Employee Voice and Organizational Development - Literature review Example

Employee Voice and Organizational Development Name: Grade Course: Tutor’s Name: 3rd September 2011 Employee Voice Employee voice is “the ability to have input into the nature of an employee’s work life” (Befort & Budd, 2009, p. 173). There are different definitions to employee voice. According to Association (IPA) Bulletin and Armstrong as cited in Dundon, Wilkinson, Marchington and Ackers (n.d., p. 4), voice means collective bargaining. Hirschman’s concept of voice also produces another definition. Voice was first used as a way of communicating an organized decline; a way of communicating collectively as one organization. Since then, this term has been used in different applications. Under employee voice, its application means that employee voice is the collective way of communicating to employers (Dundon, Wilkinson, Marchington and Ackers, n.d., p. 4). McCabe and Lewin (1992) as cited in Dundon, Wilkinson, Marchington and Ackers, also have a different concept about voice. They define voice as consisting of two fundamentals. The first is the ability of employee to express grievances or complaints to management in a work context, and the second is the employee participation in the organization’s decision making process (n.d., p.5). Considering employee voice as the ability to have input into one’s working life, there are several different ways of input. These have been developed over time and influenced by different changes in the world. According to Budd, Gollan and Wilkinson (2010), decrease in trade unions has led to the development of new employee voice approaches. There are three forms of employee voice channels. These are; direct communication, representative participation and upward problem-solving participation. Direct communication and upward-problem solving participation involve individuals and in most cases, face to face interactions between the staff and their first line managers of supervisors. Some prefer informal ways of participation such as verbal or oral communications, while others prefer formal participation which involves written communication or formal procedures to the targeted parties (Budd, Gollan &Wilkinson, 2010, p. 305). Representative participation focuses on unions or other employees’ representative ways of communication and advocating for employees to the managers and the workforce. Mechanisms of representation are; collective bargaining, joint consultation and through worker directors (Budd, Gollan &Wilkinson, 2010, p. 305). Budd, Gollan &Wilkinson (2010) believe that employee unions have been on the decrease and because of that; different other forms of participation are emerging. Budd, Gollan and Wilkinson have reviewed literature on employee voice and the outcome shows that there are so many new approaches to studying employee voice and participation. The extensiveness of the new approaches covers various disciplines, uses diverse experimental methodologies, integrates new behavioral and strategic questions, and attracts global interest. Such kind of information will help policy makers, employee advocates and employers in developing more effective employee participation systems that serve the interest of modern employment relationships (Budd, Gollan &Wilkinson, 2010, p. 308). Examples are such as studies on direct and indirect employee involvement, analysis of team voice and worker representative participation and their labor productivity interactions, and study on determination of when workers decide to use voice where a model was developed (exit, voice, loyalty and neglect model) (Budd, Gollan &Wilkinson, 2010, p.307-308). Wood and Fenton-O’Creevy (2005), also show that there are three channels of employee voice which are; works councils and other representative committees, unions and direct methods. These channels are associated with the levels of voices so that direct communication voice level involves information sharing, representative councils and committees involves consultation and trade unions use negotiations when dealing with employee-employer and employee-union issues (Wood & Fenton-O’Creevy, 2005, p. 46). Budd, Gollan &Wilkinson (2010) suggested that decreasing use of collective voice led to the introduction of direct communication as an employee voice system. Wood & Fenton-O’Creevy (2005) however, explains that the existence of direct communication does not affect the collective voice of unions and other collective voice forms. It has been found through a model (mutual gains model) that direct communication exists alongside upward problem solving and representative representation (p. 28). In Wood and Fenton-O’Creevy’s study, the differential combinations of the channels influence the level of voice and so approaches to issues do not matter in representing voice systems. When the three different channels are used in an organization they harmonize mostly and so, the three channels are used of each issue rather than one channel substituted for another when dealing with an issue. Results also showed that union influenced the number of issues dealt with in an organization. In an organization where there is union influence, there are so many other issues dealt with in other channels (2005, p. 46). Expression of Employee Voice Having a voice by an employee is dependent on so many factors. One of such factors is the management style of the organization. Armstrong indicates that under unilateral management, employees have no voice while under cooperative management; they may have complete self management and control (2006, p. 809). Most managers do not have strategic choices that support the use of employee voice. Because of organizational change, management choices have turned to traditional and institutional systems where managers are the principal movers of organizational change regardless of the effect of product and labor markets (CIPD, 2001, p. 6). The Effect of Employee Voice on Organizational Performance Employee voice is the manner in which employees express their grievances and contribute to the decision making process of the organization. It forms part of effective communication if participation of employees’ is required in the decision making process and forms part of development of an organization’s culture. The communication process helps in developing the culture of an organization. It is also important in resolving conflicts within the organization (Mohan, 1993, p. 153). Bae and others’research is one study that shows the relationship between high performing work practices and employee voice. The study shows that high employee voice are associated with high performance for example, organizations with high performing work practices created more opportunities for employee to get involved in voice mechanisms such as small group activities and shop floor committees (2011, p. 1). Budd, Gollan &Wilkinson also indicate that with serious reforms, organizational outcome can e improved by participation (2010, p. 305). No specific voice mechanism however, has been found to improve labor productivity (Kim, MacDuffie & Pil, 2010, p. 388). Employee is one of the most important assets to the organization. There are two aspects of employee voice. There is expression of grievances and participation in decision making. Without good management of the employees, an organization has high chances of failure. Human resource managers should therefore recognize the importance of voice mechanisms and make use of them for the benefit of the organization. In the case where there are non-union voice mechanisms, the management of such a business should recognize the existence of other voice channels and make maximum use of them (Douglas & David, 1992, p. 112). What Improvements are necessary on Employee Voice Systems? There are different recommendations based on research results on what voice systems are currently appropriate or on what managers should do. More should be done on management systems and the recognition of employee voice systems. According to Dundon, Wilkinson, Marchington, and Ackers, most organizations are characterized by lack of trade unions and trade unions are recognized as effective while the other employee voice systems are considered “non-union and inadequate” (2005, p. 317). Non union voice is mostly managed by considering it inferior and weak, which should not be the case considering changes in the organization management systems and changes in the global economy. For organizations to achieve democracy and efficiency, non-union voice systems should also be well managed and considered important in the organization’s management. According to Dundon, Wilkinson, Marchington, Ackers, union representation among the British is decreasing and so more investigation should be done on non-union voice representation to ensure voice structures developed to improve business (2005, p. 317). Bennett (2010) notes that direct voice mechanisms’ use is on the increase while the use of trade unions as voice mechanisms is decreasing. One reason given to such decrease is the attitude of trade union members, which is negative towards the EU, despite laws enacted to give employees’ greater rights (p. 453). Peccei, Bewley, Gospel and Willman’s research also proves the above by indicating that, the role of trade unions have diminished over time and that representations through joint committees and works councils have a greater impact on information disclosure to the employees. The research study found that from 1990 to 2004, union representations influence on information disclosure decreased. This led to most employees losing interest in them and the shift towards joint committees and work councils (2010, p. 435). The shift of power to management may also have caused the change in the impact of union representation of employees. This caused a lot of pressure on the unions when they were still in early stages of development making them become less effective in bringing out high levels of information disclosure. Direct participation however, was not found to have any effect on information disclosure. By analyzing the effect of voice mechanisms on information disclosure, the research study investigates the role of employee voice mechanisms. According to Peccei, Bewley, Gospel and Willman therefore, non-union representation voice mechanisms have the highest influence on how employees express their interests, raise concerns and participate in decision making at the workplace (2010, p. 435). Another study supporting the increasing influence of non-union voice channel influence is Haynes’ which indicates that most hotels studied in Auckland show a trend of developing a collection of non-union channels (2005, p. 259). Because of the importance of employee voice to an organization, the management of any organization should appreciate such kind of information to ensure effective communication, which forms part of successful management of the organization. One major hindrance to an effective employee voice system in an organization is the management system or strategy. According to Danford and other, strategic objectives of employers do not correspond to democratizing agendas of trade unions and managers are working hard to strengthen trade unions through partnerships, a move that is disengaging joint consultation from the employee (2005, p. 515). (fillingodf) also notes that the influence on workers is still controlled and a majority of hotels studied in Auckland, still have traditional decision making privileges (p. 259) There are two factors to consider, the employee voice system and the organizational management system. An effective employee voice system that concurs with the current systems of doing business should be identified and made use of by managers. Managers should accept the importance of employee voice and incorporate their systems into their management strategies. The current business markets are rapidly changing and becoming more competitive and so managers should integrate changes in employee voice mechanisms and ensure effective management. There are so factors that can affect an employee’s freedom of voice. One of the as described above is the management style. This might limit an employee’s freedom to participate in decision making or even to express his or her problems. Other factors include; resources, rationality, resource use and values among so many others (The dynamic employee capabilities). In order to ensure consistency in voice freedom, Kulkarni (2010) proposed a framework. In this framework, human resource manager has to recognize the role played by the dynamic employee capabilities and develop employee management strategies that ensure they capabilities concur with that changes that occur in the organization (p. 448). Literature on employee voice shows that there are three types of employee voice mechanisms; union representing (trade unions), non-union representing indirect communication (work councils and committees) and direct communication. Trade unions’ influence on employees is decreasing while direct communication and work councils and committees are gaining popularity among employees and mostly used. The use of work councils and committees is found to be more popular than the direct communication mechanism. References Armstrong, M., 2006, A Handbook Of Human Resource Management Practice, (10th Ed), London: Kogan Page Publishers. Bae, K., Chuma, H., Kato, T., Kim, K. and Ohashi, I., 2011, High Performance Work Practices and Employee Voice: A Comparison of Japanese and Korean Workers, Journal of Industrial Relations, 50 (1), pp. 1-29. Befort, S. F. and Budd, J. W., 2009, Invisible Hands, Invisible Objectives: Bringing Workplace Law And Public Policy Into Focus, Stanford University Press. Bennett, T., 2010, Employee Voice Initiatives In The Public Sector: Views From The Workplace, International Journal of Public Sector Management, 23 (5), pp. 444-455. Budd, W., Gollan, P. J. and Wilkinson, A., 2010, New Approaches To Employee Voice And Participation In Organizations, Human Relations, 63(3), pp. 303–310. CIPD, 2001, Management Choice And Employee Voice, CIPD Publishing. Danford, A., Richardson, M., Stewart, P., Tailby, S. Upchurch, M., 2005, Workplace Partnership and Employee Voice in the UK: Comparative Case Studies of Union Strategy and Worker Experience, Economic and Industrial Democracy, 26 (4), pp. 593–620. Douglas, M. M. and David, L., 1992, Employee Voice: A Human Resource Management Perspective, California Management Review, 34 (3), pp. 112-123. Dundon, T., Wilkinson, A., Marchington, M. and Ackers, P., 2005, The Management Of Voice In Non-Union Organisations: Managers’ Perspectives, Employee Relations, 27 (3), pp. 307-319. Dundon, T., Wilkinson, A., Marchington, M. and Ackers, P., n.d., The Meaning and Purpose of Employee Voice, IJHRM Voice, pp. 1-30. Retrieved from: http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/10072/15400/1/34180_1.pdf Haynes, P., 2005, Filling the Vacuum? Non-union Employee Voice in the Auckland Hotel Industry, Employee Relations, 27 (3), pp. 259-271. Kim, J., MacDuffie, J. P. and Pil, F. K., 2010, Employee Voice And Organizational Performance: Team Versus Representative Influence, Human Relations, 63(3), pp. 371–394. Kulkarni, S. P., 2010, Sustaining The Equality Of Employee Voice: A Dynamic Capability, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 18 (4), pp. 442-465. Mohan, M. L., 1993, Organizational Communication And Cultural Vision: Approaches For Analysis, New York: SUNY Press. Peccei, R., Bewley, H., Gospel, H. and Willman, P., 2010, Antecedents And Outcomes Of Information Disclosure To Employees In The UK, 1990 --2004: The Role Of Employee Voice, Human Relations, 63(3), pp. 419–438. Wood, S.J and Fenton-O’Creevy, M. P., 2005, Direct Involvement, Representation and Employee Voice in UK Multinationals in Europe, European Journal of Industrial Relations, 11 (1) pp 27–50. Read More