suggestions encourages an instrumental approach to work (Marchington and
Wilkinson 2005 ).
Problem-solving groups/quality circles and two-way brieWngs constitute the
second and much more extensive type of upward communications. Typically the
former comprise small groups of workers who meet on a regular basis to identify,
analyze, and solve quality and work-related problems. Members may be drawn
either from the same team or from a range of diVerent work areas, meeting under
the guidance of a leader, sometimes with assistance from one or more facilitators.
Upward problem-solving groups are designed to achieve explicit production,
quality, or service goals through the appropriation of workers’ ideas but they can
also enhance employee morale and commitment if it is felt their views have been
taken seriously. However, there are problems in sustaining problem-solving groups
beyond the initial phase of active involvement as groups question whether or not
gains will be maintained (Handel and Levine 2004 ). BrieWng groups which are
designed to encourage feedback from workers can also fall within this category;
evidence from the UK indicates this is now a regular feature of schemes initially
designed to foster downward communications.
Workers and trade unions have questioned managements’ motives for introdu-
cing upward problem-solving groups, fearing that they will be used merely to
achieve improvements in productivity that will result in job losses (Osterman
2000 ). Even if employers agree not to cut jobs, workers are criticized for acting
as management stooges, helping organizations to improve performance without
any commensurate increase in rewards. Tensions are particularly inherent with this
form of direct worker voice because upward problem-solving operates at the
interface between management and non-managerial workers, and some would
advise workers not to take part in such groups, arguing that employers should be
forced to pay for any ideas oVered by workers that are beyond their ‘normal’ job.
Similarly, employers that are subject to extensive product market pressures might
disapprove of any activity allowing workers productive time away from their work
station due to cost implications (Cappelli and Neumark 2001 ).
TheWnal category of direct voice is where workerscomplain, either directly or
through formal grievance procedures, to management about its behavior and
performance at work. This category is quite diVerent from those that have just
been discussed, but it is also the one that is most commonly associated with the
term ‘voice’ itself, largely through the work of Hirschmann ( 1970 ). He deWned
voice as ‘any attempt at all to change, rather than escape from, an objectionable
state of aVairs, whether through individual or collective petition to management’
(Hirschmann 1970 : 30 ). It was assumed that workers would only stay toWght for
improvements in their working lives (voice) if they were loyal enough to the
organization, otherwise they would leave (exit). From management’s perspective
therefore, voice can be seen as a useful way of letting oVsteam, a safety valve, as well
as a desire to improve the situation. Workers, on the other hand, value the chance
employee voice systems 237