All powerful voice? The need to include “exit”, “loyalty” and “neglect” in empirical studies too
| Date | 14 August 2009 |
| Pages | 538-552 |
| Published date | 14 August 2009 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/01425450910979275 |
| Author | Matthew Allen,Heinz‐Josef Tüselmann |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
All powerful voice? The need to
include “exit”, “loyalty” and
“neglect” in empirical studies too
Matthew Allen
Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester,
Manchester, UK, and
Heinz-Josef Tu
¨selmann
Manchester Metropolitan University Business School, Manchester, UK
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to set out and justify a broader, systemic typology that
encompasses, and is built around, the notion of voice. This leads to the development of a number of
insights that can result in the generation and testing of more accurate hypotheses on the links between
voice mechanisms and workplace outcomes.
Design/methodology/approach – Drawing on different aspects of the concept of “power” and
arguing that these are central to the notion of “voice”, the paper illustrates how “exit”, “loyalty” and
“neglect” are also underpinned by power. A corollary of this is that these other concepts should
routinely be included in studies of the links among voice and workplace outcomes.
Findings – The paper develops hypotheses that can enhance the understanding of the likely impact
of voice policies on employees’ attitudes and behaviour as well as on firm performance.
Practical implications – The hypotheses suggest that, if employees perceive voice mechanisms in
a negative way, they may respond in a variety of ways that can have a detrimental effect on firm
performance. Understanding these different responses and the likely reasons for them can lead to more
appropriate policy responses by managers.
Originality/value – The paper specifies the conditions under which relationships between voice,
exit, loyalty and neglect will affect workplace outcomes in greater detail. This leads to a
re-examination of factors that should be included in empirical assessments. Research findings may
need to be re-evaluated as a result.
Keywords Employee behaviour, Employee attitudes,Workplace, Works councils,Trade unions
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Many recent studies have explicitly drawn upon the concept of “voice” as part of their
analytical framework (Benson, 2000; Bryson et al., 2006; Dundon et al., 2004, 2005;
Gollan, 2003, 2005; Upchurch et al., 2006). Within these and other studies (Applebaum
et al., 2000; Becker and Huselid, 1998), the dominant approach is to see voice
mechanisms as a system or as bundles; that is, the cumulative rather than the
individual effects of voice mechanisms are considered (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm
The authors are indebted to Paul Adler, Paul Edwards, Paul Gollan, Mick Marchington,
Miguel Martinez Lucio and Adrian Wilkinson for extremely helpful comments on earlier drafts
of this paper. The authors also gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Hans Bo
¨ckler
Foundation.
ER
31,5
538
Received 23 February 2009
Revised 28 April 2009
Accepted 28 April 2009
Employee Relations
Vol. 31 No. 5, 2009
pp. 538-552
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0142-5455
DOI 10.1108/01425450910979275
To continue reading
Request your trial