voice can contribute to the achievement of improved performance, there is also the
alternative perspective that organizations with high levels of performance, or those
operating in favorable product market circumstances (reverse causality), are more
able to aVord the costs of implementing voice (Boxall and Purcell 2003 ; Schneider
et al. 2003 ). Second, as voice has a processual as well as a substantive component,
we need to focus on interactions between line managers and staVat workplace level
rather than on grand HR strategies or ‘counts’ of how many HR practices are
supposedly in place. If we wish to understand why workers might work harder or
smarter, it is valuable to know how voice impacts on them directly.
In relation to perspective and philosophy there are also two points. Voice is
an essential component of HRM for those who believe it should serve more than
employer goals alone. This is not just in terms of engaging employees’ contributions
and reaping the beneWts of constructive conXict—managerial goals—but also it
acknowledges mutuality in the employment relationship. Second, whilst voice may
be important to satisfy management goals, it also includes opportunities to ensure
fair treatment at work, either through direct or indirect union voice. Unless
employers accept this form of voice, it is hard to see why workers should bother
contributing their ideas to enhance organizational goals. Analysis should
therefore include the idea that voice relates to a range of stakeholder interests
(Paauwe 2004 ).
Finally, in relation to context there are two points. First, voice is not something
that can be prescribed in detail for every workplace irrespective of country, sector,
or organization. Further research needs to consider the forms voice might take in
quite contrasting circumstances, and the inXuence that a range of shaping factors
may have over its structures and processes. Second, however, we cannot ignore the
possibility that some employers may want HR systems without any room for voice.
Such an approach might appeal to employers that care only about exploiting
workers or believe high shareholder returns in the short term are more important
than sustained product quality or a reputation for good customer service. How-
ever, even if there might be a business case for rejecting voice, its absence raises
major questions about how organizations operate in so-called democratic societies.
In this situation, as Godard ( 2004 : 370 ) argues, if employers are not prepared to
change their behavior voluntarily, legislation might be the only way to achieve
progressive employment policies, meaningful representation, and voice.
References
Allen, D. G., Shore, L. M., and Griffen,R.W.( 2003 ). ‘The Role of Perceived Organiza
tional Support and Supportive Human Resource Practices in the Turnover Process.’
Journal of Management, 29 / 1 :99 118.
employee voice systems 247