REPORT | February 2019

Talking about
voice: employees’
experiences

The CIPD is the professional body for HR and people
development. The not-for-profit organisation champions
better work and working lives and has been setting thebenchmark for excellence in people and organisation
development for more than 100 years. It has 150,000
members across the world, provides thought leadership
through independent research on the world of work, andoffers professional training and accreditation for thoseworking in HR and learning and development.

Talking about voice: employees’ experiences

Report
1
2
3

4

5
6
7
8

9
10

11

Talking about voice: employees’
experiences
Contents
1

Foreword2

2

Introduction2

3

Voice and job satisfaction

5

4

Voice channels 75Issues raised through voice

10

6

Employees’ experiences of different types of voice 

12

7

The impact of organisational hierarchy on voice

16

8

Barriers and enablers of voice 

19

9Conclusion22

10

Implications for the people profession 

22

11

References

23

12

Appendix 24

12

Acknowledgements
This report was written by Helen Shipton (Professor of International HRM), DanielKing (Professor of Organisational Studies), and Nikolas Pautz (Research Associate),
Nottingham Trent University; and Louisa Baczor (Research Adviser), CIPD.
Thank you to YouGov for supporting the survey design and data collection.

1

Talking about voice: employees’ experiences

1

1
2
3

4

5
6
7

Foreword

Today the work relationship exists in a context often considered unique to the modern
world: rapidly evolving business models, disruptive technological innovation, shifting
demographics, globalisation, widespread inequality and heightened socio-politicaltension. In this unpredictable environment, many individuals rely on work as an anchor ina stormy sea. However, job security and the opportunity to shape work are not available
for everyone. For many (particularly those on atypical employment contracts, in low-paid
and low-skilled work, or outsourced in global supply chains), there is little prospect ofexpressing voice on issues relating to their working lives. As the CIPD’s research on goodwork and job quality has shown, the reality of enablement through voice is far frombeing a mainstay of all UK jobs.
There are, however, exciting developments now emerging that might help improve theopportunity and impact of voice for workers. New flexible working practices, automation
and AI technologies, and innovations in collectivism have the potential to empower
employees currently lacking in voice. Technology, with the right checks and balances,and through well-thought-out design and application, could help to connect employees
and heighten the impact their voice has on working practices.

11

To better help individuals navigate the modern world of work, we must first understandhow employees might be able to influence and shape the working relationship. This isa central pillar of the concept of employee voice, which this report explores in detail.
Through this work we hope to surface some of the important foundational concepts ofvoice in modern work, and illustrate how, through considered and purposeful action, thepeople profession can better shape jobs and workplaces to improve outcomes for bothorganisations and the individuals within them. In this first phase of our study we ground ourthinking in a particular perspective: instead of viewing employees as powerless in shaping
work, we instead posit how they might have the power, through voice, and with the supportof the people profession, to shape work in their own way. Building on these insights, we willaddress practical solutions for organisations in the next phase of the research.

12

Edward Houghton
Acting Head of Research, CIPD

8

9
10

2

Introduction

Having a meaningful voice at work is a primary mechanism by which individuals influence
matters that affect them. It is a key aspect of the CIPD’s ‘people matter’ principle, whichholds that people are unique and worthy of care and investment, with the right to betreated as legitimate stakeholders in the work relationship.
Two potential purposes of voice are highlighted in the management literature. First, the‘organisational voice’ perspective focuses on the positive benefits that voice can bringto the organisation, such as higher innovation (Shipton et al 2017), a more engaged
workforce and lower absenteeism (Wilkinson et al 2004). Initiatives such as suggestion
schemes, for example, enable this type of voice by allowing organisations to benefit from
employees’ ideas.
A second purpose of voice flows from the so-called social justice perspective. According
to this view, voice is a fundamental individual right required for work to have meaning,allowing worker involvement in decision-making through deepening industrial democracy.

2

Foreword/Introduction

Talking about voice: employees’ experiences

1
2
3

4

5

This philosophy is exemplified within work arrangements such as worker co-operatives,
where formal governance structures often overtly elicit voice, allowing employees not only
to express concerns but also to exert influence in a more profound way, even shaping theorganisation’s aims and objectives (King and Land 2018).
In this report, we define voice as ‘the ability of employees to express their views, opinions,concerns and suggestions, and for these efforts to influence decisions at work’ (Dromey
2016, p4). This line of thinking treats voice as a fundamental democratic principle thatoffers genuine influence. Therefore, despite arguments that voice represents ‘constructive
challenge intended to improve rather than merely criticise’ (Van Dyne and LePine 1998,p109), we do not see voice as purely focused on organisational improvement. Whileconventional organisational models tend to view employee voice in this way, largely
neglecting a social justice imperative, we conceptualise voice in a more rounded manner.
Achieving a balance of perspectives that recognises individual as well as organisational
needs where voice is concerned creates shared value and drives more sustainableorganisational cultures (Baczor et al 2017).

6
7
8

9
10

11
12

Putting employee voice at the core of HR practice
Valuing people is a core element of the new Profession Map from the CIPD, which sets
out the international standards for the people profession. This emphasises the key roleof people professionals at all levels to put individuals at the centre of their approach, tobuild shared purpose and create a culture of enablement where individuals can thriveat work. Giving people a voice on matters that affect their working lives is central, andembodies our professional values of delivering a positive impact on people and theworld of work. See Table 1 for a brief explanation of the alternative perspectives of
employee voice.

Table 1: Alternative perspectives on the purpose of employee voice
Organisational voice

Individual voice

Description

The purpose of voice is to increase
performance through higher
engagement and innovation.

Voice is a fundamental human rightthat is required for work to havemeaning.

PurposeIndividuals share ideas andsuggestions to improve the way theorganisation is run.

Individuals articulate matters that areimportant to them.

Organisational example

Suggestion schemes.

Worker co-operatives.

The changing nature of work and importance of voice for job quality
A dominant focus in previous research on employee voice has been the institutionallevel factors and collective arrangements that give rise to voice, such as workplace
representation through trade unions or staff consultative groups. While important andvaluable, this perspective offers less space for reflection on why, when and how people
as individuals express their voice in the workplace. Hence, less is known about how
employees experience voice across levels of the organisational hierarchy, and what effectthe workplace setting has on individuals’ willingness or otherwise to deploy voice.
Broader societal considerations underpin analysis of how voice plays out in organisations.
Employee voice has been transformed by greater individualisation and union decline,

3

Introduction

Talking about voice: employees’ experiences

1
2
3

4

5
6
7
8

9
10

11
12

which has arguably reduced worker power (Dundon et al 2017). Key trends in the modern
world of work such as remote working, increasing workforce diversity and alternative work
arrangements are all creating new challenges, especially in terms of individuals’ ability to
influence their work conditions (Baczor et al 2017). The Taylor Review of Modern Working
Practices (2017) highlighted an imbalance of power in the employment relationship, andthe importance of effective worker voice for creating good work. The CIPD’s previous
research on the dimensions of job quality also confirmed that voice is a key mechanism bywhich people can influence their working conditions (Gifford 2018).

‘Good work’ and the role of voice
The growing agenda around creating good work or job quality is central to the CIPD’s
purpose of championing better work and working lives. Following the commissioning of
the 2017 Taylor Review, the UK Government is committed to understanding, measuring
and improving the quality of work and employment. To provide an evidence-based
understanding of what good work looks like, the CIPD defined the dimensions that affectjob quality (Wright et al 2018). Our UK Working Lives survey (Gifford 2018) showed that
opportunities to have a voice at work is one of the most significant ways that individuals
can influence their employment and ensure a good quality of working life.

Marginalised voices in the workplace can sometimes articulate their concerns outside
the organisation, potentially damaging organisational reputation. Technology can playa significant role in enabling this, with sites such as Glassdoor providing workers with aplatform to anonymously post comments about their employer. The wider public are all
too aware of the efforts by so-called ‘gig’ economy workers (especially within Uber and
Deliveroo) to take companies to tribunal over asserted violation of their rights. Furthermore,increased diversity in the workplace has raised questions about how to represent theperspectives and concerns of minority groups (Wilkinson et al 2018). Enabling voice iscentral to building fairness and transparency in organisations and wider society.

Voice is important not just for organisational effectiveness, butalso by way of offering dignity and respect to workers.
Purpose of this research
In this report, we investigate the forms of voice employees experience at work, and thevoice channels that are available to them. We also consider the issues that people mostfrequently raise in the workplace, and the barriers and enablers that influence their
willingness to do so. In this first step in an ongoing research programme, we explore how
individual voice is experienced in the workplace, in order to help create organisational
environments where people feel able to have a meaningful voice.
Drawing on a cross-sectoral survey of 2,372 UK employees, we distinguish between two
forms of voice, starting from the premise that voice is important not just for organisational
effectiveness, but also by way of offering dignity and respect to workers:• ‘Organisational voice’ represents employees’ efforts to help the organisation to performbetter (for example, through sharing ideas).
• ‘Individual voice’ refers to the scope for self-expression at work, reflecting whether
people feel recognised and valued as human beings.

4

Introduction

Talking about voice: employees’ experiences

1
2
3

4

5
6
7
8

9
10

11

We also explore ‘silence’ in the workplace, defined as an unwillingness to articulatematters of concern or interest, despite having something to say. The polar opposite
of voice, employee silence is important in gauging the extent to which bottom–up
communication is encouraged or even permitted in an organisational setting. This has
become a pertinent issue in the context of the #MeToo debate and the Government’s
review of the use of non-disclosure agreements. Previous CIPD research argued
that social media can to an extent circumvent employee silence by allowing lateralcommunication across hierarchies, as well as opening conversations to multiple
stakeholders (Silverman et al 2013).
In the next sections of the report, we explore the following questions:
1 How does the employee experience of voice influence broader feelings of satisfaction
at work?
2 What are the main channels for voice in organisations, and what issues are commonlyraised by employees?
3 Are ‘individual voice’ and ‘organisational voice’ experienced differently acrossworkplace settings and workforce groups?
4 What are the potential contextual barriers and enablers of voice?
We ask these questions with the purpose of mapping out the key concepts and themesthat people professionals should look to incorporate into their thinking and practice. This
report surfaces the barriers and enablers that will provide practitioners in HR, L&D and
OD with insights they need to effect positive change.

3

Voice and job satisfaction

Key findings• Employees working in small and private sector organisations are most satisfied with
their involvement in decision-making at work.
• Satisfaction with voice matters for overall employee satisfaction at work.

12
In this section, we investigate individuals’ satisfaction with voice, examining theirinvolvement in decision-making and the scope they have to articulate opinions to senior
management. We also explore the link between overall job satisfaction and employee
satisfaction with voice.
We find that employees in smaller organisations located in the private sector appear
to have more involvement in decision-making than those working in larger and public
sector organisations. Comparing this with previous research, the Work and Employment
Relations Survey (2011) also found that employees in smaller workplaces were more likely
than those in larger workplaces to feel involved in decision-making in their organisation.
One explanation for these findings is that smaller private sector organisations tend to
be less hierarchical, thereby offering more space and opportunity for employees at alllevels to express their voice. Larger public sector organisations, on the other hand, may
be perceived to be more bureaucratic and therefore less open to this direct form ofvoice, which could explain the low levels of satisfaction with involvement indicated byrespondents working in this sector.

5

Voice and job satisfaction

Talking about voice: employees’ experiences

Figure 1: Overall satisfaction with voice (%)
Very satisfied

14

Satisfied

36

Neithersatisfiedsatisfaction with voice (%)
Figure1: Overall

24

nor dissatisfied

1
2

4

5
6
7
8

9
10

6

Very dissatisfied
Satisfied
Neithersatisfied
Not applicablenor dissatisfied
Don’t know
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied

3

14
14

DissatisfiedVerysatisfied

36

4

24

1

14

0

5

6

Base: n=2,372

Not applicable

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

4

Don’t know

10

5

Base: n=2,372

Figure 2: Satisfaction with voice, by sector (%)
19

Very satisfied

7
16

Figure 2: Satisfaction with voice, by sector (%)

39

Satisfied

35
36

19

Very satisfied
Neither satisfied
nor dissatisfied

7

14

16

28
24

Satisfied

39
35
36

22

Dissatisfied

19
1314

Neither satisfied
nor dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied

28

4

24

8
6

Dissatisfied

22
19

1

Not applicable

Net: Voluntary

132

Net: Public sector

4
4

11

Very dissatisfied

12

Not applicableDon’t know

Net: Private sector

8

1
1
11

6

Net: Voluntary
2

0

45

10

15

20

25

30

Base: private: n=1,848; public:
1 n=394; voluntary: n=130

Don’t know

Net: Public sector
35
40
45
Net: Private sector

11Figure 3: Satisfaction with voice, by organisation size (%)
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Base: private: n=1,848; public: n=394; voluntary:
n=130
8Very satisfied

21
32

Satisfied

40

Neither satisfied
nor dissatisfied

28
21
19

Dissatisfied

10
8

Very dissatisfied

5

Don’t know

2–249

3
1
0

0

6

250+

4

Not applicable

5

10

15

20

25

30

Base: 250+: n=1,215; 2–249: n=1,157

Voice and job satisfaction

35

40

45

Talking about voice: employees’ experiences1
2

Our data shows that employees’ satisfaction with involvement in decision-making issignificantly and positively related to their overall job satisfaction,1 suggesting that voice
is an important component for employee well-being in the workplace. An alternative
explanation is that those reporting strong voice feel more content with their work as aresult (Klaas et al 2012). Comparing this with previous research, the Skills and Employment
Survey (2017) similarly found a strong positive link between participation at work and both
employee well-being and motivation.

3

4

5
6

Voice is an important component for employee well-being in
the workplace.
There are several reasons why voice and job satisfaction are strongly linked. First,
employees who are satisfied at work may find that their positive emotion opens cognitive
channels and facilitates their capacity to express voice (Fredrickson 2004). Second,
employees exert agency by expressing their views, helping them to craft jobs in ways thatspeak to their own interests and expertise, in turn raising job satisfaction. Expressing voice
may also foster an individual’s self-efficacy, or confidence, as they communicate mattersthat are important for them and feel happier in the workplace as a result.

7

Implications for HR practice
People professionals should create mechanisms for all staff to be involved inorganisational decision-making at an appropriate level and to influence matters that
affect them at work. This can positively influence their attitude and sense of fulfilment
at work, which in turn can boost efforts to achieve organisational goals and reduce
intentions to quit.

8

9
10

4

11

Voice channels

Key findings• One-to-one meetings with a line manager are the most common voice channel
experienced by employees.
• Four in ten (38%) report that their working conditions are not negotiated at all.
• Just under a fifth of employees report using trade unions as a channel for voice.

12

A number of voice channels can be found in organisations, some of which offer
a means of communicating shared concerns (through trade unions or employee
representative groups) and others which allow individuals the space to be heard.
Voice also occurs informally through everyday interactions between employees andline managers, in meetings, in corridors, through emails, telephone conversations andso on. It is inherent in the exchange of knowledge, based on openness on the part ofmanagement and employees to discussion within or outside of immediate task-related
requirements. Voice might be exhibited through formal channels such as suggestion
schemes, opportunities to participate in decision-making, and ‘open door’ policies.
Overall, the data support the interpretation that informal channels of communication,and particularly discussions with the line manager, offer the most important channel
17rs=0.582** (p<0.01)

Voice channels

Base: 250+: n=1,215; 2–249: n=1,157

Talking about voice: employees’ experiences1
2

for voice (see Figure 4). Our finding that only 17% of the sample mention the tradeunion as a channel for voice corresponds with a national picture of overall decline intrade union membership (Dundon et al 2017). Comparing this with other data sources,the 2016 Labour Force Survey indicated that 24% of UK employees were members of a
trade union (BEIS 2017).
Figure 4: Forms of voice experienced in the workplace (%)

3

One-to-one meetings with yourline manager/who you work with62

Team meetings

449

Employee survey

5All-department or allorganisation meetings

7
8

11
12

77

17

83

12

88

11

89

4

96

Other 2
None of the above

9
10

63

23

Employee or worker focus groups
Online forum or chat room for
employees (for example an enterprisesocial network, such as Yammer)
Non-union staff association or
consultation committee

51

37

Trade union

638

Not applicable

98
88

12
4

96
Yes

Base: n=2,372

No

The experience of voice
We next explored how people experience voice as it relates to their terms and conditionsof employment (pay, holidays, flexible work options, benefits and job parameters)(Figure 5). This is a crucial determinant of voice, since terms and conditions are socentral in the employment relationship. Our findings suggest that a significant proportionof employees have little, if any, control over their terms and conditions of employment.
Figure 5: How working terms and conditions are negotiated (%)
Not negotiated38

You individually

29

Alongside other colleagues
in a formal process

14

Alongside other colleagues

11

Don’t know

8
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Base: n=2,372

When
we consider voice by negotiation across different sectors (Figure 6), we find that
Figure 6: How working terms and conditions are negotiated (%)
employees within the private sector negotiate more on an individual basis than those in the
public and voluntary sectors.
49

8

Not negotiated

Voice channels
19

38
37

Alongside other colleagues
Don’tknow Talking about
8 voice:14employees’ experiences
in a formal
process
Alongside other colleagues 0

10 11

15

20

25

30

35

40

15

20

25

30

35

40

Figure 6: How working terms and conditions are negotiated (%)

38
37

Base: n=2,372

5

Don’t know

8
0

5

10

Figure 6: How working terms and conditions are negotiated (%)
Base: n=2,372

1

49

Not negotiated

19

2

You
Not individuallynegotiated7

3

Alongside other colleagues
You individually

7

4

10

know
Alongside otherDon’tcolleagues
in a formal process

6know
Net: Don’t
Voluntary

19

8
12

Alongside other colleagues
Alongsidecolleagues
in aotherformalprocess

5

38
12

7

15

9
8

34
15

10
8
9

0

49
38
34
37

38

9

7 10

20

9 sector
Net: Public

30

40

50

60

40

50

60

Net: Private sector

8

Base: private: n=1,848; public: n=394; voluntary: n=130

7
8

0

10

20

30

Voluntary
Net: Public sector
Private sector
It’s worthNet:
notingthat satisfaction
with voice Net:is higher
in private sector and smallerorganisations,that people
working in these contexts may prefer to have a direct
Base: private: n=1,848;indicating
public: n=394; voluntary:
n=130
FigureVoice,by negotiation
acrossterms
large andorganisations
role
in7:thenegotiationof theirandsmallconditions,or at(%)
least for their specific situation
to be taken into account.
42

Not negotiated9

Figure 7: Voice, by negotiation across large and small organisations (%)

10

Not negotiatedAlongside other colleagues

11
12

14

You individually

You individually
Alongside other colleagues
in a formal process
Alongside other colleagues
Don’t know
Alongside other colleagues
in a formal process

34

42

44

34

9
13
14

44

25
3

9
9

13

6

0

250+Don’t know

3

5

2–249

9

5

10

250+

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

6

Base: 250+: n=1,215; 2–249: n=1,157

0

25

10

2–249

Base: 250+: n=1,215; 2–249: n=1,157

As these results show, a significant proportion of employees feel relatively powerlessin expressing voice about important considerations relating to their treatment at work.
Indeed, as mentioned, 38% stated that their working conditions are not negotiated at all.
Implications for HR practice
People professionals should provide training for all managers on how to facilitate open
conversations during one-to-one meetings with their team members, since this is the main
way through which employees express their ideas and concerns. As collective channels
for voice are less commonly used, it’s important to consider how individuals can beempowered to have a say over their working conditions through alternative mechanisms.

9

Voice channels

Talking about voice: employees’ experiences

5

1
2
3

4

5
6
7
8

9
10

11
12

Issues raised by employees

Key findings• Work pressure is the most common issue experienced by employees (43%), followed byconsiderable organisational change (29%) and redundancy/job security concerns (21%).
• Over a fifth (22%) of those who have raised an issue at work felt that they received
no advice or support.

Employees may wish to speak up about issues that are important to them beyond theformal ‘system’, that is, through line or senior management (Baczor et al 2017). For example,
people may share concerns or express their emotional states ‘around the water cooler’,in ways which are not supported by an organisational voice system and may be seen as
counterproductive. The failure to hear these voices has the potential to negatively impact
organisational performance and/or reputation (as shown recently by harassment scandals
in several organisations), as well as employee well-being and motivation at work (Klaas et al2012). Understanding issues that employees want to raise helps organisations to encourage
their articulation before they become damaging. In this section, we turn a spotlight on theissues that people experience in the workplace and their perceived ability to raise them.
We found that two-fifths of respondents have experienced work pressures, including
unmanageable workloads and/or long hours, while just under a third have been affectedby considerable organisational change (Figure 8). The CIPD’s UK Working Lives survey(Gifford 2018) similarly found that many people feel under pressure at work, with 30%
reporting unmanageable workloads. This highlights an important issue that should
be addressed by employers, for example through better job design or more effective
delegation strategies.
Figure 8: Work issues experienced in the last two years (%)
Work pressure, for example
unmanageable workload, long hours

43
29

Considerable organisational change

71

Redundancy/job insecurity concerns

21

79

Personal conflict or dispute at work,for example with a colleague or manager

1081

Bullying

892

Discrimination or prejudice595

Other work issue 3

97

Sexual harassment 2

98

I have not experienced any of thesework issues

35

Yes

Base: n=2,372

10

57

65

No

We found that only a small proportion deal with these workplace issues through involving
a selected representative, a member of HR or a colleague (Figure 9). Nearly a third of the
Figure9: have
Who work
issueshave beenraisedwithline(%) manager, but over half have not raised it withsampletaken
an issueup withtheir
any of these parties.
Manager Issues raised
31
69
by employees
Colleague

1981

I have not experienced any of these
Personal conflict or dispute at work,
work issues
for example with a colleague or manager

35

10

81

65

Talking about voice: employees’ experiences

Base: n=2,372

Bullying

Discrimination or prejudice

8Yes

92

No

5

95

Other work issue 3

97

Figure 9: Who work issues have been raised with (%)
Sexual harassment 2

1
2
3

4

I have not experienced any of theseManagerwork
issuesBase: n=2,372

3135

Colleague

19
Yes

6
7
8

9
10

11
12

81

No
94

Representative 2

98

Figure 9: Who work issues
been raised with (%)
Nonehaveof these
Base: n=2,372

Manager

Yes

31

40

60
69

No
81

19

We know that employees may
not to express their voice.
6
94Our survey found thatHR choose
there are many reasons why this is the case, including a perception that ‘no one in the
Figure 10: Reasons for not reporting issues (%)
98
organisation wouldRepresentative
want to help2 me’ (14%). This finding is concerning,
given that employees
may
at
times
need
to
share
mattersthatareimportant
for
them,
and
to
feel thatissues they
It is a personal issue and None
nothing
to doof these
45 60
55 40
with
work
raise are acted on. This is particularly relevant in the context of whistleblowing. That most
I would be concerneda private matter
employees
feel unwillingto express their
voice in the organisation has
19
81 implications not only
could become public knowledge
Yes
No
Base: n=2,372
for employee well-being and burnout, but also for the longer-term sustainability of the81
19
be embarrassed
organisation,I would
includingexternal reputation.
It would negatively impact on my status
or career progression at work

84

16

No onemy workplacewant issues (%)
Figure10: atReasons
for notwould
reporting14
to help me
There is no one at work I can raise
It is a personal issue andnothing
dotheseissuestowith
with work
Myconcernedmanager isa notsupportive
I would be
privatemattercould become public knowledge
Senior leaders in the business aresupportive
I would benot
embarrassed

There is a stigma about talking
It would negatively impact
on my
about
thestatus
issue
or career progression at work
My manager or senior manager is the
No one at my workplace
would
want
cause of the
problemto help me
There isno one
attoo
work
I can
Peoplearebusy
to raise
help
these issues with
Other work issue
My manager is not supportive
There isSeniorno unionor staffforum
or council
leaders
in thebusinessarenot supportive

11

91

19

9

89
89

19

9

91

16

81
84

11

94
89

11

94
89

9

94
91

7
6

9

87
91

13

9Yes

No

91

7

94

Other work issue

6

94

There is no union or staff forum or council

694

Base: n=2,372

81

91
86

People are too busy to help

Don’t know

55

14

9

6

86
45

11

Don’ttalking
know
There is a stigma about
about the issue
My manager or senior manager is thecause of the problem
Base: n=2,372

11

6965

6

HR

Colleague

5

98

87

13

Yes

No

Issues raised by employees

Talking about voice: employees’ experiences1
2

People are often driven to express voice in order to seek support or raise an issue that
requires attention. We found that over a fifth of those who have raised an issue felt that theyreceived no advice or support (Figure 11). This is an important finding which suggests that
more needs to be done to listen to and address employees’ issues as they are communicated.
Figure 11: Usefulness of support when issue was raised (%)
Very useful3

Fairly useful

6
7
8

9
10

11
12

25

Slightly useful

4

5

15

19

Not at all useful17

Not applicable – I was not given
any advice or support

22
3

Don’t know

0

Base: n=2,372

5

10

15

20

25

30

Whether voice deals with questions that matter (for those expressing voice) depends on
power dynamics within the employment relationship (Dundon et al 2017). Voice depth,that is, whether employees have the opportunity to express voice about factors that are
Figure 12: Sample items from the individual and organisational voice variables
important to them, is often limited despite formal mechanisms to support voice being inplace. Although voice can be viewed as on a spectrum of enabling employees to yieldsignificant influence over questions that matter for them, overall our research suggests that
Individual
voice
Organisationalvoice
few organisations
are yetin this space. Many voice channels
are quite superficial
in terms•
Itisuselessformetosuggest
new
ways
•
I
challengemylinemanager
to deal withof the scope for change that they present.
of doing things here.
problems at work.
• I can freely express my thoughts with those• In my immediate work group, I develop
I work closely with.
and make recommendations concerning
issues that affect this work group.
Implications
forclosely
HR practice• Nobody I workwith will pick on meeven
if I haveeconomic
different opinions.
• Incrucial
my placethatof work,
I develop
make
In thecurrent
climate of uncertainty, it’speoplefeelandable
to raiserecommendations concerning issues thatissues and concerns at work. Problems left unaddressedharm
affect thiscan
workgroup.individual well-being

and organisational performance. HR can provide an employee assistance programme
to offer independent advice on a range of work and personal issues. When an issue israised in the organisation by an individual, it’s important that it is acted on so that they
feel supported and confident to speak up in the future.
Figure 13: Organisational voice, by sector (%)

6 	Employees’ experiences
27
of% rating ‘high’20

different types of voice
26

64
55

% rating ‘medium’48
Key findings
9feel able to freely express themselves at work, and this• Only a quarter of employees% rating ‘low’
26
is particularly low in the public sector.
26• One quarter report that they often choose not to speak up at work, even though they
10
30
40
50
60
70
have something 0they’d liketo say. 20
Voluntary
Net:report
Public sector
sector their voice to create andover
a fifth (22%)
high levelsNet:of Private
expressing• JustNet:
implement
newideas.
Base: private:n=886; public:
n=230;
voluntary: n=70

12

Employees’ experiences of different types of voiceTalking about voice: employees’ experiences

Figure11: Usefulnessof support
when issue
wasareraised(%)
As describedin theintroduction,
there
two
broad perspectives about the purpose of

1
2
3

4

5
6
7
8

9

employee voice: one which regards voice as a tool for the development of the organisation,
Very useful
15
encouraging employees
to share ideas that benefit
organisational effectivenessuseful and the second views voice as a necessary(‘organisationalFairly
voice’);
tool for justice, which25
captures individuals’
willingness
orotherwisetoexpress
themselvesin the workplace,
Slightly useful19
feeling that their voice is heard (‘individual voice’).
Not at all useful

17

ThroughfactorNot applicable– I wasanalysis
not given (see Appendix 1) we were able to confirm these two distinct
22
anyadviceorsupportforms of voice. The
measure of ‘individual’ voice is made up of self-expression (that is,
3 feelings regarding your job) and voice efficacy (that is, theDon’t know
the ability to express
your true
beliefthat speaking up will
makea difference).
Theof ‘organisational’ voice, by
0
5
10
15
20 measure
25
30
Base: n=2,372
contrast, reflects an individual’s capacity to use voice for the purpose of improving theway things are done, through communication to the line manager or other team members(see Figure 12).
Figure 12: Sample items from the individual and organisational voice variables

Individual voice

Organisational voice• It is useless for me to suggest new waysof doing things here.
• I can freely express my thoughts with those
I work closely with.
• Nobody I work closely with will pick on meeven if I have different opinions.

• I challenge my line manager to deal withproblems at work.
• In my immediate work group, I develop
and make recommendations concerning
issues that affect this work group.
• In my place of work, I develop and makerecommendations concerning issues that
affect this work group.

10

11
12

Innovative behaviour represents a form of (organisational) voice, although one that is often
Figure 13: Organisational voice, by sector (%)
consideredseparately from other voice forms. We include this in order to compare andcontrast voice forms.
% rating ‘high’27

20

Finally, we also consider the absence of voice: 26
employee silence. Although harder todecipher than other voice forms, silence can convey important signals to managers and64
others %about
how employees feel about work and whether they have agency
55 over the work
rating ‘medium’48
environment.
9
Organisationalvoice% rating ‘low’
26
26
The data reveal that 25% of the whole sample haveweak organisational voice, that is, theyrarely or never have thechanceto express
voice 30
in order toenhance50some aspectof the
0
10
20
40
60
70
organisation’s functioning (see Figure A8 in Appendix 2). However, a similar number of
Net: Voluntary
Net: Public sector
Net: Private sector
respondents report strong organisational voice, and this is even more the case for those
Base: private:in
n=886;
public: n=230;
voluntary:n=70private sector organisations compared with employees
working
smallervoluntary
andin larger and public sector firms (see Appendix 2 for full figures of voice forms by sector
and organisational size). This reflects our earlier finding that employees within small andprivate sector organisations are more satisfied with their involvement in decision-making,compared with those who work in larger and public sector firms. This can suggest that
there are greater opportunities to express views in order to enhance the functioning of theorganisation in these environments.

13

Employees’ experiences of different types of voicerecommendations concerning issues that
affect this work group.

Talking about voice: employees’ experiences

Figure 13: Organisational voice, by sector (%)

1% rating ‘high’2% rating ‘medium’

3

4

5

27
20
26
64
55
48
9

% rating ‘low’

26
26

0
Net: Voluntary

10

20

Net: Public sector

30

40

50

60

70

Net: Private sector

Base: private: n=886; public: n=230; voluntary: n=70

Figure 14: Organisational voice, by organisational size (%)

6
7
8

9
10

11
12

27

% rating ‘high’

23
47
52

% rating ‘medium’
26
25% rating ‘low’

0
2–249

10

20

30

40

50

60

250+

Figure 14: Organisational voice, by organisational size (%)
Base: 250+: n=720; 2–249: n=466

27% rating‘high’
23
Individualvoice
We find similar levels of individual voice among respondents, with47around a quarter
Figure 15:
Individual
voice, by sector (%)
52% rating‘medium’reportingstrongindividual
voice and a quarter showing low levels. However,differences
across organisational sectors and size are starker
26 for individual than organisational voice:27% rating‘low’voluntary and private sector
25 organisations report significantly stronger
respondents
within% rating ‘high’14
14
27 public sector (Figure 15). Especiallyindividual voice (28%0each) relative
to 12%
10
20 for the
30
40
50
60
notable istheproportionofpeoplefromthepublicsectorreportingweak
individual
46
2–249
250+
51
% ratingEmployees‘medium’voice(35%).
in smaller organisations are much more inclined
to report strong
Base: 250+:
n=720; 2–249: n=466
50
individual voice than larger ones, possibly again because, being less hierarchical, work27
relationships
allow
for a more frank and open exchange(Figure 16).
% rating
‘low’
35
23

Figure 15: Individual voice,
0 by sector10(%)
Net: Voluntary

20

Net: Public sector% rating‘high’
Base: private: n=911;
public:n=181; voluntary: n=70
14

30

40

50

60

Net: Private sector
27

14
27
46
51
50

% rating ‘medium’

Figure 16: Individual voice, by organisational size (%)
27% rating ‘low’% rating ‘high’

180Voluntary% Net:
rating‘medium’

10

20

Net: Public sector

35

30

40

Net: Private sector

Base: private: n=911; public: n=181; voluntary: n=70

14

32

23

46

50

60
53

22

% rating ‘low’

29

Employees’ experiences of different types of voice
0

10

20

Figure 16: 2–249
Individual voice, by 250+
organisational size (%)

30

40

50

60

0
Net: Voluntary

10

20

30

40

50

60

Talking
voice: employees’
Net:aboutPublic sector
Net: Privateexperiences
sectorBase: private: n=911; public: n=181; voluntary: n=70

Figure 16: Individual voice, by organisational size (%)

1
2
3

4

5
6
7
8

9
10

11
12

32

% rating ‘high’

18
46
53

% rating ‘medium’22% rating ‘low’

29

0
2–249

10

20

30

40

50

60

250+

Base: 250+: n=587; 2–249: n=575

While just over 30% of the sample report high innovative behaviour, a sizeable minority
Figure 17: Organisational voice, by seniority level (%)
reporttheir innovative behaviours to be low (22%).
These findings suggest that for many employees, organisations offer51limited scope for% rating ‘high’14
33
sharing matters that the individuals
within them regard
to be important. It could be that16
as a result issues remain buried, to the detriment of employee well-being. This omission
40
could also
impede the effective functioning or even the reputation of the
53 organisation,% rating ‘medium’
51
since unaddressed issues can sometimes spill over into performance, or cause individuals
to post negative reviews online
9 (for example, on Glassdoor). The voluntary sector, often%
rating‘low’
14being more values-oriented than public
or privately funded institutions, appears to34
connect better with people’s need for individual voice, but the public sector clearly has
0 in this10respect.20
30
40
50
60
some progress to makeBoardlevel employees,
Senior or otherlevel
No management
responsibilityFor
many
organisations
offer limited
scope forsharing
matters
theresponsibility:
individuals
within them regard to
Base: board
level: n=45; senior:
n=573; nothat
management
n=319
be important.

Added to this, employees within the private and voluntary sectors rate themselves as
higher in terms of their innovative behaviours, that is, devising and implementing new
ideas, than those in the public sector. A higher percentage of employees within smallerorganisations report themselves to be highly innovative (36% versus 27%). Thesefindings suggest that public sector and larger private sector organisations may present
barriers for employees seeking to enact new ideas. This is an important considerationfor HR specialists in particular, since without careful attention, policies devised toensure consistency and conformance may inadvertently have the effect of suppressing
individuals’ tendencies to make suggestions about improvements to existing practice.
The scores for ‘silence’ are normally distributed across the sample and suggestive ofthe disenchantment of a sizeable minority (see Appendix 2). One quarter (26%) of thesample as a whole report a high level of silence, that is, a regular reluctance to speak up
on matters of importance to them although they have something to say.
Employee silence represents the loss of a valuable resource. It is notable that a highdegree of silence is more prevalent within the voluntary and public sectors than it iswithin the private sector (30%, 28% and 20% respectively). It could be that speaking
up is perceived to be more risky in values-driven organisations like those within thevoluntary sector. Those within the public sector may fear that speaking up will entail
escalation, where individuals are required to submit formal documentation.

15

Employees’ experiences of different types of voiceTalking about voice: employees’ experiences

1
2
3

4

5
6
7
8

9
10

11
12

Implications for HR practice
People professionals should consider how organisational design and processes influence
employees’ ability to express their voice – both on matters that affect them personally,
and on those which could improve innovation and organisational effectiveness.
Practitioners should also explore the reasons why individuals may choose not to speak
up about issues that are important to them, and uncover ways in which they can behelped to do so by taking into account individual needs and motivations for voice.
Some voice mechanisms may exclude particular employee groups – such as part-timeor remote workers who may be unable to attend meetings.

7 	The impact of organisational

hierarchy on voice

Key findings• Both individual and organisational voice increase with seniority level.
• Perceived effectiveness of speaking out reduces once individuals start a job, and only
rises at mid-career level.
For all forms of voice, previous research suggests that egalitarian ways of operatingsuch as peer evaluations increase employee voice (Erez et al 2002). In contrast, a wide
literature shows that voice is stifled by hierarchy in that individuals are reluctant to convey
information, especially that which is negative to those who have a higher power status(Roberts and O’Reilly 1974). In the following section, we explore how the prominence ofvoice differs by position and level of experience in the organisation.
Our analysis found that the more senior an individual is in the organisational hierarchy,
the stronger a voice they have (Figures 17 and 18). Although this might be expected fororganisational voice, it is notable that senior managers also express their individual voice(that is, to raise issues that matter for them regardless of whether they have an organisational
improvement in mind) more than other categories of staff. By contrast, a substantial
percentage of those with no management responsibility report low levels of organisational
voice, with a slightly smaller percentage stating that their individual voice is weak.
We also found that tenure has an effect on voice, in the sense that people’s confidence toexpress voice fluctuates according to length of service (Figure 20). Individuals’ propensity
for organisational voice rises after the first six months in the organisation, corresponding
with growing familiarity with the role and organisational environment.
This trend aside, a similar pattern is at play for both forms of voice (see Figure 19). Bothindividual and organisational voice tail off at between six months and two years of service,remaining fairly constant up to around ten years of service. At this stage voice once again
dips on the graph, only recovering at around 15 years of service. This marks the point when
there is a significant increase in both forms of voice.

16

The impact of organisational hierarchy on voice

0

10

20

30

40

Talking
about voice: employees’ experiences
250+

2–249

50

60

Base: 250+: n=587; 2–249: n=575

Figure 17: Organisational voice, by seniority level (%)

1% rating ‘high’2% rating ‘medium’

51
14
16
40

3

53
51
9

% rating ‘low’

14
34

0

4
Board level

5
6

20

30

Senior or other level

40

50

60

No management responsibility

Figure 18: Individual voice, by seniority level (%)
Figure 18: Individual voice, by seniority level (%)% rating ‘high’% rating ‘high’

14
14

19
19

59
59

25
25
31
31

% rating ‘medium’% rating ‘medium’

8

10
10

% rating ‘low’% rating ‘low’

9

0
0

10

12

10

Base: board level: n=45; senior: n=573; no management responsibility: n=319

7

11

33

Board level
Board level

50
50 55
55

25
25
26
26

10
10

20
20

Senior or other level
Senior or other level

30
30

40
40

50
50

60
60

No management responsibility
No management responsibility

Base: board level: n=81; senior: n=490; no management responsibility: n=319
Base: board level: n=81; senior: n=490; no management responsibility: n=319

Figure 19: Organisational and individual voice, by employee tenure
Figure 19: Organisational and individual voice, by employee tenure
0.3
0.3

Voice
scores
Voicescores

0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0

0

–0.1

–0.1

–0.2

–0.2
–0.3

–0.3

6 monthsor less
6 monthsor lessMore thanMore than
6 months up a year up
More
than
More
than
to a yearto
2 years
6 months up a year up
to a year
to 2 years

Organisational voice

More than
2 years up
More
than
to
5 years
2 years up
to 5 years

Individual voice

More thanMore thanMore thanMore than
5 years up 10 years up 15 years up
20 years
than toMore
than to More
than
More thantoMore10 years
15 years
20 years
5 years up 10 years up 15 years up
20 years
to 10 years
to 15 years to 20 years

Organisational
voice individual voice:
Individual
Base: organisational
voice: n=1,186;
n=1,162 voice
Base: organisational voice: n=1,186; individual voice: n=1,162

17

Figure 20: Voice efficacy and length of service

The impact of organisational hierarchy on voice

Figure3.50 20: Voice efficacy and length of service

or less

6 months up
to a year

a year up
to 2 years

2 years up
to 5 years

5 years up
to 10 years

10 years up
to 15 years

15 years up
to 20 years

20 years

Talking about
voice: employees’ experiences
Individual voice

Organisational voice

Base: organisational voice: n=1,186; individual voice: n=1,162

Figure 20: Voice efficacy and length of service
3.50

1

3

4

5

3.30
Voice efficacy scores

2

3.40

3.20
3.10
3.00
2.90
2.80
2.70

6

2.60

7

Base: n=2,184

8

9
10

11
12

6 monthsor lessMore than
6 months up
to a year

More thana year up
to 2 years

More than
2 years up
to 5 years

More than
5 years up
to 10 years

More than
10 years up
to 15 years

More than
15 years up
to 20 years

More than
20 years

Understanding the changing expectations and expressions of voice
Interpreting these results raises the question of why employees do or do not speak up,
either for self-expression purposes or to raise some matter focused on the organisation.
It appears that new employees start with high expectations of voice, but as they become
familiar with the work environment, they may accept things as the norm and are lessmotivated to raise issues that initially seemed important.
Our findings highlight the concepts of voice efficacy and voice safety, and how they
influence the expression of voice. When making a judgement about speaking up, anindividual first assesses whether doing so is likely to be effective (that is, the perceived
efficacy of voice). They then assess risks or potential negative outcomes associated withvoicing, in other words, judging how safe it is to speak out. Where speaking out is viewed
as futile, the individual is less likely to do so, especially where they consider that the costsof voicing are not worth the trouble that would incur as a result (Morrison 2011). People
with longer service (15-plus years) may feel more safe expressing voice, while at the sametime exhibit stronger voice efficacy, because not only do they understand how to position
their ideas in order to increase the likelihood of success, but also because their knowledge
and experience makes them less vulnerable (that is, voice safety is high). As can be seen in
Figure 20, voice efficacy falls soon after starting a new role, only rising at mid-career stage,some 15 years into tenure. A challenge for organisations is how to build both perceived
efficacy and safety of voice at an earlier stage in an individual’s career.
Implications for HR practice
People professionals should consider how employees at an early career stage, and those
who have recently joined the organisation, can be encouraged to voice their thoughts. Even
more importantly, managers and HR professionals together need to ensure employees
continue to feel supported to express what’s on their mind throughout their employment.
Seeing that their suggestions or concerns will be acted on, or not judged negatively byothers in the organisation, can help individuals to feel safe in speaking out. A culture of
openness and support must be role-modelled at all levels to help voice to be surfaced.

18

The impact of organisational hierarchy on voiceTalking about voice: employees’ experiences

8

1

Key findings• Leadership makes a big difference in determining whether employees feel able toexpress themselves at work.
• Three in ten don’t feel comfortable about taking risks and sharing thoughts withothers in the organisation, which can have a negative impact on voice.
• An organisational climate of innovation and flexibility can foster higher levels of
employee voice.

2
3

4

5
6
7
8

9
10

11
12

Barriers and enablers of voice

In this final section we investigate the effect of contextual conditions on employee voice,reflecting on line manager leadership style, the extent to which individuals experience
psychological safety and the effect of organisational climate on employee voice. These areimportant concepts for HR functions looking to understand how they can shape work andthe workplace to enable voice more effectively.
Leadership and employee voice
By measuring the concepts of ethical leadership, trust in management and line manager
encouragement for voice, we have developed a scale based on three validated measures– ethical leadership, authenticity in leadership, and leader voice-oriented behaviours(for further details, see Appendix 1). Our analysis shows that this type of leadership is
important in understanding voice outcomes.
We found that leadership elicits higher levels of both forms of voice (Figure 21). Thissuggests that senior figures play an important role in diffusing tensions and enabling
employees to articulate concerns and issues (individual voice), as well as drawing out
ideas for enhancing practice (organisational voice). The quality of leadership is especially
important for individual voice, which is much less likely to occur where leadership as
defined above is weak.
HR and people professionals should therefore provide training for all managers to build
understanding of how their attitudes, behaviours and leadership style can influence
employees’ confidence to raise both personal and work-related issues. Ethical leadership,leadership that inspires trust and leader efforts to encourage voice are all important inenabling employee voice.
Figure 21: Leadership, organisational voice and individual voice
1.00

Voice scores

0.50
0.00
–0.50
–1.00
Organisational voice–1.50

Individual voice% rating ‘high’% rating ‘medium’% rating ‘low’

Leadership
Base: organisational voice: n=409; individual voice: n=536

19Barriers and enablers of voice

1.00

Figure 21: Leadership, organisational voice and individual voice

Talking about voice: employees’ experiences

1

Voice scores
Voice scores

0.50
1.00
0.00
0.50
–0.50
0.00

Although senior figures – particularly line managers – are important in encouraging
voice,–1.00research suggests that people also look at the wider organisational environment in–0.50
Organisational voiceassessing whether or not to express their views.
Individual voice

–1.50

2
3

–1.00
Psychologicaland% voice% ratingsafety‘high’
rating ‘medium’% rating ‘low’
voice
Psychological safety – that is, employees’
feelings
about taking risks Organisationaland sharing
thoughts
Leadership
Individual voice
–1.50
with
others invoice:then=409;
organisation
provides a bedrock for voice (Edmondson 1999).
Base: organisational
individual voice:–n=536% rating ‘high’% rating ‘medium’% rating ‘low’
Somewhat worryingly, we found that nearly three in ten (28%) employees report that their
Leadershipsense of psychological safety at work is low.
Base: organisational voice: n=409; individual voice: n=536

4

Figure 22: Psychological safety (%)

5

Figure 22: Psychological safety (%)

6
7
8

9

45

% rating ‘high’% rating‘medium’% rating‘high’

27% rating‘low’% rating‘medium’2728

Base: n=1,006

0

10

20

30

45

40

50

28

% rating ‘low’

0 found that10
20
40 influenced50
Our
analysis also
individual
voice30is especiallyby the presence ofBase: n=1,006
psychological safety, although organisational voice too is stronger where psychologicalFigure 23:
safetyis Psychologicalhigh (Figuresafety23). and organisational/individual voice
1.00

Figure 23: Psychological safety and organisational/individual voice

1012

Voice scores
Voice scores

11

0.50
1.00
0.00
0.50
–0.50
0.00
–1.00
–0.50
–1.50
–1.00
–2.00
–1.50

% rating high’% rating ‘medium’% rating ‘low’

Psychological safety–2.00

Organisational% ratingvoicehigh’

Individual
voice% rating‘medium’% rating ‘low’

PsychologicalsafetyBase: organisational voice: n=552; individual voice:
n=585
Organisational voice

Individual voice

Base: organisational voice: n=552; individual voice: n=585

It’s clear that although a low level of psychological safety negatively impacts both formsof voice, it has a particularly strong impact on employees’ capacity to express individual
voice. This suggests people’s propensity to articulate matters of concern to them,and belief that there is interest in their well-being, is seriously undermined where thework environment is perceived to be unsafe to speak up. These results speak to a wide
literature investigating the threat that employees often feel when coming up with new

20

Barriers and enablers of voiceTalking about voice: employees’ experiences

1
2
3

4

5
6
7
8

9
10

ideas, especially when their suggestions challenge long-established ways of operating
and the opinions of others (Shipton et al 2017). Unless they feel secure in that they will
be rewarded and encouraged for speaking up, rather than penalised, employees are more
likely to remain silent – even where their ideas offer important potential benefits for theorganisation. This represents a loss of valuable insight that could benefit the organisation.
The impact of organisational climate on voice
It’s well established that employee creativity and innovation are expressed in anenvironment that offers overt support, and is flexible enough to take on board new waysof thinking and operating (Shipton et al 2017). Our analysis reveals that this is also thecase where employee voice is concerned.
The data shows that while just over 20% of the sample report their organisation’s climate
to be strong in terms of innovation and flexibility, nearly 30% of respondents perceive
the climate to be weak in this respect (see Figure A11 in Appendix 2). This is clearly asignificant barrier for organisations seeking to be more innovative. In addition, our data
illustrates that employee voice can be adversely impacted by employees’ perceptionsof the organisational environment (Figure 24). Those reporting a climate that is high oninnovation and flexibility report stronger organisational voice and also much stronger
individual voice. Again, low scores in this respect impact negatively on both outcomes,
but especially on individual voice.
These findings highlight the need for employers to develop an open and supportive
organisational environment, where individuals feel empowered and motivated to take risks.
This could include communicating a clear message that innovation is important and valued,
and offering reward and recognition for employees who devise and apply new insights.
Figure 24: Organisational climate of innovation and flexibility, and organisational/individual voice
0.80
0.60

11

0.40

12

Voice scores

0.20
0.00
–0.20
–0.40
–0.60
–0.80
–1.00

Organisational voice

–1.20
–1.40

Individual voice% rating ‘high’% rating ‘medium’% rating ‘low’

Innovation and flexibility
Base: organisational voice: n=1,038; individual voice: n=974

Implications for HR practice

FigureA1: Satisfaction
seniormanagement
To help
employeeswith
feelvoicesafe toand
confident
about (%)
saying how they feel, leaders and line

managers need to understand the value of employee voice and demonstrate empathic
16
Very satisfied should develop an organisational
listening. People professionals
environment which
supports and rewardsSatisfied
idea-sharing and open discussion.
33

21

Neither satisfied
nor dissatisfied

20

Dissatisfied Barriers and enablers of
15 voice
Very dissatisfied

11

Talking about voice: employees’ experiences

9

1
2
3

4

5
6
7
8

9
10

11
12

Conclusion

In this report, we confirm that satisfaction with voice underpins overall job satisfaction,
which, in turn, provides a solid foundation not only for new ideas to emerge ‘from thebottom–up’, but also for individuals to articulate matters that are important for them.
We explore how two different forms of voice are experienced in the workplace(organisational voice and individual voice), and how each form of voice is differentially
impacted by organisational factors. Our data also illustrates the importance of informal
mechanisms and the people management relationship for enabling employee voice.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, it is one-to-one conversations with line managers that are the main
voice channel for employees. Leadership and psychological safety are key factors that help
individuals speak up, particularly for the purpose of self-expression.
However, overall, this research suggests that there are considerable gaps in organisations’current abilities to enable employee voice, both on matters that are important to
individuals, and those which enhance the functioning of the organisation. Our results
suggest that a significant proportion of employees feel unable to share matters that they
feel are important. This may be detrimental not only to their well-being, but also damaging
where organisational learning, resilience and innovation are concerned. Furthermore, many
individuals have no influence over their working conditions, which may reflect an overall
decline in collective representation.
These findings are important in the context of creating good work and quality jobs,
because they point towards factors that can empower or disempower people in shaping
their working lives. Our survey has provided a snapshot of how employees experience
voice and has raised a number of questions about how organisations can develop bettermechanisms. In the next phase of the research, we will explore potential solutions tothese questions through a deeper study of organisational practices and HR systems that
influence voice, and what good voice practice looks like in different contexts.

10 	Implications for the people

profession

Our findings highlight a number of key takeaways for HR, L&D and OD professionals:• We provide evidence that employee involvement in decision-making influences job
satisfaction. We have shown that mechanisms that create opportunities for individuals
at all levels in the organisation to have some agency in decision-making (for example, by
having input to meetings and shaping decisions that impact their work) can positively
impact their overall attitude to work. People professionals should look to improve theextent to which employees are engaged in decision-making, and design mechanisms
and systems that facilitate involvement at all levels.
• We further illustrate the critical role of line managers in enabling voice: one-to-one
meetings are a primary channel for voice, and leadership fosters voice. Good line
management relations are also key to developing psychological safety, an important
prerequisite for voice. This points to the need for all line managers to be trained tounderstand the value of employee voice, encourage individuals to voice issues that areimportant to them, particularly during one-to-ones, and demonstrate ethical leadership.
Given the importance of line management, improving this capacity and developing strong
relationships between managers and their reports is a key role for people professionals.

22

Conclusion/Implications for the people profession

Talking about voice: employees’ experiences

1
2
3

4

5
6
7
8

9
10

11
12

• An important finding is that while many people feel under pressure at work, they often
don’t raise the issue, and many of those who have spoken up didn’t feel supported.
The survey also highlights that many organisations provide limited opportunity for
individuals to speak up on matters that are important to them, and nearly three in ten
employees report low psychological safety at work. People professionals therefore needto create safe environments for people to speak out, which can positively impact wellbeing and organisational effectiveness.
• We find that building an organisational climate of flexibility and innovation enables
voice. However, our data shows a quarter of employees do not often suggest
improvements to the way things are done in the organisation, or share innovativeideas. This points to the need for employers to create environments where people feelempowered to suggest new ways of working.

11

References

BACZOR, L., ZHELTOUKHOVA, K. and YARLAGADDA, R. (2017) Have your say: alternative
forms of workplace voice. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
Available at: www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/work/future-voice/alternative-workplace-voice[Accessed 29 January 2019].
BEIS. (2017) Trade union statistics 2016. Statistical Bulletin. London: Department for
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/statistics/
trade-union-statistics-2016 [Accessed 29 January 2019].
DROMEY J. (2016) Going digital? Harnessing social media for employee voice. Available at:https://www.ipa-involve.com/harnessing-social-media-for-employee-voice [Accessed 29
January 2019].
DUNDON, T., MARTINEZ LUCIO, M., HOWCROFT, D., HUGHES, E., KEIZER, A. and WALDEN,
R. (2017) Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee
influence. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Available at: www.
cipd.co.uk/knowledge/work/job-quality-value-creation/power-employee-influence[Accessed 29 January 2019].
EDMONDSON, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol 44, No 2. pp350–83.
EREZ, A., LEPINE, J.A. and ELMS, H. (2002) Effects of rotated leadership and peer
evaluation on the functioning and effectiveness of self-managed teams: a quasiexperiment. Personnel Psychology. Vol 55. pp929–48.
FREDRICKSON, B.L. (2004) The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. Vol 359. p1367.
GIFFORD, J. (2018) UK working lives. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel andDevelopment. Available at: www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/work/trends/uk-working-lives[Accessed 29 January 2019].
KING, D. and LAND, C. (2018). The democratic rejection of democracy: performative
failure and the limits of critical performativity in an organizational change project. Human
Relations. pp1535–57.

23

KLAAS, B.S., OLSON-BUCHANAN, J.B. and WARD, A.K. (2012) The determinants ofalternative forms of workplace voice: an integrative perspective. Journal of Management.
Vol 38. pp314–45.
References

Talking about voice: employees’ experiences

1
2
3

4

5
6
7

MORRISON, E.W. (2011) Employee voice behavior: integration and directions for future
research. The Academy of Management Annals. Vol 5. pp373–412.
ROBERTS, K.H. and O’REILLY, C.A. (1974) Measuring organizational communication. Journalof Applied Psychology. Vol 59. p321.
SHIPTON, H., SPARROW, P., BUDHWAR, P. and BROWN, A. (2017) HRM and innovation:
looking across levels. Human Resource Management Journal. Vol 27. pp246–63.
SILVERMAN, M., BAKHSHALIAN, E. and HILLMAN, L. (2013) Social media and employee
voice: the current landscape. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
Available at: www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/work/technology/employee-voice-report[Accessed 29 January 2019].
TAYLOR, M., MARSH, G., NICOL, D. and BROADBENT, P. (2017) Good work: the Taylor review
of modern working practices. London: Department for Business, Energy and Industrial
Strategy. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/good-work-the-taylor-reviewof-modern-working-practices [Accessed 29 January 2019].
VAN DYNE, L. and LEPINE, J.A. (1998) Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: evidence ofconstruct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal. Vol 41. pp108–19.

8

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 ofIndustrial Relations. Vol 46. pp298–322.

9

WILKINSON, A., GOLLAN, P.J., KALFA, S. and XU, Y. (2018) Voices unheard: employee voicein the new century. London: Taylor & Francis.

10

11
12

WRIGHT, S., WARHURST, C., LYONETTE, C. and SARKAR, S. (2018) Understanding andmeasuring job quality. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
Available at: www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/work/job-quality-value-creation/measuring-jobquality-report [Accessed 1 January 2019].

12 Appendix
Appendix 1: Factor analysis
Two primary factors were established from the four measures of voice, with the twoorganisational forms of voice loading heavily onto one factor, and self-expression and voice
efficacy loading heavily on another. Varimax rotation with Kaiser normalisation was used tosimplify the expression of these factors. The rotated factor loadings are displayed in Table A1.
Table A1: Factor analysis for individual and organisational voice
Component
1

2

Self-expression

0.861

Voice efficacy

0.891

Promotive voice manager

0.930

Promotive voice team

0.906

Note: Factor loadings < 0.2 are suppressed.

24

AppendixTalking about voice: employees’ experiences

1
2

The first component accounted for approximately 43% of the shared variance, while thesecond component accounted for approximately 40%. See Table A2 for examples of thequestions that were asked for each of the initial variables as well as silence.
Table A2: Example items for the original variables as well as silence
Individual voice

3

Voice efficacy

Nothing changes even if I speak up to managers.
Self-expression

Organisational voice

Manager

I give my line manager or those I work for suggestions about
how to make work better, even if others disagree.

5

I challenge my line manager to deal with problems at work.
Team

6

In my immediate work group, I develop and make recommendations
concerning issues that affect this work group.
In my place of work, I develop and make recommendations
concerning issues that affect this work group.

Silence

I chose to remain silent when I had concerns about my work.
I said nothing to others about problems I noticed where I work.

8

9
10

11
12

I can freely express my thoughts with those I work closely with.
Nobody who I work closely with will pick on me even if I
have different opinions.

47

It is useless for me to suggest new ways of doing things here.

Additionally, a principal component analysis was run on the variables that examined
leadership styles and attitudes. This analysis included the variables of ethical leadership,
trust in management, and manager attitudes. The same procedure that was used to
examine forms of voice was used to investigate the components that existed between
these measures. In contrast to the analysis of the voice measures, all leadership qualities
loaded highly onto one factor (as shown in Table A3).
Table A3: Factor analysis for leadership
Component
1
Ethical leadership

0.934

Trust in management

0.918Manager attitudes

0.883This component accounted for 83% of the variance of the three measures included. We feltthat this component best captured qualities of leadership of the managers, and thus thisfactor was labelled as ‘leadership’.
Example items for the leadership component can be seen in Table A4. Participants wererequested to indicate how strongly they felt about each of these statements, generally
ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree.

25

AppendixFigure 24: OrganisationalTalking
climate ofinnovation
andemployees’
flexibility, andorganisational/individual voice
about
voice:
experiences
0.80
0.60
0.40

Figure 24: Organisational climate of innovation and flexibility, and organisational/individual voice
0.20

1
2
3

4

5
6

Voice scores Voice scores

Table
A4: Example items for leadership
0.80
0.00
0.60
–0.20

Ethicalleadership
0.40
–0.40

Your line manager makes fair and balanced decisions.

0.20
–0.60

0.00
–0.80
Perceived
manager–0.20–1.00
solicitationof voice

9

My line manager asks me personally what skills I have that s/he may notknow about that might contribute to our performance here.

Organisational voice

–0.40
–1.20

My line manager is willing to learn from others.

–0.60
–1.40

Innovation and flexibility–1.00Line managers make employees feel valued.

Organisational voice

Base:–1.20
organisational voice: n=1,038; individual voice: n=974–1.40% rating ‘high’Individual voice% rating ‘medium’% rating ‘low’

For all three factors, the standardised regressed scores were saved and used as individual
Innovation and flexibility
variables throughout the proceeding
analysis.
Base:organisational
voice: n=1,038;
voice:
n=974management (%)
FigureA1: Satisfaction
withindividual
voice toseniorAppendix 2: Additional
Very satisfied figures and tables16
33

SatisfiedFigure A1: Satisfaction
withsatisfied
voice to senior management (%)
Neithernor dissatisfied

Satisfied
Very dissatisfied

33

11

satisfied
Not applicable – I Neither
do not havethenor dissatisfied
opportunity at all to express
my views

20

4Dissatisfied
Don’t
know

15

1

Very dissatisfied 0

Base: n=2,372

20

1516

Very
satisfied
Dissatisfied

5

Not applicable – I do not have theopportunity at all to express my views

10 11

15

20

25

30

35

10

15

20

25

30

35

4

Don’t know

110

Base: n=2,372

11

Figure A2: Employees’ experience of innovative behaviour (%)

12

Individual voice% rating ‘high’ I think my% rating‘medium’ is fair in his/her% ratingtreatment
‘low’
Trust
in management
line manager
of me.
–0.80

78Your line manager disciplines employees who violate ethical standards.

05% rating ‘high’% rating ‘medium’

Figure A2: Employees’ experience of innovative behaviour (%)% rating ‘low’% rating ‘high’Base: n=1,552

0

10

20

30

40

50

20

30

40

50

20

30

40

50

% rating ‘medium’% rating ‘low’

Figure A3: Innovative behaviour, by sectors (%)
0

10% rating ‘high’14

Base: n=1,552% rating ‘medium’% rating ‘low’

0
Net: Voluntary

10

Net: Public sector

Net: Private sector

Base: private: n=1,206; public: n=253; voluntary: n=93

26

Appendix
Figure A4: Employees’ experience of innovative behaviour, by organisational size (%)

60Base: private: n=1,206; public: n=253; voluntary: n=930

10 about voice:
20
30
40
50
Talking
employees’
experiences

Net: Voluntary

Net: Public sector

60

Net: Private sector

Figure A4: Employees’ experience of innovative behaviour, by organisational size (%)
Base: private: n=1,206; public: n=253; voluntary: n=93

% rating ‘high’14

Figure A4: Employees’ experience of innovative behaviour, by organisational size (%)

1% rating ‘medium’% rating ‘high’14% rating ‘low’

2
3

4% rating ‘medium’ 0
250+% rating ‘low’

10

20

30

40

50

60

10

20

30

40

50

60

2–249

Base: 250+: n=773; 2–249: n=779

0

2–249
Figure A5:250+
Employees’ experienceof silence (%)
Base: 250+: n=773; 2–249: n=779% rating ‘high’567% rating ‘medium’

Figure A5: Employees’ experience of silence (%)% rating ‘low’% rating ‘high’Base: n=1,862

9
10

11
12

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

20

30

40

% rating ‘low’
Base: n=1,862

80% rating ‘medium’

Figure A6: Silence, by sectors (%)% rating ‘high’14

Figure A6: Silence, by sectors (%)% rating ‘medium’% rating ‘high’14% rating ‘low’% rating ‘medium’010

Net: Voluntary% rating‘low’

Net: Public sector

50

60

50

60

50

60

Net: Private sector

Base: private: n=1,455; public: n=301; voluntary: n=106

0

10

20

Voluntary
Net: Public
Figure A7:Net:
Silence,by organisational
sizesector
(%)

30

40

Net: Private sector

Base: private: n=1,455; public: n=301; voluntary: n=106% rating ‘high’14% rating ‘medium’% rating ‘low’

0
250+

10

20

30

2–249

Base: 250+: n=967; 2–249: n=895

Figure A8: Employees’ experience of organisational voice (%)

27% rating ‘high’Appendix40

% rating ‘low’% rating ‘low’% rating ‘low’

0
0
0
250+
250+
250+

Talking about voice: employees’ experiences
10
10
10

20
20
20

30
30
30

40
40
40

50
50
50

60
60
60

2–249
2–249
2–249

Base: 250+: n=967; 2–249: n=895
Base: 250+: n=967; 2–249: n=895
Base: 250+: n=967; 2–249: n=895

Figure A8: Employees’ experience of organisational voice (%)
FigureFigure A8:
A8: Employees’
Employees’ experience
experience ofof organisationalorganisational voice
voice (%)(%)

1

% rating ‘high’% rating ‘high’% rating ‘high’2% rating ‘medium’% rating ‘medium’% rating ‘medium’3% rating ‘low’% rating ‘low’% rating ‘low’

4

Base: n=1,862
Base: n=1,862
Base: n=1,862

0
0
0

10
10
10

20
20
20

30
30
30

40
40
40

50
50
50

60
60
60

30
30
30

40
40
40

50
50
50

60
60
60

30
30
30

40
40
40

50
50
50

60
60
60

Figure A9: Employees’ experience of individual voice (%)
FigureFigure A9:
A9: Employees’
Employees’ experience
experience ofof individual
individual voice
voice (%)(%)

5

% rating ‘high’% rating ‘high’% rating ‘high’6% rating ‘medium’% rating ‘medium’% rating ‘medium’7% rating ‘low’% rating ‘low’% rating ‘low’

8

Base: n=1,162
Base: n=1,162
Base: n=1,162

9

0
0
0

10
10
10

20
20
20

Figure A10: Employees’ experience of leadership (%)
FigureFigure A10:
A10: Employees’
Employees’ experience
experience ofof leadershipleadership (%)(%)

10% rating ‘high’% rating ‘high’% rating ‘high’11% rating ‘medium’% rating ‘medium’% rating ‘medium’12% rating ‘low’% rating ‘low’% rating ‘low’
Base: n=1,122
Base: n=1,122
Base: n=1,122

0
0
0

10
10
10

20
20
20

Figure A11: Employees’ experience of an organisational climate of innovation and flexibility (%)% rating ‘high’% rating ‘medium’% rating ‘low’

Base: n=1,884

0

10

20

30

Figure 4: Voice efficacy and length of service

28

3.50
3.40

Appendix

40

50

60

Talking about voice: employees’ experiences

1
2
3

4

5
6
7
8

9
10

11
12

29

Appendix 3: Differences in organisational voice and individual voice acrossorganisational sizes and sectors
Of the survey respondents, 56% worked in the private sector for smaller organisations,while 44% worked for larger organisations. This relatively even distribution of organisation
sizes is contrasted with the public sector, where 86.6% worked for larger organisations andonly 13.2% worked for smaller organisations. The voluntary sector had a similar distribution
to the private sector, with 45.4% working for larger organisations and 54.6% working forsmaller organisations.
Because of the unbalanced distribution of organisational size between the private andpublic sectors, by controlling for organisational size and focusing solely on sectoral
differences, private sector employees had significantly higher individual voice scores thanprivate sector employees, but no statistically significant differences in organisational voice.
When looking solely at organisational size, however, statistically significant differences
existed in nine out of the thirteen outcome and antecedent variables measured in thesurvey. Some of these variables include individual voice, leadership, organisational
commitment, and innovation behaviours, with smaller organisations having higher
average scores. However, no statistically significant differences were found between
organisational size and organisational voice. These outcomes suggest that while sector
does play an important role in the ability of employees to have self-expression, the sizeof the organisation plays a much stronger role in determining the strength of many otheroutcomes. Importantly, neither organisational size nor sector lead to significant differencesin organisational voice of the employees.
Appendix 4: Methodology
This report is part of an ongoing project investigating workplace voice. Based on an
in-depth thematic literature review looking at various forms of voice, as well as key
barriers, enablers and contextual considerations, we developed an online survey of people
in the workforce across the UK economy.
The survey was carried out by YouGov between 9 August and 3 September 2018. In total,
there were 2,372 respondents to the online survey, and the sample was representative of
the UK workforce in terms of gender, full- or part-time work status, organisation size withineach sector, and industry. All respondents were drawn from the YouGov panel of over1 million people in the UK.

AppendixChartered Institute of Personnel and Development
151 The Broadway London SW19 1JQ United Kingdom
T +44 (0)20 8612 6200 F +44 (0)20 8612 6201
E cipd@cipd.co.uk W cipd.co.uk
Incorporated by Royal Charter
Registered as a charity in England and Wales (1079797)
Scotland (SC045154) and Ireland (20100827)
Issued: February 2019 Reference: 7844 © CIPD 2019