All powerful voice? The need to include “exit”, “loyalty” and “neglect” in empirical studies too

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to set out and justify a broader, systemic typology that encompasses, and is built around, the notion of voice. This leads to the development of a number of insights that can result in the generation and testing of more accurate hypotheses on the links between voice mechanisms and workplace outcomes. Design/methodology/approach -Drawing on different aspects of the concept of "power" and arguing that these are central to the notion of "voice", the paper illustrates how "exit", "loyalty" and "neglect" are also underpinned by power. A corollary of this is that these other concepts should routinely be included in studies of the links among voice and workplace outcomes. Findings -The paper develops hypotheses that can enhance the understanding of the likely impact of voice policies on employees' attitudes and behaviour as well as on firm performance. Practical implications -The hypotheses suggest that, if employees perceive voice mechanisms in a negative way, they may respond in a variety of ways that can have a detrimental effect on firm performance. Understanding these different responses and the likely reasons for them can lead to more appropriate policy responses by managers. Originality/value -The paper specifies the conditions under which relationships between voice, exit, loyalty and neglect will affect workplace outcomes in greater detail. This leads to a re-examination of factors that should be included in empirical assessments. Research findings may need to be re-evaluated as a result.

Voice Climate Perceptions: A Multidimensional Model as a Determinant of Affective Commitment, Work Engagement, Neglect and Exit

“…These findings suggest that organisational mechanisms such as grievance systems, meetings, and open door policies may be limited in their ability to improve voice climate perceptions alone. Employees are likely to be aware of the extent to which some channels may be unsafe or ineffective and may be particularly influenced by the extent to which they feel encouraged to utilise different mechanisms (Allen & Tuselmann, 2009; Farndale et al, 2011; Landau, 2009; Morrison et al, 2011;Withey & Cooper, 1989).While the analyses did not find any strong evidence for common method and multicollinearity the small sample size necessitates that the results of this study be interpreted with caution. More research is needed before the result can be generalised more broadly although there is strong theoretical support for the multidimensional conceptualisation of voice climate.…”

“…In addition, Allen and Tuselmann (2009) suggest that employees are even more likely to respond to dissatisfaction with exit in situations where they perceive that voice behaviour is either too costly, or unlikely to improve their situation. It is therefore hypothesised that voice climate, and in particular efficacy and safety, will be negatively related to exit.…”

“…Much of the research involving neglect has limited the construct to fairly passive behaviours such as chronic lateness, non-medical absenteeism, the personal use of company resources, shirking, and disengagement from work tasks (Allen & Tuselmann, 2009;Hagedoorn, Van Yperen, Van De Vliert, & Buunk, 1999;van Iterson, Naus, & Roe, 2007). Neglect can however be differentiated from the withdrawal of goodwill.…”

“…Affective organisational commitment, efficacy, empowerment, encouragement, exit, neglect, safety, turnover, voice climate, work engagement Voice Climate Perceptions 2 Organisational voice has the ability to influence important work-related factors including employees' affective organisational commitment, work engagement, neglect, and exit (Allen & Meyer, 1990;Allen & Tuselmann, 2009, Bryson, Charlwood, & Forth, 2006 Farndale, Van Ruiten, Kelliher, & Hope-Hailey, 2011; Miles, Borman, Spector, & Fox, 2002; Park & Rainey, 2007;Vakola & Bouradas, 2005;Withey & Cooper, 1989). The term 'voice' has however been used interchangeably to refer to both voice behaviour, which concerns the act of communicating, and voice climate, which refers to the perception and beliefs about attitudes and practices related to voice behaviour in the workplace.…”

“…The term 'voice' has however been used interchangeably to refer to both voice behaviour, which concerns the act of communicating, and voice climate, which refers to the perception and beliefs about attitudes and practices related to voice behaviour in the workplace. Research suggests that voice climate perceptions are best represented by three components: encouragement, safety, and efficacy (Allen & Tuselmann, 2009; Farndale et al, 2011; Frazier, 2009; Landau, 2009; Morrison, Wheeler-Smith, & Kamdar, 2011) which are conceptually distinct from related constructs such as psychological safety, general group efficacy, and involvement climate (Frazier, 2009; Morrison et al, 2011). Only one previous study has included encouragement as a component of voice climate (Frazier, 2009) and none have incorporated all three facets.…”