Workers may dismiss the latter as merely ‘bolted on’ to or out of line with other
elements of voice or broader HR practices, and not take them seriously. Com-
binations of voice provide the potential for workers to be involved in diVerent
ways: asking a team leader questions about work organization; dealing with
quality issues through problem-solving groups; and taking concerns to line
managers or union representatives if they perceive unfair treatment. Information
received in one arena can be used elsewhere, and inXuence on decision-making at
a strategic level through indirect voice can shape employment relations at the
workplace. Voice can become embedded as interaction between diVerent forms
both provides cross-fertilization of ideas to improve operations and creates
networks through which workers can gain personal support. Similarly, workers
who feel their supervisor deals with personal problems eVectively and rapidly are
more inclined to cooperate if there is pressure to achieve short-term targets
(Liden et al. 2004 ).
However, the evidence is not uniform. Evidence in support of bundles comes
from Bryson ( 2004 ) who found a positive relationship between the number of
direct voice practices and employee ratings of management, as well as suggesting
that combinations of direct voice and non-union representation exceed the eVects
of direct voice alone. Moreover, Cox et al. ( 2003 ) argue that combinations of direct
voice have a much stronger eVect on employee perceptions than individual prac-
tices alone, and Benson and Lawler ( 2003 ) note that research conWrms the import-
ance of viewing voice practices as complementary. Handel and Levine ( 2004 : 14 )
summarize this argument by suggesting that ‘contributions or bundles of [voice]
practices should be more eVective than the simple sum of eVects for individual
practices.’
As ever, much depends on how voice has been implemented by line managers
and interpreted by workers, and there is a danger that multiple techniques convey
confusing and contradictory messages (Wilkinson et al. 1997 ). For example,
although supervisors might actively welcome suggestions from their teams, workers
mayWnd their ideas are not implemented, or worse still ignored, or that their
grievances are treated with disdain. Whilst managers may be happy to receive
ideas for improving work schedules if this provides an immediate payback to
organizational goals, voice that is perceived as critical of their behavior—and
therefore managerial prerogative—is less likely to be welcomed (Marchington
et al. 2001 ).
The degree to which voice is embedded in the workplace can also be assessed by
itsdepth; amongst other things, this includes the frequency with which meetings
take place, the opportunity workers have to raise issues with managers, the range
of subjects discussed, and the degree of inXuence workers feel they have over
decisions. The regularity and thoroughness with which practices are applied can
have a signiWcant impact on the quality of voice. For example, whilst Gill and
240 mick marchington