Answer & Explanation:1. Explore the major issues inherent within the performance
appraisal process that may lead to any type of discrimination within an
organization based on two (2) of the following: gender, disability, or denial
of employment opportunity. Support your response with two (2) relevant recent
cases, and explain the outcome of the case.
2. Examine workplace privacy as it relates to emails and
Internet communication. Suggest two (2) recommendations that an organization
should make to its employees geared toward protecting the privacy of the
organization when employees use emails and communicate via the Internet.
Justify your response.
3. Read the article “When Does voice lead to exit? It depends
on leadership”. Analyze the three (3) characteristics which demonstrate
readiness to lead change. Conclude which characteristics or behaviors tend to
increase employee turnover and / or demonstrate the manager’s inability to
properly lead change.
4. View the video titled “The Perils of Confusing Management
and Leadership”,
(5 min 20 s) below. You may also view the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz8AiOQEQmk.
Next, reflect on the differences between management and leadership, as
explained by Kotter. Compare and contrast management and leadership.
5. Examine the impact that the Work Innovation Network (WIN)
has had on the Knowledge Management (KM) initiative at Hewlett-Packard (HP).
Next, give your opinion on the influence of both initiatives on the evolution
of organizational learning. Support your response with at least two (2)
specific examples of the organizational learning at HP.
6. Outline a plan to teach employees the importance of
incorporating productive learning as an improvement in their department, job,
process, product, or service. Provide at least two (2) examples of productive
learning in your plan
when_does_voice_lead_to_exit.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
® Academy of Management Journal
2013. Vol. 56. No. 2. 525-548.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0041
WHEN DOES VOICE LEAD TO EXIT? IT DEPENDS ON
LEADERSHIP
ELIZABETH J. McCLEAN
Cornell University
ETHAN R. BURRIS
University of Texas-Austin
JAMES R. DETERT
Cornell University
We examine the unit-level relationship between employee voice and exit with multisource data collected over two time periods in 136 restaurants. We find that three
managerial characteristics that signal the ability and willingness to engage in change—
management team change orientation, manager participation in decision making, and
manager access to organizational resources—moderate the unit-level relationship between voice and exit: Employee voice is positively related to turnover when each of
these factors is low and negatively related to turnover when each is high. Implications
for research on voice, leadership, and turnover are discussed.
When employees experience problems or observe opportunities for improvement at work, do
they engage in improvement-oriented voice—that
is, speak up in ways that challenge the status quo to
someone with the perceived power to act (Detert &
Burris, 2007)? Or do they exit their organization in
response to these suboptimal situations? Questions
such as these about employee voice and exit have
been of interest to organizational scholars at least
since Hirschman (1970), in his exit-loyalty-voice
(ELV) framework, laid the groundwork for examination of these responses to dissatisfaction with
some aspect of an organization’s functioning or
product line. In the subsequent decades, scholars
have attempted to understand why employees
speak up or exit by treating these behaviors as
discrete, mutually exclusive choices that each individual employee makes because of his or her
dissatisfaction (Rusbult, Farrell, Rogers, & Mainous, 1988; Rusbuh, Zembrodt, & Gunn, 1982). Because voice can lead to examination of underlying
causes and cures of employee dissatisfaction, in
contrast to exit or silent loyalty, it is seemingly the
response most likely to contribute directly to organizational learning (Withey & Cooper, 1989). It is
therefore not surprising that scholars and practitioners alike have become increasingly focused on
understanding the antecedents and outcomes of
discretionary, improvement-oriented input by employees (Detert & Biu-ris, 2007; Morrison, 2011; Van
Dyne & LePine, 1998). Simultaneously, understanding of the dynamics underlying employee
ttirnover (i.e., exit) continues to develop on the
basis of several decades of focused theory and research (Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000; Lee &
Mitchell, 1994; Maertz & Griffeth, 2004).
As noted first by Barry (1974), by suggesting that
voice and exit are directly inversely related,
Hirschman may have misspecified the model by
combining into one what is actually two distinct
choices for employees: (1) choosing voice or silence
and, (2) choosing to stay or exit their organization.
Taking Barry’s arguments seriously would imply
that, in line with Hirschman’s arguments, employees may sometimes speak up and remain in their
organization irrespective of how much or how
quickly things change. Or, contrary to Hirschman’s
model, employees may speak up and subsequently
exit the organization because of what happens (or
fails to) in response to voice. Yet these possibilities
remain largely unexplored in organizational research (Btirris, Detert, & Chiabiu’u, 2008; Morrison,
2011), despite the costliness of turnover for organizations. Thus, we examine the relationship be,tween voice and exit to begin to understand the
conditions under which employee voice leads to
higher or lower rates of exit.
We further depart from prior research in the
Hirschman tradition, and some of the logic on
which it rests, by examining the relationship be525
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not he copied, emailed. posted to a listserv. or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express
written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
526
Academy of Management Journal
tween voice and exit at the unit, rather than individual, level. We do so for two reasons. First, the
very nature of voice as a prosocial behavior in the
organizational literature (Organ, Podsakoff, &
MacKenzie, 2006) suggests that the improvements
stemming from the input of any one employee
should have spillovers that affect a broader work
environment. That is, voice is a “discretionary expression of change-oriented comments” intended
to “to benefit others, such as the organization” (Van
Dyne, Ang, & Botero, 2003: 1370-1371; see Detert
and Burris [2007] and Morrison and Milliken
[2000] for similar definitions). To be prosocial, and
thus meet organizational scholars’ definition of
voice, an employee’s input about needed improvements does not primarily benefit just the one individual who spe^cs up, but instead has the possibility of bettering the situation for a broader set of
employees around the speaker (Grant & Mayer,
2009). Despite the fact that managers form ingroups and out-groups among their subordinates
(Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Liden, Sparrowe,
& Wayne, 1997) and primarily attend to suggestions
made bj’ only those in their in-group (Biu-ris, Rodgers, Mannix, Hendron, & Oldroyd, 2009), the
changes that do or do not occur in a unit as a result
of voice are not readily allocated only to favored
members. Organizational scholars have long recognized this collective aspect of voice in noting its
potential positive outcomes for a unit (versus only
individuals who spoke up); these outcomes include
learning (Edmondson, 2003), better error detection
(Argyris & Scbön, 1978), innovation (Nemeth,
1997), and change effectiveness (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Likewise, many or all of a unit’s employees—not just those who spoke up—should
continue to experience dissatisfaction and associated negative outcomes when voice is ignored or
disregarded. Thus, both the nature of employee
voice behavior through its focus on collective improvement, and decades of organizational theory
and research indicating that employee attitudes,
behaviors, and outcomes in a defined unit are socially influenced and interdependent (e.g., Ibarra &
Andrews, 1993; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978), suggest
the importance of moving beyond the implied assumption in Hirschman’s model that each employee’s satisfaction, voice, and relationship status with
an organization can be considered independently
and devoid of the larger social context.
Second, voice in itself does not automatically
make things better or worse for those who speak up
or anyone else. Instead, the potential value of voice
April
rests on what someone with the power to take
action—which usually means “management”—does
with the suggestions made. The next steps taken by
a manager can result in improvement for many in a
unit, in no meaningful change at all, or in a situation actually getting worse in employees’ minds.
When managers have the ability and motivation to
take action based on the prosocial suggestions of
their employees, voice should improve the morale
and decrease the rate of exit of employees in a unit
or an organization, including both those who spoke
up and the many others who did not. Likewise,
employees of all types should collectively feel that
employees, as a group, have some control over outcomes (Barry & Shapiro, 2000; Greenberg, 2000), be
more satisfied with outcomes (Shapiro, 1993), and
thus be more likely to remain with their organization because managers consider employees’ opinions and make subsequent changes. Even if changes
are not always made as a result of their own or
others’ input, employees should be more likely to
choose to stay and less likely to be fired in environments where management demonstrates a general responsiveness to employee input (Tyler, 1987).
But not all managers are able and motivated to
take action on the suggestions made by their employees. The level of responsiveness and subsequent action taken by management to address issues raised by employees varies (Detert & Burris,
2007), maldng the prospect of voice directly influencing employee turnover contingent rather than
certain. When managers are not able or motivated
to address prosocial, improvement-oriented issues
raised, the broader set of employees, in addition to
the speaker(s), continues to experience the conditions that prompted voice by some. This, in turn,
should lead more members of tbat unit to conclude
that it is futile to speak up (Detert & Trevino, 2010;
Morrison & Milliken, 2000), to lose faith that managers will make necessary improvements (Milliken,
Morrison, & Hewlin, 2003), and, thus, to leave the
firm. To regain a sense of perceived control and
equity, employees who feel impotent in the face of
nonresponsive, nonimproving conditions may begin to give less of themselves to their organization,
perform less well (Blader & Tyler, 2009), or even
engage in deviant behaviors (Skarlicki & Folger,
1997). As a result, managers may take steps to remove employees who passively or actively undermine the attainment of the goals of the managers’
units (Giàcalone & Greenberg, 1997; Litsky, Eddleston, & Kidder, 2006; PariUa, Hollinger, & Clark,
1988). Thus, voice may increase the level of subse-
2013
McGlean, Burris, and Detert
quent turnover in a unit if managers are not
responsive.
In this article we therefore examine the unit-level
relationship between voice and exit among groups
of employees who share a work environment and
argue that this relationship is contingent on managerial responsiveness to voice. More specifically,
we argue that the relationship between unit-level
voice and exit depends on three characteristics of
managerial responsiveness: whether the managers
who receive it (the targets of voice) have access to
organizational resources to implement change;
whether they are able to participate actively in
organizational decision making; and the change
orientation of the management team. These proposed moderators reflect whether management is
able and motivated to respond to employee suggestions for improvement in ways that affect subsequent turnover.
In what follows, we begin by explaining in detail
why the proposed unit-level relationship between
employee voice and employee turnover is contingent on the responsiveness of managers. Then, before testing the three proposed moderating hypotheses, we directly examine the premise that
employees in general, not just speakers or favored
employees, share improvements stemming from
managerial responsiveness to voice. We do so
through an analysis of 3,388 open-ended suggestions for change from employees of a national restaurant chain wherein coders considered whether
managerial responsiveness to a suggestion would ‘
benefit primarily the individual who provided the
input or, as argued here, multiple employees in the
same unit. Finally, we test our hypotheses using
multisource, longitudinal perceptual and objective
data from 5,200 employees, 372 managers, and 136
general managers in the same organization.
Our work makes three primary contributions.
First, we demonstrate the clear value of attending
theoretically and empirically to the inherently
prosocial, collective nature of voice and its outcomes in work settings. We extend Hirschman’s
(1972) framework by focusing on the social context
in which employee voice takes place, arguing that
the benefits of successfully addressing employee
voice extend beyond the focal individual speaking
up; voice can affect the rate of turnover for others in
the individual’s unit whose performance or wellbeing are likewise affected by the issues raised.
Second, oiu: study extends scholars’ understanding
of the complex relationship between voice and exit
by showing how voice can increase or decrease
527
employee turnover depending on the degree to
which managers display characteristics reflecting
the motivation and ability to respond. We also
demonstrate the importance to theory and practice
of considering management behaviors not only as
antecedents to voice behavior (Detert & Burris,
2007; Edmondson, 1999) but also as moderators of
its effects. Third, our study contributes to the unitlevel turnover literatvire by considering how and
why improvement-oriented voice, and managerial
responsiveness to it, help explain this critical organizational outcome.
VOICE, MANAGERIAL RESPONSIVENESS, AND
EXIT: THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
Many voice scholars have argued that voice is
good for work units and organizations (e.g., Morrison, 2011). High levels of voice can be indicative of
a learning environment in which employees and
managers actively engage in activities to continuously reduce errors, improve organizational routines, and produce innovations (Argyris & Schön,
1978; Edmondson, 2003; Moscovici & Nemeth,
1974). Employees in strong learning environments
should be more likely to stay (i.e., turnover should
be lower) because their situation likely improves as
a result of the implementation of improvementoriented ideas and because they likely feel invigorated by membership in an innovative environment
in which their input is regularly considered (Shapiro, 1993). Voice scholars have also acknowledged, though, that not all such “high-voice” environments are likely to experience positive
outcomes. Continued managerial inability or unwillingness to respond effectively to voice can result in widely shared futility perceptions among
employees (Detert & Trevino, 2010; Dutton & Ashford, 1993) and a broad climate in which employees feel impotent, not valued, and no longer willing
to put forth high levels of effort. In these environments, employees should be more likely to voluntarily remove themselves from the organization or
be forced to exit as a consequence of their deteriorated attitude and work performance.
We argue that the responsiveness of unit managers will play an important role in determining
when voice will lead to less or more exit in a unit.
Añer all, employees speak up because they cannot
fix problems or pursue opportunities by themselves, needing instead someone with more formal
power to address the issues they have identified
(Detert & Burris, 2007). Managerial responsiveness
April
Academy of Management Journal
528
can he captured hy two dimensions. First, the ahility to respond to voice may enable or impede managers (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Kotter, 1996).
Such ability may stem from access to organizational resources necessary to investigate, implement, and institutionalize organizational changes
(Damanpour, 1991; Kraatz & Zajac, 2001; Singh,
1986). Without access to resources, managers will
be less able to experiment with changes and thus be
limited to a focus on efficient execution of current
policies and practices (March, 1991). And, hecause
most managers are not in a position to unilaterally
decide on changes, responsiveness to voice from
below also likely hinges on a manager’s influence
on decisions made hy more senior leaders (Detert &
Trevino, 2010; Glauser, 1984). Second, managers’
overall motivation or orientation toward change
may affect how they respond to voice (Beer, 2009).
This managerial orientation involves a proactive
identification of problems and opportunities and a
proclivity to take action to address what has been
surfaced (Detert & Burris, 2007; Grant & Ashford,
2008; Saunders, Sheppard, Knight, & Rofli, 1992).
We examine below three specific factors that signal managers’ ability and motivation to respond to
voice and therefore affect the likelihood of subsequent turnover in a unit. We begin hy examining
managers’ perceived access to the organizational
resources needed to respond to employee input as a
factor influencing the unit-level voice-exit relationship. Next, we examine managers’ level of participation in higher-level decision making as a reflection of their ability to enact change in their own
units. Finally, we examine the change orientation
of the management team that must address employee voice. Figure 1 summarizes our theoretical model.
Unit Manager Access to
Organizational Resources
Organizational resources, such as those used for
training and development programs, marketing, or
new process implementation, are necessary for improvement and adaptation in organizations (Cohen
& Levinthal, 1990; Kraatz & Zajac, 2001; Nohria &
Gulati, 1996). These resources, however, are often
unequally distributed throughout an organization
(Pfeffer, 1981), and accessing them is at least partially a function of manager proactivity and skill
(Graen, Cashman, Ginsburgh, & Schiemann, 1977;
Molm, 1990). Managers who are able to acquire
resources will be more capable of making changes
(Levinthal & March, 1993; March, 1991) because
they will have the necessary capital, whether human or financial, to devote to improvement activities (Kraatz & Zajac, 2001). Without the slack created hy additional resources, managers axe less able
to experiment with changes and are confined to a
focus on efficient execution of current policies and
practices (March, 1991).
The extent to which managers garner access to
resources should affect the voice-exit relationship
hecause resources give managers the ability to act
on or at least seriously consider employees’ input.
When a unit manager can access resources from
elsewhere in her or his organization, the support
that the manager gets in the form of these resources
trickles down to lower-level employees (Erdogan &
Enders, 2007), who are thus likely to view hoth
their manager and the organization she/he embodies as supportive and responsive (Eisenberger et al.,
2010). For example, if employees speak up about an
issue that is detrimental to their work unit (such
as insufficiently trained new hires performing
FIGURE 1
Theoretical Model
Manager Access
to
Organizational
Resources
Employee Voice
(unit level)
Manager
Participation in
Decision Making
Management
Team Change
Orientation
Employee Turnover
(unit level)
2013
McClean, Burris, and Detert
poorly], managers need resources to invest in more
or better training programs and to keep their units
appropriately staffed diu-ing the training. When a
unit’s manager can obtain the necessary resources
and properly train new hires, others in the unit
who were negatively affected by the performance of
new hires—not just the one or few who spoke up—
should feel better about the unit. Specifically, because the manager was able to obtain resources to
respond to voice, employees should feel that the
organization’s agents care about tbeir well-being
and experience a heightened sense of organizational support (Shanock & Eisenberger, 2006]. The
decision to stay in the organization is one way
employees who benefit from managerial responsiveness can demonstrate reciprocity for organizational support (Erdogan & Enders, 2007; Rhoades &
Eisenberger, 2002].
Conversely, where managers lack access to resources needed to address upward input, employees will grow increasingly frustrated by the lack of
responsiveness and feel that an organization is less
supportive (Shanock & Eisenberger, 2006]. Because
managers are seen as embodiments of an organization’s values (Eisenberger et al., 2010], managerial
inability to respond to employees’ voice because of
lack of resources is likely to be experienced by
employees as organizational disinterest in them
and their ideas for improvement (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002]. When employees reach the conclusion that they are not being supported by their
organization, they are more likely to quit (Allen,
Shore, & Griffeth, 2003]. Or they may withdraw
from the organization in more indirect ways
(Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002]. As is well known
from equity theory, when employees perceive an
imbalance between what they give and what they
receive, they often attempt to restore equity by engaging in counterproduct …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
Order a plagiarism free paper now. We do not use AI. Use the code SAVE15 to get a 15% Discount
Looking for help with your ASSIGNMENT? Our paper writing service can help you achieve higher grades and meet your deadlines.
Why order from us
We offer plagiarism-free content
We don’t use AI
Confidentiality is guaranteed
We guarantee A+ quality
We offer unlimited revisions