The International Journal of Human Resource

Management

ISSN: 0958-5192 (Print) 1466-4399 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20

The meanings and purpose of employee voice

Tony Dundon , Adrian Wilkinson , Mick Marchington & Peter Ackers

To cite this article: Tony Dundon , Adrian Wilkinson , Mick Marchington & Peter Ackers (2004)
The meanings and purpose of employee voice, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 15:6, 1149-1170, DOI: 10.1080/095851904100016773359

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/095851904100016773359

Published online: 17 Feb 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 26911

View related articles

Citing articles: 50 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rijh20
Int. J. of Human Resource Management 15:6 September 2004 1149– 1170

The meanings and purpose of

employee voice

Tony Dundon, Adrian Wilkinson, Mick Marchington

and Peter Ackers

Abstract In this paper we present and assess an analytical framework for examining
the different ‘meanings, purposes and practices’ of employee voice. The data were
collected from eighteen organizations in England, Scotland and Ireland. Managers
defined voice very much in terms of the perceived contribution to efficiency and tended to
downplay notions of rights; however, the linkages between voice and performance
outcomes remain problematic. Overall, employee voice is best understood as a complex
and uneven set of meanings and purposes with a dialectic shaped by external regulation,
on the one hand, and internal management choice, on the other. The evidence suggests
that the degree to which voice practices are embedded in an organization is much more
important than reporting the extent of any particular individual or collective schemes for
employee voice.

Keywords Employee involvement; participation; voice; public policy; employment

regulation.

Introduction
The last decade has seen a growing interest in the notion of employee voice, both from
those seeking higher levels of organizational performance and from those desiring better
systems of employee representation. In public policy terms, the environment is more
sympathetic to trade unions, more animated by notions of employee rights, and supported
by new legal regulations (Ewing, 2003). The election of New Labour in 1997, and their
return in 2001, appears to mark another major turning point for employment policy
(Ackers et al., 2004). While the current government remains committed to labour
flexibility, it has been prepared both to regulate independently on behalf of employees
and to commit the UK to European social policy, in particular the new EU Directive for
Employee Information and Consultation rights (Hall et al., 2002). As a consequence, we
have seen a period of legal re-regulation, which can best be divided between those
policies that directly affect employee voice and those that indirectly alter the
environment in which employee voice operates.
Both EU Directives on European Works Councils (EWCs) and Employee Information
and Consultation, along with the UK government’s statutory trade union recognition
procedures, have the potential to shape employer approaches to employee voice directly.

Tony Dundon, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland. Adrian Wilkinson (address for
correspondence), Business School, Loughborough University, Leicestershire LE11 3TU, UK
(e-mail: a.j.wilkinson@lboro.ac.uk). Mick Marchington, Manchester School of Management,
UMIST, UK. Peter Ackers, Loughborough University, UK.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management
ISSN 0958-5192 print/ISSN 1466-4399 online q 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/095851904100016773359
1150 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
EWCs have given a new trans-national impetus to consultation in British-based
multinationals. The TUC’s newfound interest in consultation (rather than just collective
bargaining) and the preparedness of trade unions to work alongside non-union
representatives on EWCs have given consultation a new lease of life. A decade ago, joint
consultation appeared to be declining along with collective bargaining, eclipsed by direct
communications and upward problem-solving and this led some to be concerned about a
representation gap (Towers, 1997; Marchington and Wilkinson, 2000). For large,
unionized employers, EWCs have added another level to an already established system
of representative participation. For some non-unionized firms, EWCs have offered new
opportunities for employee voice, as will the transposition agreement endorsed by the
CBI and TUC regarding the new EU Directive on Employee Information and
Consultation (DTI, 2003; Ackers et al., 2004). Also, statutory trade union recognition
raises the prospects of employers having to accept, even if reluctantly, trade union
recognition for collective bargaining purposes where it is desired by a majority of their
employees (Gill and Krieger, 1999). There are already signs of employers trying to pre-
empt the possibility of a particular (perhaps militant) trade union being imposed on them
by offering voluntary recognition for a selected single union. Equally, the EU Directive
on Information and Consultation will require employers, in undertakings with fifty or
more employees, to put in place procedures for employee voice over the next few years.
The scope of such consultation will cover matters pertaining to the economic situation of
the undertaking, developments relating to employment (especially any threats to
employment) and substantial changes in work organization or in contractual relations
(Hall et al., 2002). In these cases, the legislation is likely to be the start of the story rather
than the end, as employers exercise new choices and strategies shaped by the new
regulatory environment.
In this paper we examine the meanings and purpose of employee voice against
this changing regulatory backdrop. We first consider the meanings of voice and its
various characteristics to produce an analytical framework against which to examine
the case-study organizations. We also discuss the research instruments utilized in our
study and outline the key characteristics of sample organizations. In the following
section we discuss the purpose of voice, as articulated by the respondents in our
sample. We then move on to examine the various mechanisms used and assess the
extent to which these are embedded in each organization (see also Cox et al., 2003).
The penultimate section goes on to assess respondents’ views on the perceived
outcomes of various employee voice schemes. Finally, in the concluding section,
we comment on the utility of the framework presented for analysis and future
prospects for employee voice.

The meaning of voice

‘Voice’ is a term that has been more widely used in the practitioner and academic
literature on HRM and industrial relations in recent years (Beardwell, 1998; Sako, 1998;
Benson, 2000; Roche, 2000). It is also noteworthy that a book based on the WERS
surveys (Millward et al., 2000) devoted a complete chapter to the question of whether or
not employees have ‘lost their voice’. In an issue of the Industrial Participation
Association (IPA) Bulletin, Geoff Armstrong of the CIPD suggested that voice
historically meant collective bargaining, and that this ‘chosen method of joint regulation
became a straitjacket inhibiting the very things needed to win and keep customers’
(2001). He acknowledged that management was largely to blame for this, while
suggesting that the shift to direct involvement reflected a desire to improve
 Dundon et al.: The meanings and purpose of employee voice 1151
organizational performance. In contrast, Margaret Prosser of the TGWU argues that
‘collective voice achieves what the lone voice could never do: it humanises and civilises
the workplace, arguing that collective representation is the foundation of a partnership
relationship that brings positive benefits for business’ (Prosser, 2001). It has also been
argued that the way employees are treated through the provision of opportunities for
voice may have a more significant impact on commitment than the way employees are
paid (Blinder, 1990: 21). It is apparent, therefore, that there are competing meanings of
the term ‘employee voice’, and that quite different purposes can underpin a desire for
collective voice rather than for individual voice.
The best-known use of the word voice goes back to Hirschman’s classic study (1970)
of African railways. However, he conceptualized voice as an option for customers in a
context of how organizations respond to decline, and since then the term has been used
with different applications. Freeman and Medoff (1984) argued that it made good sense
for both employer and employee to have a voice mechanism. This had both a consensual
and a conflictual image: on the one hand, participation could lead to a beneficial impact
on quality and productivity, while, on the other, it could deflect problems which
otherwise might explode. For Freeman and Medoff (1984), trade unions were seen as the
best agents to provide such voice, as they remain independent of the employer, which
adds a degree of voice legitimacy. As Benson notes, ‘for some commentators
independent unions are the only source of genuine voice’ (2000: 453). In this context,
much of the industrial relations literature views the articulation of grievances, either on
an individual or collective basis, as the sole component of voice (Gollan, 2001).
Some of the US human resource literature has broadened the notion of voice away
from a single channel of worker representation, towards one that views it as capable of
being articulated through a variety of channels. Thus, voice is defined more broadly
by McCabe and Lewin (1992) as consisting of two elements. First is the expression
of complaints or grievances in a work context by employees to management.
The second is the participation of employees in the decision-making processes of the
organization. Lewin and Mitchell (1992) further distinguish between mandated voice
(e.g. co-determination and legislation) and voluntary voice (e.g. collective bargaining
and grievance procedures). Boroff and Lewin’s (1997) analysis of survey responses from
a non-union firm contradict the ideas of Hirschman and the findings of Freeman and
Medoff. Analysing data from workers who indicated they had been subject to unfair
treatment at work, they reported that employee voice via grievance filing was positively
related to intent to leave their organizations, whereas loyalty was negatively related to
grievance filing. In short, loyal employees who experienced unfair treatment were more
likely to respond by suffering in silence.
Millward et al. (2000) saw voice as comprising three different channels: via trade
union membership, recognition and representation; via indirect or representative
participation mechanisms such as joint consultation; and via direct employee
involvement. Over the course of the WERS surveys, trade unions have become a less
prominent voice channel with declining membership levels. Joint consultation and
collective bargaining has also declined in extensiveness over the last twenty years.
The third strand, direct employee involvement, whether via communications or
upward problem-solving techniques, has grown enormously in terms of coverage over
this period. In addressing the question of whether or not employees have lost their voice,
they conclude that ‘the answer must be “no” – but with important qualifications’
(Millward et al., 2000: 135). They conclude that ‘the combined presence of a recognised
trade union and union representation on a formal consultative committee was the only
1152 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
formulation to be independently associated with employees’ perceptions of fair treatment
by their managers’ (Millward et al., 2000:137).
One problem however is that the extensiveness of voice is only part of the story
(Marchington, 2004). The reported frequencies of certain voice schemes assume a static
and unambiguous definition of what a particular mechanism actually means in practice.
For example, some companies may adopt a partnership arrangement with trade unions,
even though it has always existed but been called something else (Marchington et al.,
2001; Oxenbridge and Brown, 2002). Similarly, other techniques may have been in
existence for several years but always marginal to how managers actively tap into
employee ideas. Given that the subject of voice has attracted interest from a variety of
perspectives and disciplines, it is hardly surprising that its meaning has also been
interpreted in quite different ways, by both academics and practitioners. In this paper we
have subdivided the meanings of voice into four principal strands of thought. These are
outlined in Table 1 and represent the main analytical framework on which to assess voice
in each of the case-study organizations.
First, voice can be taken as an articulation of individual dissatisfaction. In this situation,
its aim is to address a specific problem or issue with management, finding expression in a
grievance procedure or speak-up programme. This would fit with Hirschman’s view of voice
described earlier. A second strand is the expression of collective organization where
voice provides a countervailing source of power to management, through unionization and
collective bargaining in particular. This is very much the Freeman and Medoff perspective.
Third, there is voice as a form of contribution to management decision-making. Here the
purpose is concerned with improvements in work organization and efficiency more
generally, perhaps through quality circles or team working. This perspective on voice is

Table 1 The meaning and articulation of employee voice

Voice as: Purpose and Mechanisms and Range of
articulation of voice practices for voice outcomes
Articulation of To rectify a problem Complaint to line Exit – loyalty
individual with management manager
dissatisfaction or prevent Grievance procedure
deterioration Speak-up programme
in relations
Expression of To provide a Union recognition Partnership –
collective countervailing Collective bargaining de-recognition
organization source of power Industrial action
to management
Contribution to To seek Upward problem- Identity and
management improvements solving groups commitment –
decision-making in work Quality circles disillusionment and
organization, Suggestion schemes apathy
quality and Attitude surveys Improved
productivity Self-managed teams performance
Demonstration To achieve long-term Partnership agreements Significant influence
of mutuality and viability for the Joint consultative over management –
co-operative organization committees marginalization
relations and its employees Works councils and sweetheart
deals
 Dundon et al.: The meanings and purpose of employee voice 1153
evident in the high involvement/high commitment literature (Huselid, 1995; Pfeffer,
1998). Fourth, voice can be seen as a form of mutuality, with partnership seen as delivering
long-term viability for the organization and its employees. The partnership model outlined
by Guest and Peccei (2001) fits with this perspective. However, the precise meaning of the
term ‘employee voice’ is open to question, and the rationale for its application can vary on
economic, moral and pragmatic grounds. It can take a variety of forms in practice, and the
effect of combining a number of mechanisms is unclear. The extent to which traditional
methods of providing a voice for employees (such as collective bargaining and grievance
procedures) have been superseded by, or combined with, more consensual methods
(such as joint consultation, team working or problem-solving groups) is an issue that
confronts many organizations. This also suggests that the depth of different voice
arrangements and the aims and purpose of employer choices for employee voice remain
elusive in much of the extant literature. This article seeks to address these issues in relation
to the potential configuration of voice meanings and purposes outlined above.

Research methods
The research presented in this paper was collected from eighteen organizations. The
organizations selected reflected differences in size (small, medium and large), structure
(single and multi-site), ownership (foreign and domestic owned), representative systems
(union and non-union) as well as different sectors of economic activity. These included
financial services, carpet manufacturing, transport (road haulage and aviation), retail
outlets, telecommunications, hi-tech engineering, consultancy services, chemicals, call
centre operations and a not-for-profit organization. Background and contextual
information on all the case studies is provided in Table 2.
Given the analytical framework to assess the differences in employee voice presented in
Table 1 above, several research themes informed the design of the fieldwork. The list of
research themes is provided in Appendix 1. These included, among others: managerial
interpretations of the term employee voice; the combination of voice mechanisms used
in each organization; changes in the use of employee voice over time, in particular in relation
to legal and public policy interventions; the forces that may constrain or help to shape
managerial choices over employee voice; the perceived impact of voice on attitudes and
performance; and any unusual or interesting practices that allow employees to have a say.
During this phase of the research interviews were conducted with managerial
respondents only. These always included the person responsible for HR and other senior
managers (such as chief executive, managing director and/or senior site manager). The
precise number of interviews varied depending on factors such as organizational size,
single or multi-site structures, logistics of access, time and availability of respondents.
One particular emphasis was to include non-personnel practitioners where possible in
order to allow different perspectives on the meanings, purpose and practices of employee
voice to be assessed. In most of the multinational and multi-site organizations, interviews
were conducted at one location and both HR and other managerial functions were
included. As an example, at Scotchem and Scotoil, three senior managers
were interviewed, including the HR Manager, senior operations director and business
unit leaders. In one of the SMEs the Owner-Manager and Managing Director both
participated. At the local school, the Head teacher and Chair of the school governors
were interviewed, and at Aqua the study involved the Chief Executive and the HR
Director along with several of his team. In total, thirty-seven key informants were
interviewed across the eighteen cases, including HR as well as other senior managers.
Table 2 Background data on all organizations
Organization N employees Sector Background/market context
Airflight 2,500 Transport and Airflight was established about ten years ago, and has
communications grown substantially through a series of company
acquisitions. It de-recognized the TGWU and
recognized BALPA for pilots.
Aqua 1,700 Water Aqua is a regional water company with over 100 sites
that has experienced significant change. Numbers
employed have declined by about 25% over the past
five years, although Aqua has retained a stable market
share. There are four recognized trade unions with
67% membership (GMB, TGWU, AEEU and the
largest, UNISON).
Bet.com 120 Call-centre betting Bet.com was founded in the 1960s and is now a call
centre for sport betting. The company has
experienced significant decline in market share and
workforce size, having employed over 3,000 people
at its peak in the late 1970s. USDAW is the
recognized trade union with about 72% membership.
City School 60 Education The school is based in London. There are about 650
students aged 3– 11, and the workforce is evenly
divided between teaching and support staff.
The management team comprises the head teacher,
a deputy and one senior teacher, and the Chair
1154 The International Journal of Human Resource Management

of Governors is closely involved in the running

of the school. Three trade unions are recognized
(NUT, NAHT and UNISON).
Table 2 (Continued)

Organization N employees Sector Background/market context

Compucom 220 Hi-tech engineering Compucom was founded in 1982 and manufactures
CCTV technologies. It has a small niche market for
digital security and surveillance systems. The
workforce is spread across five continents, with about
ninety people employed at the technical hub and head
office in Manchester. In 1997 about sixty people were
made redundant when all manufacturing operations
re-located to Malta.
ConsultancyCo 290 Computer and security consultancy ConsultancyCo specializes in computer software and
security consultancy services. One owner founded
the company in 1992, and it has grown on average by
30% a year and has sites in London, Edinburgh,
Dublin and a head office in Manchester. About 70% of
the workforce are consultants with the remaining 30%
support staff.
Easymove Transport 50 Road haulage Easymove is a family-run road haulage firm with a site
in Northern England. The bulk of staff have a long
employment tenure, and the company recognizes
URTU for bargaining and representation. Financial
turnover has doubled during the last three years.
Eiretel 98,000 IT/Tele-communications Eiretel is a Canadian-owned computer software and
telecommunications company with employees in
150 countries. The site visited is in the Republic of
Ireland. About 800 people are employed there, mainly
professional and technical engineers. At the time of
the research Eiretel announced a global redundancy
Dundon et al.: The meanings and purpose of employee voice

programme of 1,500 jobs. SIPTU is the only

recognized trade union for 110 manual operators.
1155
Table 2 (Continued)

Organization N employees Sector Background/market context

HiFi Sounds 350 Retail The company operates in the hi-fi retail market with forty-three
outlets, a head office and warehouse. Commercial
growth has been through finding a niche market for
discounted products with shops on the fringe of
high-street shopping locations.
Housing Association 300 House letting Housing Association is a ‘not-for-profit’ housing
association established over 100 years ago to manage
a company housing estate for a large paternalist
employer. It has grown since the 1980s from a
workforce of 150 to 300 and now provides a wider
range of services, including some sheltered housing
and care homes.
Leisure Co. 50 permanent 400 casual Theme park Leisure Co. is over ten years old and has had a relatively
stable market share during that time, employing
mainly non-unionized seasonal workers, with the bulk
of the workforce (about 400) recruited during the
summer months.
Midbank 4000 Financial services Midbank is over 100 years old and has expanded its
services and market over the last decade. Despite
significant organizational change and restructuring,
the workforce numbers have remained relatively stable.
There is a partnership agreement with UNIFI.
1156 The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Retail Bank 30,000 Financial services Retail Bank has its origins in the nineteenth century,
operating in the financial services market. Over the last
five years market share has increased, with new services
and a focus on selling. A trade union is recognized for
bargaining purposes, with about 30% membership.
Table 2 (Continued)

Organization N employees Sector Background/market context

Scotchem 750 Chemical manufacturing Scotchem is one of the leading firms in its market
and has had a stable workforce for some time.
The TGWU, AEEU and MSF are recognized, and
union density is about 60% overall, but higher
among manual employees. Scotchem is part of a
large european-owned multinational company, but
has a large degree of autonomy in how it
manages employment relations
Scotoil 100,000 Oil and gas exploration Scotoil employs people in 100 countries, and in the
UK the company has a high market share for its
product. The site visited employs about 3000 staff,
with around 1,200 working on oil platforms. Scotoil,
like Scotchem, is part of a large multinational
company, but has a large degree of autonomy in how
it manages employment relations
Southern Shoe 11,500 Retail and manufacturing The company employs about 3,500 in manufacturing
and 8,000 in retail, mostly part-time. The company
has been reorganized over the last decade, with
manufacturing sites closed in the UK and acquisitions
made in Germany and Slovakia, along with satellite
operations in Portugal and sub-contracting in India
and Vietnam. There is high market competition for
low-cost production. The focus of this study is on
manufacturing.
Dundon et al.: The meanings and purpose of employee voice
1157
Table 2 (Continued)

Organization N employees Sector Background/market context

Weave Co. 2,500 Carpet manufacturing Weave Co. is a family-owned carpet manufacturer with
a 200-year history. Following a bad spell in
the early 1990s, the company has now expanded its
operations globally, with around 50% of the
workforce UK-based. There is 80% trade union
membership.
Whisky Co. 200 Distillers Whisky Co. operates across seven sites, with a growing
share of the export (mainly US) market. With a
merger and the restructuring process the TGWU was
de-recognized, with the GMB as the single union
recognized. The company is keen on the creation of
a new culture that incorporates employee voice.
1158 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
 Dundon et al.: The meanings and purpose of employee voice 1159
In addition to the informant interviews, access to documentary material (such as
employee attitude surveys, mission statements, corporate information and personnel
policies) was made available in several organizations. However, it is critical to note that
our analysis of these organizations is not based on a single snapshot of their practices.
In all but four of the organizations we have had contact through other projects
over a sustained period of time. Seven of the cases formed part of our study for the
Employment Department in the early 1990s (Marchington et al., 1992). A further seven
have been the subject of other research, either during the last decade or in parallel
with other studies – for example, for the UMIST Future of Work project (Marchington
et al., 2004) and research funded by the European Regional Development Fund
(Carrol et al., 1999; Dundon et al., 1999). This provided a degree of knowledge about the
organizational context prior to the fieldwork, as well as an understanding of the major
employment relations issues at these sites from several respondents, such as shop
stewards and employees.

The purpose and articulation of employee voice

The term ‘employee voice’ provided a useful way to examine both its purpose
and practice and to allow for analysis that traversed old boundaries such as union
and non-union, individual and collective. During interviews, managers’ views ranged
freely between disparate techniques such as partnership with trade unions and
informal and individualistic interactions with employees. On many occasions more than
one meaning of the term ‘employee voice’ emerged, especially between different
management functions.
In relation to the framework for analysis presented in Table 1, a number of issues
emerged from the data. First, the purpose of voice as the articulation of individual
dissatisfaction overlapped with notions of employee contribution through communi-
cation channels. Second, the articulation of voice as collective organization was rather
less central than other (individualistic) definitions of voice. When we asked for specific
examples, it was noticeable that a wide range of collective voice mechanisms was in use
and these tended to overlap in relation to the purposes presented in Table 1 earlier.
At several organizations collective forms of employee voice not only represented a
countervailing force to managerial power but also, simultaneously, the demonstration of
mutuality in the relationship. It is significant that collective voice was not just restricted
to unionized establishments, but was apparent at quite a number of organizations that
operated with staff associations (such as Housing Association) or non-union consultative
forums (as at Scotoil and Compucom). Third, the purpose of voice as contributing to
managerial decision-making was the most popular interpretation from these managerial
respondents, and this again overlapped with both individual and collective forms of
employee voice. This multiple voice purpose was summed-up by the HR Manager at
Eiretel: ‘Voice is about corporate communications and the strategy is designed in such a
way that all employees can represent their views to management, rather than it just being
the other way around.’
In Table 1, we noted the range of outcomes associated with different voice processes,
and quite a number of respondents insisted that the outcomes of voice were particularly
important in relation to the purpose and objectives of the mechanisms adopted. The words
used varied between ‘influence’ and ‘say’, but broadly they coalesced around the notion
of employees having some contribution that helped improve policies and practices.
We are not seeking to convey the impression that this represents a situation in which
changes are led by employees or that their voice is actually ‘heard’ by managers.
1160 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
Nevertheless, it was apparent that they all related to the potential for employee voice to
impact upon outcomes rather just describing the processes used. Many of the managers
stressed the importance of informal mechanisms and processes that demonstrate
the purposes for employee voice as rather more dynamic than just formal or static. The
General Manager at ConsultancyCo suggested that ‘[v]oice is about having opinions and
observations heard. How voice is realized, recognized and acted upon is what matters.
There is no “real” voice if it is not listened to.’

The embeddedness of employee voice practices

Given that seven of the case studies took part in a similar project ten years ago,
there was an opportunity to examine both the depth and changing patterns of voice
over time. Two findings stood out from this analysis. First, some of the employee
involvement mechanisms found in 1992 had now been recast or fused into more
all-embracing upward problem-solving voice mechanisms. There was evidence of
less ad hoc choices and that schemes had been more clearly integrated, particularly
in terms of employee voice contributing to managerial decision-making. A range of
mechanisms, such as suggestion schemes, attitude surveys and project teams no
longer appeared to be confined to trivial or less significant matters. The second
development is with regard to the form of collective voice. Significantly, the role of
trade unions in relation to direct involvement had changed markedly. In many of the
unionized cases, joint consultation and collective bargaining existed alongside systems
for non-unionized employee representation, and shop stewards appeared more willing
than they did a decade ago to participate in such dual representative channels. There
was also some evidence of de-recognition as well as new union recognition
agreements, although overall senior managers saw value in working with trade
unions and appeared to share information with union representatives at earlier stages
in the process.
All the organizations employed downward communications in one form or another,
with about one-third making use of electronic media to increase the ease with which
employees could respond to management or convey their own opinions to senior
managers. Not surprisingly, this was more common in the service sector where white-
collar workers (and particularly professionals) formed the bulk of staff. At Eiretel, for
example, the US Vice President would regularly send electronic messages to all staff, a
practice that has been copied by other senior managers. The system is used to allow staff
to post questions about technical or human resource issues direct to senior managers.
While in theory these have to be answered, there was some scepticism about the degree to
which the whole process was stage-managed, which led to a rather superficial
interpretation of these voice arrangements.
Two-way communications were common at all the case-study sites. Most of these
were relatively standard in format, but it is worth providing a few examples to show how
they were operationalized in practice. At the school, daily ten-minute meetings before
teaching commenced allowed the Head to brief staff on important issues for the day, such
as absenteeism and staff cover. For many this is now part and parcel of their daily work
routine. Yet a quite different interpretation of a very similar mechanism was evident at
the transport firm. Here, the Managing Director arranged meetings every few months on
a Sunday morning at a local pub. All drivers were invited, and, although they were not
paid to attend, the company provided bacon sandwiches and a beer kitty. Middle
managers were barred from these meetings, which were attended by the Finance Director
and the MD. The turnout at these meetings was reported as quite high. The Managing
 Dundon et al.: The meanings and purpose of employee voice 1161
Director felt that this method represented the best way for him to get information across
to staff as well as keep in touch with employee opinion, commenting that the sessions
‘were quite lively!’
The use of employee attitude surveys is now much more widespread than a decade ago
in most organizations (Cully et al., 1999; Cox et al., 2003), and it is often seen as an
example of ‘good’ HRM in that staff are asked for their views on a regular basis. About
half the organizations in our sample made use of such attitude surveys as a central tenet
of employee voice. Some of these operated at the sites we investigated as part of
worldwide benchmarking exercises for the companies as a whole, with the results being
fed back from corporate headquarters to lower management and staff on the shopfloor or
in the office. In these circumstances the degree to which such practices were embedded
was questionable. Both employees and managers felt they lacked ownership of the
results, other than as a benchmarking tool through which senior management sought to
secure measures of performance improvement.
The vast majority of the case-study organizations reported the use of project teams in
one form or another. Some of these were central to the operation of the organization.
At Compucom and ConsultancyCo, for example, matrix teams dealt with
specific projects and were later disbanded once the job was completed. In other
organizations, team members were drawn from different functions within the company,
such as finance, development and IT, with a degree of autonomy in how to organize their
work and how often to meet. Strategy days were also held at a number of organizations in
order to involve staff – to a greater or lesser extent – in defining and articulating
performance objectives.
About two-thirds of the organizations had some form of joint consultation operating
either at site level or beyond the workplace, compared with about one-quarter for the
WERS 1998 sample. Joint consultative committees (JCCs) were more common in larger,
multi-site workplaces, and about half the unionized workplaces had JCCs compared with
all but one of the non-union firms. At some companies, these had been in existence for a
long time, and they followed the fairly standard pattern of regular monthly or quarterly
meetings between a number of senior managers and the shop stewards. The activity
levels of these meetings varied. At Scotchem, shopfloor meetings with union
representatives tended to focus on trivial matters such as ‘showers, lockers and overtime
levels’. Yet they also acted as a ‘safety valve’ and were supplemented with additional
meetings, incorporating all the unions. These appeared to be more embedded in that they
were integral to other aspects of the partnership agenda that sought to influence more
longer-term issues, as the Manufacturing Director at Scotchem explained:
This is an opportunity to share the slightly longer-term outlook with these guys following the
senior management meeting. I talk with them about the manufacturing plan for the next month
and what the issues are. It gives the senior stewards a chance to express one or two of their
concerns about the future.
Several organizations utilized non-union voice channels alongside the union framework
or included non-union representatives at the same meeting as shop stewards. At
Midbank, for example, despite a range of mechanisms to consult with unions – such as
the joint partnership meeting – a staff council was established with representatives
elected by all staff, whether union or non-union: ‘The staff council is just a consultation
forum. It’s just giving them information, it’s not a negotiating forum or anything.’
Significantly, the coexistence of union and non-union forms of employee voice was
more than an isolated example, although the precise purposes for non-union voice
was often uneven and complicated. Joint consultation, in one form or another, was
1162 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
widespread at organizations that did not recognize unions for collective bargaining
purposes. However the extent of these schemes varied between the case-study
organizations. At Housing Association, for example, although a joint consultative forum
was set up over twenty years ago, its role as a voice channel was limited. The Deputy
Director regarded it as ‘a mechanism that has stood the test of time, but it has not been
widely used by employees for making their voice heard’.
Seven of the eighteen case studies had some form of partnership arrangement in place,
although not all actually termed it partnership in the conventional sense. The most
extensive and wide-ranging partnership agreement was between Midbank and UNIFI.
The key principles of the agreement relate to ‘mutuality and inclusiveness, an acceptance
that both parties have distinctive but complementary roles’, and an acknowledgement
that difficult and contentious issues have to be confronted jointly. A partnership
agreement also operated at Whisky Co. under the title ‘Working Together’. This used
phraseology that is well known in these sorts of agreements – mutuality, joint
commitment to organizational performance, acknowledgement of separate interests –
but it also emphasized the importance of high commitment HRM policies. A section
from the agreement noted that:
The culture [of ‘Working Together’ in partnership] promotes employee development,
participation, flexibility, performance and reward within a framework of excellent
communications. The agreement will be the basis of our joint ability to add value to the
company’s business performance through the creation of an ethical and inclusive environment
of opportunity.
Collective representation, either through negotiations about wages and conditions or
through representatives pursuing individual employee grievances, existed at about two-
thirds of cases, mostly among larger and multi-site organizations. Significantly,
collective representation offers an alternative purpose to the forms that have been
discussed so far, the vast majority of which are initiated by mangers and are
more susceptible to potential managerial influence and control. While most other
forms of voice that have been considered are often articulated in relation to how
employees can contribute – ultimately – to improved organizational performance,
collective representation challenges the current individualist and direct interpretations of
employee voice.
The purpose of collective voice varied substantially among the organizations and this
depended on, inter alia, the level of union membership, the type of unions and
managerial attitudes towards collective representation. Among the sample organizations,
levels of membership varied from very high to relatively insignificant, collective
bargaining took place at different levels across the larger organizations, and the number
of unions that were recognized varied from one to four. It is noteworthy that employers
who recognized unions regarded them as a positive force in expressing employee
concerns. Furthermore, these managerial respondents were prepared to disclose
information to representatives much earlier than had been the case a few years ago.
The final form of voice that we considered was European Works Councils, which are a
relatively new voice structure for most workers. EWCs were present in only four of the
case-study organizations (Eiretel, Scotoil, Southern Shoe and Whisky Co.). The EWC at
Whisky Co. came about because the firm is part of a much larger European-owned
multinational, at Eiretel through its part in a large American-owned firm and those at
Scotoil and Southern Shoe due to these UK-owned firms having other sites throughout
the rest of Europe. While the frequency of meetings and support from management and
employee representatives was generally positive, the depth to which these forums
 Dundon et al.: The meanings and purpose of employee voice 1163
appeared embedded was often unclear and ambiguous. Eiretel provided two employee
representatives for the EWC, although the information from the forum was often
considered to be too ‘distant’ for it to be meaningful for employees at plant level. In other
organizations it was felt that the agenda was rather narrow and minimalist, in line with a
perception that the company had been forced to accept an EWC rather than willingly
introduce and develop this. In a similar vein, the EWC at Southern Shoe had only
recently been introduced and had yet to find a clear focus.

The range of (perceived) outcomes of employee voice

Given that isolating cause and effect is problematic, one way in which voice may be seen
to impact on employee behaviour and performance is the ‘indirect’ linkage between the
practices used and outcomes. Although our respondents acknowledged that it was
difficult to quantify the impact of voice, there was widespread agreement that employee
voice acted as the gateway to a more open and constructive employment relations
climate. It is this better climate that can then be seen to help identify a relationship
between voice and impact. When considering any specific rationale for why employers
bother with voice, then the evidence was less clear. In several of the organizations the
expected outcomes such as depicted in Table 1 (e.g. commitment, loyalty or influence
over managerial decision-making) are difficult to identify in any precise way. However,
what did emerge is a combination of complementary practices, primarily related to the
improvement of management decision-making. In short, the distinctions drawn in Table 1
between the ‘purposes, practices and outcomes’ of voice are not easy to make, although
they are useful heuristically. Not only do these categories overlap in practice, but also
employers can and do articulate more than one purpose for a particular voice strategy.
Initially, their concerns may be to eliminate dissatisfaction but a longer-term intention is
also to improve business performance. Further, the views of the different actors differed
both within and across the organizations we studied, suggesting that the choices for voice
and the meanings ascribed to a set of mechanisms are rather more complicated and
dynamic in reality. Many of the managers commented that voice contributed to improved
performance because it generated a better environment in which to work. The Chief
Executive of Aqua summed up this view:

We are spending plenty of money on [staff] engagement at the moment. We do it because we

believe this adds value and what you tend to get is a slightly chaotic challenging world in which
people are prepared to say what they think. I think I can prove the impact of voice. It can be seen
in terms of performance and the way the business sparkles. The way that people answer letters,
deal with customers over the telephone, their feelings of ownership and pride.
This leads us to suggest that there is a potential ‘intermediary relationship’ between voice
and impact as opposed to a causal link with improved organizational performance per se.
Significantly, several respondents commented that, in practice, voice tended be part of
a much broader HR agenda – including training, induction, culture change or
more open management styles. For example, at Housing Association, employee voice
was part of deeper paternalistic and ethical managerial approach of ‘treating employees
in a decent way’:

I don’t think we set out to say we will use employees to create a profitable or successful
organization, I think it comes from another angle . . . we don’t bushwhack them and catch them
off guard. It’s not the kind of atmosphere we want to generate at all . . . If you treat your
workforce decently and honestly you will reap the benefits.
1164 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
Here voice can be seen as helping to reduce exit and supporting a culture that promoted
loyalty (see Table 1). At Scotchem, it was felt that a greater willingness by employees to
challenge decisions in a constructive way had an (unanticipated) educative impact that
improved relations. There was clearer evidence of the importance of the partnership and
mutuality outcomes we discussed earlier and outline in Table 1. In one case (Scotchem)
unions had been involved with management in the early stages of decision-making,
which helped promote a greater sense of awareness among shopfloor employees of
organizational change. In this way, the union acted as a conduit for voice and even
appeared to help overcome the ‘arms’-length adversarialism’ associated with indirect
collective voice channels. In this particular case, partnership included monthly meetings
between management and individual unions, regular meetings with the stewards and
Managing Director on long-term business plans and a communications group of forty
trained communicators, including the three senior stewards as well as employees.
There was also an Employee Relations Workshop (ERW) that included management,
union stewards and non-union employee representatives. Thus while the union remained
central to the partnership at Scotchem, there also existed other overlapping dimensions
that helped embed the range of voice mechanisms that can be attributable to improved
relationship outcomes. In the Managing Director’s words, ‘Some of the shop stewards
are very good at trying to pull these things together in a cohesive way and identify what
the main issue is’.
In two-thirds of the case studies, managers reported some improvement in employee
behaviour as a result of employee voice, albeit to varying degrees. One interesting
finding from our sample related to the ‘scope’ and ‘range’ of issues on which employees
are able to contribute. For instance, team briefings and top-down communications are
often associated with more trivial matters, yet we found that voice impacted on a broader
set of issues including customer relations, organizational strategies, new services and
products to clients, as well as internal work systems. At ConsultancyCo, a voice
mechanism called ‘Strategy Days’ allowed workers ‘a say’ over the future direction of
the company. Directors first outlined company objectives, market issues and prospective
clients to the whole workforce, before employees spent the day in small groups
discussing these issues and feeding back ideas to a plenary session that agreed an ‘action
plan’. At Scotchem, the Employee Relations Workshop mentioned above was one
attempt to bring together employee representatives and senior managers to work on
issues to do with the process of managing employment relations, including the
measurement of staff satisfaction, reflecting and reinforcing new relationships that
helped improve attitudes and behaviours.
While any attempt to unpack voice or draw causal links to enhanced performance is
difficult, there does seem to be some evidence to suggest that the range of issues to
which employees contribute is more far-reaching and embedded than a decade ago.
At the same time, however, the pattern for employee voice remains somewhat uneven
and fragmented. The precise meanings ascribed to very similar techniques differed
from one organization to another, and among different respondents. For example,
at Aqua the feeling was that the way people were managed as a total package
was reflected in more positive attitudes towards market conditions. This was rationalized
in relation to other authorities or PLCs. ‘We have been able to cope with more
fundamental changes than many organizations. The other companies have tried to
emulate where we have got to and try to harmonize with our position. We have achieved
our goals in the shortest time.’
At Weaveco the model of partnership provides an example of where management
actively constructed a collective voice strategy that was less reliant on the trade
 Dundon et al.: The meanings and purpose of employee voice 1165
unions. In this respect, the purpose of collectivized voice may be seen as an attempt
to engage with employees beyond union channels through a discourse of team-
working and partnership or, as some might suspect, as a ‘Trojan Horse’ pattern of
union marginalization. For example, Weaveco has replaced its traditional quarterly,
union-centred JCC with monthly site and departmental meetings. For the HR Manager,
communication rather than negotiation or consultation was a key purpose: negotiation
‘isn’t the brief. . ..I’m confident that the information we were imparting there [the old
JCC] did not get back to the departments. I think we have a better communication
channel, which is probably the biggest improvement we’ve made.’
The outcome of mutuality is also evidenced in the EWCs, which were
not part of the employment relations scene in 1992. The Southern Shoe EWC
illustrates how the dynamics of partnership change with market conditions, management
policy and external regulation as much as from changes inside the organizations.
In 1992, Southern Shoe already had a form of partnership (though not in name) via
close relations with its manufacturing union, a company council and
factory joint consultation. By 2001, the partnership arrangements had changed
with the virtual disappearance of UK manufacturing. Arguably, an old logic of
collective consultation has diminished in favour of a new and emerging voice
framework covering a global workforce. For example, a new company assembly
has changed from a large annual set-piece event, with all the directors facing workforce
representatives, to a series of small group consultations. The Personnel Director further
explained that business, production and operational issues now tend to dominate these
collective group forums:
We’ve always consulted with the unions, always. But I think at times the consultation would
take place right at the end of the process. Whereas now it happens very much at the beginning
and involvement [is] throughout . . .. It is now more about making shoes at a good price, at a
good quality and getting them out.
On the whole, improved performance indicators are perhaps the most difficult to define
let alone evaluate. Several studies, such as those by Huselid (1995), Patterson et al.
(1997) and Guest (1997), suggest that the most appropriate indicators of improved
performance include low levels of absenteeism, productivity improvements and
better staff retention rates. However, not all the organizations maintained
adequate absence, productivity or retention statistics, which would allow independent
assessments of the links between voice and performance. As a result, we have to rely upon
managerial impressions of the relationship between voice and performance,
and it is possible that causation may flow in the opposite direction. In short, superior
organizational performance may provide the space and resource to experiment with
employee voice.
With these limitations in mind, several respondents expressed their belief that there
was a potential link between voice and performance outcomes. As noted earlier, at
ConsultancyCo, a voice mechanism called ‘Strategy Days’ provided employees with an
input to the future strategic plan of the organization. At HiFi Sounds, management
encouraged employees to make suggestions on a whole host of matters, from shop
opening times and customer care initiatives through to actually having an input into the
recruitment of new staff. Another example from Bet.com is indicative of the potential
significance of employee voice feeding into organizational performance. Following
briefing sessions between employees and management, call-centre operatives made
detailed suggestions to improve the procedures for taking bets from customers over the
phone. The end result saved the organization thousands of pounds, as employees
1166 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
discovered that some customers had been able to place bets after results were known. The
Customer Service Manager at Bet.com comments:

Our people have had some major new ideas that evolve from the customer contact they have
which has impressed [the owners] no end. Because of some sloppy procedures at [head office] it
was possible for customers to get bets on after the event. . .. We’ve introduced a procedure that
prevents that, and that came as a result of our team meetings and some inventive thinking by the
agents.
This link between voice and performance was articulated by the HR Manager at
Scotchem, who felt that it would be impossible to gain significant improvements without a
large element of employee involvement. He was keen to achieve a situation where people
wanted to do much more than just come to work, and felt that such an environment directly
contributed to low levels of absence and staff turnover. Interestingly, he suggested that a
major advantage of voice was that ‘it greased the wheels of industry’. In that sense the link
between voice and performance has a resonance with other ‘indirect’ benefits such
as a more co-operative environment. The Manufacturing Director at Scotchem also felt
there were very clear, tangible benefits that had actually emerged from employee
voice schemes:

quite dramatic and remarkable improvements in quality and productivity, as well as in cost
structures at the new plants. . .. I can see huge differences not just because of the technology, but
in the way that people gain advantage from the benefits of the technology and apply it in order to
improve performance.

Discussion and conclusion

With the passing of the EU Information and Consultation Directive, the issue of
further regulation in the area of employee voice is likely to be an on-going concern.
This will impact directly and indirectly on the nature, meaning and purpose of employee
voice. Even without the growing uncertainty concerning the future direction of
partnership, there remains a rising tide of legal regulation and more sympathetic,
if qualified, support for trade union and representative forms of employee voice.
The analytical framework and evidence presented in this article provide new insights into
these debates: first, in relation to the way employers articulate employee voice in the light
of regulation; and, second, in relation to the linkages between employee voice and
organizational performance.
With regard to the first issue – the way employers articulate their choices for
employee voice – there is the question of how ‘deeply’ the mechanisms are embedded in
an organization (Cox et al., 2003; Marchington, 2004). Evidently, relying on
the frequency of a particular set of voice practices alone is a very narrow way to
evaluate the meanings ascribed to what is a complex and uneven process of employee
engagement. It is also limited in assessing any potential outcomes of voice. In this
respect, the evidence in this article indicates a more systematic alliance of disparate voice
mechanisms than was evident ten years ago (Marchington et al., 1992; Wilkinson et al.,
2004). Two-way communications are now rather less about trivia and more about issues
to do with operational outcomes. There is a longstanding academic view that effective
worker participation in industry is doomed to fail because of the ‘arm’s-length
adversarial’ system of industrial relations (Hyman, 1995). From this perspective, neither
workplace union representatives (focused on job controls and distributive bargaining)
nor line managers (concerned to protect management prerogative) are interested in
 Dundon et al.: The meanings and purpose of employee voice 1167
a positive-sum sharing of power that makes for effective employee participation.
We found some evidence that this double blockage is becoming less significant as
employers realign the purpose and practice of different employee voice mechanisms.
In some cases, the depth of collective bargaining (in both distributive and integrative
terms) incorporated a broader set of strategic policies. A new generation of line
managers, union representatives and employees appear more at ease with a set of
inclusive (direct and indirect) rather than exclusive (direct versus indirect) voice
practices. Managers seem more confident in organizing direct exchanges of opinion with
employees, while union representatives and employees expect them to do so.
The framework presented in Table 1 has its limitations but it is also a useful analytical tool
to assess the purpose and meaning of employee voice. On the one hand, the meanings of
voice did not always fit neatly into the categories depicted in Table 1. For example,
partnership arrangements were as important in promoting co-operative relations as
employee contributions. Similarly, according to respondents, formal grievance procedures
were not as important as might have been expected. Yet, at the same time, the opportunities
for employees to express a concern on areas of dissatisfaction did emerge through several
formal and informal mechanisms, such as speak-up programmes, attitude surveys and a
variety of individual communication channels. On the other hand, the framework captures
a more dynamic and less static conceptualization of employee voice. The analysis ties
together a variety of voice mechanisms that are often grouped in separate boxes
(e.g. involvement or bargaining) when management is evidently thinking across the range of
techniques. For example, the articulation of collective representation is not simply a matter
of trade union recognition, as employers justified collective forms of voice according
a variety of objectives, some of which may or may not mean union marginalization and/or
incorporation (Dundon, 2002). It can also, given that trade union membership and
bargaining coverage remains low, mean that employers now expect unions to be more in tune
with business objectives. For example, employers now offer places to non-union
representatives on committees that used to be the preserve of unions. At the same time, trade
unions seem to be prepared to engage in dialogue at an enterprise level in order to take
advantage of even the most management-led interpretations of partnership, with potential
advantages to their members.
Regarding the second issue – the linkages between voice and performance outcomes –
the evidence remains problematic for several reasons. First, there is the problem of
benchmarking, of assessing the date at which to start making ‘before and after’ comparisons.
For example, should this be the date at which the new voice mechanisms (say, a project team)
are actually introduced into the organization, or should it be some earlier or later date?
This point is ultimately related to the extent to which voice schemes are embedded in a given
organization. For example, the claim that a suggestion scheme saves money may not take
into account the fact that such ideas have previously been channelled through a different and
even better-established route. A second reason to be cautious about the voice–performance
link is that it is virtually impossible to isolate the impact of just one aspect of management
practice (e.g. giving employees a voice) from other contextual factors that can influence
behaviour at work. For example, labour turnover is likely to be influenced by the availability
of other jobs, by relative pay levels and by the presence, absence or depth of voice practices.
Many organizations did not measure performance with sufficient precision, nor did they
keep absence or labour turnover figures systematically enough to enable valid estimates of
any linkage to be made. Consequently, we are largely dependent upon managerial
assessments of the perceived impact of voice on behaviour and individual performance at
work. Finally, there is the issue of evaluation and on whose terms. Should assessments be
made in terms of merely having a voice (i.e. the process) or in terms of how things
1168 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
may be changed due to voice (i.e. the outcomes)? If it is the latter, then who gains? It remains
the case that it is usually mangers who decide what voice mechanisms to adopt, at what level
and over what range of issues. None of the organizations in this study claimed to evaluate the
impact of voice initiatives as a whole, but when this did take place it was for commercial
reasons rather than a result of wanting to give employees more of a say. Broadly speaking,
employee voice operated primarily as a loose and imprecise notion that was seen to
contribute to competitive advantage, but also as part of a general and broader bundle of HR
practices. In this respect, the final column in the framework presented in Table 1 (i.e. the
range of voice outcomes) remains more conceptual than empirically grounded. These issues
require further research on how workers interpret and influence the range of employee voice
mechanisms used at enterprise level.
What is significant from the analytical framework presented here is that managers
remain strategic policy actors, whatever the state of legislation or public policy
prescriptions. They play a key part in adapting and interpreting legislation, corporate
initiatives, consultancy panaceas and benchmark schemes to the workplace. This is
important in the context of statutory regulation intent on extending employee voice.
So far, however, the debate has been conducted in rather simplistic and polarized terms.
On the one hand, exponents of laissez-faire approaches regard all state activity as heavy-
handed and deadening in its effect on management creativity, whereas it is argued that,
left to their own devices, organizations will see the obvious advantages of innovation.
On the other hand, some exponents of employment regulation see it in equally simplistic
terms as an institutional blueprint that can simply be imposed on organizations with
predictable and desirable consequences. Arguably, the data and analytical framework
presented in this article would suggest that employee voice is best understood as a
complex and uneven set of meanings, purposes and a policy dialectic between external
regulation, on the one hand, and internal management choice, on the other.

Appendix 1: Research themes and interview question areas

Several research themes guided the fieldwork design. These included the following in the
design of the research instruments and interview schedules:

(a) Senior managers’ understanding of the term ‘employee voice’

(b) The range and scope of employee voice mechanisms in each organization
(c) The ways in which different voice mechanisms have been used in each organization
(d) Changes in the use of employee voice over time, in particular in relation to legal and
public policy interventions
(e) The extent to which it is possible for management to make choices about the range
and scope of voice mechanisms
(f) Identification of which particular managers are responsible for making choices
about voice, and at what functional level
(g) The forces that may constrain or help to shape the choices made by managers, and
how these have influenced voice in each organization
(h) The perceived impact of voice on attitudes and performance
(i) Any unusual or interesting practices that allow employees to have a say
(j) Variation in the range and scope of voice mechanisms between organizations
(k) The impact of change over time, and between different legal and political
environments
(l) The changing role of the personnel function in relation to employee voice.
 Dundon et al.: The meanings and purpose of employee voice 1169
References
Ackers, P., Marchington, M., Wilkinson, A. and Dundon, T. (2004) ‘Partnership and Voice, with or
without Trade Unions: Changing UK Management Approaches to Organisational Participation’.
In Stuart, M. and Martinez Lucio, M. (eds) Partnership and Modernisation in Employment
Relations. London: Routledge.
Armstrong, G. (2001) ‘Why Employee Voice Needs to Be Heard’, IPA Bulletin, 6(May): 1 – 4.
Beardwell, I. (1998) ‘Voices On’, People Management, May: 32– 6.
Benson, J. (2000) ‘Employee Voice in Union and Non-union Australian Workplaces’, British
Journal of Industrial Relations, 38(3): 453 –9.
Blinder, A. (1990) Paying for Productivity. New York: Brookings Institution.
Boroff, K. and Lewin, D. (1997) ‘Loyalty, Voice and Intent to Exit a Union Firm: A Conceptual and
Empirical Analysis’, Industrial & Labour Relations Review, 51(1): 50– 63.
Carrol, M., Marchington, M., Earnshaw, J. and Taylor, S. (1999) ‘Recruitment in Small Firms:
Processes, Methods, and Problems’, Employee Relations, 21(3): 236– 50.
Cox, A., Zagelmeyer, S. and Marchington, M. (2003) ‘The Embeddedness of Employee
Involvement and Participation and its Impact on Employee Outcomes: An Analysis of
WERS 98’, paper presented at the 19th Colloquium of the European Group for Organizational
Studies (EGOS) Conference, Copenhagen, July.
Cully, M., O’Reilly, A., Woodland, S. and Dix, G. (1999) Britain at Work: As Depicted by the 1998
Workplace Employee Relations Survey. London: Routledge.
DTI (2003) High Performance Workplaces: Informing and Consulting Employees. London:
Department of Trade and Industry.
Dundon, T. (2002) ‘Employer Opposition and Union Avoidance in the UK’, Industrial Relations
Journal, 33(3): 234 – 45.
Dundon, T., Grugulis, I. and Wilkinson, A. (1999) ‘Looking out of the Black Hole: Non-union
Relations in an SME’, Employee Relations, 21(3): 251– 66.
Ewing, K. (2003) ‘Industrial Relations and Law’, In Ackers, P. and Wilkinson, A. (eds) Reworking
Employment Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Freeman, R. and Medoff, J. (1984) What Do Unions Do? New York: Basic Books.
Gill, C. and Krieger, H. (1999) ‘Direct and Representative Participation in Europe: Recent
Evidence’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10(4): 572– 91.
Gollan, P. (2001) ‘Be Aware of the Voices’, People Management, 22 March: 55.
Guest, D. (1997) ‘Human Resource Management and Performance: A Review and Research
Agenda’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(3): 263– 76.
Guest, D. and Peccei, R. (2001) ‘Partnership at Work: Mutuality and the Balance of Advantage’,
British Journal of Industrial Relations, June: 207 – 36.
Hall, M., Broughton, A., Carley, M. and Sisson, K. (2002) Works Councils for the UK? London:
Eclipse Group/IRRU.
Hirschman, A. (1970) Exit, Voice and Loyalty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Huselid, M. (1995) ‘The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Turnover,
Productivity and Corporate Financial Performance’, Academy of Management Journal, 38(3):
635– 72.
Hyman, R. (1995) ‘The Historical Evolution of British Industrial Relations’. In Edwards, P. (ed.)
Industrial Relations: Theory and Practice in Britain. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 27 –49.
Lewin, D. and Mitchell, D. (1992) ‘Systems of Employee Voice: Theoretical and Empirical
Perspectives’, California Management Review, 34(3): 95–111.
McCabe, D. and Lewin, D. (1992) ‘Employee Voice: A Human Resource Management
Perspective’, California Management Review, 34(3): 112– 23.
Marchington, M. (2004) ‘Employee Involvement: Patterns and Explanations’. In Harley, B.,
Hyman, J. and Thompson, P. (eds) Participation and Democracy at Work: Essays in Honour of
Harvie Ramsay. London: Palgrave, forthcoming.
Marchington, M. and Wilkinson, A. (2000) ‘Direct Participation’. In Bach, S. and Sisson, K. (eds)
Personnel Management, 3rd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.
1170 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
Marchington, M., Goodman, J., Wilkinson, A. and Ackers, P. (1992) New Developments in
Employee Involvement. Employment Department Research Paper Series No. 2. London: HMSO.
Marchington, M., Wilkinson, A., Ackers, P. and Dundon, T. (2001) Management Choice and
Employee Voice. London: CIPD.
Marchington, M., Grimshaw, D., Rubery, J. and Willmott, H. (eds) (2004) Fragmenting Work:
Blurring Organisational Boundaries and Disordering Hierarchies. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Millward, N., Bryson, A. and Forth, J. (2000) All Change at Work: British Employment Relations
1980 –1998 as Portrayed by the Workplace Industrial Relations Survey Series. London:
Routledge.
Oxenbridge, S. and Brown, W. (2002) ‘The Two Faces of Partnership? An Assessment of
Partnership and Co-Operative Employer/Trade Union Relationships’, Employee Relations,
24(3): 262–76.
Patterson, M., West, M., Lawthom, R. and Nickell, S. (1997) The Impact of People Management
Practices on Business Performance. London: Institute of Personnel and Development.
Pfeffer, J. (1998) The Human Equation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Prosser, M. (2001) ‘Speaking up for the Collective Voice’, IPA Bulletin, 7(June): 1.
Roche, W. (2000) ‘The End of New Industrial Relations?’, European Journal of Industrial
Relations, 6(3): 261 –82.
Sako, M. (1998) ‘The Nature and Impact of Employee “Voice” in the European Car Components
Industry’, Human Resource Management Journal, 8(2): 5 –18.
Towers, B. (1997) The Representation Gap: Change and Reform in the British and American
Workplace. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wilkinson, A., Dundon, T., Marchington, M. and Ackers, P. (2004) ‘Changing Patterns of
Employee Voice: Case Studies from the UK and Republic of Ireland’, Journal of Industrial
Relations, June.