Channels of employee voice: complementary or competing for space?

• Published date: 01 March 2018
• Date: 01 March 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/irj.12209

Channels of employee voice:

complementary or competing for space?

Christina McCloskey and Anthony McDonnell

ABSTRACT

This article identifies the existence of employee voice channels and examines how they

interact within the context of an overall organisational voice system. In so doing, we

can better appreciate the disparities between the micro-level reality and macro-level

rhetoric of employee voice for highly skilled employees in the knowledge intensive

sector. Drawing on an instrumental, inductive case study involving managers and,

most notably, employees, the research finds that the plurality of mechanisms provided

for voice appears to cause some confusion that leads to a neglect of certain channels

and others competing for attention. This raises the issue, which has not received atten-

tion thus far, as to whether the availability of multiple voice channels can have

counter-productive effects whereby they start to compete with rather than comple-

ment each other.

1 INTRODUCTION

Employee voice is a long-standing research topic having developed from the early

work of Freeman and Medoff (1984) that viewed it as the sole preserve of trade

unions. More contemporary thinking recognises managerial-led mechanisms as offer-

ing viable alternatives or substitutes to union voice (Bryson, 2004; Charlwood and

Pollert, 2014; Mowbray et al., 2015; Pyman et al., 2010; Wilkinson et al., 2013;

Willman et al., 2007). Employee voice appears dominated by instances where the re-

ality of ‘voice’falls short of the rhetoric, with the harshest criticism often directed to-

wards non-union forms (e.g. D’Art and Turner, 2003; Upchurch et al., 2006). Debate

is therefore rife surrounding the ability of non-union ‘employee voice’mechanisms to

fill the ‘representation gap’which is argued to have emerged in organisations due to

declining trade unionism, alongside the growing influence of strategic HRM (Butler,

2005, 2009; Heery, 2009; Holland et al., 2009). The decline in trade unionism is often

attributed to the growth of new union-averse industries, typically relating to the mass

rise of the services sector in recent decades, much of which constitutes part of the

‘knowledge economy’, and the growing presence of MNCs advocating union

substitution (Cullinane and Dundon, 2014; Lavelle et al., 2010).

The EU Directive (2002/14/EC) on Information and Consultation saw member

states introduce regulations in the mid-2000s which generated greater interest in

the use of non-union employee representation (NER). The spirit behind the directive

❒Christina McCloskey, Queen’s Management School, Queen’s University Belfast, Ireland and Anthony

McDonnell, Cork University Business School, University College Cork, Ireland. Correspondence should

be addressed to Anthony McDonnell, Cork University Business School, University College Cork,

Ireland; email: anthony.mcdonnell@ucc.ie

Industrial Relations Journal 49:2, 174–193

ISSN 0019-8692

© 2018 Brian Towers (BRITOW) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

was to give employees greater information, involvement and influence over decisions

impacting their work environment (Bull et al., 2013). While this could have led to

greater engagement with union representation arrangements, invariably the focus

shifted to NER structures, defined as ‘employer sponsored bodies of formally orga-

nized employee voice’(Donaghey et al., 2011: 164). This is in no small part attrib-

uted to the high degree of freedom afforded to employers in countries such as the

UK and Ireland (Charlwood, 2006). Despite the increase in these, empirical work

that examines the quality of NER structures and the dynamics and outcomes of these

remain lacking (Bull et al., 2013; Butler, 2005, 2009).

Much of the empirical base of voice literature is based on traditional manufactur-

ing firms. Danford et al. (2009) propose that it is reasonable to expect more voice

opportunities and positive outcomes for highly skilled employees in knowledge-

intensive firms (KIFs). They argue that the expansion of the knowledge economy

has generated a greater need to involve employees in decision-making, allegedly

resulting in ‘mutual gains’for both employers and employees (Scarbrough, 2003).

‘Mutual gains’are best understood as positive outcomes resulting from employees

sharing opinions and contributing to decision-making despite both parties’inherently

divergent interests (Lewin, 2008; Valizade et al., 2016). However, evidence is thin on

the ground with respect to voice mechanisms in knowledge-intensive industries

(Danford et al., 2009) where highly qualified staff dominate, skills shortages exist

and there appears a growing narrative around the expectation of employees for an in-

put into decisions, availability of developmental opportunities and work-life balance.

Adopting a multi-level, case study design, this article examines the approach taken

to employee voice in a knowledge-intensive industry MNC. Our research design pro-

vides employees with the opportunity to offer us insight on their ‘lived experiences

and interpretations of employee voice’(Gilman et al., 2015: 565), which is relatively

uncommon as the overwhelming focus has been on managerial-level and HR respon-

dents. The article analyses internal stakeholders’perceptions of non-union voice

mechanisms (direct and indirect) and their potential to produce ‘mutual gains’for

the organisation and employees. In so doing, we provide evidence on the extent to

which the micro-level reality of voice lives up to the macro-level rhetoric (i.e. the

importance of people and their views in knowledge-intensive industries is argued as

higher than in traditional manufacturing roles). In effect, the article answers four

research questions: What form does employee voice take? How do different voice

mechanisms interact? Do they complement each other to form a system of voice?

How effective is said voice perceived to be? Through addressing these questions, we

provide insights into the extent to which specific voice mechanisms are what matters.

Or is the key facet more about the semblance of there being a voice for employees? In

so doing, we shed light on the extent to which certain voice mechanisms appear part

of an integrated system while others are almost obsolete in utility, thus informing the

debate around the potential for approaches to act as substitutes or complements.

2 EMPLOYEE VOICE—A REVIEW

Employee voice means a variety of things to different actors, thus making it an elastic

concept (Gilman et al., 2015). Significantly different conceptualisations of voice exist

across the HRM, industrial relations (IR) and organisational behaviour disciplines

(Budd et al., 2010; Dundon et al., 2015). Various definitions exist with the only con-

sensus being that voice is an inherent element of the employment relationship that can

175Channels of employee voice

© 2018 Brian Towers (BRITOW) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd