GUEST EDITORS NOTE:

NEW TIMES FOR EMPLOYEE

VOICE?
A D R I A N W I L K I N S O N A N D C H A R L E S F AY

In this review, which also serves as an introduction to this special section,

we briefly discuss the growing interest in employee voice and how and why
interest in this topic has emerged over the last few years. Employee voice
has been used to summarize several different approaches to employee re-
lations, and numerous other terms have been used interchangeably with
employee voice. In this introduction, we discuss the different approaches
to voice, and, relying on the literature of HRM, political science, industrial
relations, and organizational behavior, we develop a specific conceptuali-
zation of voice useful to scholars and HRM professionals. We discuss the
direction of research in this area and summarize the papers in this issue.
2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Keywords: employee voice, involvement, participation, employee engagement,

empowerment, decision making, unions, diversity, turnover intentions, high-
performance work systems, organizational commitment, job design

he term employee voice is one less motivated to support union organizing

T that has become used increasingly in

the field of human resource manage-
ment (HRM) in recent years. Even
smaller organizations, such as the
East Boston Savings Bank (in Peabody, Mas-
sachusetts), have developed formal and infor-
mal programs to ensure that managers under-
stand employee concerns and employees
know that managers will hear their voiced
concerns. Larger organizations, such as DHL,
have developed multiple programs to provide
employees with opportunities to express their
concerns and have trained managers to re-
spond to those concerns (Hirschman, 2008).
Providing voice mechanisms to employees
may provide concrete advantages to employers.
Employees with voice opportunities may be
drives (Lewin & Mitchell, 1992) and may be
less likely to quit (Spencer, 1986).
In general, the term voice refers to
how employees are able to have a say re-
garding work activities and decision mak-
ing issues within the organization in which
they work. We find that practitioners and
academics, however, use other terms for
employee voice (participation, engage-
ment, involvement, or empowerment) in
different ways. Some authors refer to in-
volvement, others use participation, while
still others use empowerment or engage-
ment as if they were interchangeable, often
without extracting the conceptual mean-
ings or differences used in practice (Parks,
1995).

Correspondence to: Adrian Wilkinson, Business School, Griffith University, Queensland 4111, Australia,
Phone: 0061 7 37356792 37356792, E-mail: adrian.wilkinson@griffith.edu.au.

Human Resource Management, JanuaryFebruary 2011, Vol. 50, No. 1, Pp. 65 74

2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
DOI: 10.1002/hrm.20411
66 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JANUARYFEBRUARY 2011
A central issue, therefore, is that employee
voice is a broad term with considerable width
in the range of definitions authors assign (see,
for example, Budd, Gollan, &
Wilkinson, 2010; Dietz, Wilkin-
The point about son, & Redman, 2009; Poole, 1986;
Sashkin, 1976; Strauss, 2006). This
voice is that its
width is particularly evident across
provision may different disciplinary traditions
from human resource manage-
secure general mentpolitical science, psychol-
ogy, law, and industrial relations
improvements. If exit
that have distinct perspectives on
is reduced, however, voice as well as the other overlap-
ping and related terms (Wilkinson,
this may force the Gollan, Marchington, & Lewin,
2010). So, it seems scholars from
discontented to take
diverse traditions often know rela-
action within the tively little of the research that has
been done in other areas. Perhaps
organization, hence the best exposition of the term
voice goes back to Hirschmans
making voice more (1970) classic work, although the
powerful. notion of employee voice could be
dated to the ideas of the human
relations school. Hirschman, how-
ever, conceptualized voice in a very specific
way and in the context of how organizations
respond to decline, though the term has been
used in rather different contexts and applica-
tions since. His own definition was any at-
tempt at all to change rather than to escape
from an objectionable state of affairs (p. 30).
The point about voice is that its provision
may secure general improvements. If exit is
reduced, however, this may force the discon-
tented to take action within the organization,
hence making voice more powerful.
Conceptualizing Employee Voice
We can try to make sense of the elasticity of
the terms by seeing employee voice as an op-
portunity to have a say and, indeed, this is
central to most definitions (Freeman, Boxall,
& Haynes, 2007; Marchington, 2008). But as
Strauss (2006) points out, voice is a weaker
term than some of the others, such as par-
ticipation, as it does not denote influence
and may be no more than spitting-in-the-wind.
Voice is a necessary precursor for participa-
tion but does not in itself lead to participation.
So voice has multiple meanings and can be
interpreted in different ways such as being
seen as a countervailing source of power on
management action or perhaps part of a mu-
tual gains process (Dundon, Wilkinson,
Marchington, & Ackers, 2004).
But much more important than the no-
menclature is what specific practices actually
mean to the actors, whether such schemes
can improve organizational effectiveness and
employee well-being, and the extent to which
various practices allow workers to have a say
in organizational decisions. Much will de-
pend on whether voice initiatives are per-
ceived as faddish or are embedded within an
organization (Cox, Zagelmeyer, & Marching-
ton, 2006). Clearly, forms of employee voice
through participation can differ in the scope
of decisions, the amount of influence work-
ers can exercise over management, and the
organizational level at which the decisions
are made. Some forms are purposely designed
to give workers a voice, but not more than a
very modest role in decision making, while
others give the workforce a more significant
say in organizational governance.
We identify four strands of literature that
are useful for our understanding of employee
voice. The first relates to HRM literature fo-
cused on performance. Here the argument is
that informing and allowing employees an
input into work and business decisions can
help create better decisions and more under-
standing and hence commitment (Boxall &
Purcell, 2003). This is linked to the substan-
tial high performance literature in which
voice is seen as a key ingredient in creating
organizational commitment (Lewin & Mitch-
ell, 1992; Pfeffer, 1998). It also links with re-
cent discussions concerning the idea of en-
gagement (Emmott, 2005; Welbourne, 2007).
These various arguments and prescriptions
appear to have clear implications for manag-
ing employee participation in organizations.
Among these implications are that hierarchy
and compliant rule-following are inappropri-
ate for employees who are expected to ex-
pend discretionary effort. Wilkinson, Dun-
don, Marchington, and Ackerss (2004)
research on employee voice suggested there
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

are three ways in which it can have a positive
impact. First, valuing employee contributions
might lead to improved employee attitudes
and behaviors, loyalty, commitment, and
more cooperative relations. Second, it could
lead to improved performance, including in-
creases in general productivity and individual
performance due to lower absenteeism and
greater teamwork. Third, it could improve
managerial systems by tapping into employ-
ees ideas, knowledge, and experience and
promoting greater diffusion of information.
Royer, Waterhouse, Brown, and Festing
(2008) argued that treating employees as
stakeholders in the organization bears similar
outcomes. Employees who have developed
significant firm-specific human capital have
invested in the organization and have earned
voice just as have shareholders. Providing
voice to these employees provides a rationale
for further emotional and human capital in-
vestment, with the same sorts of outcomes
noted by Wilkinson et al. (2004).
The current business narrative is that or-
ganizations need to take the high road with
high-value-added operations or be dragged
down into competing for low-value-added
jobs that are in danger of moving abroad
(Handel & Levine, 2004). As Strauss (2006)
observed, getting workers voice provides a
win-win solution to a central organizational
problemhow to satisfy workers needs while
simultaneously achieving organizational ob-
jectives (p. 778). Theory and practice, how-
ever, can diverge (Harley, Hyman, & Thomp-
son, 2005). Moreover, the main aim of this
approach to voice reflects a management
agenda concerned with increasing under-
standing and commitment from employees
and enhancing contributions to the organi-
zation. Thus, while some forms may provide
employees with new channels through which
their influence is enhanced, facilitating em-
ployee voice does not involve any de jure
sharing of authority or power; therefore,
there is not always a link between voice and
decision making. Indeed, it can be voice
without muscle (Kaufman & Taras, 2010).
A second strand of literature from politi-
cal science sees voice in terms of rights,
linking this to notions of industrial citizen-
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
NEW TIMES FOR EMPLOYEE VOICE? 67
ship or democratic humanism. First, the con-
cept of industrial democracy (which draws
from notions of industrial citizenship) sees
participation as a fundamental democratic
right for workers to extend a degree of con-
trol over managerial decision making. More
recently, organizational democracy is a term
that is beginning to be used (see Harrison &
Freeman, 2004). This also brings in notions
of free speech and human dignity (Budd,
2004). Indeed, the argument is that work-
place democracy allows skills and values to
develop, which then have a role in broader
society (Foley & Polyani, 2006).
A third strand, drawing from the indus-
trial relations (IR) literature and not unrelated
to the above, sees voice as representative (and
largely union voice). The academic concept
of voice used in this strand was popularized
by Freeman and Medoff (1984), who argued
that it made good sense for both company
and workforce to have a voice mechanism.
This had both a consensual and a conflictual
image: On the one hand, employee voice
could lead to a beneficial impact on quality
and productivity, while on the other, it could
identify and deal with problems (Gollan &
Wilkinson, 2007). Trade unions were seen as
the best or only agents to provide voice be-
cause they were independent. A variation of
this strand has looked at representative voice
but takes into account non-union forms.
Thus, there has been considerable literature
on non-union employee representation and
the efficacy of such structures (Kaufman &
Taras, 2010). The debate on workers losing
their voice was originally premised on union
decline, but unions losing their place does
not mean employees have a reduced appetite
for voice. In many European countries, the
state plays a much more active role on top of
voluntary collective bargaining. France, for
example, has statutory elected workers coun-
cils, while West Germany has an elaborate
system of works councils and workers direc-
tors known as co-determination. Our focus in
this issue is not on this wide aspect of public
policies, although it is important to note that
voice does extend beyond competitiveness to
shaping employees psychological and
economic well-being. Further, it extends to
68 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JANUARYFEBRUARY 2011
the health of families and the quality of a
countrys democratic process (Budd & Zagel-
meyer, 2010).
A fourth strand is rooted in the organiza-
tional behavior (OB) literature and relates to
task autonomy in the context of work groups
acquiring a greater degree of control. Creat-
ing semi-autonomous work groups, now
commonly referred to as teamworking or self-
managing teams, gives workers a say in allo-
cating tasks, scheduling, monitoring atten-
dance, health and safety issues, the flow and
pace of production, and even setting of im-
provement targets (Wall & Martin, 1987).
Teams can also be responsible for recruiting
and training, as well as controlling overtime
levels. Such groups can have both skill discre-
tion (solving problems with the knowledge
of the group) and means discretion (choice in
organizing the means and tools of work)
(Cooper, 1973). These practices have a long
pedigree seeking to counter the degradation
of work and employee alienation (Proctor &
Mueller, 2000); many of these schemes
formed part of a series of work psychology
experiments in the 1960s and 1970s (e.g., the
Tavistock Institute, quality of work life pro-
grams in the United States and Sweden; Berg-
gren, 1993).
We represent the above categorization in
Table I. We acknowledge that these are sim-
plistic and there are overlaps, but it is a useful
heuristic device. Basically, we represent how
each of the strands of literature covers the
dimensions of voice. These are the type of
TABLE I Summary of Theoretical Paradigms
Literature Strand Schemes
HRM Briefing, open door
policy; suggestion
schemes
Industrial Collective bargaining;
relations works council; social
partnership; non-
union employee
representation
Industrial Workers on boards
democracy
Organizational Teams; groups
behavior
schemes typically discussed, the focus and
forms of these vehicles, and the underlying
philosophy.
Much of the research relates to how these
structures are established, the motivation for
them, and how they operate in practice.
Other research takes a largely institutional
view: that is, that failure is the decline or col-
lapse of the structure. The assumption is that
setting up a structure itself sorts the problem
(Dietz et al., 2009). But many voice systems
have deaf ears and frustration can be evi-
dent (Harlos, 2001). A recent area of research
has looked at the antithesis of voice: em-
ployee silence, defining silence as an employ-
ees motivation to withhold or express ideas,
information and opinions about work-related
improvements (Van Dyne, Ang, & Botero,
2003, p. 1361). This literature investigates
when and how employees in organizational
settings exercise voice and when and how
they opt for silence (Milliken, Morrison, &
Hewlin, 2003). This approach tends to focus
explicitly on the intentional withholding of
ideas, information, and opinions with rele-
vance to improvements in work and work
organization (Van Dyne et al., 2003). But
equally, management might, via agenda set-
ting, seek to perpetuate voice on a range of
issues (Donaghey, Cullinane, Dundon, &
Wilkinson, in press). While it is possible that
regulatory rules and laws force management
to do things that they would otherwise ne-
glect (Marchington, Wilkinson, Ackers, &
Dundon, 2001), management is likely to re-
Focus Form of Vehicle Philosophy
Performance Individual Efficiency
Power, Control Representative Countervailing
power
Decision making Representative Rights
Job redesign Individuals and Autonomy and
groups human needs
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

tain some choice, at least in determining the
robustness of voice at the workplace level
(Willman, Bryson, & Gomez, 2006). Manage-
ment behavior then lies at the heart of the
debate on managing voice structures.
Blended Voice and New Channels
While the literature may well come from dis-
crete camps, there are overlaps of the schemes
in practice. Some forms of direct voice coexist
and overlap with other techniques, such as
suggestion schemes, quality circles, or con-
sultative forums. In a European context, col-
lective participation remains significant in
certain countries, notably Germany and Swe-
den. A key issue is how direct and indirect
voices coexist and the extent to which they
complement or conflict with each other (Pur-
cell & Georgiadis, 2006). Further, the context
for voice has changed with union decline. As
Freeman et al. (2007) noted:
Quality circles and other forms of
small group problem solving have
become commonplace in the Anglo-
American world. These management
driven forms of involvement are
designed to serve employer goals of
improved productivity and flexibil-
ity. However, our data suggests they
increasingly meet the desire of work-
ers to be involved in the things that
relate most directly to them. (p. 215)
Increasingly research suggests that em-
ployers have a range of voice structures
(Bryson, Gomez, & Willman, 2010), and evi-
dence suggests that employees want a range
of channels. Equally, while there is talk of
voice systems, much of the data suggest em-
ployers have ad hoc practices reflecting his-
tory rather than a fine-tuned employee voice
strategy. So, employee voice is not always
embedded in the workplace and can be frag-
ile in terms of both the structure and the ef-
ficacy. Pyman, Cooper, Teicher, and Holland
(2006) argued that a critical issue is the con-
figuration of multiple channels of voice
rather than a single channel. Furthermore,
they questioned how and why different voice
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
NEW TIMES FOR EMPLOYEE VOICE? 69
channels complement one another and under
what conditions multiple arrangements are
sustainable. They concluded that the interac-
tion and coexistence of multiple channels of
voice and plurality of arrangements are most
effective and legitimate from an employees
perspective in achieving organiza-
tional outcomes. Similarly, Han-
Similarly, Handel
del and Levine (2004) pointed out
that bundles should be more ef- and Levine (2004)
fective than the simple sum of ef-
fects for the individual practices; pointed out that
hence, the existence of voice
bundles should be
schemes may tell us little about
the quality of the process. more effective than
As we look across different
countries, providing for voice var- the simple sum
ies considerably (Lansbury &
Wailes, 2008). Thus, in European of effects for the
countries government policy and individual practices;
legislation provide for a statutory
right to voice in certain areas and hence, the existence
among both union and non-union
establishments. This is by no of voice schemes
means typical. Other countries,
may tell us little
including America and Australia,
place much less emphasis on stat- about the quality of
utory provisions for employee
voice and more emphasis on the the process.
preferences of managers and
unions to establish their own arrangements.
In many organizations, the result is a mixed
cocktail of direct and indirect voice. It is also
worth noting that depending on the societal
regime within which employee voice is situ-
ated, the benefits tend to be seen from rather
different perspectives. Thus, in liberal market
economies, voice is seen in terms of contribu-
tion to profit and shareholder value at the
organizational level and in customer service
and in product quality and staff retention at
the workplace level. Issues related to worker
commitment, job satisfaction, and alignment
with organizational goals are often the prox-
ies used to measure the success of employee
voice schemes, but in themselves these may
tell us little about the impact of particular
schemes on the bottom line or the consolida-
tion of management prerogative. In coordi-
nated market economies, the focus is longer-
term and more widely defined in terms of a
70 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JANUARYFEBRUARY 2011
range of stakeholder interests including that
of the government, employers, trade unions,
and workers. The focus is on peak level insti-
tution representation. In other words, in these
situations the expectation is more
likely to be of mutual gains, either
Based on social at the level of the individual em-
ploying organization or more
identity theory,
broadly in terms of citizenship
they argue that the and long-term social cohesion
(Wilkinson et al., 2010). As Budd
target of injustice and Zagelmeyer (2010) remind us,
voice is not necessarily a private
influences observer
affair, and it is not simply about
identification with improving economic perfor-
mance.
the target, as
moderated by the The Special Issue
observers scope of In this issue, we present a range of
papers to shed light on the topic
justice. of voice. Goldberg, Clark, and
Henley (this issue) bring together
voice, procedural justice, and social
identification literature. Their model
incorporates observers voice responses to
injustices perpetrated on co workers. Based on
social identity theory, they argue that the tar-
get of injustice influences observer identifica-
tion with the target, as moderated by the ob-
servers scope of justice. This, in turn,
influences the observers perceptions of
injustice and decision to express voice. They
also suggest that the link between observers
perceptions of injustice and expressed voice is
moderated by the observers perceived
opportunity to express voice. They argue the
decision to express voice individually or
collectively depends on the justice climate
along with the costs and benefits associated
with each option. The new model helps us
understand that if a co-worker is treated
unfairly, when individuals are likely to engage
in expressed voice and whether they are likely
to do so on an individual basis or as a group.
Holland, Pyman, Cooper, and Teicher (this
issue) examine the relationship between em-
ployee voice and job satisfaction. They test
hypotheses concerning the relationship be-
tween direct and union voice arrangements
and job satisfaction. This relationship repre-
sents a gap in the literature and is important
from both theoretical and practical perspec-
tives. Controlling for a range of personal, job,
and workplace characteristics, regression anal-
yses suggest that although there was evidence
of voice complementarity, direct voice appears
to be the central voice arrangement underpin-
ning job satisfaction. The paper examines the
implications of the study for management
practice. It was unclear in previous research
whether the benefits of complementary voice
arrangements are due to union presence or
progressive HRM practices that encourage di-
rect voice. Their findings show that although
the presence of both union and direct voice
arrangements in the workplace may be posi-
tively associated with job satisfaction, direct
voice appears to be the central mechanism
underpinning job satisfaction. The role union
voice arrangements played in this relationship
remains unclear. HR managers, therefore, must
be mindful of the relationship between em-
ployee voice arrangements and job satisfac-
tion, not only in seeking to build organizations
that comprise committed, loyal, and high-per-
forming employees, but in developing and
implementing arrangements that allow em-
ployees to have influence over a range of task-
related and organizational issues.
Farndale, van Ruiten, Kelliher, and
Hope-Hailey (this issue) examine employee
voice using the lens of exchange theory:
how perceptions of employee voice, the
employeeline manager relationship, and
trust in senior management are related to
organizational commitment. It is
hypothesized that the direct relationship
between perceptions of the opportunity for
employee voice and organizational
commitment is mediated by the longer-
term effects of the perceived employeeline
manager relationship and trust in senior
management. They note the importance of
trust in senior management as a partial
mediator of the relationship between
employee voice and organizational
commitment. This study supports the
idea that employees perceive the opportunity
for voice as an exchange commodity
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

that they reciprocate with organizational
commitment. In particular, Farndale et al.
have also highlighted that it is important to
consider two types of relationship between
an employee and the organization: the
employeeline manager relationship and
trust in senior management. From a practical
perspective, this study has highlighted the
value of placing a greater focus on employee
voice to enhance employee attitudes toward
the organization. Line managers also have
an important role in ensuring this required
belief and trust in the organization and its
leaders exists.
Bell, zbilgin, Beauregard, and Srgevil
(this issue) note that as invisible minorities,
gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender
employees offer a perspective from which to
examine the relationship between the
increasing diversity of the workforce and
employee voice mechanisms. Because sexual
minorities are often silenced by what is
perceived as normal in work organizations,
they examine some of the negative
consequences of this silencing and propose
ways in which the voices of sexual and other
invisible minorities may be heard. Clearly,
this is relevant to policies and practices in
other organizations, given the dont ask;
dont tell policy of the U.S. military to cite
just one example. The authors suggest how
HR managers can facilitate the expression of
voice for sexual minority employees in
todays increasingly diverse organizations.
Avery, McKay, Wilson, Volpone, and
Killham (this issue) examine how tenure
diminishes the affect of voice. They point
out that while research has shown that the
opportunity to provide voice leads to posi-
tive employee reactions, there is little on
the boundary conditions for its effects on
worker outcomes. Taking Greenberger and
Strassers (1986) model of personal control
in organizations, they hypothesized that
the positive effect of voice on intent to re-
main would be less pronounced for employ-
ees with longer organizational tenures. Re-
sults of national surveys from the United
Kingdom and United States supported the
anticipated relationships. Thus it appears
that the beneficial effects of voice on
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
NEW TIMES FOR EMPLOYEE VOICE? 71
employee attitudes may lessen as employees
accrue tenure with their employer.
Conclusion
The articles in this issue suggest that voice
is an important issue for human resource
professionals. If an organization has a good
justice climate, employees are less likely to
seek collective action in the face of unfair
treatment of a coworker (Goldberg, this
issue). Similarly, the work of Holland et al.
suggests that direct voice is more impor-
tant to job satisfaction than the presence
of a union (collective voice). The work of
Farndale et al. suggests that the opportu-
nity for voice is closely linked to organiza-
tional commitment, especially when em-
ployeeline manager relationships are good
and the employee trusts senior manage-
ment. The work of Bell et al. highlights the
importance of voice in promoting organi-
zational diversity. Finally, the work of
Avery et al. suggests that employee voice is
particularly important for employees with
less tenure. Taken jointly, these papers ex-
pand the rationale for HR professionals to
support employee voice policies and proj-
ects: The organizational outcomes make
such support well worthwhile.
It is clear from this short review and
the contents of this issue that there are
competing visions and expectations of em-
ployee voice, and quite different motives
can underpin a desire for collective voice
rather than for individual voice. While
voice has important democratic
implications, given a choice, managers
tend only to be interested if there is a
perceived payoff. That might be avoiding
issues because of early warning systems, or
it could represent a more positive role. For
voice to have legitimacy, however, it needs
to be about more than the managerial
concept of efficiency and adding value to
business.
Yet voice does not exist in a vacuum
and choice is likely to be affected by other
HR structures and management style. Wood
and de Menezes (2008) concluded that
managements overall orientation to the
72 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JANUARYFEBRUARY 2011

involvement and development of employees
can be more significant than any specific
practice. Equally, Bryson, Charlwood, and
Forth (2006) concluded that managerial
responsiveness to the process of participa-
tion is as important for superior labor pro-
ductivity as the existence of a formal voice
regime. Just as HRM may need bundling to
produce a payoff, so voice may need to be
bundled and then embedded. Once
implemented, voice can shrivel. There
seems to be a life cycle in relation to
specific schemes such that employee voice
is a fragile plant that needs care and
attention to allow it to flourish.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to all of the authors who responded
to the call for papers for this special issue, and we
are particularly indebted to all of the referees for
the constructive reports that made this special
issue possible. Our sincere thanks also go to
Theresa Welbourne, editor-in-chief of Human
Resource Management, and Leslie Wilhelm Hatch,
managing editor, for her support and guidance.

ADRIAN WILKINSON is a professor and director of the Centre for Work, Organisation,
and Wellbeing at Griffith University, Australia. Recent research has encompassed em-
ployee participation and voice, high performance work systems, and comparative and
international employment relations. He has published nine books and more than 100
articles in refereed journals. His recent books include Human Resource Management at
Work (4th edition, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 2008), Contempo-
rary Human Resource Management (3rd edition, Pearson, 2009), The Sage Handbook
of Human Resource Management (Sage, 2009), and The Oxford Handbook of Organisa-
tional Participation (Oxford University Press, 2010).

CHARLES FAY is a professor of human resource management at Rutgers University,

New Jersey. His research focuses on compensation and performance management,
particularly on the intersection of the two areasperformance-based pay. His published
books include Managing for Better Performance: Enhancing Federal Performance Man-
agement Practices (IBM Center for the Business of Government, 2007), Strategic Rewards:
An Executives Handbook on Compensation (Free Press, 2001), and New Strategies for
Public Pay: Rethinking Government Compensation Programs (Jossey-Bass, 1997). He has
also contributed numerous chapters to edited books.

References Budd, J. (2004). Employment with a human face: Balanc-

ing efficiency, equity and voice. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
Berggren, C. (1993). The Volvo experience: Alternatives
Budd, J., Gollan, P., & Wilkinson, A. (2010). New ap-
to lean production in the Swedish auto industry.
proaches to employee voice and participation.
Basingstoke, England: Macmillan.
Human Relations, 63(3), 18.
Boxall, P., & Purcell, J. (2003). Strategy and human
Budd, J., & Zagelmeyer, S. (2010). Public policy and
resource management. London: Palgrave.
employee participation. In A. Wilkinson, P. Gollan,
Bryson, A., Charlwood, A., & Forth, J. (2006). M. Marchington, & D. Lewin (Eds.), The Oxford
Worker voice, managerial response and labour handbook of participation in organizations. Oxford:
productivity: An empirical investigation. Industrial Oxford University Press.
Relations Journal, 37(5), 438455.
Cooper, R. (1973, August). Task characteristics and
Bryson, A., Gomez, X., & Willman, P. (2010). Voice intrinsic motivation. Human Relations, 26, pp.
in the wilderness: The shift from union to non- 387408.
union voice in Britain. In A. Wilkinson, P. Gollan,
Cox, A., Marchington, M., & Suter, J. (2009). Em-
M. Marchington, and D. Lewin (Eds.), The Oxford
ployee involvement and participation: Developing
handbook of participation in organizations. Oxford:
the concept of institutional embeddedness using
Oxford University Press.
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

WERS2004. International Journal of Human Re-
source Management (UK), 20(10), 21502169.
Cox, A., Zagelmeyer, S., & Marchington, M. (2006).
Embedding employee involvement and participa-
tion at work. Human Resource Management Jour-
nal, 16(3), 250267.
Dietz, G., Wilkinson, A., & Redman, T. (2009). Involve-
ment and participation. In A. Wilkinson, N. Bacon,
T. Redman, & S. Snell (Eds.), The Sage handbook of
human resource management. London: Sage.
Donaghey, J., Cullinane, N., Dundon, T., & Wilkinson,
A. (in press). Re-conceptualising employee silence:
Problems and prognosis. Work, Employment, and
Society.
Dundon, T., Wilkinson, A., Marchington, M., & Ackers,
P. (2004). The meanings and purpose of employee
voice. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 15(6), 11501171.
Emmott, M. (2005). What is employee relations?
Change Agenda. London: Chartered Institute of
Personnel and Development.
Foley, J., & Polanyi, M. (2006). Workplace democracy:
Why bother? Economic and Industrial Democracy,
27(1), 173191.
Freeman, R. B., Boxall, P., & Haynes, P. (2007). What
workers say: Employee voice in the Anglo-Ameri-
can workplace. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Freeman, R., & Medoff, J. (1984). What do unions do?
New York: Basic Books.
Gollan, P., & Wilkinson, A. (2007). Contemporary devel-
opments in information and consultation. Interna-
tional Journal of Human Resource Management,
(18)7, 11331145.
Greenberger, B. D., & Strasser, S. (1986). Development
and application of a model of personal control in
organizations. Academy of Management Review
11(1), 164177.
Handel, M., & Levine, D. (2004). The effects of new
work practices on workers. Industrial Relations,
43(1), 143.
Harley, W. G., Hyman, J., & Thompson, P. (2005).
Participation and democracy at work: Essays in
honour of Harvie. Basingstoke: Ramsay Palgrave
Macmillan.
Harlos, K. (2001). When organizational voice systems
fail: More on the deaf-ear syndrome and frustration
effects. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science,
31(3), 324342.
Harrison, J., & Freeman, E. (2004). Is organizational
democracy worth the effort? Academy of Manage-
ment Executive, 18(3), 4953.
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
NEW TIMES FOR EMPLOYEE VOICE? 73
Hirschman, A. (1970). Exit, voice and loyalty: Respons-
es to decline in firms, organizations and states.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hirschman, C. (2008). Giving voice to employee con-
cerns. HR Magazine, 53(8), 5153.
Kaufman, B., & Taras, D. (2010). Employee participation
through non-union forms of employee representa-
tion. In A. Wilkinson, P. Gollan, M. Marchington, & D.
Lewin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of participation
in organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lansbury, R., & Wailes, N. (2008). Employee involve-
ment and direct participation. In P. Blyton, N. Bacon,
J. Fiorito, & E. Heery (Eds.), The Sage handbook of
industrial relations (pp. 434446). London: Sage.
Lewin, D., & Mitchell, D. (1992). Systems of employee
voice: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Cali-
fornia Management Review, 34(3), 95111.
Marchington, M. (2008). Employee voice systems. In
P. Boxall, J. Purcell, & P. Wright (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of human resource management. Ox-
ford: Oxford University Press.
Marchington, M., Wilkinson, A., Ackers, P., & Dundon,
T. (2001). Management choice and employee voice.
London: CIPD.
Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003).
An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues
that employees dont communicate upward and
why. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6),
14531476.
Parks, S. (1995, May). Improving workplace perform-
ance. Monthly Labor Review, pp. 1828.
Pfeffer, J. (1998). The human equation: Building profits
by putting people first. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.
Poole, M. (1986). Towards a new industrial democ-
racy: Workers participation in industry. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Proctor, S., & Mueller, F. (Eds.). (2000). Teamworking.
London: Macmillan.
Purcell, J., & Georgiadis, K. (2006). Why should em-
ployees bother with worker voice? In R. Freeman,
P. Boxall, & P. Haynes (Eds.), What workers say:
Employee voice in the Anglo-Saxon world. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press.
Pyman, A., Cooper, B., Teicher, J., & Holland, P. (2006).
A comparison of the effectiveness of employee
voice arrangements in Australia. Industrial Rela-
tions Journal, 37(5), 543559.
Royer, S., Waterhouse, J., Brown, K., & Festing, M.
(2008). Employee voice and strategic competitive
74 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JANUARYFEBRUARY 2011
advantage in international modern public corpora-
tionsan economic perspective. European Man-
agement Journal, 26(4), 234246.
Sashkin, M. (1976, July). Changing toward partici-
pative management approaches: A model and
methods. Academy of Management Review, pp.
7586.
Spencer, D. G. (1986). Employee voice and employee
retention. Academy of Management Journal, 29(3),
488502.
Strauss, G. (2006). Worker participationsome un-
der-considered issues. Industrial Relations, 45(4),
778803.
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003). Concep-
tualizing employee silence and employee voice as
multi-dimensional constructs. Journal of Manage-
ment Studies, 40(6), 13591392.
Wall, T., & Martin, R. (1987). Job and work design. In C.
Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds.), International review
of industrial and organisational psychology (pp.
6191). Chichester, England: John Wiley.
Welbourne, T. M. (2007). Employee engagement: Doing
it vs. measuring it. In K. Sangeetha & C. Mukunnan
(Eds.), Employee engagement: Trends and cases (pp.
147152). Tripura, India: ICFAI University Press.
Wilkinson, A., Dundon, T., Marchington, M., & Ackers,
P. (2004). Changing patterns of employee voice.
Journal of Industrial Relations, 46(3), 298322.
Wilkinson, A., Gollan, P., Marchington, M., & Lewin, D.
(2010). Conceptualising employee participation in
organisations. In A. Wilkinson, P. Gollan, M. March-
ington, and D. Lewin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook
of participation in organizations (pp. 125). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Willman, P., Bryson, A., & Gomez, R. (2006). The sound
of silence: Which employers choose no voice and
why? Socio-Economic Review, 4, 283299.
Wood, S., & de Menezes, L. (2008). Comparing
perspectives on high involvement management
and organizational performance across the British
economy. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 19(4), 639683.
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm