News and Events

 Overview 

At Nottingham Business School, I together with colleagues have for some years worked in partnership with the CIPD on the topic of Employee Voice. A first stage of the research involved a survey, administered through YouGov, which reached out to a cross-section of employees based in the UK (2374 individuals).  In the survey, we asked about employees’ perceptions of leadership, their levels of commitment to the organization, experiences of HR, individual differences, wellbeing, and burnout. 

Most importantly- indeed, central to our study- we sought to capture the extent to which people in our sample perceived that they had voice in the workplace. But here we faced a dilemma.  Although the CIPD strongly believes, as we do, that voice is important for its own sake, regardless of whether it leads to improvements in organizational functioning, most studies focus on voice as a tool for positive change. We wanted to understand not just whether people felt that their suggestions and ideas helped promote better functioning (important though this is) but also if employees felt able to express their opinions, concerns, and suggestions- and for these to have an effect. 

Accordingly, after searching the literature, we developed a new measure, which we labelled ‘Individual Voice’, asking employees about their essential humanity at work, probing areas such as whether ‘In my work unit, I can express my true feelings regarding my job’. We also captured in the measure whether employee believed that voice could make a difference on matters important to them.  

We also measured, using a pre-existing scale, whether employees experienced ‘Organisational Voice,’ that is if people felt able to offer ‘constructive challenge intended to improve rather than merely criticise’ (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998, p. 109).  

 Uniquely, based on these two measures, and using this nationally representative survey, we were able to explore several important questions. 

First, we wanted to understand whether the two voice constructs- individual and organisational voice- were indeed distinctive from one another- that is, whether the study does indeed tap into different ways in which people experience voice at work. 

Second, we sought to understand whether the enablers of individual voice would be different from those giving rise to organizational voice. 

Third, we wanted to understand what kind of effects the two voice forms might have on employee attitudes and behaviours in the workplace. Would individual voice, for example, make a difference to employees’ levels of burnout at work?  Would organisational voice be especially beneficial to promoting employee innovative behaviours? 

Finally, we needed to explore the reasons behind the apparent differentiation of the two forms.  If the constructs are unique and different, why might this be so?  What might explain any different patterns in terms of antecedents and outcomes? 

In detail 

We used the idea that human behaviour is regulated through two independent systems- the behavioural activation system and the behavioural inhibition system- to inform our interrogation of the data (Carver & White, 1994; Sherf et al., 2018). These systems operate separately from one another to guide goal choice and influence the degree of effort expended.  

Based on this theory, we argue that individual voice arises where people are (relatively) free of threat and anxiety.  Psychological safety- ‘peoples’ perceptions of the consequences of taking interpersonal risks in a particular context such as a workplace (Edmondson & Lei, 2014) is likely to be especially important for individual voice because it creates an atmosphere when discussion can be opened to cover areas that stand out for the employee. 

On the other hand, for organizational voice to occur, people need to be clear that speaking up will lead to an improved situation- this behaviour is ‘activated’ towards a positive end result. One powerful activator is the line manager.  Where the line manager actively solicits voice, people are likely to respond with their suggestions for improvement (but less likely to talk about their individual concerns).  Line manager solicitation of voice- the efforts made to encourage people to speak up, make suggestions and effect change- is likely to be a key predictor of organisational voice. 

There are consequences too arising from the two voice forms for employee attitudes and behaviours.  How people feel about work, their levels of commitment to the organization, and the extent to which they embrace creativity and innovation in their daily tasks- are all linked with the form of voice they experience.  Our work has only just started to explore the antecedents and effects of the two voice forms. 

Please see the following links for more details: 

CIPD’s Guide to group voice channels 

CIPD’s guide to individual voice channels 

CIPD’s practical advice for employers and HR practitioners  

Employee voice helping organisations manage employee relations in new and emerging workspaces. 

 

Summary and next steps 

For too long, we have assumed that only one voice form- that focused on improving the organization- is the only one that matters.  This research uncovers that there is a neglected voice form – individual voice- which highlights that people have distinct and unique personalities, that they value being listened to, and like to believe that what they say has the potential to effect change, even if this is not directly related to improving practice for the organisation. 

Right back to when we first presented our results at an Engage for Success event held at NBS, well before the pandemic struck, HR and Engagement practitioners have wanted to explore the implications of the insights arising from this research for practice.   

In subsequent discussion with people specialists, including our recent presentation to the Scottish Employment Relations Network, it’s clear that those working in the HR space have wanted to know how they might reflect the notion of individual voice, as well as organisational voice in their policies and practice.  One key factor is supporting line managers as they reward, encourage, develop and assess those who report to them.   

We look forward to sharing further details from our Voice project as they emerge. 

Please get in touch if you are interested in participating in this project and/or if you would like to share good practice from your organisation.  

Professor Helen Shipton: [email protected] 

Dr Nadia Kougiannou: [email protected] 

 

 

The Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices has become a cornerstone for a renewed focus on job quality within the UK. Even if, for some odd reason, you have been actively seeking to lower your job quality in the past couple of years, you will have been hard pressed to avoid hearing about the report after it was published in 2017. Now that the review has ended, and the Government have provided their response, Matthew Taylor has urged that the good work agenda needs to move up a gear in order to bring about the cascade of positive changes for society that are possible by increasing job quality. What needs to happen next? Where does it need to happen? How can you play a part?

Firstly, if you did miss the Taylor Review because you love that ‘I could be fired any moment now’ feeling, it might nevertheless help to have a quick overview. Matthew Taylor (Chief Executive of the RSA) and his team presented 53 recommendations to the Government covering key areas of job quality including atypical forms of work contract such as involuntary freelancing and self-employment, the ‘gig’ economy, and the impact of ‘disruptive’ business models and technologies.

Job quality indicators and measurement tools are already discussed through the World Health Organisation, the International Labour Organisation, the RSA/Carnegie UK, as well as a wide range of academic scholars and institutions. The CIPD published their own report in 2018 which sought to bring together the lessons from across these tools, culminating in six key indicators; pay and other rewards, intrinsic characteristics of work, terms of employment, health and safety, work-life balance, and representation and voice.

Prior to the Taylor Review on Modern Working Practices, job quality was confined to its position below job quantity where getting people back to work was the main goal post-2008. The UK now basks in the highest employment rate since records began in 1971, with 32.5 million adults aged 16-64 in work as of the end of 2018 (ONS, 2018). Yet, the post-recession slump in productivity (17% lower than if it followed the pre-recession trend) is a concern, coupled with a slowing in real wage growth from early 2017, as well as a regional imbalance in unemployment rates (5.5% in the North East compared with 3.2% in the South East).

Nottingham and the East Midlands are no exception to this imbalance, if anything these areas represent a particularly acute case. Nottingham Civic Exchange (NCE) has shown in its latest publication that in 2017, Nottingham experienced its highest level of economic inactivity (people who are neither in paid work nor actively looking for employment) in more than a decade, surpassing even the levels experienced during the recession.  Moreover, although Nottingham has the highest levels of wealth production per head in the East Midlands (and the 4^th highest amongst England’s 8 large ‘Core Cities’, despite Nottingham having the smallest population), it has the lowest household income compared to anywhere else in the UK and experienced a significant fall in employment between 2015 and 2017 that has not been experienced by other cities of comparable size.

In Nottingham, we have seen 136,000 economically active residents (employed plus unemployed) in 2007 and 136,800 in 2017.  This small increase fell well below the rate of population growth, resulting in an overall fall in Nottingham’s rate of economic activity from 67.7% in 2007 to 62.4% in 2017, which increased the gap with the UK rate from 8.7 percentage points in 2007 to 15.8 percentage points in 2017 (the largest gap in the decade).

The Nottingham Civic Exchange in cooperation with Nottingham Business School (NBS) and the University of Birmingham are focussing on addressing some of these issues by, first, understanding what good work means for the people of Nottingham, and the East Midlands more generally. Building this picture can help to move forward with concrete approaches to tackling some of these issues on a city-wide scale. As good work permeates different levels of society, creating a good work model for a city needs to tackle these issues from various angles. This includes at the individual and community level; NCE are conversing with individuals and community groups (particularly Nottingham Citizens Work and Wages Campaign) about their experiences in low job quality environments. Importantly, NCE are connecting these low job quality experiences with the struggles that this can cause in daily life such as the inflexibility of work places to allow parents to leave for appointments with their child, or how low job security impacts upon levels of anxiety. At the organisational level, NCE and NBS (particularly the Centre for People, Work, and Organisational Practice, CPWOP) are working on a program of research focussing on how companies can adopt procedures and create environments which stimulate high quality work.

As mentioned before, the Taylor review was useful to spread the word about making job quality equal with job quantity on a society wide scale. Yet, it’s harder to think about how at a personal level, you can make any changes to the quality of your job or the jobs of your colleagues. Whilst many of the changes required are structural, and it’s important not to place blame on the individual in many cases. Putting job quality on the agenda in your workplace can help to keep the momentum of this nationwide conversation. Make it explicit, bring it up at the lunch table when your colleague is talking to you about stress, take part in workshops and discussions run with the Nottingham Civic Exchange…this one is a bit forward sorry. Forthcoming sessions include ‘Designing work that makes us healthy and happy’ on the 8^th May as well as ‘Making bad work good’ on the 8^th July. Nottingham Civic Exchange are very keen to hear from practitioners themselves as part of these discussions so please feel free to come along.

We have a real opportunity here to further develop a positive attitude towards job quality in Nottingham and the East Midlands which the rest of the country can learn from and adapt in their own ways. We can do this by pushing for and supporting structural change, developing research and practice informed procedures within our own organisations, and have renewed conversations about the role of work in our lives as individuals and communities. No other region in the UK has such a dedicated programme of research and conversation on good work. The Taylor review is complete, so let’s get to (good) work.

This article was based upon work from a recently published report by the Nottingham Civic Exchange on laying the foundations of a good work city. More information can be found at https://www.ntu.ac.uk/goodworknotts. You can join the conversation using #GoodWorkNotts or by attending our upcoming events in May and July.

Work can occupy most of our waking hours, it can provide us with money, it can give us a sense of purpose, and it can show that you are a willing and contributing member of society. Not only that, but the quality of your work can of course have a substantial impact on your health and well-being. This job quality approach as opposed to job quantity is starting to become more prevalent in the UK economy and across the globe.

In the UK, there has been a jobs boom over the past few years, with record high employment figures. By and large this is positive news, especially since this boom has brought some of the most disadvantaged groups into the labour market. A third of the working-age population with the lowest qualifications account for almost half of this rapid increase in employment. People with disabilities often fall disproportionately into this low qualification category. However, this boom has also been categorised by increasingly precarious jobs which can be flexibilised, low-paid, insecure, and often the relationship between worker and employer is redefined to the detriment of workers’ rights.

Here at the Centre for People, Work and Organisational Practice (CPWOP), we are involved in researching how these forms of work operate with a view to providing good job quality for employees, or not as the case may be. My PhD research involved gathering perspectives about job quality from those that were most disadvantaged in the labour market including people with psychological health issues, learning difficulties, long-term health issues, physical disabilities, and early school-leavers. Whilst people with disadvantages are no different with regards to the elements of work that make their job ‘good’, they may prioritise these elements in a different way to people not facing the same challenges.

Thinking about what you prioritise with regards to good work is difficult. If I provided you with a list of things that might make your job better and asked you to rank them individually from 1 to 10, this might provide a useful overview of what you consider important. The disadvantage of this approach is that it isolates each item. The approach I adopted, Q methodology, allows for the ranking of factors according to one another in a way which can be analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively. Whilst I cannot do justice to the methodology in this blog post, at least introducing it to you as a possibility for your own research as well as a potential indicator of what research the CPWOP might carry out in the future is, I think, valuable and hopefully interesting.

The picture above is of a Q methodology grid, with statements about good work. A participant is asked to sort these statements according to the question at the top of the picture. The shape of the grid forces them to make decisions on statements in relation to other statements. They might value work that is meaningful over work that is fun. This leads to questions around what the difference is between meaningful and fun in a work context, maybe it has to do with small amounts of beneficial stress? Then the statement on stress comes into play as well.

Almost everything about this grid is flexible in that you can have many more statements, you could use pictures, sound clips, objects, you can choose your grid shape to an extent, you can run it with focus groups, and with young children. It’s even possible to sort the statements yourself, then sort them again according to how you think someone else would sort them, like your boss for example. You can do this longitudinally, or to provide a snapshot. You can do it online, over the phone, in the post, or in person.

The analysis relies on the sorted statements but also the qualitative interview which is performed after the sorting. This interview allows for clarification on decisions made on deciding about priority of one card over another. It is this combination of the sorting and the interview which allows a unique insight into the subjective viewpoint of an individual on a certain topic. These viewpoints can then be compared to uncover shared viewpoints, as well as areas of disagreement. That’s why this methodology has already been used in a wide range of topics from river banks to children’s toys, the meaning of love to the organisation of local renewables, and everything in between.

Being able to use this research with such a wide range of people, across different contexts and in various formats makes this methodology a very flexible, innovative yet rigorous methodology. My own research has helped to provide a voice to those who may have been harder to reach with more traditional data collection methods and with a growing number of people with disabilities entering a market that is becoming increasingly more precarious, I think it’s important those voices are heard. Hopefully this short introduction to good work and the possibilities of Q methodology are useful in your own future research ideas.

A more in-depth introduction to Q methodology can be found in this video.