Strengths and Limitations of Employee Voice Practices for Employees - Essay Example

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF EMPLOYEE VOICE PRACTICES FOR EMPLOYEES by 29 July Strengths and Limitations of Employee Voice Practices for Employees Introduction The importance and implications of employee involvement in corporate matters remains one of the hot topics of organizational analysis. For many researchers, the term “employee involvement” was replaced by the term “employee voice.” The latter denotes a variety of meanings but generally describes the degree to which employees have the right or an opportunity to express their opinions about leadership, stakeholder issues, corporate performance, and related aspects of their participation in organizational work. It is generally assumed that employee voice practices benefit employees by turning them into equal participants of the major organizational processes, letting them express their views and impact firms’ profitability and, eventually, turning them into essential drivers of organizational growth. However, the most important limitations of employee voice practices should not be disregarded. If not delivered properly, employee voice may lead to serious shifts in status quo which may not benefit employees. Many employees have the fear of such changes and, consequently, try to avoid the use of their legitimate voice in business practices. Therefore, one of the basic tasks faced by managers in organizations is to develop and run employee voice processes in ways that do not inhibit the employee’s right for self-expression and influence on organizational performance and, simultaneously, do not turn employee voice practices into a punishment for the things employees usually want to say. Employee voice: How to describe? In order to understand how employee voice practices benefit or damage employee positions in companies, the exact meaning of employee voice needs to be understood. This is not an easy endeavor since the meanings and implications of employee voice are numerous, and different companies handle employee voice approaches in entirely different ways (Dyne, Ang & Botero 2003). However, across these numerous meanings, employee voice is generally assumed to be a motivation and willingness of employees to express their information, ideas and opinions regarding workplace improvements (Dyne, Ang & Botero 2003). Yet, it should be noted that if the worker does not express any opinions or does not try to impact workplace-related processes, that does not mean that this employee exists in the atmosphere of silence. In many instances, employees who withhold from expressing their opinions and thoughts openly simply use their voice in a different manner. Employee voice practices may be of a different nature and may also promote different forms of self-expression among employees. Based on Dyne, Ang and Botero (2003), employees may express themselves defensively, acquiescently, or prosocially. Regardless of the type, employee’s voice is always pervasive across all organizational processes when employees either take a proactive stance and express their views on workplace-related issues or when there is a legitimate, due process that increases the probability and facilitates employee involvement in corporate decision making (Dyne, Ang & Boreto 2003). Having a prosocial voice means that employees display positively oriented behaviors that are not required but have the potential to promote positive change in organizations (Dyne, Ang & Boreto 2003). More specifically, prosocial voice can be described as the means of expressing information and motives, based on cooperative motives (Dyne, Ang & Boreto 2003). Prosocial voice, however, is the most difficult of all employee voice practices ever presented by organizations. The fact is that prosocial voice always requires intention and effort (Dyne, Ang & Boreto 2003). Actually, this is where the first risks of getting into employee voice practices become evident: employees who seek to use their citizenship behaviors for their own or others’ sake may face managers’ reluctance to change the situation. They may even be viewed as a threat to the existing status quo. All these problems are to be discussed later in this paper. Employee voice practices: Benefits for employees Despite certain limitations, employee voice practices are commonly assumed to be one of the greatest benefits given by organizations to their workers. As mentioned above, the term “employee voice” is associated with the term “employee participation.” In other words, developing and implementing employee voice practices for organizations is the same as giving employees a chance to express themselves freely, for their own and the organization’s benefit. The impacts of employee voice practices on organizations and employees may be so huge that they may even reduce the scope of turnover intentions and even turnover itself. This is what Batt, Colvin and Keefe (2002) write in their article: employee voice practices are associated with lower quit rates. Union representation appears to be the most promising legitimate mechanism of employee voice across organizations (Batt, Colvin & Keefe 2002). Certainly, at first glance, it seems that the discussed reductions in employee turnover benefit primarily the organization itself, and not its employees. However, in reality, the benefits of employee voice practices for turnover have far-reaching implications for employee positions in the organization for which they work. First of all, the mere presence of legitimate union- and non-union-related mechanisms of voice expression and dispute resolution implies that employees have influence on their workplace position and are allowed to express opinions and information regarding possible improvements in the workplace. Second, employee voice practices, either through union or non-union mechanisms, which reduce employee turnover in the workplace, greatly contribute to the stability and cohesion within the organization. Low turnover is automatically related to greater workplace confidence and job security among employees (Batt, Colvin & Keefe 2002). Finally, employee voice practices that do not require union participation usually lead to the development of effective organization-based dispute resolution procedures and result in more effective teamwork (Batt, Colvin & Keefe 2002). Reduced costs that result from the lower turnover and the presence of effective employee voice practices can be further invested in the development of the organization’s human resources. The presence of effective employee voice practices (the word “effective” is used intentionally because ineffective employee voice practices can hardly benefit employees, and such distinction should be made in the discussion of each and every aspect of employee voice practices and organizational implications) means that employees can express their dissatisfaction and, consequently, prevent the risks of deterioration in their relations with managers (Dundon, Wilkinson & Marchington 2004). Employee voice practices benefit employees because they enable free expression of collectivity within the organization and greatly contribute to individual and collective decision making (Dundon, Wilkinson & Marchington 2004). Employees who feel that they can use their position to improve the organization for which they work, fulfill the role of a “countervailing source of power to management” (Dundon, Wilkinson & Marchington 2004). Employees who have the power and opportunity to provide a balanced force against the authority of management and its decisions will be more likely to become proactive in their striving to improve the organization (Batt, Colvin & Keefe 2007). Finally, through the development of employee voice practices, organizations empower employees to develop and sustain productive cooperative ties (Batt, Colvin & Keefe 2007; Dundon, Wilkinson & Marchington 2004). Employee voice by itself is a unique form of employee mutuality in organizations (Pfeffer 1998). It is an extremely effective way to deliver long-term viability for employees (Pfeffer 1998). As such, one of the most important rationales for developing and implementing employee voice practices is in the need to promote open communication and reduce the risks of grievances and complaints. In this ways, organizations reduce their costs and increase employee satisfaction. Employees feel empowered to participate in the most important organizational decisions. Finally, employee voice practices reaffirm the validity of employee rights and the moral importance of employee rights protection. In this sense, employee voice practices go beyond the realm of law and turn into a matter of morality and ethics within organizations. Researchers argue that at the very basic level, employee voice is an inseparable human right (McCall 2011). More specifically, employee voice is a matter of promoting and defending employee dignity; as a result, employees who work in organizations with solid employee voice practices experience greater inherent value in their work and, therefore, experience greater satisfaction with what they do (McCall 2011). However, to achieve an ideal level of dignity at the workplace, employees should exercise the amount of control over their workplace lives that is equal to that of management (McCall 2011). Therefore, achieving an ideal level of dignity at the workplace is never possible. For this reason, employees should not expect that voice practices will provide them with unlimited freedoms and grant them unlimited control over their obligations (McCall 2011). In this context, employee education is crucial to the success of all employee voice practices. Employee voice practices greatly contribute to fairness among employees and their self-worth (McCall 2011). Having employee voice practices at the workplace is actually the same as trying to promote equal dignity of each and every worker (McCall 2011). Through dignity and fairness, by letting employees to represent their voice in decision-making, organizations further promote employee self-worth (McCall 2011). However, again, the amount of power provided to workers through employee voice practices should be fair enough to let them “resist policies that unfairly damage their interests. That, of course, means a right to co-determine policy at all levels” (McCall, 2011, p.197). Employee voice practices: limitations Despite the benefits provided by employee voice practices, their limitations, if not addressed, can seriously impede the organizational and employee progress. According to Upchurch, Richardson, Tailby, and Danford (2006), employee voice practices are more a paradox than a benefit offered to employees. On the one hand, and as mentioned earlier, employees should be prepared to situations when their voice is either too weak or even unnecessary to promote the best decision. Employees are not managers, and they cannot possess a degree of decision making power equal to that of managers (McCall 2011). This realization may drive employee dissatisfaction with their position and impede their decision making powers. However, at times, taking a relevant decision without engaging employees is more appropriate and effective when, for example, employees do not possess sufficient information to take such decisions or may negatively impact the desired organizational outcomes. It should be noted that even the presence of various employee voice strategies and practices at the workplace does not guarantee that employees will have a practical opportunity to express their views and participate in organizational decisions on equal terms with managers. The factual implementation of employee voice practices does not always allow employees to express their views openly. The main limitation is that more often than not, managers express highly negative perceptions of employee voice practices (McCall 2011; Upchurch, Richardson, Tailby & Danford 2006). This is natural given that managers may be unwilling to take into account employees’ desires and wishes (Upchurch, Richardson, Tailby & Danford 2006). The most problematic is employee participation in the processes and decisions regarding pay (Upchurch, Richardson, Tailby & Danford 2006). Eventually, employee voice practices are a matter of employee preparedness and education. Not all employees are prepared to participate in organizational decision making, and not all employees have skills, knowledge, and orientation needed to benefit their own position within the organization. Employees are organizational shareholders, and the quality of their decisions that results from their participation in employee voice practices has profound implications for everything that happens within companies (Sako 2006). Faleye, Mehrotra and Morck (2006) suggest that despite the numerous benefits of employee voice practices, they push organizations away rather than towards shareholder value maximization. Reasons why employee voice practices have so limited benefits for employees and reduce their organizational benefits are numerous. In the general terms, employee voice creates “an entrenched workforce with corporate governance power. Entrenched labor, like entrenched management, can destroy value as it strives to maximize its utility. Moreover, like entrenched management, entrenched labor cannot be gotten rid of easily” (Faleye, Mehrotra & Morck 2006). In this sense, employee voice practices appear to be not the best way to align employee interests with those of the employer. Based on the recent study findings, most employees who have a factual opportunity to participate in workplace-related decisions have and promote fixed claims on organizations’ cash flow through salaries and wages (Faleye, Mehrotra & Morck 2006). Thus, without due education, training, and preparation, employees simply cannot create a full picture of corporate performance and improve their workplace position. Conclusion Employee voice remains one of the most popular ingredients of contemporary organizational research. Employee voice is conceptualized around the ability given by workers to participate in corporate decisions, express their dissatisfaction, and promote their workplace position. The benefits of having employee voice practices at the workplace are numerous: from letting employees express their views on the most important corporate decisions to the defense of employees’ basic human and moral rights. Simultaneously, the limitations of workplace voice practices cannot be disregarded. Employee voice practices may change the existing organizational status quo and, consequently, threaten employee position within the firm. Employee voice practices are a matter of employee education and training as not all employees can successfully promote their own good in the workplace. As a result, very often, employee voice practices push employees away, rather than towards, the maximization of their workplace and organizational benefits. Therefore, one of the basic tasks faced by managers in organizations is to develop and run employee voice processes in ways that do not inhibit employee right for self-expression and influence on organizational performance and, simultaneously, do not turn employee voice practices into a punishment for the things employees usually want to say. With the growing importance of employee participation in corporate decision making, HR managers will have to assume a new responsibility and develop strategies and solutions that maximize the utility and profitability of employee voice practices at the workplace (Detert & Burris 2007; Edgar & Geare 2005). References Batt, R, Colvin, A & Keefe, J 2002, ‘Employee voice, human resource practices, and quit rates: Evidence from the telecommunications industry’, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, vol.55, pp. 573–594. Detert, JR & Burris, ER 2007, ‘Leadership behavior and employee voice: is the door really open?’, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 869–884. Dundon, T, Wilkinson, A & Marchington, M 2004, ‘The meanings and purpose of employee Voice,’ International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 1149–1170. Dyne, LV, Ang, S & Botero, IC 2003, ‘Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs,’ Journal of Management Studies, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1360–1392. Edgar, F & Geare, AJK 2005, ‘Employee voice on human resource management,’ Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 361–378. Faleye, O, Mehrotra, V & Morck, R 2006, ‘When labor has a voice in corporate governance,’ Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 489–510. McCall, JJ 2011, ‘Employee voice in corporate governance: a defense of strong participation Rights,’ Business Ethics Quarterly, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 195–213. Pfeffer, J 1998, The human equation, Harvard Business Press, Cambridge. Sako, M 2006, ‘The nature and impact of employee ‘voice’ in the European car components Industry,’ Human Resource Management Journal, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 5–14. Upchurch, M, Richardson, M, Tailby, S & Danford, A 2006, ‘Employee representation and partnership in the non-union sector: a paradox of intention?’, Human Resource Management Journal, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 393–409. Read More