An Integrative Review of Employee Voice: Identifying a Common Conceptualization and Research Agenda

Abstract

Employee voice has been studied across a diverse range of disciplines, generating an extensive body of literature on the topic. However, its conceptualization across the disciplines has differed, resulting in a lack of integrative theories and frameworks on employee voice. The main objective of this paper is to conduct a multidisciplinary review of the academic research on employee voice, to show where there is an opportunity to adopt and adapt the findings and research on employee voice within alternate disciplines, and to demonstrate how this may lead to more common ground in the conceptualization of employee voice. This review focuses on an analysis of the Human Resource Management/Employment Relations and Organizational Behaviour disciplines' conceptualization of employee voice, beginning with the identification of where the disciplines diverged in their concept and study of employee voice. Further, it maps their similarities and differences, on the basis of motive, content, mechanism, target and management of voice. Finally, it identifies opportunities to incorporate the alternate disciplinary perspective and proposes a conceptual model, which addresses the blind spots in each discipline. It is proposed that the consideration of formal and informal employee voice in future studies will enable the better integration of voice research.

Fear Factory: Retaliation and Rights Claiming in Alberta, Canada

“…Mowbray, Wilkinson, and Tse (2015) argue that scholars in human resource management/employee relations and organizational behavior conceptualize employee voice differently. A key difference is the tendency of organizational-behavior scholarship to define voice as a prosocial behavior (with benefits accruing to the organization), thereby avoiding dissatisfaction as a motive for voice (wherein benefits more likely accrue to the workers).…”

“…A key difference is the tendency of organizational-behavior scholarship to define voice as a prosocial behavior (with benefits accruing to the organization), thereby avoiding dissatisfaction as a motive for voice (wherein benefits more likely accrue to the workers). Mowbray et al (2015) suggest there are numerous commonalities between these approaches that are emerging and propose an integrated model focusing on what motivates voice, the content and target of voice, and the mechanisms and channels available for employees. Van Dyne, Ang, and Botero (2003) helpfully note that silence and voice are not opposite ends of a single behavioral continuum, but rather are separate and multidimensional concepts.…”

Contribuições Do Pensamento De Michel Maffesoli Para Pesquisa Em Enfermagem E Saúde

“…8 The methodological steps for conducting this review were organized through a research protocol that included: a) identification of the theme and elaboration of the guiding question; b) establishment of inclusion and exclusion criteria; c) definition of the information to be analyzed in the selected studies; d) selection of articles; e) evaluation of studies included in the review; and interpretation of results. [9][10] As a result of the aforementioned aspects, the following guiding questions were formulated: what are the studies published in the area of nursing and health in the last 23 For the tracking of publications, the word "Maffesoli" was used as a search strategy. It should be noted that the researchers, together with a librarian, chose to search for only one word, since the search for combined words did not result in a representative number of articles published, or articles were not found.…”

Organizational Voice Behaviour and its Investigation in Terms of Organizational Variables

“…These systems not only provide employees chance of expressing their opinions before the relevant decisions are taken, but also challenge against these decisions after they are made (Pinder and Harlos, 2001). Mowbray et al (2015) suggested that developing both formal and informal mechanisms would help organizations to raise to voice and benefit from it. Formal and informal mechanisms that allow companies to raise the voice is shown in Table 1.…”