Krieger ( 1999 ) note widespread direct voice across several European countries, its
depth—as indicated by the number of issues involved and level of power accorded
to workers—was much more restricted. There are two aspects to depth. First,
practices that are legitimized as valued aspects of organizational routines and
cover a wide range of workers can reXect both management and worker commit-
ment to voice. Examples include the proportion of workers that are given sign-
iWcant responsibility to organize their own work or have their problems resolved
satisfactorily by line managers. Second, depth can be assessed by the frequency and
regularity with which voice takes place, such as the proportion of quality circles
meeting at least monthly or the speed with which grievances are resolved. The
lifespan of voice practices may also be an indicator of how well they are embedded
at work as evidence suggests many are short-lived and faddish in character (Godard
2004 ).
There is support for the idea that deeply embedded voice has a positive impact
on employee perceptions. Kaufman ( 2003 ) demonstrates how a broad-ranging EI
programme at Delta Airlines improved informationXow and energized employees,
as well as opening senior management’s eyes as to the real concerns and issues at
shopXoor level. In relation to teamworking, Delbridge and WhitWeld ( 2001 ) found
that workers only perceived increased inXuence levels for the strongest—and by
some distance the rarest—version of teams, that is, where teams had the power to
appoint their own leaders. Cox et al. ( 2003 ) reported that combinations of deeply
embedded voice practices had statistically signiWcant levels of association with
commitment and satisfaction. ThisWnding applied both to direct and representa-
tive voice, but it was particularly strong with combinations of direct voice. This
supports the argument that employee perceptions are more positive when
a number of practices are used in combination and when theseWgure more
prominently at the workplace.
The implication of this discussion is that voice is an important and necessary
component of HR systems, and that to be eVective—in terms of employee percep-
tions and performance—it has to be embedded within organizations and be visible
at workplace level. This suggests that because voice practices tend to be comple-
mentary, they should be combined in a way that is meaningful and relevant for
speciWc organizational contexts. However, this assumes employers recognize voice
can add value, and moreover that they are prepared to ensure voice is properly
embedded at the workplace. This cannot be taken for granted because employers
may be obsessed with cost reduction or restricting opportunities for workers to
express their voice, in the belief thatWnancial success can be achieved without
committing themselves to an ‘involving’ culture (Godard 2004 ). Moreover,
Cappelli and Neumark ( 2001 ) stress that because high-commitment HRM leads
to increased costs, the lack of any immediateWnancial return could discourage
employers from adopting voice regimes.
employee voice systems 241