Employee Voice

For Copyright
exclusive
use at Karachi School for Business and Leadership (KSBL),
2015
BH 612
2014 by Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. For reprints, call HBS Publishing at (800) 545-7685.
Business Horizons (2014) 57, 401411
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
www.elsevier.com/locate/bushor
Employee voice: Untapped resource or social

media time bomb?
Sandra Jeanquart Miles *, W. Glynn Mangold
Arthur J. Bauernfeind College of Business, Murray State University, Murray, KY 42071, U.S.A.
KEYWORDS
Employee voice;
Employee brand;
Social media;
Employee engagement;
Psychological contract;
Voice mechanisms
Abstract The venues by which employees can voice satisfaction, dissatisfaction,

and their experiences with the organization have traditionally been limited to
internal communication systems that are orchestrated and sanctioned by the organization. However, social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn, as well as
blogs and instant messaging, now enable employees to deliver messages to hundreds
or even thousands of people with a few keystrokes. . .messages that may or may not
be desirable to or sanctioned by the organization. Under these circumstances,
employee voice can be an untapped resource for enhancing the organizations public
image or a bomb waiting to explode with devastating impact on the rms reputation.
Effective management of employee voice begins with understanding its purposes:
contribution to management decision making, demonstration of partnership, articulation of individual dissatisfaction, and expression of collective bargaining. These
expressions of voice can be guided and managed to a strategic advantage when
organizations provide a proper organizational context along with the appropriate
mechanisms for employees.
# 2014 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All
rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In July 2013, a Golden Corral buffet chef posted a
YouTube video that went viral when it was posted to
social news site Reddit (Wilkie, 2013). The video
depicted raw burgers, ready for the grill, stored
next to an outside dumpster surrounded by ies. The
narrative indicated the practice was intended to
help the restaurant pass inspections (Huber, 2013a,
* Corresponding author
E-mail addresses: smiles@murraystate.edu (S.J. Miles),
glynn.mangold@murraystate.edu (W.G. Mangold)
2013b). According to an ABC News report, the buffet

chef indicated he had tried to le a complaint with
management and notify the Volusia County Health
Department, but got nowhere. When the organization did not respond, he took matters into his own
hands and aired the notorious video (Roberts, 2013).
Golden Corral disputes the account; nevertheless,
the restaurant experienced signicant damage to its
public image and unknown damage to its market
share and protability (Bennett, 2013).
With technology changing at an unprecedented
pace, employees have incredible power in the
marketplace. The Golden Corral example clearly
0007-6813/$ see front matter # 2014 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2013.12.011
This document is authorized for use only in Management Communication by Mr.Khalil Ahmed, Karachi School for Business and Leadership (KSBL) from November 2015 to January 2016.
For exclusive use at Karachi School for Business and Leadership (KSBL), 2015
402
demonstrates the damage one employees voice can
inict upon an organizations brand. Had the employer provided effective internal mechanisms by which
employees could realistically expect their voices to
be heard and action taken, the damage may have
been mitigated or avoided completely.
Employee voice can also damage an organization
through more discrete technological venues. For
example, complaints to the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission can be easily led from a
link on the commissions website. Statistics reported on the website for scal year 2012 showed
99,412 complaints received, a number that jumped
31% from 75,768 in 2006 (U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, 2013).
Indeed, when employee voice is not guided and
managed within the organization, employees can
easily nd other venues to air their grievances. These
other venues may or may not be sanctioned or desired
by the organization and, in the era of digital technologies, the collateral damage can be devastating.
On the other hand, employee voice can be guided
and used for reputation building and competitive
advantage. For example, Dell has trained 10,000
employees to use social media to augment their jobs.
Likewise, IBM Voices captures the companys expertise and makes it available to others in a manner that
is consistent with its corporate culture (McCarty,
2013; Rooney, 2012). With todays social media technologies, employees can preserve organizational
reputations, augment marketing and public relations
efforts, and even defend their employers in cyberspace.
Therefore, employee voice can be a source of
competitive advantage or a time bomb waiting to
explode, depending on how it is guided and managed. The purpose of this article is to provide a
framework for understanding the purposes of employee voice, the role of organizational context and
its inuence on an employees choice of voice, and
the tools that are available for the expression of
employee voice. We also provide guidelines to help
organizations manage and guide employee voice in
the era of social media.
2. Technological backdrop
Technology can reach an audience of unprecedented
numbers, proportions, and locations with messages
or images that may or may not be organizationally
desirable or sanctioned. In fact, a number of websites exist for the sole purpose of allowing current
and previous employees to let their voices be heard
(e.g., Indeed.com/Best-Places-to-Work; AboutMy
Job.com; JobSchmob.com). Unfortunately, many
S.J. Miles, W.G. Mangold

of the voices heard on these websites take the form
of negative or disparaging comments.
Many organizations have reacted by blocking employees access to social media and adopting restrictive social media policies (Li, 2010). However, their
lack of control over employees personal computers
and mobile devices, combined with the ready availability of social media, is likely to render their actions
ineffective. While some organizations have tried to
forge a legal response to disparaging remarks, they
have not found a safe harbor in existing laws.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and,
most recently, the Federal Stored Communications
Act (SCA) guard employee opinions very carefully.
Based on Article 7 of the National Labor Relations
Act, the NLRB has taken the position that employees
should not be red because of their posts to Facebook and similar social media venues (National
Labor Relations Board, 2013). The SCA holds the
position that Facebook wall posts fall under
the jurisdiction of the SCA because it is electronic
information, transmitted via electronic communication services, stored in electronic storage, and
not public (Zackins, 2013). Indeed, employee comments that used to be heard at the water cooler take
on more importance as the conversations shift to
online platforms (Rosenberger, 2013).
On the ip side, technology also provides unlimited opportunities for organizations to successfully
harness and channel employee voice to build relationships with organizational stakeholders in a manner that adds value for the organization. In their
Business Horizons article, Mangold and Faulds
(2009) pointed out that social media sets the stage
for consumers to interact with both other consumers
and organizations on an enormous scale, thereby
making the case for social media as the new hybrid
element of the promotion mix. For instance, Dells
Social Media and Community University focuses
specically on how Dell team members can. . .build
authentic and long lasting relationships with [Dells]
customers (Bell, 2011).
Technology has opened an entirely new arena for
employees to engage with customers, other employees, and organizational constituents (Kaplan &
Haenlein, 2010). According to the Nielsen Company
(2012), social networking sites account for 20% of all
Internet time from personal computers and 30% of
time used on mobile devices. Essentially anyone
with an Internet connection can be a global publisher. Organizations that understand the opportunity to
be gleaned by managing the new voice mechanisms
and can harness and guide the power of employee
voice have a clear advantage in realizing and sustaining a competitive advantage. Organizations that
ignore the many venues available for employee
Employee voice: Untapped resource or social media time bomb?
voice may sustain serious collateral damage to their
reputations when virtual bombs in cyberspace are
unleashed by their employees. A better understanding of employee voice leads to a new arsenal of tools
that enable organizations to reinforce a positive
brand image through their employees while reaching stakeholders of unprecedented proportions.
3. Employee voice: Purpose, venues,

and conceptualization
Albert Hirschman (1970, p. 30) originally dened
voice from a marketing perspective as any attempt
at all to change rather than escape from an objectionable state of affairs. Management scholars
adapting Hirschmans work sought to investigate
the concept of voice and how it is manifested in
the workplace. The idea of voice as active dissent
due to dissatisfaction dominated the research on
employee voice for many years.
Then Dundon, Wilkinson, Marchington, and
Ackers (2004) presented an analytical framework
suggesting that employee voice can and does extend
beyond employee complaints and can contribute to
the organization in a positive way. They identied
four principal strands of thought pertaining to voice:
articulation of individual dissatisfaction, contribution to management decision-making, expression of
collective bargaining, and demonstration of partnership. The authors referred to these strands of
thought as purposes of voice, which is the terminology that will be used throughout the remainder
of this article. Their framework also presented
various organizational mechanisms that can enable
employee voice: a formal means of upward communication (e.g., complaints to managers, open door
policy, suggestion systems, attitude surveys), twoway communication systems (e.g., grievance
systems/speak up programs, intranets), joint partnership and collaborative representation (union
environments), and joint consultation (e.g., problem solving groups, work teams, quality circles).
The purposes of employee voice are presented in
Table 1, along with mechanisms that can guide and
harness employee voice. Some of these mechanisms
are intended for internal audiences and offer privacy.
Others are intended for consumption in the public
domain. Many of the mechanisms intended for internal audiences are very traditional in nature and
include suggestion boxes and meetings with managers or an ombudsman. Other mechanisms for internal
audiences are based in the realm of social media and
include e-mail, blogs, and wikis with access limited to
the organizations employees. The mechanisms intended for the public domain are primarily based in
403
social media and include social networks (e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn), corporate and noncorporate blogs
and microblogs, wikis, content communities, and also
direct and immediate access to regulatory agencies.
When employee voice is managed and guided, many
mechanisms in the public domain can offer organizations an opportunity to foster and grow relationships with organizational stakeholders.
Employees are likely to use organizationally sanctioned voice mechanisms, like those in Table 1,
when the appropriate mechanisms are in place and
when they perceive that their voices will be heard
and acted upon. When this is not the case, they are
more likely to give their messages life through social
media mechanisms in the public domainas in the
Golden Corral case. Depending on the choices employees make, their messages can be constructive
and reinforce the organizations problem solving
efforts and desired brand image, or they can be
destructive and undermine the organizations desired brand image.
Thus, employees opportunities and choices for
voicing their organizational experiences reach far
beyond traditional denitions, channels, and purposes. In light of this, we build on the work of
Hirschman (1970) and Dundon et al. (2004) to conceptualize employee voice as an employees attempt
to use either organizationally sanctioned or unsanctioned media or methods for the purpose of articulating organizational experiences and issues or
inuencing the organization, its members, or other
stakeholders. We use the term choice of voice to
refer to employees decisions about the timing, venue, message, and media used in expressing their
voices.
The choice of voice illustrated in the Golden
Corral example appears to have been inuenced
by the fact that appropriate internal mechanisms
were either unavailable or the employee did not feel
that his voice was being heard and acted upon. So,
he directed his message to the public domain to stop
the illegal practice. In other instances, organizational venues may exist, but employees may feel
channeling messages internally may sabotage their
careers. Hence, understanding the organizational
context in which employees operate will also shine
light on their decisions to channel their voices in
ways that can impact the organizations brand
image, either negatively or positively.
4. Organizational context
As Figure 1 illustrates, employees have choices in
bringing their messages to life in full view of customers and other stakeholders. Their choices can either
404
Table 1.
Organizational mechanisms to channel employee voice

Purpose of Voice
Mechanism
Contribution to
Management
Decision Making
Demonstration of
Partnership
Articulation of
Individual
Dissatisfaction
Expression of
Collective
Bargaining
Organization Internal Audience

Suggestion Box
Suggestion Com.
Grievance Com.
Meeting with HR Manager
Ombudsman
Open Door Policy
Dept. Meeting
Lunch with CEO
Newsletter
-Blogs
-Wikis
-Email
Intranet
Hotline
Problem Solving Groups
Attitude Surveys
X
X
Social Media/Public Domain

Social Networks
Blogs and Microblogs
-Corporate
-Non Corporate
Video
Wikis
Content Communities
positively or negatively impact the organization and

the organizations desired brand image. In essence,
employees make an assessment of the attention
management pays to the voiced message, the likelihood that the message will be addressed, and the
potential for negative personal consequences they
may face for airing a concern. If they perceive their
voices will be heard through internal voice mechanisms, employees are likely to conne their communications to that realm. On the other hand,
employees may choose to make their voices heard
through social media mechanisms in the public domain if they do not perceive they are being heard
through the internal mechanisms, or if they believe
reprisal is a likely outcome.
Therefore, developing an understanding of the
organizational context in which employees operate
and how it relates to voice may lead to insights
pertaining to employee voice behavior. Mangold
and Miles (2007) introduced an organizational typology in which employee brand was dened as the
image an organization presents to its customers and
other relevant stakeholders through its employees.
This image can be positive or negative contingent
upon the preponderance of the employees knowledge of the organizations desired brand image and
the extent to which the employees psychological
contract is upheld (the determinant of motivation).
Organizations were classied into four categories: All
Stars, Strike-Out Kings, Injured Reserves, and
Rookies.
Rookie organizations were characterized as those
in which a preponderance of employees do not know
or understand the organizations desired brand image. Even though they have an unclear image of the
brand the organization would like them to project,
employees in rookie organizations still perceive
their psychological contracts to be intact. Such
Figure 1.
405
Employee choices of voice
Social
Networking
Virtual Social
Worlds
Blogs
Social
Media
Collaborave
Projects
Virtual Game
World
Content
Communies
Public Domain
Arculaon of
Individual
Dissasfacon
Purpose of
Employee
Voice
Expression of
Collecve
Bargaining
Demonstraon
of mutuality and
cooperave
relaons
Contribuon to
Management
Decision Making
Organizaonal
Environment
Organizaonal
Mechanisms
Upward
Communicaon
Two-Way
Communicaon
employees are likely to be motivated, satised, and

committed. They are also likely to perform at higher
levels and to trust the organization.
Employees of rookie organizations have little or no
animosity toward the organization and would really
like to do a good job. Rookie organizations that
encourage their employees to express their voices
through organizationally sanctioned systemseither
internally or in the public domainare likely to
experience high levels of participation. It can also
be expected that the employees messages will
reect favorably upon the employer.
However, the judgment of employees in rookie
organizations may be lacking because they do not
Joint Partnership
& Collaborave
Representaon
Joint
Consultaon
Commiees
fully understand the organizations mission, values,

and desired brand image. Thus, they may not be able
to accurately reect the desired image in their choice
of voice decisions. For these organizations, appropriate actions may include clarifying the desired brand
image, the organizations preferred voice venues,
and the manner in which employees should express
their voices to internal and external audiences.
Injured Reserve and Strike-Out King organizations
are characterized by an abundance of employees
who are motivated by perceived violations of their
psychological contracts with the organization.
While employees of Injured Reserve organizations
know and understand the image the organization
406
wants them to deliver to their constituents, they are
unwilling or unmotivated to do so due to perceived
breaches of their psychological contracts. Employees of Strike-Out King organizations suffer from the
same motivational issues but are further hampered
by their low levels of knowledge and understanding
of the desired brand image.
Rousseau (1995) found when psychological contracts are violated, trust in the organization and its
leadership is also compromised. When employees do
not trust the organization or its leadership, they
cannot accurately assess the risks associated with
using organizational voice message systems and are
therefore likely to feel psychologically unsafe. Under
such circumstances, organizationally sanctioned
voicing mechanisms are likely to be underutilized
(Detert & Burris, 2007); employees are more likely
to air their dissatisfaction through social media venues that are intended for the public domain (Table 1),
particularly if they believe these venues are not being
monitored by their employers. Damage to the organizations public image is the likely result.
All Star organizations have successfully managed
their message systems in ways that effectively communicate the desired brand image and uphold the
psychological contracts they have with their employees. The effective management of their organizational message systems produces employees who
know and understand the image they are to project
to others; likewise, the employees are highly motivated to promote this image. Their employees tend
to trust the organization, and feel their place of
employment is psychologically safe for voicing personal dissatisfaction. Thus, when communicating
with external audiences, they are more likely to
voice messages that will uphold the organizations
brand image, especially if their communications are
organizationally encouraged or orchestrated.
Given their positive attitudes and feelings of
psychological safety, the employees of All Star
organizations would feel comfortable using
voice mechanisms in the public domain, even if
those mechanisms require a high level of selfdisclosure/self-presentation. Therefore, All Star organizations are well positioned to achieve the ultimate goal of employee voice systems: keeping the
negative messages inside and allowing good messages to be aired in the public domain.
5. Managing employee voice

Ultimately, employees are the decision makers in
choosing the message to voice and venue to use.
Therefore, management has two natural goals.
First, positive messages that reinforce the desired

brand image should be allowed to ow into the
public domain in a manner that brings about favorable communications with customers, other employees, and other stakeholder groups. Second,
messages that are directed toward improving internal processes or that are potentially damaging to the
organization or its brand image should be channeled
internally for appropriate response and problem
solving. The internally channeled messages should
remain outside the public view to the extent possible.
Managing employee voice in the social media era
begins with ensuring that an appropriate organizational context is provided. The design of voice
mechanisms must also enable the effective expression of employee voice in a manner that is appropriate for the intended purpose. In order to increase
accessibility to employees, it may be desirable to
provide a variety of voice mechanisms and various
options for the disclosure of identities. Finally,
management must listen and respond to the various
expressions of voice. We provide guidelines for
managing employee voice in the social media era
next.
5.1. Provide a proper organizational

context
Organizational context is the critical determinant in
inuencing employee choice of voice. The organizational typology presented by Mangold and Miles
(2007) identied two critical aspects that inuence
employee voice behavior: knowledge of desired
brand image and the psychological contract.
In essence, employees who know and understand
the desired brand image and feel psychologically
safe are likely to use the organizations voice systems in a manner that is consistent with the organizations guidelines. Without this perceived safety,
employees who choose to exercise their voices are
more likely to vent their frustrations under a
cloaked identity and in a public domain.
With this in mind, lessons can be gleaned from the
effective turnaround of Continental Airlines by
Gordon Bethune, as documented by his partner Greg
Brennemen (1998). Before Gordon Bethune took
over as the companys CEO, Continental Airlines
bore the unmistakable characteristics of a StrikeOut King organization. There was a negative brand
image among employees as well as the ying public,
and both employee morale and customer satisfaction were at all-time lows. In fact, executives in one
organization decided to locate a new ofce in Dallas, Texas, rather than Houston so they could avoid
ying Continental. Internally, morale was so low
that after the work day ended, employees ripped
the logos off their uniforms so no one would know
they worked for Continental. Distrust of management was the norm, and the attitude of Dont tell
anybody anything unless absolutely required to
dominated choice of voice decisions. For Bethune,
creating an appropriate organizational context in
the middle of this environment was a huge hurdle.
Giving employees more voice in a psychologically
safe environment was a key part of Bethunes plan to
restore employee condence. A hotline was established, with a response guaranteed within 48 hours.
Employees using the hotline could expect one of
three responses: (1) Yes, we will do it; (2) No we
will not, and here is why; or (3) We need to study
this issue a little more, and will get back to you by
such-and-such date. A structure was established to
ensure that employees were heeded and responded
to. Employees were also given credit and recognition for their contributions. Though it started
slowly, word spread, trust was built, and employees
began to feel psychologically safe in using the organizationally sanctioned voice system. By the end
of the rst year, Continental was elding 200 calls a
day from its employees.
When used correctly, internally based social media mechanisms can be used to rebuild employees
trust and condence in the organization, as well as
provide opportunities for employees to identify
needed improvements. This may require a signicant culture shift when the damage runs deep.
Employees may have to observe several iterations
of leadership addressing posted concerns without
repercussion before they consider the new voice
mechanisms to be psychologically safe. In fact, it
should be expected that the majority of employees
will begin as observers when internally based social
media mechanisms are initially implemented (Li,
2010). Where building of trust is imperative, as with
Continental Airlines, the CEO will need to play an
active role in implementing new voice mechanisms,
and must ensure the organization is accountable to
the employees who choose to participate. Telling
employees what to expect from management in
terms of actions and timetables is also integral
because it lets them know that management will
listen and respond.
Employees feelings of psychological safety are
increased when they have clear guidelines delineating what is and is not appropriate. This is especially
true for employees whose job may entail monitoring
the Internet for messages in the public domain. Training and teaching employees about appropriate responses is critical to supporting them and helping
them understand their communications potential
impact on the organizations brand image.
407
In sum, managers and organizational leaders

greatly inuence employees voice behavior through
organizational context. An organizational context in
which employees know how to appropriately express
their voices and are motivated to do so can be a
source of competitive advantage.
5.2. Design voice mechanisms that are

consistent with voice purpose
Providing appropriate voice mechanisms, such as
those identied in Table 1, is critical to the strategic
management of employee voice. Landau (2009)
found that the number of voice mechanisms available
to employees is positively correlated with the number of expressions of employee voice. When effectively managed, these voice mechanisms can enable
negative messages to be effectively channeled away
from the public domain and toward internal audiences where corrective action can be taken.
The specic mechanisms to be used in tapping
employee voice are contingent on the organizations
environment and employees. Some workers may be
more comfortable than others with social networking and may have a greater proclivity to engage in
venues such as blogs, Facebook, and Twitter. For the
digitally connected employees, various forms of
intranet voice mechanisms and Internet-based social media may be appropriate. Other workers may
feel more comfortable with such traditional voice
mechanisms as suggestion boxes, meetings with the
manager, and toll-free hotlines.
Computer access, personal comfort, and the specic issues that are likely to be addressed by employee voice indicate a need for multiple venues that
allow employees to choose the voice mechanisms
that are best for them. These factors also attest to
the importance of providing an option for concealing
the employees identity. For instance, an employee
who wishes to report an OSHA violation may have
trust in the organization but may not wish the immediate supervisor to know of the infraction or the
reporting. In this case, having voice mechanisms in
place that allow employees to report infractions
without disclosing their identities may increase the
likelihood that knowledge of the infraction will stay
inside the organization and outside the public domain. The absence of mechanisms for discreet reporting may increase the likelihood that frustrated
employees will communicate the violation directly to
OSHA, which allows incidents to be reported online
with relative ease. Alternatively, employees who are
not comfortable expressing their voices internally
may communicate the violation in the public domain,
perhaps under a disguised digital persona.
408
The strategic management of employee voice
also has to take the purposes of voice into consideration. Providing venues and guidelines for all
purposes will ensure good ideas are capitalized
upon, dissatisfactions are internally aired, and
customer outreach can be achieved. As indicated
in Table 1, employees intentions are varied:
contributing to management decision making,
demonstrating partnership, articulating individual
dissatisfaction, and serving as an expression of
collective bargaining.
5.2.1. Contributing to management decision
making
Problem solving groups, attitude surveys, and company intranets are all venues through which employees can voice thoughts and ideas. Effective
management of employee voice and voice mechanisms can provide insight into better ways to organize
work, improve quality, and enhance productivity. Indeed, contribution to management decision making is
the rst purpose of employee voice. Internal voice
mechanisms can also provide employees with insight
into the rationale for managements decisions and the
methods by which those decisions were made. Employees are likely to accept managements directives
more enthusiastically when they understand the
underlying logic of the directives and perceive that
management is responsive to their concerns.
Managements response to employee voice is key
to keeping the communication owing. Consider, for
instance, an organization that gives its employees an
annual survey to measure satisfaction and garner
opinions for improving. The rst time surveys are
distributed, employees are likely to be excited and
think, Wow management really cares, and I will put
forth time and effort to complete this survey. If
there is no feedback regarding the survey results and
no changes appear to have been made based on the
results, the next survey is likely to be given less
attention. In fact, successive surveys can eventually
become sources of dissatisfaction if employees perceive managers are only paying lip service to the
importance of their input. Thus, voice mechanisms
should only be offered if there is a real intent to listen
and respond.
5.2.2. Demonstrating partnership
Organizations that provide positive organizational
contexts and brand images that are widely known
and understood among employees are more likely
than others to have engaged workers who perceive a
sense of partnership with the organization. Thus,
the second purpose of voice is to demonstrate partnership, or mutuality and cooperative relations
(Dundon et al., 2004). This purpose is accomplished

when employees perceive themselves to be partners
in the organization and are proud to be its defenders
and promoters.
The voice mechanisms for demonstrating partnership can be either internal to the organization or
available to the public domain. For example, CISCO
has a strong presence on YouTube, which provides
information that is useful to both employees and
customers. The Air Force has recognized voice as a
demonstration of partnership and has equipped its
330,000 Airmen with guidelines and a owchart
intended to help them engage the general public
in a positive and appropriate manner through social
media venues (Air Force Public Affairs Agency
Emerging Technology Division, 2009).
Some organizations have chosen to use corporate
blogs to formally allow employees to engage with
customers. GM, for instance, has a forum for the
Cadillac SRX in which both owners and GM employees come together to discuss likes and dislikes and to
ask and answer one anothers questions. For example, an owner of an SRX posted a request for information and assistance to the forum, gleaning a
response from a GM electrical engineer. The engineer described how a relay could be built that would
enable a trailers brake lights to function. Then, in a
private message to the owner, he arranged for the
relay to be built and installed at a nearby Cadillac
dealership. In this case, the engineers demonstration of partnership with his employer resulted in
customer satisfaction instead of dissatisfaction.
Positive word of mouth, brand loyalty, and additional product sales are likely long-run outcomes.
5.2.3. Articulating individual dissatisfaction
The third purpose of employee voice is to express
individual dissatisfaction. Employee dissatisfaction
can revolve around either employment issues or
broader organizational issues, and can lead to behaviors ranging from minor personal transgressions
to infractions that result in legal exposure for the
organization. Therefore, a primary focus of organizational voice systems is to provide employees with
a realistic hope that a resolution will be obtained.
For most organizations, it is desirable that expressions of dissatisfaction be limited to internal audiences as opposed to the public domain. Employees
are more likely to conne their communication to
internal audiences if the internal voice mechanisms
are readily available and easy to use. The mechanisms should enable timely feedback from management and, when appropriate, employees should
receive acknowledgement for changes that are made
based on their input. Participation in internal voice
mechanisms is likely to be higher if self-disclosure is
optional. However, this may limit managements
ability to seek additional information, provide feedback, and give credit for changes. Table 1 identies
several options available for internal expressions of
voice, including open door policies, suggestion systems, and email.
Voice mechanisms can be effectively used to
overcome dissatisfaction and build employee commitment. But, the extent to which management
addresses the issuesand how well the issues are
addressedwill largely determine whether employees will continue to exercise their voices in venues
directed to internal audiences.
5.2.4. Expression of collective bargaining
Employee voice can also be used as an expression of
collective bargaining. In organizations with unions
and other collective bargaining units, employees
have joined together to achieve a unied voice
and gain a source of power that countervails that
of management. For example, grievance procedures
and the meetings between union representatives
and management are, in themselves, traditional
voice mechanisms used in collective bargaining
units to ensure that employees are treated
fairly. However, the presence of a union or other
collective bargaining unit does not preclude the use
of other voice mechanisms. As Dundon et al. (2004,
p. 1159) indicate: At several organizations, collective forms of employee voice not only represented a
countervailing force to managerial power but also,
simultaneously, the demonstration of mutuality
[partnership] in the relationship.
Thus, the voice mechanisms identied in Table 1
can be used to facilitate collective bargaining as
well as to fulll the other purposes of voice. Consider the earlier example of Continental Airlines. It
was signicantly unionized with many different operating units. Many of the voice mechanisms allowing for expression of dissatisfaction, contribution to
management decision making, and demonstration
of partnership can also be used, directly or indirectly, to improve communication between employees and their employerswhich, in turn, can
facilitate the collective bargaining process.
6. Listen and respond

Listening to the communication inside internal voice
mechanisms is pivotal to successful use. Such communication can provide insight into the organizations internal climate and feedback on how well the
organization is fullling its objectives. In some
cases, management may need to bring up the topics
that are of interest, even sensitive ones, before
employees will be willing to exercise their voices.
409
An important component of the listening process is

studying and researching the issues in order to set
the stage for the next level of interaction. Through
investigation, management should determine if the
issue is important and if it provides a good opportunity for the organization. As a follow up, management should provide employees with responses
similar to Continental Airlines Yes, we will do
it; No we will not, and here is why; or We
need to study this issue a little more, and will get
back to you by such-and-such date (Brennemen,
1998). Such responses need to be formulated only
after careful listening and investigation into the
issues that underlie the internal communications,
and should reect such organizational values as
honesty and respect.
It is important to note that new voice mechanisms
may be slow in getting off the ground. Charlene Li
(2010) points out that employees display differing
levels of engagementwatching, sharing, commenting, producing, and curating. The majority of employees are likely to be watchers who passively read
or observe. This will be the starting point for many
employees when new voice mechanisms are initially
introduced. Being a watcher does not necessarily
mean that employees are not interested; many are
simply observing to see if management is truly
interested in their voice and willing to respond
without retaliation. Curators are at the highest
levels of engagement and spend countless hours
as community and discussion board moderators or
wiki editors, not only helping make sure that the
content is well organized for the sites users, but
also making sure that people are participating well
in the community (Li, 2010, pp. 6061.) The goal
for many organizations will be to maximize the
value of their internal voice mechanisms by progressively moving employees through the various
levels of engagement.
7. Employee voice can be an

organizational resource
Employee voice can serve as an untapped organizational resource by contributing to effective
managerial decision making and allowing for demonstrations of partnering relationships between employees and their organizations. Many of the venues
now available for the expression of employee voice
have been made possible by the advent of the digital
era. They can be used to channel expressions of
voice internally and away from the public domain
when employee voice is used to articulate individual
dissatisfaction. When employee voice is used for
collective bargaining, voice mechanisms can be
410
developed to facilitate understanding between employees and management, and to directly or indirectly facilitate the bargaining process.
Generally, as a contribution to managerial decision
making, internal audiences are the most appropriate.
Likewise, the organizations best interests are usually
served when expressions of dissatisfaction and collective bargaining are communicated only to internal
audiences where they can be addressed outside the
public domain and in the manner management deems
most appropriate.
On the other hand, demonstrations of a partnering relationship between the employees and the
organization may sometimes be appropriate for
both internal and external audiences. This is especially true when the external audience is involved in
the relationship. For example, it is not unusual for a
companys technical support people to engage in
joint problem-solving efforts with the companys
customers. Those problem-solving efforts can sometimes lead to improvements in both the product and
the production process. They can also contribute to
higher levels of customer satisfaction.
8. A nal word: Employee voice can be

a social media time bomb
In the era of social media, employee voice can be an
untapped organizational resource, but it can also be a
social media time bomb waiting to detonate. With
the growth of the Internet and social media, employees who have traditionally had limited choices in
voicing their on-the-job experiences can now communicate with hundreds or even thousands of people
outside the organization with a few keystrokes.
Under these circumstances, the effective management of employee voice in the social media era is key
to organizational success. This can be accomplished
by the establishment of an appropriate organizational context, communication mechanisms that are appropriate for each purpose of voice, support and
guidelines that enable employees to make good
voice-related decisions supporting the desired brand
image, and engagement in what employees are saying. Organizations that understand the new voice
mechanisms and are able to harness and direct the
power of employee voice have a clear advantage in
realizing and sustaining a competitive advantage.
References
Air Force Public Affairs Agency Emerging Technology Division.
(2009). New media and the Air Force. Retrieved October 13,
2013, from http://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/social
media/social-media-and-the-air-force.pdf

Bell, L. (2011, May 26). Dells social media university. SalesForce
Marketing Cloud Blog. Retrieved October 13, 2013, from
http://www.salesforcemarketingcloud.com/blog/2011/05/
social-media-university/
Bennett, R. (2013, October 6). Golden Corral disputes social
media charges of uncleanliness. Retrieved October 13,
2013, from http://www.kpho.com/story/22783430/goldencorral-disputes-social-media-charges-of-uncleanliness
Brennemen, G. (1998). Right away and all at once: How we saved
Continental. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 162179.
Detert, J., & Burris, E. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee
voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management
Journal, 50(4), 869884.
Dundon, T., Wilkinson, A., Marchington, M., & Ackers, P. (2004).
The meanings and purpose of employee voice. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(6), 11491170.
Hirschman, A. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard.
Huber, B. (2013a, July 1). All you can eat ribs. Retrieved October
13, 2013, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKXrL5syc_s
Huber, B. (2013b, July 7). Scared for my life! Retrieved October 13,
2013, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEDLVAOOeYI
Kaplan, A., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The
challenges and opportunities of social media. Business
Horizons, 53(1), 5968.
Landau, J. (2009). To speak or not to speak: Predictors of voice
propensity. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications, and Conict, 13(1), 3554.
Li, C. (2010). Open leadership. Jossey Bass: San Francisco.
Mangold, W. G., & Faulds, D. (2009). The new hybrid element of
the promotion mix. Business Horizons, 52(4), 357365.
Mangold, W. G., & Miles, S. J. (2007). The employee brand: Is
yours an all-star? Business Horizons, 50(4), 423433.
McCarty, E. (2013, February 20). Listening to the voices of business. Wired. Retrieved October 13, 2013, from http://www.
wired.com/insights/2013/02/listening-to-the-voices-ofsocial-business/
National Labor Relations Board. (2013). National Labor Relations
Act [Title 29, Chapter 7, Subchapter II, United States Code].
Retrieved August 30, 2013, from http://www.nlrb.gov/
national-labor-relations-act
Nielsen Company. (2012). State of the media: The social media
report. Retrieved October 13, 2013, from http://www.nielsen.
com/us/en/reports/2012/state-of-the-media-the-socialmedia-report-2012.html
Roberts, K. (2013, July 9). Golden Corral food video: Brandon
Huber all you can eat ribs YouTube FLA restaurant video
goes viral. Retrieved October 13, 2013, from http://www.
abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/local_news/water_cooler/
report-golden-corral-employee-exposes-orida-restauranthiding-food-at-the-dumpster
Rooney, J. (2012, September 25). In Dell social-media journey,
lessons for marketers about the power of listening. Forbes.
Retrieved October 13, 2013, from http://www.forbes.com/
sites/jenniferrooney/2012/09/25/in-dell-social-mediajourney-lessons-for-marketers-about-the-power-of-listening/
Rosenberger, A. L. (2013, May 5). Early lessons from the NLRB on
social media. Daily Report. Retrieved October 13, 2013, from
http://www.dailyreportonline.com/PubArticleDRO.jsp?id=
1202600031593&Early_Lessons_From_the_NLRB_On_Social_
Media&slreturn=20130710145408
Rousseau, D. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations:
Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2013, August
30). Enforcement & Litigation Statistics: All statutes FY
1997FY 2012. Retrieved October 13, 2013, from http://
www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/all.cfm
Wilkie, D. (2013, July 16). Virtual whistle-blowing: Employees
bypass internal channels to expose wrongdoing. Retrieved October 13, 2013, from http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/
employeerelations/articles/pages/virtual-whistle-blowingbypass-internal-channels-expose-wrongdoing.aspx
411
Zackins, R. (2013, September 4). A New Jersey federal court holds

that the Stored Communications Act applies to wall posts
on Facebook. Gibbons Employment Law Alert. Retrieved
October 13, 2013, from http://www.employmentlawalert.
com/2013/09/articles/privacy-1/a-new-jersey-federal-courtholds-that-the-stored-communications-act-applies-to-wallposts-on-facebook/print.html

Employee Voice

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Employee Voice

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

For Copyright

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Employee voice: Untapped resource or social

Abstract The venues by which employees can voice satisfaction, dissatisfaction,

2013b). According to an ABC News report, the buffet

S.J. Miles, W.G. Mangold

3. Employee voice: Purpose, venues,

S.J. Miles, W.G. Mangold

Organizational mechanisms to channel employee voice

Organization Internal Audience

Meeting with HR Manager

Open Door Policy

Lunch with CEO

Social Media/Public Domain

Blogs and Microblogs

positively or negatively impact the organization and

Employee choices of voice

employees are likely to be motivated, satised, and

fully understand the organizations mission, values,

5. Managing employee voice

S.J. Miles, W.G. Mangold

5.1. Provide a proper organizational

In sum, managers and organizational leaders

5.2. Design voice mechanisms that are

S.J. Miles, W.G. Mangold

6. Listen and respond

An important component of the listening process is

7. Employee voice can be an

8. A nal word: Employee voice can be

S.J. Miles, W.G. Mangold

Zackins, R. (2013, September 4). A New Jersey federal court holds

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi