Factors Influencing Employee Willingness to use Voice Mechanisms

Julie Platt Richard Saundry

Plymouth Business School, University of Plymouth, UK. ___________________________________________________________________________

Abstract Employee Voice is crucial for harmonious and productive professional relationships within any working

establishment. Awareness and effective use of voice can enhance business efficiency and the quality of work undertaken, but data in relation to employee perceptions of Voice is lacking. This work investigates how

employee perceptions of Voice channels impact their willingness to use them through face-to-face interviews and use of secondary data sources. Eleven employees of X University Business School were interviewed in a

semi-structured format to obtain information on their personal experiences of Voice in the workplace. Interview transcriptions were used to conduct detailed content and thematic analysis on each interview to identify

recurring themes and patterns. These themes were: organisational climate, leadership, managerial behaviours and attitudes, and power, authority, and communication. This study identified that the Unitarist cost saving

approach of management resulted in a lack of empowerment, increased workloads, and reduced investment into the development of social capital. All factors influenced the Voice climate and were the driving forces in the

inability of employees to want to use Voice mechanisms.

Keywords Employment Relations, Employee Voice, Voice mechanisms, Pluralist & Unitarist perspectives

___________________________________________________________________________

1. Introduction Universities today compete on a global scale for status, students, and income (Martell, 2013). Furthermore, changes to government policy have encouraged new forms of competitors to enter the higher education sector (Brown, 2015). This fierce competition has led universities to behave like businesses - they must differentiate their product, diversify, innovate and market their brand to fill university places (Martell, 2013). This has led to heavy investment in glitzy infrastructure, marketing and branding to attract customers (Brown, 2015). Consequently, employee satisfaction has been compromised. A recent survey at this University identified only 68% of staff were happy with their Performance Development Review report (PDR). At a wider societal level, university lecturers have recently taken strike action (Espinoza, 2016). This is of great concern, as unsatisfied employees signal that there is waste and deficiencies in the system, the organisation is not utilising all its resources. This threatens the sustainability of the organisation to compete in the marketplace (Slack, 2013).

Value can be added through the productivity of the organisation’s core competencies: its people. In order to maximise efficiencies, it is argued that effective employee Voice mechanisms are required to enable a culture where norms of communication and trust facilitate openness and transparency in the workplace (CIPD, 2016). As a result, people feel valued, supported and more satisfied in their work. This results in higher productivity, creativity is enhanced and knowledge is diffused, leading to an increase in work quality, whilst employees become advocates of the brand (CIPD, 2016).

Organisations today are dependent on the knowledge and intellectual assets of their people to remain innovative and differentiate themselves from competitors (Kandampully, 2002). If firms do not find ways to nurture this knowledge and implement effective processes for two way dialogue so that views can be communicated upward, employees fear speaking up and instead choose ‘defensive’ silence (Dyne, Ang & Botero, 2003). Evidence has shown that Voice leads to feelings of worth and fairness, enhancing commitment and morale (Acas, 2015).

Government changes to the student loan system means that students accumulate significant debt to fund their degree. This is causing consumer like behaviour, students today are more demanding of their experience (BBC, 2016). Employees are the contact with the consumer. Poor employee morale will negatively affect the student experience and in turn lead to student dissatisfaction. This impacts brand image and reputation, resulting in a lower league table ranking and less access to research funding.

The significant decline in union membership and collective bargaining in the UK has led to a greater emphasis on forms of non-direct channels to represent employee Voice. However, evidence as to the effectiveness of such mechanisms is fairly mixed (CIPD, 2016). In an era of Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM) importance is placed on direct channels of communication with line managers. This presents problems: since Human Resource Management (HRM) responsibilities have been devolved to the line, managers are over stretched with responsibility and lack relevant people skills (Hutchinson 2008).

Evidence suggests a range of direct and indirect channels for Voice need to be adopted. However, unless there is support from the top of the organisation to empower employee Voice, these channels will be ineffective. Voice channels need to be embedded into strategy, not an ad hoc addition (CIPD, 2016).

Much of the existing Voice research concerns ‘process’ and ‘strategy’. Whilst research on the representation gap has focused on organisations where Voice mechanisms do not exist. The University appears rather Pluralistic in nature with a range of Voice channels in place. However, these mechanisms appear not to be used. Therefore, this project aims to understand what factors influence employee willingness in using Voice mechanisms.

This aim will be achieved via the following objectives:

- To examine employee perceptions of Voice mechanisms. - To Identify the factors that affect employee willingness to use Voice mechanisms. - To analyse the identified factors and question why this affects employee willingness to use Voice

mechanisms.

2. Literature Review 2.1 History of Employee Voice The post war political context, under the Labour government and Keynesian economic doctrine, recognised the importance of acknowledging human needs in the employment relationship (ER) (Bratton & Gold 2012). Employment laws were passed to improve working conditions and rights. Embracing a Pluralist framework, trade unions were viewed as critical in maintaining stability of the ER and protecting the living standards of their members by enabling a collective ‘informed’ Voice to balance power relations between the employer and employee (Gennard et al., 2016).

In 1979, the rise of the political ideology of Thatcher in the UK represented a radical break from the consensus government style and “a new industrial order” emerged in the UK (Bratton & Gold 2012). (Gennard et al., 2016) state that “industrial action was viewed as a cost to business and discipline and grievance was seen as a major source of days lost through industrial stoppages”. This did not fit with the capitalist free market agenda as collective bargaining for employee rights would increase pay and improve conditions resulting in increased costs. Unions and state intervention was viewed as a significant deterrent to the neoliberal free market (Torrington et al., 2014).

Since the 1980s the ER has changed considerably, with organisations re-structuring their operations in a shift from personnel management to SHRM. The focus is on good management and leadership as a way of achieving “a harmony of goals and interests between the organisation and its members” (Podro, 2011; Torrington et al., 2014). Employers turned towards more direct Voice arrangements and HRM roles were decentralised to line managers in order to strategically manage human input and leverage peoples’ capabilities and commitment to achieve competitive advantage (Bratton & Gold 2012; Torrington et al., 2014).

The concept of enterprise underpins the Unitarist framework that dominates HRM today. Management are the only legitimate source of authority. Conflict in the ER is seen as irrational and third party intervention is met with hostility, marginalising external influences such as trade union and state intervention (Bratton & Gold 2012; Torrington et al., 2014). However, (Podro, 2011) state that workplace conflict is inevitable, due to the different interests between labour and capital that underlie the ER. This was also the view of Karl Marx, who criticised the capitalist system by saying production is exploitative due to the asymmetry of power that employers have over employees (Gennard et al., 2016). This view can be analysed by considering that minimalist employer policies and the reduction of red tape are a requirement of the free market to enable labour flexibility to compete in a global market place. However, legislative decisions imposed under the neoliberal economic agenda enabled employers the right to self-legislate and unilaterally impose decisions relating to the ER. Workers were left with fewer rights in terms of workplace consultation and had less influence over significant decisions (CIPD, 2017; Gennard et al., 2016). In today’s environment, trade union power has declined significantly. Pressure on businesses has increased to drive efficiency, meet market needs, and reduce costs, and with an increase in job insecurity, employees are vulnerable to the exploitation of their rights.

The representation gap in British workplaces is continuing to grow. The most recent Workplace Employment Relations survey (WERS) showed that only 7% of employees have consultative structures for Voice in their place of work, whilst workplaces with any ER structures fell from 45% in to 35% in 2011. The existing hierarchy of labour relations therefore represents a stark imbalance of power that threatens the democratic rights of workers in future employment relations (Bernard, 1996; Podro, 2011). 2.2 Definitions of Voice ‘An effective and empowered employee Voice - employees’ views are sought out, they are listened to and see that their opinions count and make a difference. They speak out and challenge when appropriate, a strong sense of listening and responsiveness permeates the organisation, enabling effective communication’ (Purcell, 2013).

‘Employee Voice is about much more than giving opportunities to people to have their say, it is about setting up communication channels and arrangements for consultation that allow employees to be actively engaged in decision making’ (Acas, n.d). 2.3 Theoretical underpinning The individualisation of the ER has led to different conceptualisations of worker participation and involvement, dividing the body of literature on the Employee Voice between Unitarist and Pluralist frameworks (Johnstone & Ackers, 2015).

The Unitary framework is predominant in the organisational behaviour (OB/HRM) literature. The concept of Voice is management led and seen as an engagement tool to manage individual potential, knowledge, and skills as a strategic resource. This view states that conflict is irrational and can be managed through effective communication (Bratton & Gold 2012). Arguably it is a business case for employee Voice in the workplace. The focus is on high involvement work systems which seek to enlist knowledge and creativity through high commitment managerial practices. Direct employee Voice arrangements have been linked to empowerment, based on transformative leadership styles, team work, partnerships, autonomy, and effective two-way communication between management and employees (Holland et al., 2011).

The definition of contemporary HRM is “levering peoples’ capabilities and commitment to achieve Strategic Competitive Advantage (SCA)” (Bratton & Gold 2012). Critics argue this approach fails to take account of Pluralistic perspectives of the different interests and levels of power in the ER. It is argued that it is a set of practices that involves worker intensification and the undermining of worker rights which risks relegating workers to a passive, reactive role (Barry & Wilkinson, 2016; Keenoy, 2013; Purcell, 2013). (Winstanley & Woodall, 2000) argue that best practice HRM is not sufficient on its own to ensure ethical treatment of individuals at work.

They suggest that HRM policy and practice must be under pinned by a human centred perspective derived from ethical sensitivity and reasoning.

A separate body of literature on Employment Relations (ER) concerns representation and participation and discusses Voice under a Pluralistic framework. Employment relations are jointly regulated, a social justice case for employee Voice. This approach acknowledges that the ER consists of different interests which inevitably lead to conflict. It is argued that collective Voice structures and state involvement are necessary to manage differences and rebalance power in the ER (Bratton & Gold 2012; Gennard et al., 2016).

(Bernard, 1996) states that in a democracy, restricting employee participation in decisions that affect them is neglecting fundamental human rights. The opportunity to have a Voice is what is important, not whether it improves performance (Budd, 2004). Employees are empowered to communicate their opinions and challenge managerial decisions. The ER is one of mutual respect between both parties. The fact that Voice is valued is significantly more important than the outcome of the decision itself (Folger & Konovsky, 1989). 2.4 Trade Union representation Trade Union representation is a formal, indirect, collective Voice mechanism. Freeman and Medoff (1984) held the view that trade unions could best represent employee Voice and channel discontent. Third-party independence from the employer would help to jointly regulate the ER and deliver organisational justice, balancing equity, and efficiency.

As discussed above, the role unions play in the ER has changed significantly. A hostile environment to third party involvement is evident within the 2011 WERS survey as eight out of ten managers would rather consult with the employee than trade unions (GOV, 2011).

(Towers, 1997) was one of the first to write about the representation gap. He claimed that recreating effective institutions of worker representation must be a priority for those that require a more just settlement at work. The vast body of literature to follow Towers’ work agreed that collective forms of representation are pivotal for effective organisational functioning, which has led organisations to attempt to fill the representation gap with non-union forms (Gennard et al., 2016). Despite this, unions appear to still have the main influence even though they only represent 1 in 4 workers (Gennard et al., 2016)

2.4.1 Non–union representation Non-Union representation can take many forms. Formal collective representation such as Joint Consultative Committees (JCC) enables union representatives to raise collective issues on behalf of employees. Whilst Senates, again formal and collective take a more strategic business form of representation. The Formal Grievance process is an individual Voice mechanism. However, critics argue that its development in the UK was borne out of self-interest to re-enforce managerial control therefore its level of authenticity is questionable. (Purcell & Earl, 1977; Thomson & Murray, 1976). Today most emphasis is placed on direct, informal communication with line managers, where involvement takes place through meetings and problem-solving groups which enable questions, discussion, and dialogue (Purcell, 2012).

The work of (Terry, 1999) proposes that the central problem with non-union mechanisms is due to voluntarist systems with no legal binding agreements to facilitate collective employee power. Employee Voice is dependent on employer support and subject to their influence, leaving employees vulnerable to management control (Gennard et al., 2016; Gollan, 2001; Terry, 1999).

A case study carried out at Eurotunnel (Gollan, 2001) concluded that non-union Voice structures were used as devices for information and communication, rather than consultation mechanisms or bargaining agents. It is therefore questionable as to whether they can represent employee interests and fill the representation gap (Gennard et al., 2016).

The Chartered Institute of Personnel Development (CIPD) state that Voice will be stifled without a collective form (CIPD, 2017). There is agreement that joint consultation committees and collective bargaining are still important in organisations. It is suggested that a hybrid of union and non-union representation is required for the best outcome (CIPD, 2017; Gennard et al., 2016).

2.5 Factors affecting employee willingness to use Voice mechanisms 2.5.1 Organisational Climate and Leadership Twenty-first century leadership strategies evolved with SHRM where participative leadership forges a commonality of interests which subsequently strengthens relationships and mobilises consent toward organisational goals (Bratton and Gold, 2012).

Trends toward a networked organisation, facilitates leadership capabilities through cross functional communication channels enabling knowledge diffusion, innovation, and creativity to be enhanced. Whilst flatter structures permit more organic ways of working (Cooper, 2006). Leadership is distributed throughout the organisation, employees are empowered to work autonomously and flexibly in their job roles, with greater decision-making authority employees are more effective, they take ownership of their roles and are committed to a shared sense of purpose, which enables the organisation to respond quickly to market needs (Tabrizi, 2015).

There are significant challenges to new styles of leadership based on relational and intangible factors. Voice cannot be co-erced. To speak up involves sharing ideas with those that hold power (French and Raven 1959). The motivation for employees to speak up is therefore influenced by the perceived risk involved with doing so and is affected by more than just managerial behaviours. Psychological safety goes beyond perceiving and experiencing high levels of trust; it requires a climate characterised by mutual respect, where people are comfortable expressing differences (Edmondson, 1999).

The intangible nature of culture can only be manipulated by senior management (Greene & Kirton, 2010). This makes the behaviours of both managers and leaders critical in setting the right tone for Voice. Leader behaviour is pivotal in removing constraints and shaping the climate for Voice. It is essential to value honest and open communication, actively share information, demonstrate high moral standards, and actively show in their behaviours that they act according to their fundamental beliefs and values. Correct role modelling and reassurance from leaders ensures that behaviours that reduce trust will not be tolerated. Open and honest leader behaviour leads to trust and mutual respect is promoted between leaders and followers (CIPD, 2017).

2.5.2 Management Behaviours and Attitudes The trend toward a direct channel of Voice with line managers is recognised as being adequate in high trust contexts, but is dependent on the quality of the relationship between manager and employee (CIPD, 2017). It is argued that at the root of disengagement is poor management (Purcell, 2012). The WERS survey found that only 57% of managers were sincere in understanding employee views, whilst just 38% of low and middle earners thought managers were sincere (GOV.UK, 2011). Evidence shows that a fundamental issue is that line managers lack HRM skills and knowledge, and find it genuinely difficult to listen to employees. They are overwhelmed with responsibility and so employee Voice becomes neglected (Gennard et al., 2016; Purcell, 2014; Saks, 2006).

The employee-line manager relationship mediates the link between Voice behaviour and commitment, and therefore the active role played by employees in constructing ERs is significant in how they respond to employer behaviour (Farndale et al., 2011; Seeck & Parzefall, 2008). According to (Saks, 2006) the main predictor of the outcome of engagement is perceived organisational support (POS). How employees interpret organisational actions is a decisive factor in their perception of organisational support and fairness, and their corresponding reciprocation of trust and commitment. This view is further endorsed by CIPD (2009) research, which highlighted the significance for performance of how HRM practice is received by employees.

(Purcell, 2014) argues that “Engagement is not something employers do to employees, it is something employees give”. If employees do not feel confident in speaking out Voice can be stifled if they do not have the option of using representatives (CIPD, 2017; LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). Good managers realise that knowledge required

for business to be competitive is in peoples’ heads (CIPD, 2017). Employees who judge their managers to be fair, trustworthy, and acting with justice, will work better in their jobs, co-operate with innovation, and change, and support the organisation which employs them (Purcell, 2014). Significant emphasis is placed on the managers role being dependent on the time given to the bonding and bridging of social capital, to build formal and tactical relational dimensions of the organisation (Cooper, 2006). For people to be encouraged to speak out, managers need to be highly skilled communicators, they are coaches that empower, motivate, and engage employees. They must generate a spirt that genuinely respects the individual (Ladkin, 2015). Empathy and listening skills are vital as managers need to be sensitive, have a tolerant temperament and be highly influential in empowering employees to be change agents. This is achieved by enabling not controlling (Kanter, 2001). It is therefore considered that communication skills are more important than intelligence or industry knowledge (Cooper, 2006). 2.5.3 Power, Authority & Communication In flatter and more flexible organisations decision making takes place in a real-time environment, the reliance upon informal mechanisms of communication and co-ordination can lead to conflict between a need for more leadership and clear decision-making hierarchy. Discouraging distributed leadership and innovation at the front line can slow collaborative working and individuals defer decisions to a higher level in the hierarchy, increasing the responsibility of senior management and resulting in an uneven distribution of responsibilities (CIPD, 2014; Cooper, 2006).

Management scholars confirm that you cannot simply impose a cross functional team on a hierarchy and expect it to work. Team empowerment requires a transfer of decision making authority from executive to functional managers. It is suggested that this can be a major issue to overcome before the firm can become cross functionally integrated (Bishop, 1999).

Cross functional teams can fail for many reasons. If organisations lack unclear governance or accountability there is a risk that siloes develop between departments which results in stifled lines of communication damaging effective team functioning (Tabrizi, 2015). Knowledge based work requires open communications and transparency. Open information organisations are characterised by horizontal and lateral flows of two-way communication. Inadequate communication leads to rumours and misunderstanding and is a breeding ground for sabotage within teams. (Bratton & Gold, 2012; CIPD, 2014; Gennard et al, 2016).

There is a risk that in times of austerity organisations may take a short-term approach to the management of people, resulting in a directive management style (CIPD, 2014). Employees’ ability to feed views upwards is crucial to healthy employee relations, as a result they reciprocate and are more likely to accept managerial decisions and willingly adapt to change (Gennard et al, 2016). The most recent employment relations survey by WERS in 2011 (Van Wanrooy et al., 2013) found a clear statistical relationship between the extent to which people said they are committed to their organisation and those involved in decision making. Where 34% of employees were satisfied with decision making, 91% of those satisfied were loyal to their organisation whilst 49% were not.

2.6 Gaps in the Literature In an environment where contemporary HRM is underpinned by a Unitarist framework and the state and managers are hostile toward a third party in the ER, this has led to a vast body of quantitative data based on engagement from a managerial perspective. Many critics argue the need for more qualitative data, that provides detail on how non-union mechanisms function (Bratton & Gold 2012; Gennard et al., 2016).

As noted, employee Voice is a product of culture, norms of communication and an atmosphere of trust (CIPD, 2017). The simple existence of Employee Voice systems will not deliver the long term psychological aspects of Voice behaviour in terms of employees believing and having confidence in those mechanisms.

This study will attempt to fill this gap by examining employee perceptions of Voice channels by tapping into an organisations Voice climate. It will assess how willing employees feel in using formal and informal mechanisms to express their Voice in the workplace (Barry & Wilkinson, 2016). This project will be of interest to researchers and organisations with an interest in how to achieve competitive advantage through people. 3 Methodology This section will discuss the choice and justification of the research design and methods used. Firstly, the philosophies that underpin the research will be discussed to show how they will influence the data collection methods and the desired outcomes. Secondly, project limitations, reliability and validity is critically examined. Thirdly, Ethical considerations are recognised and prevention measures to protect participants are discussed. Further, the case study approach that is used to frame this project is outlined.

3.1 Research Philosophy The epistemology used in this study was an interpretivist approach. Interpretivism seeks to describe and best understand the meaning rather than the frequency of certain phenomena (Maanen, 1983). This was therefore deemed appropriate as the first objective of identifying the factors that affects peoples’ willingness in using Voice mechanisms was dependent on the individual views and experiences of the social actors. The ontology adopted was subjective (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Subjectivity would allow for the complex variety of interpretations to be understood and discover multiple realities which enabled the researcher to understand the individual feelings of employees. This was informative in realising the motivational attitudes and behaviours towards using Voice mechanisms which supported the research process (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2016; May, 2002).

A qualitative approach was adopted which focused on data concerned with opinion, interpretation and understanding of context (Collis & Hussey, 2013). This encouraged the interviewees to answer the questions in such a way that covered the particular themes inherent in the questions for successful achievement of the project aim.

As discussed previously, in a context where there is little qualitative data on the concept of Voice from an employee perspective, this novel approach provided the researcher with new and illuminating data. In depth exploration of the employee experience aided understanding of any underlying or non-obvious issues that impact employees using Voice mechanisms. A strong handle could then be gained on what ‘real life’ is like for an employee when they experience Voice in the workplace or not. This would not have been possible with quantitative methods as collection takes place through questionnaires, surveys and experiments, meaning responses are generalised, specific and definite (Maanen, 1983; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Myers, 2013; Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2015).

3.3 Case Study Approach (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007) defined a case study as a “strategy for doing research which involves an empirical investigation of a particular contemporary phenomenon within its real life context using multiple sources of evidence”. (Yin, 2013) states ‘’this is a particularly useful approach when you believe that contextual conditions are particularly pertinent to the study’’.

This project is a single case study of the University. This approach was easily justifiable as limited time constraints, together with access issues, prevented the researcher using a multi-case approach.

Being a student, the researcher had external knowledge of the organisational context and recognised (i) the significant challenges that UK Higher Education Institutions (HEI’s) face at the present time and ii) how this

potentially posed a significant risk to the organisation giving in to external pressures, neglecting the importance of issues such as employee Voice.

It was therefore anticipated that this study would add value to the organisation by identifying any issues that might impact its long-term survival. 3.4 Sample Criteria To ensure the researcher was fully aware of all the university Voice mechanisms, a 45-minute semi structured interview took place with a member of the HR department. The project sample consisted of eleven employees from the X University Business School. All interviews were semi structured and lasted between 40-60 minutes each.

To gain a balanced view, interviews took place with nine employees of X University. Eight academics from six different disciplines and one employee in a non-academic role. Whilst two interviewees were members of the university-owned subsidiary, X. Interviewee roles varied and included management, project leaders, lecturers, researchers, estates, admin, and union representatives past and present. Collecting separate impressions helped to reduce bias and provided greater validity and reliability through individual experiences (Collis & Hussey, 2013).

3.4.1 Data Collection Primary data was collected through in depth, face-to-face interviews. Due to the highly sensitive nature of the subject, an individual approach was chosen over focus groups, as group discussion might have resulted in the interviewees not providing open and honest answers, resulting in subsequent bias (Marrelli, 2008).

To enhance participants’ comfort, interviewees were given a choice of two locations in which to meet. These were i) a café close to (but not on) the university campus. This enabled a more informal feel and encouraged free flowing conversation, aiding the richness of data or ii) a private room, hired at the university. This prevented participants being disturbed and ensured confidentiality.

Open questions were prepared. Such flexibility meant interviewees could answer the question in their own way, enabling purposeful conversation and helped to understand thoughts, opinions and beliefs (Collis & Hussey, 2013; Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2015) The order of the questions were varied depending on the flow of the conversation, which enabled interviewees to go off script and unravel interesting information that was, although not part of the original content, relevant. This helped to identify key themes for the analysis (Collis & Hussey, 2013; Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2015). A combination of silent and mirroring probing questions ensured the conversation flowed, whilst supporting questions were used as exploratory probes (refer to Appendix A). This provided information for any gaps in conversation and helped to dig more deeply into a specific situation. In this way, additional information was uncovered that might not have been acquired in a fully structured interview (Ladkin, 2015). Careful consideration was given to the wording of questions. If participants felt there was only one way they could answer, this would risk the data being biased. Such leading questions were therefore avoided. Data was recorded by Dictaphone and transcribed word for word. Despite being very time consuming, this prevented misinterpretation.

3.4.2 Secondary Data Individualised situations with smaller samples makes generalising answers difficult (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2015). Therefore, multiple sources of secondary data (available to the public online) were obtained. This aided the triangulation of data, which helped to overcome issues of reliability caused by a lack of standardisation. This is a common challenge with qualitative interviews, as interviewees can discuss ideas that are not foreseen, making the data difficult to generalise (Collis & Hussey, 2013). The university website, together with organisational documents such as “The People Strategy” and “Organisational Strategy 2020” were explored which enabled the researcher to obtain an understanding of the organisational context. Furthermore, The HR department provided

the researcher with supporting evidence of the university recognition agreement, which aided understanding of how the relationship between the university and unions works.

3.4.3 Data Analysis Thematic analysis was used to analyse the qualitative data. Initially the recordings of transcripts helped to become familiar with the data and understand individual emotions, as tone of Voice and speech can say more than written transcripts (Morgan, 1997). This approach supported the researcher in identifying common themes prior to coding. The existing body of literature was reviewed and key themes that influenced Employee Voice were identified. Colours were assigned to each theme and the data set was then colour coded accordingly and organised in a table relating to the research objectives, this helped to make the data more manageable and allowed sub themes to emerge (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2015). 3.5 Limitations The limitations applicable to this study were identified:

• The use of a single case study approach meant that sample numbers were restricted. A multiple case study would have allowed for cross analysis and comparison with other cases, and would therefore have offered a larger data set (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2015).

• Due to specific access and response issues, interviews were only held with members of the Business School. The study is therefore only representative of the school and not X University.

• The semi-structured nature of the interviews made analysis difficult, because they were led by the interviewee. The themes deemed important by the interviewer were not always mentioned. This limited the degree to which the interview could be evaluated by the researcher to answer the specific research questions (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2015).

• The participants in the study were employees of X University. As the topic was a sensitive matter that required interviewees to divulge personal information relating to their workplace, this could have caused interviewee bias. This meant only partial information may have been obtained, thereby impacting data reliability (Collis & Hussey, 2013; Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2015).

3.6 Ethical Considerations To ensure this research project was conducted ethically and complied with X University’s code of conduct, the following procedures were adhered to:

• Participants were issued with a briefing document and consent form two weeks prior to being interviewed (refer to Appendix B) This informed the participants that they could withdraw from the project at any point. The interviewee’s signature was required on all relevant paperwork before interviews commenced (Collis & Hussey, 2013).

• Participants were briefed in writing as to the themes of the discussion and given the opportunity to discuss their suitability prior to the interview.

• To ensure openness and honesty, the recorded and transcribed interview was given to the participant prior to analysis. This permitted the interviewee to change or remove any data they had given should they so wish or opt out of the project altogether (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2015).

• The briefing notes made clear that participant identity would be anonymous and that all data collection would be kept strictly confidential through anonymous coding (Collis & Hussey, 2013).

• To ensure participant identity was protected, the name of the case study organisation and its subsidiary were anonymised throughout the research paper.

4 Findings 4.1 Leadership and Organisational Climate It was apparent from the interviews that many respondents (eight) at X University felt disempowered to make or influence decisions, whilst identifying someone that could have an influence was a significant issue. In some cases, this led to a sense of a loss of control over daily tasks and distrust that senior management was committed to facilitating their role as a leader:

P3: ‘We won a research project, we had four weeks to do it. I needed one of my PhD students to do the literature review, she needed access to the library. It took three weeks to get her access to the library. There is something in the system here, it’s always difficult to do what you want to do’

People management processes, in terms of authority and decision making, also appeared scarce at management level. Many respondents (nine) reported that their line managers were not empowered to make decisions and subsequently experienced the same issue of not knowing who to contact. One manager noted that higher levels of management were also not empowered to make decisions. This sometimes resulted in apathy - there was ‘no point’ in going to managers because they were not able to act:

P3: ‘My manager is completely bashed by the system above her’.

P10: ‘No one is empowered to make decisions, not management, or senior management or the Dean’

There appeared to be a significant gap between the view of HR and employees in terms of whether Voice is facilitated strategically and the effectiveness of this in practice. HR noted that Voice is part of ‘One Team’ in the organisational strategy, which meant that Voice could be expressed collegiately with academic peers. Many people felt this was out of touch with the reality of how modern-day academia has changed. Academics are responsible for much heavier workloads and management focus is on assessment as opposed to the development and empowerment of leadership behaviour. In practice people did not have time to be collegiate and even if they did discuss things, they had little faith that action would be taken:

P7: ‘I can speak to my colleagues, but how will that enable my views to go upward?’

P11: ‘I did not have time to organise collective action’

This led some people (nine) to believe that leadership and partnership rhetoric was simply managerial jargon. The gap between rhetoric and reality resulted in perceptions that systems were unfair and unjust. This had significant implications for employment relations as many participants expressed discontentment at the lack of respect shown to them, since they are specialists in their field and know how an organisation should function. This shaped a climate of distrust where employees were suspicious of new initiatives.

It was identified that many people (nine) did not feel that any direct or indirect Voice mechanism available at the university would serve to facilitate Voice upward. For example, it was felt that the Performance Development Review (PDR) was used to ‘check-up’ on what people were doing. The JCC’s and Senate were not deemed appropriate for day to day concerns as they have a set ‘top down’ agenda, plus people had little time to organise or engage with collective efforts. Meetings with managers were sometimes felt to be ‘pointless’ as they had no ‘clout’ to take action:

P8: ‘There isn’t a partnership, to me a partnership does not mean all working together without recognising the abilities and strengths of others. It is saying, ‘you’re an academic, you know what academics do’, I’m not, tell me’

P10: ‘I’m very sceptical about these things cause nine times out of ten they are a vehicle for the person at the top to make their opinion known. They are not a talking shop’

P11: ‘I get 70-80 emails a day, so those emails about Senate I tend to just skip’

4.4 Manager Attitudes and Behaviours Many academic staff had good relationships with their direct managers, but there were signs of some people at higher levels of seniority possessing negative behaviours and attitudes. The inability to bypass senior management culminated in employee apathy in taking issues forward because if direct managers couldn’t influence higher levels, their chances were severely limited.

People within the university subsidiary and in non-academic roles, all experienced extremely poor communication skills by direct managers and in some cases, perceived risk in bypassing management. It was apparent that the volatile economic context influenced some people in speaking up to members of management as it would bring them to the attention of people with the power to ‘hire and fire’:

P9: ‘People are too scared that if they speak up it’s job over’

The reasons identified for negative managerial attitudes appeared to be related to either poor communication skills or a focus on business needs. It was apparent that these attitudes and behaviours shaped a culture where norms of participation and involvement were discouraged. This had a significant impact on employment relations as many employees did not trust that it was safe to speak up, restricting support towards management. Subsequently, information was lost as the response was to remain silent, shaping a culture of secrecy, scepticism, and distrustful attitudes towards the authenticity of Voice mechanisms:

P12: ‘Some things that I hear my manager say, I cringe, she was talking to a member of staff about someone else and she referred to her as ‘that thing’’

P12: ‘There is no relationship, I was told ‘business needs, business needs’ P3: ‘We keep things to ourselves cause if senior management get hold of it they will squash it’

However, in cases where employees could access a direct Voice channel through management, this led to signs of a more positive Voice climate where supportive, strong, open relationships prevailed. It was evident that whether or not action was taken, it was being listened to in the first place that counted. This strongly affected employee attitudes towards job satisfaction, with some people feeling entirely satisfied with Voice at a Business School level.

It was apparent that managerial behaviour and attitudes did not always affect people’s willingness to use direct Voice channels. For some interviewees, taking issues forward with managers was not considered difficult. This was due to their individual identity in terms of work status and disposition, and was most apparent in staff with a higher status in the university, their financial dependency on the job and, to some extent, their age and temperament. The common theme in this argument is the perceived risk by the employee on speaking out. The interviewees with no problems in expressing Voice were those with nothing to lose, such as those with other sources of income, those towards the end of their career, or those with a bolder and more confident disposition that were not afraid of confrontation. In contrast, employees that had deep roots within the area and were wholly financially dependent on their job did not feel they were in a safe position to speak out. They felt that to do so would jeopardise their job:

P3: ‘I am at the end of my career, so it is different for me. If I was a young researcher I would be very frustrated but I don’t let it affect me’

P8: ‘I keep my head low, and hope the people at the top don’t know who I am’

Despite mixed responses on the reasons affecting people’s willingness to use direct channels of Voice, most interviewees felt that the HR department was very detached from the Business School. Some reasons were related to a negative experience of the formal grievance procedure. It was reported that HR appeared resistant to employees speaking out about issues, something experienced both directly or indirectly (through a colleague’s interpretation). Most participants (ten) reported that they were specifically asked to only communicate positive Voice. These behaviours shaped a culture where staff felt their input into decision making was not valued, creating widespread distrust that the organisation was committed to employee Voice and staff wellbeing:

P10: ‘We see HR far away from us’

P9: ‘I represented someone, but I felt management and HR were against us. In the end she left’

P10: ‘I did a programme review that took me three months. I set out thinking it would be useful because it would enable us to critically analyse the programme. No, I was told very clearly that the programme review should only highlight the good bits, don’t talk about the problems’

4.5 Power, Authority, and Communication The problems of identifying power and authority were fundamental to why people didn’t engage with Voice mechanisms, because they do not see that it impacts on decision making. This is because decision making is not undertaken at the lowest level, it is top down and this was the unanimous view of all participants:

P8: ‘Top management of the faculty and one other person make the decisions, it’s very autocratic’

P10: ‘There is no point in consultation, the decision’s been made already. The Dean will do what he likes’

At a management level, there was significant reference made to the bureaucratic nature of the organisation’s decision-making processes. Strategic business decisions appeared to have processes in place, despite criticisms about their dysfunctionality. However, at an employee level there was nowhere to deal with day-to-day issues. Employees reported that they had tried to exert influence through indirect mechanisms (such as surveys) but had no idea if the message was heard. Meetings with management were sometimes an opportunity to be heard, but there was scepticism as to whether anything would be actioned. Consequently, many people gave up trying and silence arose:

P10: ‘To extend a colleague’s short-term contract for nine weeks I had to submit a business case. It was reviewed in one committee, it was signed off by the Head of School, it was then signed off by the Dean, then it had to go to a committee’s central committee, its then reviewed by someone else’

P1: ‘Why do I have to go all round the houses?’

P8: ‘I asked an important question and it disappeared into the mist’

P9: ‘I think Voice is important but there is a part of me that just can’t be bothered now, it is a waste of time’

Several participants (ten) stated that decisions are made in an arbitrary manner by people who do not do the job. In some cases, this led to uninformed decisions being made and the creation of unrealistic targets, people felt frustrated that they were unable to exert any influence or control, leaving them feeling powerless.

Whilst many people (nine) noted about being ‘told’ the current restructuring of the Business School was taking place, but did not know ‘why’. This caused feelings of disrespect and belittlement. In some cases, there was signs that people were worried and stressed about their job security and income.

P10: ‘There are a group of individuals, mainly in the centre and HR related, who are determining how the relationship between the student and academics work. They have no idea. Have they asked? No’

P8: ‘I feel we are treated like children who couldn’t possibly be trusted with any information, or have a view that is worth listening to’

5 Discussion 5.1 Leadership and Organisational Climate Service organisations thrive on leadership strategies because knowledge transfer among its people is promoted. At X University this is achieved through collegiality, which appears to be heavily guarded by academics due to

the desire for autonomy over their work (Matthews, 2015). In this context, a flat organisational structure enables colleagues to interact and share knowledge across functions. Despite this, a drive for efficiency and performance has placed restrictions on the ‘leadership’ strategy. People are not empowered at lower and management levels to influence important decisions that affect their work, instead they are made by committee and consensus and go through many different stages. A change in the strategy without changing the organisational structure appears to have caused resistance to change and fundamentally impacted the climate for Voice (Beinhocker, 2007).

A lack of empowerment, particularly at employee and line management levels, has caused problems in identifying those with responsibility and authority to make decisions which led to dysfunctionality. Employees expressed their frustration with the organisation for not providing adequate processes and structures that enable Voice to be facilitated. They were unable to practice leadership and prevented from treating the agenda as their own. Autonomy is a major factor influencing employee commitment, as people thrive with self-responsibility over their work due to feeling valued and trusted. The organisational values state that staff are empowered to make their own decisions It is the responsibility of senior management to ensure that the organisational context is aligned to support the leadership strategy. To facilitate their roles and enable an open and transparent culture, vertical and horizontal Voice structures are essential. Employees did not feel they could feed views upward and influence decisions. This provoked a feeling among some employees that the ‘leadership strategy’ was simply ‘lip service’ which led to a climate of distrust as organisational integrity was questioned (Acas, 2017). A lack of consultation on major decisions was perceived as disrespectful. In some cases, people felt this was insulting since they either had high academic status or had worked for the organisation for a long time and felt they knew better than anyone the intricacies of the job role. It has been argued that if a directive approach is applied to staff with experience, this can undermine engagement and cause frustration (CIPD, 2014). In many cases employees expressed discontent and showed signs of defensive behaviour and resistance to change. For example, there was reference made to a lack of discretionary effort, intent to leave the organisation and serious thought being given to union membership. This evidence supports the findings of Purcell (2003) who found that in times of major change, consultation and involvement improved retention, absence rates, employee support and subsequently the overall bottom line. These factors culminated and resulted in a loss of trust that the organisation was using just procedures (Purcell, 2012). Scepticism arose and in some cases an unwillingness to co-operate due to suspicion that alternative Voice channels were illegitimate. Many people noted how they would not speak out about problems, due to either fear or apathy. This is an effect supported by Purcell, (2014) whom claims that how employees interpret organisational action is a decisive factor in their perception of support and fairness and corresponding reciprocation of trust and commitment.

5.2 Management Behaviours and Attitudes Many interviewees were at the receiving end of negative attitudes and behaviours of managers at varying levels of seniority and subsequently their perceptions of managers were significantly affected by their communication skills. For example, it was noted that some managers did not listen. Whilst monitoring procedures that failed to ensure open, inclusive, and transparent Voice mechanisms were available to all, led some employees to experience poor management practices and a hostile working environment. This compromised their job satisfaction and wellbeing. Some employees showed signs of passive or reactive behaviours which contributed to silence and resistance in feeding views upwards (Purcell, 2013). The quality of the relationship with the line manager evidently impacted employee trust and support in the organisation as people blamed the organisation as they are responsible for management training and monitoring.

Those employees that were listened to, even if no action was taken, did have a more positive outlook of the sincerity of University support. This supports the findings of (Budd, 2004) who suggests it is the opportunity to have a Voice that is important, not whether it is acted on.

It was apparent that HR are distant from employees, making it difficult for the latter to feed their views upward past the school level. Many employees saw HR as an impenetrable wall which suggests that an “Us and Them” mentality is prevailing (CIPD, 2014). The experiences of employees by HR, reflected typical Unitarist behaviour. According to Gennard et al (2016, p.26) conflict is irrational and the behaviour of ‘’trouble makers’’ and these influences should be resisted and removed from the enterprise. Which suggests that Voice may be too challenging since it is an alternative to managerial utilitarianism (Purcell, 2014). The inability to bypass senior management culminated in employee apathy in taking issues forward. This resulted in silence and a culture of secrecy, as discussed in the work of (Van Dyne et al, 2003).

HR’s view of Voice existing through partnerships was out of touch with the reality of the organisation’s people. In the past, collegiality took place in an environment that was well funded. Employees had time and the support of management for creativity and expression enabling Voice through their academic peers. Importantly, managers had the time to be able to empower their people to use collegiality as a Voice mechanism. In today’s economic context, the role of a line manager has changed significantly. A pervasive audit culture prevails to enable tight control of costs and resources, because there are much stricter controls on the institution to deliver quality. Line managers therefore take a Unitarist perspective on the ER. The findings support this as ‘time’ was a factor that influenced both the promotion of collegiality and employees’ ability to engage with other Voice mechanisms. This is something not discussed in the literature as affecting the facilitation of Voice, but is considered to be context specific due to the volatile nature of academia today. This disconnect between HR and staff shows a clear shift between Unitarist and Pluralist systems. As the development of new managerialism has proceeded over time, management still hold on to the belief that a Pluralist strategy exists as there are structures in place. However, in practice these were not used, as management behaviours failed to support a Voice climate where people felt safe and encouraged to speak out. The importance of management communication skills in developing the intangible relational aspects of the ER should not be underestimated, employee Voice is a product of culture, norms of communication and trust. Mechanisms alone will not deliver the psychological aspects that encourage Voice behaviour (CIPD, 2017).

5.3 Power, Authority, and Communication During times of change and uncertainty, pressure to deliver cost saving strategies led some employees to experience a directive, command and control management style. This management style is thought to deliver performance results more rapidly than ‘bottom up’ strategies (CIPD, 2014).

Failure to share power at all levels through Employee Involvement and Participation strategies meant accessing decision making authority was extremely challenging. Some people felt undervalued and subsequently blamed the university for not enabling the necessary communication channels to do their jobs, this damaged relationships and stifled Voice (CIPD, 2017).

Because decision making authority takes place at the top there were several consequences:

i) Some people mentioned that managers were not visible, this may suggest that more pressure is placed on decision makers and they are overburdened with responsibility. This can result in top management having less time to develop a long term inclusive approach to strategy (Kanter, 1979).

ii) Employees’ day-to-day inquiries were lost along the chain of command and frustration ensued as there was no way of feeding views upward, this led to a loss of trust and commitment (Acas, 2014; Vann Wanrooy et al, 2013).

iii) Information was either not received or by the time it was fed downwards it was distorted due to the bureaucratic nature of the decision-making process. Consequently, many people gave up trying to exert influence and silence arose (Van Dyne et al, 2003).

iv) Restricting decision making to small numbers means those people are insulated from the organisations information network, they will not have a true picture of what is going on. There was reference made to a siloed mentality among departments and HR. In some cases, signs of employee

motivation, productivity and well-being was impacted, which led people to resist providing the organisation with information (Kanter, 2001).

v) There were some significant changes such as restructuring that risked impacting people’s livelihood. Failure to consult on major decisions caused conflict as this was perceived as unsupportive and disrespectful damaging the quality of the ER and subsequently leading to distrust. Workers reciprocated by resisting giving their support. This resulted in a breakdown of two-way communication which risks the organisation losing control and ceasing to function efficiently.

6 Conclusion This study has highlighted a number of factors influencing employee willingness to use Voice at X University Business School:

The strategy implemented by the University appeared Pluralist in nature with a range of Voice structures on offer. However, in practice, there was little support for the intangible relational competencies of managers required to account for different interests in the ER. Voice requires a climate of trust and mutual respect that comes from balancing the needs of both parties through long term, high commitment strategies. However, the organisational discourse of improved performance and efficiency implies that strategy is in fact concentrated on short-term cost saving objectives, reflecting Unitarist managerialism, thereby conflicting with Pluralist ideals of employee involvement and participation.

Power to make decisions takes place by consensus. This flat structure is an outcome of leadership strategy designed to facilitate Pluralist strategy. However, in practice, economic pressures, and a changing environment within the Higher Education sector, called for tighter control over resources. All decisions are expected to take place at the top of the organisation, this long chain of command has appeared to over burden decision makers and subsequently lead to a lack of empowerment throughout the organisation. Managers were unable to feed Voice upwards, as communication channels were often blocked and information distorted. The result was a lack of managerial influence and subsequently action, this impacted leadership capabilities and successful team functioning, which decreased the extent to which staff felt they could participate in decision making. This study concludes that the psychological aspects of the organisational culture were strongly influenced by management behaviours and attitudes, and whilst the organisational structure should in theory facilitate Pluralist strategy, in practice external pressures meant a Unitarist strategy was imposed as managers were under pressure to enforce targets and assessments. Consequently, this led to a failure to consult and involve employees. Voice could not permeate the organisation which subsequently caused a breakdown in communication. Rumours and siloes developed, leading to a loss of support and increased distrust of the organisations commitment to facilitate employee Voice. Therefore, no matter how Pluralist the organisation might appear, if Voice is not embedded into organisational strategy and monitored and managed accordingly, ensuring that management behaviours and attitudes support a climate for Voice, and communication channels facilitate two-way Voice, then people will not be willing to use Voice mechanisms.

References Acas (2015) Building Productivity in the UK. [Online], Available at

http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/7/9/Building-productivity-in-the-uk.pdf (Accessed 12 May 2017). Acas (2017) Employee Engagement. [Online], Available at http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=2701

(Accessed 10 May 2017). Barry, M., Wilkinson A. J. (2016) 'Pro‐social or pro‐management? A critique of the conception of Employee

Voice as a pro‐social behaviour within organizational behaviour'. British Journal of Industrial Relations 54(2): 261-284

BBC (2016) 'Student Grants Replaced by Loans'. BBC News. [Online]. Available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36940172 (Accessed 9 May 2017).

Bernard, E. (1996) Why Unions Matter. [Online], Harvard Trade Union Program. Open Media. Available at http://www.icpra.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Library/Police%20Unions%20and%20their%20Influenece/2Why_Unions_Matter_Elaine_Bernard.pdf (Accessed 10 May 2017).

Bishop, S. K., (1999)’ Cross functional project teams in functionally aligned organisations’ Project Management Journal, 30 (3), 6–12. [Online]. Available at https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/cross-functional-project-teams-functionally-aligned-organizations-5318 (Accessed 24 April 2017).

Bratton, J. & Gold, J. (2012) Human Resource Management: Theory and Practice (5th Edition). Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.

Brown, R. (2015) 'The marketisation of higher education: Issues and ironies'. New Vistas, 1 (1), pp. 4-9. Budd, J. W. (2004) Employment with a human face: Balancing efficiency, equity, and voice. Ithaca: Cornell

University Press. Chandler, M. (2017) 'People in Employment on a Zero Hours Contract: Mar 2017'. Office for National Statistics.

[Online]. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/contractsthatdonotguaranteeaminimumnumberofhours/mar2017 (Accessed 12 May 2017).

CIPD (2016) The Role of Line Managers in HR and L&D: Learn about the role of line management and its relationship to HR and people practices. [Online], London, CIPD, Available at: http://www.cipd.co.uk/hr-resources/factsheets/role-line managers-hr.aspx (Accessed: 7th January 2017).

CIPD (2017) Employee Voice factsheet: [Online], London, CIPD, Available at: https://www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/fundamentals/relations/communication/voice-factsheet (Accessed: 20th April 2017).

CIPD (2014) Leadership Easier Said than Done [Online], London, CIPD, Available at: https://www.cipd.co.uk/Images/leadership_2014-easier-said-than-done_tcm18-8893.pdf (Accessed 9 April 2017).

Collis, J., Hussey, R. (2013) Business research: A practical guide for undergraduate and postgraduate students. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.

Cooper, C. L. (2006) Leadership and management in the 21st century: business challenges of the future. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Dyne, L. V., Ang, S., Botero, I. C. (2003) 'Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs'. Journal of management studies, 40 (6), pp. 1359-1392.

Edmondson, A. (1999) 'Psychological safety and learning behaviour in work teams'. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (2), pp. 350-383.

Eisenhardt, K. M. & Graebner, M. E. (2007) 'Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges'. Academy of management journal, 50 (1), pp. 25-32.

Espinoza, J. (2016) 'University lecturers set to strike over paying conditions'. The Telegraph, 9 May 2016 [Online]. Available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2016/05/09/university-lecturers-set-to-strike-over-paying-conditions/ (Accessed 9 May 2017).

Farndale, E., Van Ruiten, J., Kelliher, C. & Hope-Hailey, V. (2011) 'The influence of perceived employee voice on organizational commitment: An exchange perspective'. Human Resource Management, 50 (1), pp. 113-129.

Folger, R. & Konovsky, M. A. (1989) 'Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions’. Academy of Management journal, 32 (1), pp. 115-130.

Freeman, R. B., Rogers, J. (1999) What workers want, New York, Russell Sage Foundation. French, J. R. P., Raven, B. R., (1959) 'The Bases of Social Power' Leadership as an Influence process,

vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 151-156 [Online]. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215915730_The_bases_of_social_power (Accessed 28 April 2017).

Gennard, J., Judge, G., Bennett, T., Saundry, R. (2016) Managing Employment Relations 6th Edition. London, CIPD - Kogan Page.

Gollan, P. J. (2001) 'Tunnel vision: non-union employee representation at Eurotunnel'. Employee Relations, 23 (4), pp. 376-400.

GOV.UK (2011) Workplace Employment Relations Study (WERS) [Online]. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/workplace-employment-relations-study-wers (Accessed: 23 April 2017).

Greene, A. M., Kirton, G. (2010) Diversity management in the UK: Organizational and stakeholder experiences. Oxon, Routledge.

Hirschman, A. O. (1970) ‘Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states’. Harvard University Press, vol. 25.

Holland, P., Pyman, A., Cooper, B. K., Teicher, J. (2011) 'Employee voice and job satisfaction in Australia: The centrality of direct voice'. Human Resource Management, 50 (1), pp. 95-111.

Hutchinson, S. (2008) 'The Role of Front Line Managers in bringing Policies to Life' Centre for Employment Studies Research. [Online]. Available at file:///C:/Users/Julie%20Platt/Downloads/April%202008%20Hutchinson.pdf (Accessed 8 May 2017)

Johnstone, S., Ackers, P. (2015) ‘Employee voice: the key question for contemporary employment relations’ in Johnstone, S. and Ackers, P. (eds.) (2015) Finding a voice at work? New perspectives on employment relations Oxford: Oxford University Press pp.1-17

Kandampully, J. (2002) 'Innovation as the core competency of a service organisation: the role of technology, knowledge and networks'. European Journal of Innovation Management, 5 (1), pp. 18-26.

Kanter, R. M. (1979) Power failure in management circuits. [Online], London, Harvard Business Review. Available at https://hbr.org/1979/07/power-failure-in-management-circuits (Accessed 9 May 2017).

Kanter, R. M. (2001) 'Power, Leadership, and Participatory Management' Theory into practice, vol. XX, no. 4, pp.220-244. Keenoy, T. (2013) 'Engagement: A Murmuration of Objects', in Truss, C., Alfes, K., Delbridge, R., Shantz, A. and Soane, E.

(eds.) Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, pp. 197-220. Ladkin, D. (2015) Mastering the Ethical Dimension of Organizations: A Self-reflective Guide to Developing Ethical

Astuteness. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing. LePine, J. A., Van Dyne, L. (1998) 'Predicting voice behaviour in work groups'. Journal of applied psychology, 83 (6),

pp. 853. Maanen, J. V. (1983) 'Qualitative methodology'. Beverly Hills: Sage. Macleod, D., Clarke, N. (2009) Engaging for Success: enhancing performance through employee engagement: A report

to government. [Online], London. Department for Business, Innovation & Skills. Available at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090723180303/http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file52215.pdf (Accessed 12 May 2017).

Marrelli, A. F. (2008) 'Collecting data through focus groups'. Performance improvement, 47 (4), pp. 39-45. Martell, L. (2013) 'The marketisation of our universities: economic criteria get precedence over what’s good

in human terms'. British Politics and Policy at LSE [weblog article, 29 November 2013], Matthews, D. (2015) 'University managerialism can boost academic freedom'. The Times Higher Education, 21 August

2015 [Online]. Available at https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/university-managerialism-can-boost-academic-freedom (Accessed 8 May 2017).

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. (1994) Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks CA, Sage Publications Ltd.

Myers, M. D. (2013) Qualitative Research in Business Management (2nd Edition). United Kingdom, Sage Publications Ltd.

Podro, S., Dix, G. (2011) The Future of Workplace Relations [Online], London: Acas. Available at http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=3544 (Accessed 7 May 2017).

Purcell, J., & Earl, M. (1977). ‘Control Systems and Industrial Relations’. Industrial Relations Journal, 8, 41-54. Purcell, J. (2003) Understanding the people and performance link: unlocking the black box. London, CIPD Publishing. Purcell, J. (2012) 'The limits and possibilities of employee engagement' Warwick Papers in Industrial

Relations 96 Coventry, University of Warwick. Purcell, J. (2013) 'Employee Voice and Engagement', in Truss, C., Alfes, K., Delbridge, R., Shantz, A.and Soane, E.

(eds.) Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. Purcell, J. (2014) 'Disengaging from engagement'. Human Resource Management Journal, 24 (3), pp. 241-254. Saks, A. M. (2006) 'Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement'. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21 (7),

pp. 600-619. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A. (2015) Research Methods for Business Students (7th Edition). United Kingdom,

Pearson Education Ltd. Seeck, H., Parzefall, M.-R. (2008) 'Employee agency: challenges and opportunities for psychological contract theory’.

Personnel Review, 37 (5), pp. 473-489.

Silva, E. A., Healey, P., Harris, N., Van den Broeck, P. (2014) The Routledge handbook of planning research methods. London, Routledge.

Slack, N., Brandon-Jones, A. & Johnston, R. (2013) Operations management. United Kingdom, Pearson Education Ltd. Tabrizi, B. (2015) 75% of Cross functional teams are dysfunctional [Online], London, Harvard Business Review.

Available at https://hbr.org/2015/06/75-of-cross-functional-teams-are-dysfunctional (Accessed 9 May 2017). Terry, M. (1999) 'Systems of collective employee representation in non‐union firms in the UK'.

Industrial Relations Journal, 30 (1), pp. 16-30. Thomson, A., Murray, V. (1976). Grievance Procedures. Farnborough: Saxon House. Torrington, D., Hall, L., Taylor, S., Atkinson, C. (2014) Human Resource Management (9th Edition). London,

Pearson Education Ltd. Towers, B. (1997) The representation gap: change and reform in the British and American workplace.

Oxford, Oxford University Press. Van Dyne, L. Ang, S. Botero, I. C. (2003) 'Conceptualising Employee Silence and Voice as

Multidimensional Constructs' Journal of Management Studies vol. 40, no.6, pp.1360-1389 Van Wanrooy, B., Bewley, H., Bryson, A., Forth, J., Freeth, S., Stokes, L. and Wood, S. (2013) Employment relations in

the shadow of recession: Findings from the 2011 Workplace Employment Relations Study Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.

Wagner, J. A. (1994) 'Participation's effects on performance and satisfaction: A reconsideration of research evidence’. Academy of management Review, 19 (2), pp. 312-330.

Wakeling, A. (2014) 'Give and Take? Unravelling the true nature of zero-hours contracts'. [Online], United Kingdom, Acas Policy Discussion Papers. Available at http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/6/n/Acas-Policy-Discussion-Paper-Zero-Hours-May-2014.pdf (Accessed 1 May 2017).

Whitehurst, J. (2016) Leaders can shape company culture by their behaviours. [Online], United Kingdom, Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/2016/10/leaders-can-shape-company-culture-through-their-behaviors (Accessed 4 May 2017).

Winstanley, D., Woodall, J. (2000) 'The ethical dimension of human resource management'. Human Resource Management Journal, 10 (2), pp. 5-20.

Yin, R. K. (2013) Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage publications.

Appendices

Appendix A: Interview Questions 1.0 Are you part of a union?

1.1 Would you like to be? 1.2 Where would you look to find information on accessing a union representative? 1.3 What level of importance do you place on union membership in giving you a voice 1.4 Please explain your answer 1.5 Do you feel appropriately notified about access to your trade union representative? Please explain

your answer.

2.0 How effective is the weekly staff bulletin in keeping you informed about issues that might affect you?

3.0 Do you know about the informal ‘drop in’ staff briefings that the new deputy vice chancellor has implemented?

3.1 Have you attended these meetings? 3.2 If Yes, how effective was this meeting in getting your voice heard, please explain, with examples

if possible. 3.3 If no, is there any reason for this? please explain. 3.4 Would you like to know more about this and would you be interested in attending?

4.0 What experiences have you had when you have expressed your views or made a suggestion for

improvement? 4.1 Were your views listened to and acted upon? 4.2 What happened? 4.3 Which channel did you use? 4.4 Would you prefer to use a different channel? 4.5 If so, why?

5.0 How much do you know about the following voice mechanisms?

- Grievances - Bulling, harassment

5.1 Would you feel confident in using these mechanisms? 5.2 Please explain your answer with examples if possible

5.0 Do you have confidence and belief in the university voice mechanisms?

5.1 If yes, please explain 5.2 If no, please explain

6.0 At a local level, how does your manager get you to feed your views upward?

6.1 Do you have a suggestion box in your department? 6.2 How effective was this at getting your views listened to and acted upon? 6.3 If no, is this something you would like to see implemented? please explain your answer 6.4 Do you have local meetings where your views are heard? 6.5 How effective is this channel for voice, please explain your answer?

7.0 Do you feel there is an opportunity to feed your views upward?

8.0 In your opinion, is voice…

8.1 top down, or upward approach? 8.2 Please explain your answer.

9.0 How would you describe the climate, the culture for voice?

9.1 do you feel safe in speaking up? 9.2 do you ever keep quiet?

10.0 The University see voice as embedded into the core principles, as part of ’One Team’

10.1 Please read the below statement, it is an extract from the University Strategy 2016- 2020. 10.2 Do you feel you can have a Voice collegiately? Please explain

‘Our strategic priorities are summarised against our three core principles of Quality, Institutional Sustainability and One Team’:

One Team:

‘working, planning for and delivering a shared vision, underpinned by a strong sense of collegiality’.

11.0 Do you feel the staff survey is a good way to get your views heard? 11.1 How important is the staff survey to you?

12.0 Do you feel you could ask for more voice?

12.1 Who would you ask?

13.0 In terms of Senates: 13.1 How much do you know about accessing senates? 13.2 Are you aware of who your elected representative is for Senate? 13.3 Have you used this channel to get your voice heard? 13.4 Do you feel this is an effective channel for voice? Please explain.

14.0 Do you feel the annual Performance Development Review is a good opportunity to have a voice?

14.1 Please explain your answer, with examples if possible

15.0 Have you attended the monthly Joint Consultative committees to express your voice? 15.1 What are your views on the effectiveness of Joint Consultative Committees? 15.2 Are you aware of the formal procedure that is in place at the University with regard to dealing with

collective issues and disputes? 15.3 Have you used this procedure? 15.4 Would you feel confident about raising group issues in this way, please explain your answer.

16.0 Do you feel the organisational culture is open and transparent? 16.1 Do management encourage you to speak up? 16.2 What are your experiences of management encouraging voice? 16.3 Do you feel the organisation puts enough emphasis on employee voice?

Appendix B: Information for Participants You are invited to take part in a research study. Prior to your decision to formally accept this invitation, it is important that you understand the purpose of this research and what it will involve. Please read the following information with care.

The purpose of this research project is to explore how employees experience their ability to have a voice in the workplace. How much do employees know about voice channels that are available to them and what are employee views about actually using these channels. Additionally, participants will be asked for their views of what they perceive could improve voice channels in practice.

To participate, please read the following brief:

The interview will take no longer than one hour. Your answers will provide valuable information of which will be analysed as part of a BA (Hons) Business Dissertation.

To protect the participant’s identity.

1. Confidentially is ensured throughout the entire research process. 2. All participants will be anonymous. 3. No personal information is required from participants.

4. Any personal information will be omitted from the transcription process, participants will be referred to as ‘Interviewee by Number’

5. Interview recordings will only be used for the purpose of the transcript and this data will be treated in line with X University Ethical procedures.

6. Recording will be deleted after transcription and analysis. 7. Participants are within their rights to withdraw from taking part in this project at any point. 8. Participants will be provided with a full transcript following the interview. If the participant wishes to

omit or change any information, they are free to do so at any point.

The interviewer will print two copies of this document. Both parties are required to sign the document prior to the interview commencing. Both parties will keep a signed hard copy of the document.

By completing this interview, you agree to the following terms:

That you have read and understood the information for participants document above dated March 2017. That you have had the opportunity to consider the information and ask any questions. That your participation is voluntary and you are free to withdraw at any time at which point any data collected will be destroyed.

Signed Interviewee No: ………………………………………………………

Signed Interviewer: ……………………………………………………………. (Julie Platt)

I would like to thank you for agreeing to take part in this research project. If you any questions, please contact me at: julie.platt@students.plymouth.ac.uk

Acas (2015) Building Productivity in the UK. Acas. Available at: http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/7/9/Building-productivity-in-the-uk.pdf.

Acas (2017) 'Employee Engagement'. [Online]. Available at: http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=2701.

Barry, M. & Wilkinson, A. J. (2016) 'Pro-social or pro-management? A critique of the conception of employee voice as a pro-social behaviour within organizational behaviour'.

BBC (2016) 'Student Grants Replaced by Loans'. BBC News. [Online]. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36940172.

Bernard, E. (1996) Why Unions Mattter. Open Media

Bratton, J. & Gold , J. (2012) Human Resource Management: Theory and Practice (5th Edition). Palgrave Macmillan.

Brown, R. (2015) 'The marketisation of higher education: Issues and ironies'. New Vistas, 1 (1), pp. 4-9.

Budd, J. W. (2004) Employment with a human face: Balancing efficiency, equity, and voice. Cornell University Press.

CIPD (2016) 'The Role of Line Managers in HR and L&D: Learn about the role of line management and its relationship to HR and people practices'. [Online]. Available at: http://www.cipd.co.uk/hr-resources/factsheets/role-line-managers-hr.aspx (Accessed: 7th January 2017).

CIPD (2017) 'Employee Voice'. [Online]. Available at: https://www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/fundamentals/relations/communication/voice-factsheet (Accessed: 20th April 2017).

Collis, J. & Hussey, R. (2013) Business research: A practical guide for undergraduate and postgraduate students. Palgrave macmillan.

Dyne, L. V., Ang, S. & Botero, I. C. (2003) 'Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs'. Journal of management studies, 40 (6), pp. 1359-1392.

Edmondson, A. (1999) 'Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams'. Administrative science quarterly, 44 (2), pp. 350-383.

Eisenhardt, K. M. & Graebner, M. E. (2007) 'Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges'. Academy of management journal, 50 (1), pp. 25-32.

Espinoza, J. (2016) 'University

lecturers set to strike over paying conditions'. The Telegraph.

Farndale, E., Van Ruiten, J., Kelliher, C. & Hope-Hailey, V. (2011) 'The influence of perceived employee voice on organizational commitment: An exchange perspective'. Human Resource Management, 50 (1), pp. 113-129.

Folger, R. & Konovsky, M. A. (1989) 'Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions'. Academy of Management journal, 32 (1), pp. 115-130.

Gennard, J., G., J., Bennett, T. & Saundry, R. (2016) Managing Employment Relations 6th

Edition. CIPD - Kogan Page.

Gollan, P. J. (2001) 'Tunnel vision: non-union employee representation at Eurotunnel'. Employee Relations, 23 (4), pp. 376-400.

GOV.UK (2011) 'Workplace Employment Relations Study (WERS)'. [Online]. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/workplace-employment-relations-study-wers (Accessed: 23 April 2017).

Greene, A.-m. & Kirton, G. (2010) Diversity management in the UK: Organizational and stakeholder experiences. Routledge.

Holland, P., Pyman, A., Cooper, B. K. & Teicher, J. (2011) 'Employee voice and job satisfaction in Australia: The centrality of direct voice'. Human Resource Management, 50 (1), pp. 95-111.

Johnstone, S. & Ackers, P. (2015) Finding a voice at work?: new perspectives on employment relations. eds. Johnstone, S. and Ackers, P., OUP Oxford.

Kandampully, J. (2002) 'Innovation as the core competency of a service organisation: the role of technology, knowledge and networks'. European Journal of Innovation Management, 5 (1), pp. 18-26.

Kanter, R. M. (1979) 'Power failure in management circuits'. Classics of organization theory, pp. 342-351.

Keenoy, T. (2013) 'Engagement:

A Murmuration of Objects', in Truss, C., Alfes, K., Delbridge, R., Shantz, A. and Soane, E. (eds.) Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, pp. 197-220.

Ladkin, D. (2015) Mastering the Ethical Dimension of Organizations: A Self-reflective Guide to Developing Ethical Astuteness. Edward Elgar Publishing.

LePine, J. A. & Van Dyne, L. (1998) 'Predicting voice behavior in work groups'. Journal of applied psychology, 83 (6), pp. 853.

Maanen, J. V. (1983) 'Qualitative methodology'. Beverly Hills: Sage,

Marrelli, A. F. (2008) 'Collecting data through focus groups'. Performance improvement, 47 (4), pp. 39-45.

Martell, L. (2013) 'The marketisation of our universities: economic criteria get precedence over what’s good in human terms'. British Politics and Policy at LSE [weblog article, 29 November 2013],

Matthews, D. (2015) 'University managerialism can 'boost academic freedom''. The Times Higher Education.

Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994) Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. sage.

Myers, M. D. (2013) Qualitative Research in Business Management (2nd E dition ). United Kingdom: Sage Publications Ltd.

Podro, S. (2011) 'The Future of Workplace Relations'.[in Acas Policy Discussion Paper. Acas. (Accessed:Podro, S.

Purcell, J. (2013) 'Employee

Voice and Engagement', in Truss, C., Alfes, K., Delbridge, R., Shantz, A. and Soane, E. (eds.) Employee

Engagement in Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.

Purcell, J. (2014) 'Disengaging from engagement'. Human Resource Management Journal, 24 (3), pp. 241-254.

Saks, A. M. (2006) 'Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement'. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21 (7), pp. 600-619.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2015) Research Methods for Business Students (7th Edition). Pearson Education.

Seeck, H. & Parzefall, M.-R. (2008) 'Employee agency: challenges and opportunities for psychological contract theory'. Personnel Review, 37 (5), pp. 473-489.

Terry, M. (1999) 'Systems of collective employee representation in non-union firms in the UK'. Industrial Relations Journal, 30 (1), pp. 16-30.

Torrington, D., Hall, L., Taylor, S. & Atkinson, C. (2014) Human Resource Management (9th Edition). Pearson.

Towers, B. (1997) The representation gap: change and reform in the British and American workplace . Oxford University Press, USA.

Van Wanrooy, B., Bewley, H., Bryson, A., Forth, J., Freeth, S., Stokes, L. & Wood, S. (2013) 'The 2011 workplace employment relations study: first findings'.[in Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. (Accessed:Van Wanrooy, B., Bewley, H., Bryson, A., Forth, J., Freeth, S., Stokes, L. & Wood, S.

Winstanley, D. & Woodall, J. (2000) 'The ethical dimension of human resource management'. Human Resource Management Journal, 10 (2), pp. 5-20.

Yin, R. K. (2013) Case study research: Design and methods. Sage publications.