What Kind of Voice Do Loyal Employees Use?
| Author | Andrew A. Luchak |
| Date | 01 March 2003 |
| Published date | 01 March 2003 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8543.00264 |
What Kind ofVoice Do Loyal Employees
Use ?
Andrew A. Luchak
Abstract
This study helps clarify mixed support for Hirschman’s exit–voice–loyalty
framework by arguing that loyalty, or feelings of attachment to the organiza-
tion, and voice are not one-dimensional constructs. Based on data gathered
from a survey of employees working with a large Canadian utility organization,
employees feeling attached through an affective, emotional bond are found less
likely to use representative voice but more likely to use direct voice, while those
attached for rational, calculated reasons are more likely to use representative
voice. Employees feeling attached for either reason are found less likely to exit.
Implications for theory, research, and policy are discussed.
1. Introduction
The exit–voice–loyalty (EVL) model developed in the initial work of
Hirschman (1970) provides an important context for much contemporary
industrial relations theorizing, research and policy. According to this model,
more loyal employees will choose to voice their concerns, instead of exiting
in response to workplace problems, ultimately leaving the organization in a
stronger position to address such problems. Hirschman (1970: 30) defined
voice in broad, all-inclusive terms as any attempt to change, rather than
leave, an organization in response to an objectionable state of affairs.
According to this definition, voice could be exercised individually or
collectively, and the change process could be brought about through direct
petition to management, or more forcefully through appeals to higher
authorities, mobilizing public opinion or other forms of organized protest.
The principles of voice are heavily entrenched in the labour market
policies of many advanced, industrialized countries (for a review, see Riddell
1986). For example, joint committees such as those requiring labour–
management consultations in matters of health and safety, or where the firm
Andrew Luchak is an Associate Professor at the School of Business, University of Alberta and a
Research Associate of the Centre for Industrial Relations at the University of Toronto.
British Journal of Industrial Relations
41:1 March 2003 0007–1080 pp. 115–134
#Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2003. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd,
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
TABLE 1
Studies Examining the Effects of Loyalty on Exit and Voice
Study Withey and Cooper (1989) Leck and Saunders (1992) Boroff and Lewin (1997)
Data
source
Sample 1: N=266 managerial and non-managerial
employees with an undergraduate business degree from a
Canadian university working full-time in North America
Sample 2: N=124 managerial and non-managerial
employees working for a mid-sized accounting firm in
Canada
N=320 full-time employees taking a continuing
education course part-time at a Canadian university
N=1297 non-management employees of a large,
US-based, multinational telecommunications firm.
Loyalty Loyalty was treated as an alternative response to voice
and exit, but organizational commitment was
measured using Porter et al.’s (1974) scale, with items
such as: I really care about the fate of this
organization.
3-item variant of the Organizational Commitment
Questionnaire (Mowday and Steers 1979). Items
include: (1) I feel very little loyalty to my organization
(reverse); (2) I am extremely glad that I chose this
organization to work for, over the others I was
considering at the time I joined; and (3) I really care
about the fate of my organization.
3 items from Rusbult et al. (1988):
(1) I generally say good things about the
firm even when other people criticize it;
(2) I sometimes wear clothing (hat, jacket, pin, etc.)
that bears the firm’s logo or symbol; and (3) The
people in charge of this firm generally know what
they’re doing.
Exit 3-item variant from Farrell (1983): (1) Getting into
action and looking for another job; (2) Deciding to
quit the company; and (3) Getting myself transferred
to another job.
2-item measure: (1) Accept a job outside your present
organization; and (2) Search for a job outside your
present organization.
2-item measure: (1) I am seriously considering leaving
this firm for an alternative employer; and (2) During
the next year I will probably look for a new job outside
this firm.
Voice 3-item variant from Farrell (1983): (1) Talking to
supervisor to try and make things better; (2) Putting a
note in the suggestion box, attempting to correct a
problem; and (3) Writing a letter to a government
agency to find out what can be done about a problem.
5-item measure: (1) Discuss your suggestions and
concerns with your boss; (2) Discuss your suggestions
and concerns with senior management; (3) Say good
things about the organization even when others
criticize it; (4) Voluntarily wear clothing (hat, jacket,
pin, etc.) that bears your organization’s symbol or
insignia; and (5) Say good things about your job even
when others criticize it.
Grievance-filing equals 1 if the person filed a grievance
in response to perceived unfair treatment and 0
otherwise.
Result Sample 1: Affective organizational commitment
negatively related to exit and insignificantly related to
voice.
Sample 2: Affective organizational commitment
negatively related to exit and insignificantly related to
voice.
Loyalty negatively related to exit and positively related
to voice.
Loyalty negatively related to exit and negatively
related to voice.
116 British Journal of Industrial Relations
#Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2003.
To continue reading
Request your trial