Journal of Applied Communication Research Vol. 34, No. 4, November 2006, pp. 307 310
Commentary
Organizational Surveys: A System for Employee Voice Vickie Cox Edmondson
Although surveys are often used to assess and track employee attitudes and opinions over time and are used quite frequently by applied communication researchers, the use of surveys as a channel to voice employee attitudes and opinions has not been fully explored in the employee voice or basic organizational communication literature. With the increased call for accountability, effective applied communication researchers can play an important role in ensuring that organizations engage in the survey process in a manner that is ‘‘safe’’ for employees, and ethical and practical for the organization. Because the question of how to accomplish this task is complex and cannot be fully addressed within the constraints of a commentary, I offer three general principles to guide future researchers in helping overcome organizational communication problems: 1. Build trust in the organizational survey process, the researcher(s), and the organization. 2. Eliminate the adversarial relationship that often exists between management and employees who speak up. 3. Provide evidence that the organization does more than purport to value the things that it says it values.
Keywords: Organizational Organizational Change
Communication;
Survey
Research;
Employee
Voice;
Corporate scandals at companies like Enron, Tyco International, and HealthSouth resulted in legislative changes which should encourage organizations to introduce Vickie Cox Edmondson (Ph.D., University of Georgia) is an associate professor of management at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Correspondence to: School of Business, University of Alabama at Birmingham, BEC 216, 1530 3rd Avenue South, Birmingham, AL 35294-4460, USA. Email:
[email protected] ISSN 0090-9882 (print)/ISSN 1479-5752 (online) # 2006 National Communication Association DOI: 10.1080/00909880600908526
308 V. C. Edmondson
formal policies and programs to drive unethical behavior to the surface. According to Gayeski (1993), communication can be a professional practice where appropriate rules and tools enhance the utility of information. Although surveys are often used to assess and track employee attitudes and opinions over time (Church, 2001) and are used quite frequently by applied communication researchers, the use of surveys as a channel to voice employee attitudes and opinions has not been fully explored in the employee voice or basic organizational communication literature. To paraphrase Kassing (1997, 1998, 2002), voice is the expression of opinions and concerns about organizational phenomena. Expressions may reveal content (agreement, suggestions, argument, and support) or discontent (disagreement, contradictory opinions, and/or divergent view). Expressions can be voiced between and among people internal and/or external to the organization. To be effectual, expressions must be voiced to people who are able to address the dissent concern directly. Organizations benefit when they can effectively incorporate employee feedback, particularly feedback that challenges accepted practices or policies. In organizational settings, voice systems represent sanctioned channels for employees to express their content or discontent (Harlos, 2001). Most voice systems identified in the literature are open systems that identify the employee (e.g., face-toface communications, email, unions, open-door policies, peer review panels/internal corporate tribunals, arbitration systems, ombudsmen, and performance appraisals). Additionally, although not often ‘‘formally sanctioned’’ in the workplace, failure to voice attitudes and opinions, and whistle-blowing, have been identified as forms of expressing dissent (Kassing, 1998; Westin, Kurtz, & Robbins, 1981). Fearing retaliation, employees often will not voice discontent to leaders (Morrison & Milliken, 2000; Nemeth, 1985; Swing, 1977). Although leaders are obligated to be open to bad news, dissent, warnings, and problem signs (Kassing, 1997; Redding, 1985; Seeger & Ulmer, 2003), studies show that employees are often reluctant to voice dissent about problems in the workplace (Moskal, 1991; Ryan & Oestreich, 1991), and feel that voicing their discontent is useless and even dangerous (Argyris, 1977; Morrison & Milliken, 2000; Redding, 1985). However, employees often express their concerns to people who cannot effect the necessary change (Kassing, 1997). This kind of ineffectual communication leaves those who need to know blindsided (Lewis, 2000) and can also bring about organizational rumbling (i.e., splinter groups; Edmondson & Munchus, 2005). Therefore, the identification and sanctioning of a channel that encourages all employees to voice dissent to effectual audiences without certain identification (thus reducing the threat of retaliation and rumbling) should be welcomed. Moreover, Kraut (1996) argued that surveys can be used as ‘‘strategic tools’’ not only to measure but also to drive organizational change. Whether conducted by the organization or by an academic researcher who communicates results to management, organizational surveys allow employees to express their concerns with some degree of confidentiality and anonymity. In order to be effective, employees must have regular access to surveys (which can be achieved via the Internet/Intranet); those
Organizational Surveys
309
conducting the research must be viewed as effectual audiences who can influence managers to address employees’ concerns; and leaders must respond with surveybased interventions. With the increased call for accountability, effective applied communication researchers can play an important role in ensuring that organizations engage in the survey process in a manner that is ‘‘safe’’ for employees, and ethical and practical for the organization. Because the question of how to accomplish this task is complex and cannot be fully addressed within the constraints of a commentary, I offer three general principles to guide future researchers in helping overcome organizational communication problems: 1. Build trust in the organizational survey process, the researcher(s), and the organization. 2. Eliminate the adversarial relationship that often exists between management and employees who speak up. 3. Provide evidence that the organization does more than purport to value the things that it says it values. At a minimum, researchers must address these questions because no communication tool will be effective if the relationship between the organization and its employees is not addressed. References Argyris, C. (1977). Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review, 55 (5), 115 129. Church, A. H. (2001). Is there a method to our madness? The impact of data collection methodology on organizational survey results. Personnel Psychology, 54 , 937 970. Edmondson, V. C., & Munchus, G. (2005). The unwanted truth: A framework for dissent strategy in the decision-making phase of organizational change . Working paper, Department of Management, University of Alabama at Birmingham. Gayeski, D. (1993). Corporate communications management: The renaissance communicator in information-age organizations . Boston, MA: Focal Press/Heinneman. Harlos, K. P. (2001). When organizational voice systems fail: More on the deaf-ear syndrome and frustration effects. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science , 37 , 324 342. Kassing, J. W. (1997). Articulating, antagonizing, and displacing: A model of employee dissent. Communication Studies , 48 , 311 332. Kassing, J. W. (1998). Development and validation of the organizational dissent scale. Management Communication Quarterly, 12 , 183 229. Kassing, J. W. (2002). Speaking up. Management Communication Quarterly, 16 , 187 209. Kraut, A. I. (1996). Introduction: An overview of organizational surveys. In A. I. Kraut (Ed.), Organizational surveys: Tools for assessment and change (pp. 1 14). San Francisco: JosseyBass. Lewis, L. K. (2000). ‘‘Blindsided by that one’’ and ‘‘I saw that one coming’’: The relative anticipation and occurrence of communication problems and other problems in implementer’s hindsight. Journal of Applied Communication Research , 28 , 44 67. Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25 , 706 725.
310 V. C. Edmondson
Moskal, B. S. (1991, January 21). Is industry ready for adult relationships? Industry Week , 240 (2), 18 25. Nemeth, C. J. (1985). Dissent, group process, and creativity. Advances in Group Processes , 2 , 57 75. Redding, W. C. (1985). Rocking boats, blowing whistles, and teaching speech communication. Communication Education , 34 , 245 258. Ryan, K. D., & Oestreich, D. K. (1991). Driving fear out of the workplace . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Seeger, M. W., & Ulmer, R. R. (2003). Explaining Enron. Management Communication Quarterly, 17 , 58. Swing, D. W. (1977). Freedom inside the organization . New York: Dutton. Westin, A. F., Kurtz, H. I., & Robbins, A. (1981). Whistleblowing: Loyalty and dissent in the corporation . New York: McGraw-Hill.
