Political Participation and Workplace Voice: The Spillover of Suppression by Supervisors
| Author | Agnes Akkerman,Roderick Sluiter,Bram Geurkink |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032321720960969 |
| Published date | 01 May 2022 |
| Date | 01 May 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321720960969
Political Studies
2022, Vol. 70(2) 327 –347
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0032321720960969
journals.sagepub.com/home/psx
Political Participation
and Workplace Voice:
The Spillover of Suppression
by Supervisors
Bram Geurkink , Agnes Akkerman
and Roderick Sluiter
Abstract
This article aims to establish the connection between people’s voice at work and their political
voice. We theorize and model a spillover mechanism from supervisors’ responses to workplace
voice to political participation. Applying structural equation modeling on a unique dataset
(N = 3129), we find that while support and suppression of workplace voice both affect political
participation, they do so through different mechanisms. In addition, we find that supervisors’
suppressive responses to employees’ voice can trigger both positive and negative effects on
different forms of political participation. Thereby, we contribute to the understanding of the link
between participation at work and participation in politics.
Keywords
political participation, political socialization, workplace voice, voice suppression, political efficacy
Accepted: 2 September 2020
Introduction
This article aims to establish the theoretical–empirical connection between people’s voice
expression at work and their political voice. The recent deterioration of important labor
market institutions, such as more relaxed employment protection regulation and the
weakened power of trade unions, has fundamentally changed the position of employees
vis-à-vis management. Traditional vehicles for collective expressions of worker discon-
tent, such as strikes, have declined, leaving many workers no other option than using
individual voice (Akkerman, 2017; Budd et al., 2010; Sluiter et al., 2020). Because work
is important for political socialization (Greenberg et al., 1996; Jian and Jeffres, 2008),
Economics Department, Institute for Management Research, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The
Netherlands
Corresponding author:
Bram Geurkink, Institute for Management Research, Radboud University, Elinor Ostrom Building,
Heyendaalseweg 141, 6525 AJ Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Email: b.geurkink@fm.ru.nl
960969PSX0010.1177/0032321720960969Political StudiesGeurkink et al.
research-article2020
Article
328 Political Studies 70(2)
changes in workplace relations potentially have significant consequences for political
participation. In this article, we examine how experiences with workplace voice expres-
sion affect political efficacy and political participation.
The workplace, like family and school, is considered one of the agents of political
socialization (Greenberg et al., 1996; Niemi and Sobieszek, 1977). Work is central in
people’s lives, and many workplaces resemble the authority structure of political institu-
tions (Greenberg et al., 1996; Pateman, 1970; Peterson, 1992). Political socialization
theory argues that the workplace is an environment in which people learn political skills
and that certain workplace interactions enhance the feeling that one can influence deci-
sion making through political action (Bandura, 1994; Campbell et al., 1954). In particu-
lar, the involvement in decision making in the workplace can have a learning effect that
enhances political skills and the desire to participate politically (Carter, 2006; Greenberg
et al., 1996). Although political socialization theory acknowledges that the workplace can
be an important agent for training political skills, our understanding of the effect of work-
place training for political behavior remains rather limited for three reasons. First, previ-
ous studies address (nowadays) uncommon structures, such as worker cooperatives (e.g.
Elden, 1981; Greenberg, 1981, 1986; Pateman, 1970), or focus on more general work
characteristics such as job autonomy rather than on specific participative interactions
(Adman, 2008; Budd et al., 2018; Jian and Jeffres, 2008; Lopes et al., 2014). Nevertheless,
more common day-to-day experiences at work are also expected to enhance civic or polit-
ical skills (Burns et al., 2001; Verba et al., 1995) but are understudied when linking the
workplace to political participation. Second, the proposed positive effect of workplace
participation on political participation is based on the implicit theoretical assumption that
the political arena at work mimics an ideal liberal democracy. While this may be true in
some organizations, it is doubtful whether this is a universal characteristic of all organiza-
tions and workplaces. Finally, the empirical evidence for the proposed positive effect of
workplace participation on political efficacy is mixed (Adman, 2008; Carter, 2006; Jian
and Jeffres, 2008), suggesting that the spillover mechanism is more complex than pres-
ently understood.
This article contributes to understanding the link between people’s working lives and
their political lives in three ways. First, we theorize and test the effect of the more com-
mon, day-to-day interactions at work that may constitute a learning effect for political
action: voicing work-related issues to one’s supervisor. We address the effect of supervi-
sor’s responses to workplace voice. While some studies have addressed supervisor’s atti-
tudes toward the voice of employees (e.g. Burris, 2012; Fast et al., 2014), the effect of the
supervisor’s behavior (i.e. their responses to workplace voice) is understudied (see
Bashshur and Oc, 2015; Morrison, 2014).1 Second, we argue that employees can be suc-
cessful at voicing problems but can also experience negative responses, for instance,
when their voice is ignored or encountered by retaliation. Greenberg et al. (1996) propose
that the effect of workplace participation on political participation is dependent on
whether the experience in the workplace is a positive or negative experience. Therefore,
we address and empirically test the effect of both the positive and negative responses to
voice expression at work. Previous studies addressing negative responses to voice in the
workplace are confined to individual- or organizational-level effects and do not address
the effects on political behavior (e.g. Burris et al., 2013; McClean et al., 2013; Seibert
et al., 2001). Thereby, we connect the research on workplace voice with the research on
political socialization (as suggested by Milliken et al., 2015). Third, we build on previous
studies, arguing that the link between experiences at work and political participation is
To continue reading
Request your trial