to articulate their concerns directly to managers or through union representatives
with the hope this will lead to changes in behavior. Freeman and MedoV( 1984 )in
following up this idea argued that the voice option made sense for both parties,
rather than allowing things to degenerate to the point where workers decided to
leave. They felt unions oVered the best opportunity for workers to exercise their
voice because of their independence from management.
Some recent literature has examined the voice-loyalty-exit concept in relation to
grievance-raising by workers in the USA. BoroVand Lewin ( 1997 ) found that,
contrary to Hirschmann’s thesis, it was the workers who expressed lower levels of
loyalty to the organization that were more likely to complain—that is, use voice—
whilst loyal workers were more prone to ‘suVer in silence.’ Workers who com-
plained to management were more likely to suVer adverse consequences subse-
quent to raising their grievance. Indeed, Lewin and Peterson ( 1999 ) found that
workers whoWled grievances had signiWcantly lower promotion rates, and there
was some evidence they had higher rates of labor turnover and lower performance
ratings. In societies where grievance-raising does not have legal backing, workers
may be anxious that raising grievances will lead to future retribution, but where
this is buttressed by legal regulations and societal support voice may oVer a more
viable option (Malos et al. 2003 ).
Luchak ( 2003 ) suggests we need to diVerentiate between direct and representative
voice. Whilst the latter tends to lead to more hostile reactions from management,
the former tends to be seen in a more preventive light. Accordingly, loyal employees
with a strong aVective bond with the organization are more prone to use direct and
moreXexible channels to make their complaints, with the consequence that they are
willing to ‘go the extra distance to ensure that problems are settled before they have
a chance to escalate’ (Luchak 2003 : 128 ). However, he acknowledges the success of this
route depends largely on management’s willingness to act on employee suggestions,
as well as on the seriousness of the grievance and the extent to which it challenges
managerial prerogative. This shows the importance of locating voice within the
context of wider HR policies and industrial relations systems because some employ-
ers would probably prefer anyone with a grievance to quit the organization
rather than stay and be an irritant in the future. Alternatively, employers adopting
a pluralist perspective might be inclined to see the potential value of complaints as a
source of feedback that complements well-developed representative arrangements.
12.3 Embedding Voice at Work
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
One problem with existing studies of voice is that they focus on theWrst two
elements in this framework, broadly under the heading of employee involvement,
238 mick marchington