but they also tend to draw on management respondents to assess the extensiveness
of voice. Accordingly, these measure ‘intended’ practices (Wright and Boswell
2002 ) rather than those experienced by workers themselves. These studies lack
sensitivity to the complexities of voice, and it is apparent from case studies that
managerial claims to have implemented particular practices do not necessarily
square with organizational reality (Van den Berg et al. 1999 ). For example, ideas
generated by problem-solving groups may not be implemented or managers may
fail to respond to concerns raised by workers, perhaps due to pressure of work, lack
of interest, or cost. Data on coverage of voice provided by senior managers
probably overestimates the impact on workers because of failures to implement
practice eVectively at the workplace (Paauwe and Boselie 2005 ).
Fortunately, some studies have considered the type, quality, and combinations of
voice in evaluating its impact, and assess the opportunities workers are given to
exercise inXuence at work. For example, Batt ( 2004 : 189 ) argues that workersWnd
participation in self-managed teams much more signiWcant than involvement in
problem-solving groups, commenting that ‘oV-line’ teams ‘do not suYciently
inXuence the organization of work and daily routines of employees to dramatically
aVect their attitudes and self-interests.’ Bryson ( 2004 ) analyzed the eVects of union,
non-union, and individual voice on employee perceptions of managers’ respon-
siveness to them. He found that some forms of voice yield a higher-quality
response from managers than others—meetings of the whole workforce being
more eVective than problem-solving groups, for example. Moreover, the eVective-
ness of methods depends on whether they are used individually or in combination,
and the most eVective voice mechanisms are a combination of direct and non-
union voice (Bryson 2004 ). Purcell and Georgiadis ( 2006 : 12 ) suggest the use of
both direct and indirect systems of voice ‘has the capacity both to limit the number
of issues or problems listed by employees as matters they want resolved, and to deal
with them when they arise.’
Much depends on how voice is implemented and sustained. For example,
whilst most organizations are likely to have in place a variety of formal and
informal mechanisms for dealing with employee grievances, workers’ willingness
to use these can vary depending on their own manager’s style and attitudes. As
we have seen, research on grievance-Wling in the USA shows workers may be
disinclined to use voice if they believe managers will respond negatively to
complaints about fair treatment (Luchak 2003 ). For voice to be eVective and
meaningful, it needs to operate within a climate that is seen as supportive
and ‘strong,’ utilizing principles of legitimacy, consistency, and fairness (Bowen
and OstroV 2004).
The extent to which voice is embedded within the workplace can be assessed
by its breadth and depth.Breadth can be measured by the number of voice
components operating at the workplace on the principle that several practices
operating together provide greater reinforcement than any single practice alone.
employee voice systems 239