The meanings and purpose of employee voice

This paper circulates around the core theme of The meanings and purpose of employee voice together with its essential aspects. It has been reviewed and purchased by the majority of students thus, this paper is rated 4.8 out of 5 points by the students. In addition to this, the price of this paper commences from £ 99. To get this paper written from the scratch, order this assignment now. 100% confidential, 100% plagiarism-free.

The meanings and purpose of employee voice

Tony Dundon, Adrian Wilkinson, Mick Marchington and Peter Ackers

Abstract In this paper we present and assess an analytical framework for examining the different ‘meanings, purposes and practices’ of employee voice. The data were collected from eighteen organizations in England, Scotland and Ireland. Managers defined voice very much in terms of the perceived contribution to efficiency and tended to downplay notions of rights; however, the linkages between voice and performance outcomes remain problematic. Overall, employee voice is best understood as a complex and uneven set of meanings and purposes with a dialectic shaped by external regulation, on the one hand, and internal management choice, on the other. The evidence suggests that the degree to which voice practices are embedded in an organization is much more important than reporting the extent of any particular individual or collective schemes for employee voice.

INTRODUCTION

The last decade has seen a growing interest in the notion of employee voice, both from those seeking higher levels of organisational performance and from those desiring better systems of employee representation. In public policy terms, the environment is more sympathetic to trade unions, more animated by notions of employee rights, and supported by new legal regulations (Ewing 2003). The election of New Labour in 1997, and their return in 2001, appears to mark another major turning point for employment policy (Ackers et al, 2004). While the current government remains committed to labour flexibility, it has been prepared both to regulate independently on behalf of employees and to commit the UK to European Social Policy; in particular the new EU Directive for Employee Information and Consultation rights (Hall et al, 2002). As a consequence, we have seen a period of legal re-regulation, which can be best divided between those policies that directly affect employee voice and those that indirectly alter the environment in which employee voice operates.

ISSN 0958-5192 print/ISSN 1466-4399. DOI: 10.1080/095851904100016773359

Both EU Directives on European Works Councils and Employee Information and Consultation, along with the UK government’s statutory trade union recognition procedures, have the potential to directly shape employers’ approaches to employee voice. EWCs have given a new trans- national impetus to consultation in British-based multinationals. The TUC’s newfound interest in consultation (rather than just collective bargaining) and the preparedness of trade unions to work alongside non-union representatives on EWCs, has given consultation a new lease of life. A decade ago, joint consultation appeared to be declining along with collective bargaining, eclipsed by direct communications and upward problem-solving and this led some to be concerned about a representation gap (Towers 1997; Marchington and Wilkinson, 2000). For large, unionised employers, EWCs have added another level to an already established system of representative participation. For some non-unionised firms, EWCs have offered new opportunities for employee voice, as will the transposition agreement endorsed by the CBI and TUC regarding the new EU Directive on Employee Information and Consultation (DTI, 2003; Ackers et al, 2004). Also, statutory trade union recognition raises the prospects of employers having to accept, perhaps reluctantly, trade union recognition for collective bargaining purposes where it is desired by a majority of their employees (Gill & Krieger, 1999). There are already signs of employers trying to pre-empt the possibility of a particular (perhaps militant) trade union being imposed on them by offering voluntary recognition for a selected single union. Equally, the EU Directive on Information and Consultation will require employers, in undertakings with 50 or more employees, to put in place procedures for employee voice over the next few years. The scope of such consultation will cover matters pertaining to the economic situation of the undertaking, developments relating to employment (especially any threats to employment), and substantial changes in work organisation or in contractual relations (Hall et al, 2002). In these cases, the legislation is likely to be the start of the story rather than the end, as employers exercise new choices and strategies shaped by the new regulatory environment.

In this article we examine the meanings and purpose of employee voice against this changing regulatory backdrop. We first consider the meanings of voice and its various characteristics to produce an analytical framework against which to examine the case study organisations. We also discuss the research instruments utilised in our study and outline the key characteristics of sample organisations. In the following section we discuss the purpose of voice, as articulated by the respondents in our sample. We then move on to examine the various mechanisms used and assess the extent to which these are embedded in each organisation (see also Cox et al, 2003). The penultimate section goes on to assess respondents’ views on the perceived outcomes of various employee voice schemes. Finally, in the concluding section, we comment on the utility of the framework presented for analysis and future prospects for employee voice.

THE MEANING OF VOICE

Voice is a term that has been more widely used in the practitioner and academic literature on HRM and industrial relations in recent years (Beardwell 1998, Sako 1998, Benson 2000; Roche, 2000). It is also noteworthy that a book based on the WERS surveys (Millward et al, 2000) devoted a complete chapter to the question of whether or not employees have ‘lost their voice’. In an issue of the Industrial Participation Association (IPA) Bulletin, Geoff Armstrong of the CIPD suggested that voice historically meant collective bargaining, and that this ‘chosen method of joint regulation became a straitjacket inhibiting the very things needed to win and keep customers’. He acknowledged that management was largely to blame for this, while suggesting that the shift to direct involvement reflected a desire to improve organisational performance. In contrast, Margaret Prosser of the TGWU argues that ‘collective voice achieves what the lone voice could never do: it humanises and civilises the workplace, arguing that collective representation is the foundation of a partnership relationship that brings positive benefits for business’ (Prosser, 2001). It has also been argued that the way employees are treated through the provision of opportunities for voice may have a more significant impact on commitment than the way employees are paid (Blinder, 1990:21). It is apparent, therefore, that there are competing meanings to the term ‘employee voice’, and that quite different purposes can underpin a desire for collective voice than for individual voice.

The best known use of the word voice goes back to Hirschman`s classic study (1970) of African Railways. However, he conceptualised voice as an option for customers in a context of how organisations respond to decline, and since then the term has been used with different applications. Freeman and Medoff (1984) argued that it made good sense for both employer and employee to have a voice mechanism. This had both a consensual and a conflictual image; on the one hand, participation could lead to a beneficial impact on quality and productivity, whilst on the other it could deflect problems which otherwise might explode. For Freeman and Medoff (1984), trade unions were seen as the best agents to provide such voice as they remain independent of the employer that adds a degree of voice legitimacy. As Benson (2000: 453) notes, ‘for some commentators independent unions are the only source of genuine voice’. In this context, much of the industrial relations literature views the articulation of grievances, either on an individual or collective basis, as the sole component of voice (Gollan 2001).

Some of the US human resource literature has broadened the notion of voice away from a single channel of worker representation, towards one that views it as capable of being articulated through a variety of channels. Thus, voice is defined more broadly by McCabe and Lewin (1992) as consisting of two elements. First is the expression of complaints or grievances in a work

context by employees to management. The second is the participation of employees in the decision-making processes of the organisation. Lewin and Mitchell (1992) further distinguish between mandated voice (e.g. co-determination and legislation) and voluntary voice (e.g. collective bargaining and grievance procedures). Boroff and Lewin’s (1997) analysis of survey responses from a non-union firm contradict the ideas of Hirschman and the findings of Freeman and Medoff. Analysing data from workers who indicated they had been subject to unfair treatment at work, they reported that employee voice via grievance filing was positively related to intent to leave their organisations, whereas loyalty was negatively related to grievance filing. In short, loyal employees who experienced unfair treatment were more likely to respond by suffering in silence.

Millward et al (2000) saw voice as comprising three different channels: via trade union membership, recognition and representation; via indirect or representative participation mechanisms such as joint consultation; and via direct employee involvement. Over the course of the WERS surveys, trade unions have become a less prominent voice channel with declining membership levels. Joint consultation and collective bargaining has also declined in extensiveness over the last twenty years. The third strand, direct employee involvement, whether this is communications or upward problem-solving techniques, has grown enormously in terms of coverage over this period. In addressing the question of whether or not employees have lost their voice, they conclude that ‘the answer must be “no” – but with important qualifications’ (Millward et al, 2000:135). They concluded that ‘the combined presence of a recognised trade union and union representation on a formal consultative committee was the only formulation to be independently associated with employees’ perceptions of fair treatment by their managers’ (Millward et al, 2000:137).

One problem however is that the extensiveness of voice is only part of the story (Marchington, 2004). The reported frequencies of certain voice schemes assume a static and unambiguous definition of what a particular mechanism actually means in practice. For example, some companies may adopt a partnership arrangement with trade unions, even though it has always existed and been called something else (Marchington et al, 2001; Oxenbridge & Brown, 2002). Similarly, other techniques may have been in existence for several years but always marginal to how managers actively tap into employee ideas. Given that the subject of voice has attracted interest from a variety of perspectives and disciplines, it is hardly surprising that its meaning has also been interpreted in quite different ways, both by academics and practitioners. In this article we have subdivided the meanings of voice into four principal strands of thought. These are outlined in Table 1 and represent the main analytical framework on which to assess voice in each of the case study organisations.

Table 1: The meaning and articulation of employee voice

Firstly, voice can be taken as an articulation of individual dissatisfaction. In this situation, its aim is to address a specific problem or issue with management, finding expression in a grievance procedure or speak up programme. This would fit with Hirschman’s view of voice described earlier. A second strand is the expression of collective organisation where voice provides a countervailing source of power to management, through unionisation and collective bargaining in particular. This is very much the Freeman and Medoff perspective. Thirdly, there is voice as a form of contribution to management decision-making. Here the purpose is concerned with improvements in work organisation and efficiency more generally, perhaps through quality circles or team working. This perspective on voice is evident in the high involvement/high commitment literature (Huselid, 1995; Pfeffer, 1998). Fourthly, voice can be seen as a form of mutuality, with partnership seen as delivering long-term viability for the organisation and its employees. The partnership model outlined by Guest and Peccei (2001) fits with this perspective. However, the precise meaning of the term ‘employee voice’ is open to question, and the rationale for its application can vary on economic, moral and pragmatic grounds. It can take a variety of forms in practice, and the effect of combining a number of mechanisms is unclear. The extent to which traditional methods of providing a voice for employees (such as collective bargaining and grievance procedures) have been superseded by, or combined with, more consensual methods (such as joint consultation, team working or problem-solving groups) is an issue that confronts many organisations. This also suggests that the depth of different

voice arrangements, and the aims and purpose of employer choices for employee voice, remain elusive in much of the extant literature. This article seeks to address these issues in relation to the potential configuration of voice meanings and purposes outlined above.

RESEARCH METHODS

The research presented in this article was collected from 18 organisations. The organisations selected reflected differences in size (small, medium and large), structure (single and multi-site), ownership (foreign and domestic owned), representative systems (union and non-union) as well as different sectors of economic activity. These included financial services, carpet manufacturing, transport (road haulage and aviation), retail outlets, telecommunications, hi-tech engineering, consultancy services, chemicals, call centre operations and a not-for-profit organisation. Background and contextual information on all the case studies provided in Table 2.

Given the analytical framework to assess the differences in employee voice presented in Table 1 above, several research themes informed the design of the fieldwork. The list of research themes is provided in appendix 1. These included, among others: managerial interpretations of the term employee voice; the combination of voice mechanisms used in each organisation; changes in the use of employee voice over time, in particular in relation to legal and public policy interventions; the forces that may constrain or help to shape managerial choices over employee voice; the perceived impact of voice on attitudes and performance; and any unusual or interesting practices that allow employees to have a say.

During this phase of the research interviews were conducted with managerial respondents only. These always included the person responsible for HR and other senior managers (such as chief executive, managing director and/or senior site manager). The precise number of interviews varied depending on factors such as organisational size, single or multi-site structures, logistics of access, time and availability of respondents. One particular emphasis was to include non- personnel practitioners where possible in order to allow different perspectives on the meanings, purpose and practices of employee voice to be assessed. In most of the multinational and multi- site organisations, interviews were conducted at one location and both HR and other managerial functions were included. As an example, at Scotchem and Scotoil, three senior managers were interviewed, including the HR manager, senior operations director and business unit leaders. In one of the SMEs the owner-manager and managing director both participated. At the local school, the head teacher and chair of the school governors were interviewed, and at Aqua this involved the chief executive and the HR director along with several of his team. In total 37 key informants were interviewed across the 18 cases, including HR as well as other senior managers

International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, Vol 15 (6), September, 2004: pp.1149–1170. Table 2: Background data on all organisations

ISSN 0958-5192 print/ISSN 1466-4399. DOI: 10.1080/095851904100016773359

Leisure Co	50 permanent 400 casual	Theme park	Leisure Co is over 10-years old and has had a relatively stable market share during that time, employing mainly non-unionised seasonal workers, with the bulk of the workforce (about 400) recruited during the summer months.
Midbank	4000	Financial services	Midbank is over 100 years old and has expanded its services and market over the last decade. Despite significant organisational change and restructuring over the last decade, the workforce numbers have remained relatively stable. There is a partnership agreement with UNIFI.
Retail Bank	30,000	Financial services	Retail Bank has its origins in the 19th century, operating in the financial services market. Over the last 5 years market share has increased with new services and a focus on selling. A trade union is recognised for bargaining purposes, with about 30% membership.
Scotchem	750	Chemical manufacturing	Scotchem is one of the leading firms in its market and has had a stable workforce for some time. The TGWU, AEEU and MSF are recognised, and union density is about 60% overall, but higher amongst manual employees. Scotchem is part of a large European owned multinational company which has a large degree of autonomy in how it manages employment relations
Scotoil	100,000	Oil and gas exploration	Scotoil employ over pe Get Fresh Answer: £99 International House, 12 Constance Street, London, United Kingdom, E16 2DQ Company # 11483120 Benefits You Get Free Turnitin Report Unlimited Revisions Installment Plan 24/7 Customer Support Plagiarism Free Guarantee 100% Confidentiality 100% Satisfaction Guarantee 100% Money-Back Guarantee On-Time Delivery Guarantee Recent Uploads why not counting the title and reference slides? Create a PowerPoint presentation consisting of a minimum of 10 sl Explain how your brand has created value and remains appealing to define popularity in terms of its brand recognition, brand strate Determine and describe how your favorite brand has gained market? Contact Us +44 7340 9595 39 +44 20 3239 6980 [email protected] AKOSZTEC “International House, 12 Constance Street, London, United Kingdom, E16 2DQ” Hire Researcher Rated 4.7/5 based on 8956 Reviews Company Home About Us FAQS Our Process Contact Us Privacy policy Why Choose Us Terms & Conditions Our Services CV Writing letter writing Article Writing Essay Writing Thesis Writing Assignment Writing Dissertation Writing Coursework Writing CIPD Assignment Help Supporting Pages Do My Thesis Write my essay Buy Essay Online Do My Coursework Do My Assignment Do My Dissertation Buy Thesis Online Buy Assignment Online Buy Coursework Online Buy Coursework Online All Rights Reserved. © 2024 Hire Researcher FLAT 50% OFF ON EVERY ORDER. Use "FLAT50" as your promo code during checkout