Reference paper:
Price, K. H., Lavelle, J. J., Henley, A. B., Cocchiara, F. K., & Buchanan, F. R. (2006). Judging the fairness of voice-based participation across multiple and interrelated stages of decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(2), 212–226.Conclusion:
(A 50-word quick summary from my understanding)
Consistent with Fairness Theory, multi-stage decision making procedure was judged to be fairest and intention to volunteer was highest when participants were allowed voice in team and team was allowed voice by organization. Similarly, when both or either individual/team voice is denied, both fairness ratings and participant intentions are depressed. Quick Notes/queries:
(For my further delving)
- Could the expectations of "being heard" be different across individuals, organizational levels and groups in the organization?
- What if the degree of perceived implications of a decision varies for each individual?
- How do contextual elements and social accounts alter the likelihood of negative reactions of voice denial, and thereby overall fairness judgments and behavioral intentions? (For ex - Case A: The decision maker says to Group 2 that after meeting Group 1, the final decision was made and that there is no need to meet the rest of the groups including them; Case B: The decision maker says to Group 2 that after meeting Group 1 and 3, the final decision was made and that there is no need to meet them.)
- In Study 2, it was told to the experiment participants that "..university was not currently investigating the issues....". Why was this statement made? What if it was told to the participants that it was an important issue for which the university was seeking critical inputs? Would the reactions to the experiment in two cases be different?
- What if the participants are unable to know whether team voice was heard?
- What would be the implications when voice was not denied completely, but the acceptance only differs in degree?