the John Lewis Partnership. London: Faber and Faber. Gollan, P.J. and Wilkinson, A. (2007). 'Contemporary developments in information and consultation'.
QUT Digital Repository: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/
Cathcart, Abigail (2008) Against voice : towards organizational democracy. In: 3rd Australasian Caucus of the Standing Conference on Organizational Symbolism, 2628 November 2008, School of Management, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney.
© Copyright 2008 [please consult the author]
3rd Australasian Caucus of the Standing Conference on Organizational Symbolism: Neophilia and Organization Sydney, 2628 November 2008
Against Voice: Towards Organisational Democracy
Abby Cathcart, Lecturer, Queensland University of Technology PhD Student, University of Leicester, UK The concept of employee voice is currently enjoying a period of great popularity and is the subject of a great deal of academic writing and debate. During the 1980’s voice became popular when companies recognised it as a mechanism to detect problems and conflicts at an early stage (Dundon and Gollan, 2007:1183). It has been suggested that voice mechanisms are an important way of ensuring employee commitment, and the term has also been linked to conceptions of industrial citizenship and employee rights (Wilkinson et al. 2004:299). Over the last twenty years, there has been a significant decline in writing about employee participation and organisational democracy, and a steady increase in papers on employee voice. This paper will argue that although employee voice is clearly the preferred contemporary term for concepts that have been previously referred to as participation, involvement and even empowerment, the concept of voice should be challenged rather than embraced by critical management scholars. It is suggested that voice should not be viewed as a new management (and academic) fad, or simply as a ‘rebranding’ of other theoretical concepts, but as a dilution of, and an attack upon, more radical conceptions of participation at work. Voice has been poorly defined and subject to different interpretations and meanings in both theory and practice (Dundon et al. 2004; 2005; Wilkinson et al. 2004). Employee voice encompasses direct individual and indirect representative forms of employee participation and the extent to which voice is effective and meaningful is both constrained and enabled by the regulatory environment (Markey, 2007: 187; Dundon et al. 2004:1149). In April 2005, the UK’s Department for Trade and Industry introduced new Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations which set down in law the principle that employers should take ‘genuine and conscientious consideration’ of employees’ views on business activities, contractual issues, work organization, strategy and change (DTI 2005: 5). The regulations have been described as a “realignment of institutional arrangements to enable workers to have a voice” (Dundon and Gollan, 2007:1183). It would appear, however, that voice is all that the regulations will provide, and that the “responsibility for decision‐making ultimately remains with management” (Gollan and Wilkinson, 2007:1138). In short, voice is a source of conceptual confusion, defined loosely and imprecisely, and adding another level of ambiguity to the already problematic conceptual field of employee involvement and participation (Dundon and Gollan, 2007).
The paper will argue that there is a fundamental problem with the term ‘voice’, in that it fails to communicate the idea that the ‘speaker’ has any power, or indeed, that the institution has to ‘listen’ or ‘act’ as a result of the voice. The Chambers Dictionary (1990: 1652) defined voice as “sound produced by the vocal organs of living beings”, this definition, represents a common understanding of what voice is – essentially, speech, and so employee voice can be interpreted as an employee’s ability, perhaps right, to speech in an organisational context. This of course, is important, but speech alone is not enough if the message is ignored (Strauss, 2006;779), more important it is argued, is the right to speak freely, the right to be heard, and the power to make or influence decisions as a result of voice. Although this is recognised by some of the theorists writing in the field (see for example Dundon et al. 2005), there is little discussion as to whether the term ‘voice’ itself is sufficiently problematic to be rejected in favour of clearer or more powerful terms. Thus, despite the assumption by some managers that voice and democracy are inextricably connected (see for example, Dundon et al. 2005: 316), I would contend that there is nothing about the term voice that implies rights, challenge to dominant authority systems, or the potential for a transformation of power structures, all of which (to one degree or another) were recognised as a fundamental part of organisational democracy and democratic participation over thirty years ago (see for example Pateman, 1970; .Flanders, Pomeranz and Woodward, 1968). It is suggested that voice is inextricably connected to a unitarist conception of conflict at work, and thus the focus is on consultation as a mechanism for “harmonious and less conflictual relations with the workforce” (Gollan and Wilkinson, 2007:1136), rather than any real attempt to recognise conflicting interests. Voice mechanisms are invariably determined by management, and implemented for instrumental reasons, such as a way of contributing to competitive advantage, rather than recognised as important for their own sake, or as a result of wanting to give employees a share of the power (Dundon et al. 2004:1168). In short, in this paper, employee voice is rejected in favour of what has previously been termed Organisational Democracy, with the clear implication that what is sought is not simply the right to speak out, but a transformation of power relations, and thus the right and ability to influence and change organisational decisions. Word Count:810
References Department for Trade and Industry (2005). Informing and Consulting Employees: A Brief Guide to the new Legislation. [Internet] London: HMS0. Available from www.dti.gov.uk/employment/employment‐legislation. [Accessed 12 June 2006] Dundon, T. and Wilkinson, A. (2006). ‘Employee Participation’, in Redman, T. and Wilkinson, A. Contemporary Human Resource Management: Text and Cases. Essex: FT Prentice Hall. pp. 382‐404 Dundon, T. and Gollan, P.J. (2007). ‘Reconceptualising voice in the non‐union workplace’. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 18 (7), pp 1182‐1198 Dundon, T., Wilkinson, A., Marchington, M. and Ackers, P. (2004). ‘The meanings and purpose of employee voice’. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. . 15(6). pp 1149‐11 Dundon, T., Wilkinson, A., Marchington, M., and Ackers, P. (2005). ‘The management of voice in non‐ union organisations: managers’ perspectives.’ Employee Relations. . 27(3), pp. 307‐319 Flanders, A., Pomeranz, R. And Woodward, J. (1968). Experiment in Industrial Democracy: A Study of the John Lewis Partnership. London: Faber and Faber Gollan, P.J. and Wilkinson, A. (2007). ‘Contemporary developments in information and consultation’. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. . 18(7). pp.. 1133‐1144 Markey, R. (2007). ‘Non‐union employee representation in Australia: A Case study of the Suncorp Metway Employee Council Inc. (SMEC)’. Journal of Industrial Relations. . 49(2). pp.. 187‐209 Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and Democratic Theory. London: Cambridge University Press Strauss (2006). ‘Worker participation – some under‐considered issues’. Industrial Relations. . 45(4). pp. 778‐803
Wilkinson, A., Dundon, T., Marchington, M. and Ackers, P. (2004). ‘Changing Patterns of Employee Voice: Case Studies from the UK and Republic of Ireland’. The Journal of Industrial Relations. . 46(3). pp 298‐322
