect of voice. They point out that while research has shown that the opportunity to provide voice leads to posi- tive employee reactions, there is little on the boundary conditions for its effects on worker outcomes. Taking Greenberger and Strasser’s (1986) model of personal control in organizations, they hypothesized that the positive effect of voice on intent to re- main would be less pronounced for employ- ees with longer organizational tenures. Re- sults of national surveys from the United Kingdom and United States supported the anticipated relationships. Thus it appears that the beneficial effects of voice on
employee attitudes may lessen as employees accrue tenure with their employer.
Conclusion
The articles in this issue suggest that voice is an important issue for human resource professionals. If an organization has a good justice climate, employees are less likely to seek collective action in the face of unfair treatment of a coworker (Goldberg, this issue). Similarly, the work of Holland et al. suggests that direct voice is more impor- tant to job satisfaction than the presence of a union (collective voice). The work of Farndale et al. suggests that the opportu- nity for voice is closely linked to organiza- tional commitment, especially when em- ployee–line manager relationships are good and the employee trusts senior manage- ment. The work of Bell et al. highlights the importance of voice in promoting organi- zational diversity. Finally, the work of Avery et al. suggests that employee voice is particularly important for employees with less tenure. Taken jointly, these papers ex- pand the rationale for HR professionals to support employee voice policies and proj- ects: The organizational outcomes make such support well worthwhile.
It is clear from this short review and the contents of this issue that there are competing visions and expectations of em- ployee voice, and quite different motives can underpin a desire for collective voice rather than for individual voice. While voice has important democratic implications, given a choice, managers tend only to be interested if there is a perceived payoff. That might be avoiding issues because of early warning systems, or it could represent a more positive role. For voice to have legitimacy, however, it needs to be about more than the managerial concept of efficiency and adding value to business.
Yet voice does not exist in a vacuum and choice is likely to be affected by other HR structures and management style. Wood and de Menezes (2008) concluded that management’s overall orientation to the
72 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2011
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
ADRIAN WILKINSON is a professor and director of the Centre for Work, Organisation, and Wellbeing at Griffi th University, Australia. Recent research has encompassed em- ployee participation and voice, high performance work systems, and comparative and international employment relations. He has published nine books and more than 100 articles in refereed journals. His recent books include Human Resource Management at Work (4th edition, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 2008), Contempo- rary Human Resource Management (3rd edition, Pearson, 2009), The Sage Handbook of Human Resource Management (Sage, 2009), and The Oxford Handbook of Organisa- tional Participation (Oxford University Press, 2010).
CHARLES FAY is a professor of human resource management at Rutgers University, New Jersey. His research focuses on compensation and performance management, particularly on the intersection of the two areas—performance-based pay. His published books include Managing for Better Performance: Enhancing Federal Performance Man- agement Practices (IBM Center for the Business of Government, 2007), Strategic Rewards: An Executive’s Handbook on Compensation (Free Press, 2001), and New Strategies for Public Pay: Rethinking Government Compensation Programs (Jossey-Bass, 1997). He has also contributed numerous chapters to edited books.
involvement and development of employees can be more significant than any specific practice. Equally, Bryson, Charlwood, and Forth (2006) concluded that managerial responsiveness to the process of participa- tion is as important for superior labor pro- ductivity as the existence of a formal voice regime. Just as HRM may need bundling to produce a payoff, so voice may need to be bundled and then embedded. Once implemented, voice can shrivel. There seems to be a life cycle in relation to specific schemes such that employee voice
is a fragile plant that needs care and attention to allow it to flourish.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to all of the authors who responded to the call for papers for this special issue, and we are particularly indebted to all of the referees for the constructive reports that made this special issue possible. Our sincere thanks also go to Theresa Welbourne, editor-in-chief of Human Resource Management, and Leslie Wilhelm Hatch, managing editor, for her support and guidance.
References Berggren, C. (1993). The Volvo experience: Alternatives
to lean production in the Swedish auto industry. Basingstoke, England: Macmillan.
Boxall, P., & Purcell, J. (2003). Strategy and human resource management. London: Palgrave.
Bryson, A., Charlwood, A., & Forth, J. (2006). Worker voice, managerial response and labour productivity: An empirical investigation. Industrial Relations Journal, 37(5), 438–455.
Bryson, A., Gomez, X., & Willman, P. (2010). Voice in the wilderness: The shift from union to non- union voice in Britain. In A. Wilkinson, P. Gollan, M. Marchington, and D. Lewin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of participation in organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Budd, J. (2004). Employment with a human face: Balanc- ing effi ciency, equity and voice. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
Budd, J., Gollan, P., & Wilkinson, A. (2010). New ap- proaches to employee voice and participation. Human Relations, 63(3), 1–8.
Budd, J., & Zagelmeyer, S. (2010). Public policy and employee participation. In A. Wilkinson, P. Gollan, M. Marchington, & D. Lewin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of participation in organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cooper, R. (1973, August). Task characteristics and intrinsic motivation. Human Relations, 26, pp. 387–408.
Cox, A., Marchington, M., & Suter, J. (2009). Em- ployee involvement and participation: Developing the concept of institutional embeddedness using
NEW TIMES FOR EMPLOYEE VOICE? 73
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
WERS2004. International Journal of Human Re- source Management (UK), 20(10), 2150–2169.
Cox, A., Zagelmeyer, S., & Marchington, M. (2006). Embedding employee involvement and participa- tion at work. Human Resource Management Jour- nal, 16(3), 250–267.
Dietz, G., Wilkinson, A., & Redman, T. (2009). Involve- ment and participation. In A. Wilkinson, N. Bacon, T. Redman, & S. Snell (Eds.), The Sage handbook of human resource management. London: Sage.
Donaghey, J., Cullinane, N., Dundon, T., & Wilkinson, A. (in press). Re-conceptualising employee silence: Problems and prognosis. Work, Employment, and Society.
Dundon, T., Wilkinson, A., Marchington, M., & Ackers, P. (2004). The meanings and purpose of employee voice. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(6), 1150–1171.
Emmott, M. (2005). What is employee relations? Change Agenda. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
Foley, J., & Polanyi, M. (2006). Workplace democracy: Why bother? Economic and Industrial Democracy, 27(1), 173–191.
Freeman, R. B., Boxall, P., & Haynes, P. (2007). What workers say: Employee voice in the Anglo-Ameri- can workplace. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Freeman, R., & Medoff, J. (1984). What do unions do? New York: Basic Books.
Gollan, P., & Wilkinson, A. (2007). Contemporary devel- opments in information and consultation. Interna- tional Journal of Human Resource Management, (18)7, 1133–1145.
Greenberger, B. D., & Strasser, S. (1986). Development and application of a model of personal control in organizations. Academy of Management Review 11(1), 164–177.
Handel, M., & Levine, D. (2004). The effects of new work practices on workers. Industrial Relations, 43(1), 1–43.
Harley, W. G., Hyman, J., & Thompson, P. (2005). Participation and democracy at work: Essays in honour of Harvie. Basingstoke: Ramsay Palgrave Macmillan.
Harlos, K. (2001). When organizational voice systems fail: More on the deaf-ear syndrome and frustration effects. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 31(3), 324–342.
Harrison, J., & Freeman, E. (2004). Is organizational democracy worth the effort? Academy of Manage- ment Executive, 18(3), 49–53.
Hirschman, A. (1970). Exit, voice and loyalty: Respons- es to decline in fi rms, organizations and states. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hirschman, C. (2008). Giving voice to employee con- cerns. HR Magazine, 53(8), 51–53.
Kaufman, B., & Taras, D. (2010). Employee participation through non-union forms of employee representa- tion. In A. Wilkinson, P. Gollan, M. Marchington, & D. Lewin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of participation in organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lansbury, R., & Wailes, N. (2008). Employee involve- ment and direct participation. In P. Blyton, N. Bacon, J. Fiorito, & E. Heery (Eds.), The Sage handbook of industrial relations (pp. 434–446). London: Sage.
Lewin, D., & Mitchell, D. (1992). Systems of employee voice: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Cali- fornia Management Review, 34(3), 95–111.
Marchington, M. (2008). Employee voice systems. In P. Boxall, J. Purcell, & P. Wright (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of human resource management. Ox- ford: Oxford University Press.
Marchington, M., Wilkinson, A., Ackers, P., & Dundon, T. (2001). Management choice and employee voice. London: CIPD.
Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1453–1476.
Parks, S. (1995, May). Improving workplace perform- ance. Monthly Labor Review, pp. 18–28.
Pfeffer, J. (1998). The human equation: Building profi ts by putting people fi rst. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Poole, M. (1986). Towards a new industrial democ- racy: Workers’ participation in industry. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Proctor, S., & Mueller, F. (Eds.). (2000). Teamworking. London: Macmillan.
Purcell, J., & Georgiadis, K. (2006). Why should em- ployees bother with worker voice? In R. Freeman, P. Boxall, & P. Haynes (Eds.), What workers say: Employee voice in the Anglo-Saxon world. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Pyman, A., Cooper, B., Teicher, J., & Holland, P. (2006). A comparison of the effectiveness of employee voice arrangements in Australia. Industrial Rela- tions Journal, 37(5), 543–559.
Royer, S., Waterhouse, J., Brown, K., & Festing, M. (2008). Employee voice and strategic competitive
74 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2011
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
Welbourne, T. M. (2007). Employee engagement: Doing it vs. measuring it. In K. Sangeetha & C. Mukunnan (Eds.), Employee engagement: Trends and cases (pp. 147–152). Tripura, India: ICFAI University Press.
Wilkinson, A., Dundon, T., Marchington, M., & Ackers, P. (2004). Changing patterns of employee voice. Journal of Industrial Relations, 46(3), 298–322.
Wilkinson, A., Gollan, P., Marchington, M., & Lewin, D. (2010). Conceptualising employee participation in organisations. In A. Wilkinson, P. Gollan, M. March- ington, and D. Lewin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of participation in organizations (pp. 1–25). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Willman, P., Bryson, A., & Gomez, R. (2006). The sound of silence: Which employers choose “no voice” and why? Socio-Economic Review, 4, 283–299.
Wood, S., & de Menezes, L. (2008). Comparing perspectives on high involvement management and organizational performance across the British economy. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(4), 639–683.
advantage in international modern public corpora- tions—an economic perspective. European Man- agement Journal, 26(4), 234–246.
Sashkin, M. (1976, July). Changing toward partici- pative management approaches: A model and methods. Academy of Management Review, pp. 75–86.
Spencer, D. G. (1986). Employee voice and employee retention. Academy of Management Journal, 29(3), 488–502.
Strauss, G. (2006). Worker participation—some un- der-considered issues. Industrial Relations, 45(4), 778–803.
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003). Concep- tualizing employee silence and employee voice as multi-dimensional constructs. Journal of Manage- ment Studies, 40(6), 1359–1392.
Wall, T., & Martin, R. (1987). Job and work design. In C. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organisational psychology (pp. 61–91). Chichester, England: John Wiley.
The post In this review, which also serves as an introduction to this special section, we briefl y discuss the growing interest in employee voice and how and why interest in this topic has emerged over the last few years. appeared first on Versed Writers.
Welcome to originalessaywriters.com, our friendly and experienced essay writers are available 24/7 to complete all your assignments. We offer high-quality academic essays written from scratch to guarantee top grades to all students. All our papers are 100% plagiarism-free and come with a plagiarism report, upon request
Tell Us “Write My Essay for Me” and Relax! You will get an original essay well before your submission deadline.
