Employee voice

Employee voice refers to the participation of employees in influencing organisational decision making. Because research and analysis have grown around the voice concept in a variety of disciplines, ‘employee voice’ has become an elastic term meaning somewhat different things to different policy, academic and practitioner actors. In the many disciplines that cover voice, such as human resource management, political science, economics, organisational behaviour, psychology or law, perspectives toward the concept differ. Drawing on Dundon et al. voice can be seen with different lenses. First, voice is an articulation of individual dissatisfaction or concern that aims to address a specific problem or issue with management. Second, voice takes the form of collective organisation, where voice provides a countervailing source of power to management. Third, there is the role of voice as a contribution to management decision-making. Here the purpose is to gain employee input to improve work organisation and efficiency more generally, perhaps through quality circles or teamwork, or eliciting workforce engagement. Fourth, voice can be seen as an instrument for mutual gain, with productive collaboration between capital and labour increasing the long-term viability of an organisation and economic well-being of employees. The editors of the Elgar Handbook of Employee Voice [1] define employee voice as the ways and means through which employees attempt to have a say and potentially influence organisational affairs about issues that affect their work and the interests of managers and owners. This definition combines a variety of voice mechanisms that analysts often group in separate boxes (e.g. involvement or bargaining; union and non-union). It allows for employer implemented Non-union Employee Representative (NER) systems as a collective form of voice, be it chosen to marginalise a union presence or to provide an alternative to union influence In general, employee voice is about how employees are able to have a say over work activities and decisions within the organizations in which they work, regardless of the institutional channel through which it operates—whether through speak-up programmes, quality circles, teamwork, or collective negotiation.

Arguments for employee voice can be both moral and political as well as economic.[2] There are a wide range of mechanisms related to employee voice, and these may be direct or indirect, formal or informal, and power-centred or task-centred. As well as trade union representation, voice may refer to a wide array of techniques including Empowerment, Employee Engagement and Teamworking initiatives. In reality, many employers adopt a blend of voice mechanisms. However, some employers may also wish to limit employee voice, believing instead that the best approach is for management to command and control the organisation. Equally, some employees may not want to have their voice heard, or may not want to express their thoughts.

In July 2013, an international workshop on the benefits of employee voice was organised by Dr Andrew R Timming, an employee voice scholar based at the University of Western Australia. The workshop, entitled, 'Strengthening Democracy at Work', brought together the world's leading employee voice researchers, including: Peter Ackers (University of Loughborough), John Budd (University of Minnesota), Tony Dundon (National University of Ireland, Galway), Stewart Johnstone (University of Newcastle), Andrew Pendleton (York University) and Andrew Timming (University of Western Australia). Also present were several practitioners. The workshop was funded by the Scottish Universities Insight Institute and the Russell Trust. The first day took place in Glasgow and the second day was held at New Lanark. The workshop participants discussed the benefits of employee voice for employees, organisations and societies. In short, when employers give employees a 'say' in the strategic direction of the organisation, all three levels benefit.