The literature in this field emphasizes prosocial as the driving motive for voice, and two key outcome related considerations - perceived efficacy of voice (judgement about whether speaking up is likely to be effective) and perceived safety of voice (judgement about the potential negative outcomes) - as moderating the relationship between the driving motive and behavior (Morrison, 2011).
It is this inherent aspect of decision-making involved in a voice behavior that brings up several questions in my mind, the curiosity primarily stemming from the process involved in and the principles governing such consequential decision-making. In short, how does the individual carry out this task of deciding to speak?
"Human behavior's basic mechanisms may be relatively simple, and I believe they are, but that simplicity operates in interaction with extremely complex boundary conditions imposed by the environment and by the very facts of human long-term memory and of the capacity of human beings, individually and collectively, to learn."One central aspect of a decision-making is a choice set - alternative courses of action that the decision maker canvasses before choosing on the one. While at the outset it might seem that silence (Milliken et al., 2003) and exit (Hirschman, 1970) are the only alternatives to voice, other wide range of alternatives become clear when one puts the individual's motives for voicing and underlying objectives in a closer perspective.
- Herbert Simon, Nobel Prize Lecture, 1978
For example, consider a scenario where an employee strongly believes that she has an idea or a suggestion that if effectively acted upon could make a significant positive difference to the collective. While speaking up, i.e voice behavior where the target of voice is supervisor, is one choice, the other alternative course of actions that she possibly considers include speaking up to others higher up in the hierarchy, speaking out, i.e voice behavior directed to peers (Liu et al, 2010), and postponing the decision to a definite point in the future when the perceived context favorability is better.
Further, based on the perception of dysfunctional social-psychological consequences of speaking up, she could also resort to voicing through alternative channels, such as computer-mediated communication (Kiesler et al., 1984), or influencing other members, who are perceived to be more effective, to voice on her behalf. Of course, like in other decision making process, deciding to voice could pressure the individual, eventually resulting in her ending up with a defensive avoidance, i.e. either procrastinating or inventing rationalizations to ignore the worrisome doubts that make for decisional conflicts(Irving Janis & Leon Mann, 1977).
Over and above the alternative courses of action outlined here, adopting other behaviors in the Organizational Citizenship Behavioral (Organ, 1988) to achieve the underlying objectives is a possibility too. For example, consider an employee who perceives that the work distribution in the collective is sub-optimal and that it could be reconfigured to significantly enhance the collective performance. While one option is to voice the concern to the supervisor, the other is taking charge (Morrison & Phelps, 1999) by piloting a strength-based employee development approach (Clifton & Harter, 2003) and demonstrating its utility. It is possible that factors influencing the decision for taking charge compared to voice differ (Chiaburu et al., 2008). Alternatively the employee could volunteer to help coworkers in their job and work-related problems hoping that the collective outcomes are thereby enhanced above the sub-optimal levels.
From my reflection on practice, voice does not seem to be a single-valued decision - that is,those intended to achieve only a single objective. Morrison (2011) points out that scholars have moved from viewing the primary motive for voice as the removal of personal dissatisfaction to viewing it as a form of prosocial behavior (i.e less self-focused and more other-focused). This dual focus form of the voice behavior leads to the possibility that the decision to voice, like other decisions in the organizational context, often involves, as scholars point out, multiplicity of conflicting objectives (Irving Janis & Leon Mann, 1977). The objectives of a voice behavior could possibly range from "positive outcomes for the collective", "individual performance" and "career growth potential", to other intangible gains such as "good will" and "acceptability within the organization".
If, as outlined in the above example, the alternative strategies, distinct behaviors including Organizational Citizenship Behaviors(OCB) and multiplicity of objectives are indeed in the repertoire of the employee deciding to voice, then it brings to the fore many questions in my mind that need to be answered to develop a better understanding of voice and other OCB behaviors. Given the need for processing information on a range of alternative courses of action and objectives, and positive and negative consequences, it seems important to understand the strategy adopted by employees when deciding to voice.
At this point, some questions confronting me include: What are the alternatives of voice? Under what conditions are employees most likely to adopt voice over other behaviors? What conditions lead one to adopt affiliative as against challenging, and promotive as against protective behaviors? When and why do individuals fail to look into alternatives of voice? How do the individuals deal with unanticipated setbacks resulting from one alternative? Does adopting a behavior at one stage preclude the use of another behavior at a later stage? For example, when taking charge turns ineffective in achieving the desired objectives, does the employee still resort to voice? What strategies, such as vigilant, satisficing and quasi-satisficing (Irving Janis & Leon Mann, 1977), do individuals adopt to arrive at a decision? What influence do individual differences, cognitive biases and past experience have on such decision-making? Lastly, what managerial interventions could facilitate better approaches to decision-making involving OCB behaviors?
In the time to come, I wish to get a better understanding of pertinent theoretical frameworks, both from normative (what should be) and descriptive (what actually is) perspectives, in the context of above questions. In my limited readings in last couple of weeks, I have come across two relevant scholastic studies: one, on how the perceived consequences of voice contribute to silence (Milliken et al., 2003) and two, a conceptual model that explicates cognitive processes as antecedents to employee voice behavior (Chiaburu et al., 2008).
The quest for further understanding of the search, deliberation and selection procedures typically used by employees in deciding to voice has only begun.
Ashford, S. J., Rothbard, N. P., Piderit, S. K., & Dutton, J. E. (1998). Out on a limb: The role of context and impression management in selling gender-equity issues. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23–57.
Chiaburu, D. S., Marinova, S. V., & Van Dyne, L. (2008). Should I do it or not? An initial model of cognitive processes predicting voice behaviors. Citizenship in the 21st century, 127–153.
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: is the door really open? The Academy of Management Journal ARCHIVE, 50(4), 869–884.
Hirschman, A.O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations,
and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American psychologist, 39(10), 1123.
Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: a psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. Free Press.
Liu, W., Zhu, R., & Yang, Y. (2010). I warn you because I like you: Voice behavior, employee identifications, and transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 189–202. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.10.014
Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An Exploratory Study of Employee Silence: Issues that Employees Don’t Communicate Upward and Why*. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1453–1476.
Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee Voice Behavior: Integration and Directions for Future Research. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373–412. doi:10.1080/19416520.2011.574506
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 706–725.
Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of management Journal, 403–419.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: the good soldier syndrome. Lexington Books.
SIMON, H. A. (1992). Rational Decision-Making in Business Organizations. Economic sciences, 1969-1980: the Sveriges Riksbank (Bank of Sweden) prize in economic sciences in memory of Alfred Nobel, 1, 343.