Human Resource Management Review 30 (2020) 100674

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Human Resource Management Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/hrmr

Towards an integration of employee voice and silence

T
Eva Nechanskaa,⁎, Emma Hughesb, Tony Dundonc
a
DCU Business School, Dublin City University, Ireland
b
University of Liverpool Management School, UK
c
Work & Equalities Institute, AMBS, University of Machester, UK

ABSTRACT

There is a growing interest in conceptualising employee voice across various theoretical disciplines - including Human Resource Management
(HRM), Organizational Behaviour (OB), Industrial Relations (IR) and Labour Process (LP) – which approach the phenomena from diverse ontological
anchor points. However, few consider the antithesis of voice, employee silence. This paper aims to advance a conceptual framework of voice and
silence based on the inter-disciplinary integration of OB, IR and LP perspectives. Such an integrated approach may offer scholars, policy advocates
and HR audiences a more reflective understanding of the social and psychological antecedents of employee voice and silence. The framework
advances a critical pluralist view of employee silence by drawing on the concept of ‘structured antagonism’, which has been neglected in HRM and
OB studies. A suggested future research agenda is outlined to help better integrate diverse approaches on employee voice and silence.

1. Introduction

Much analysis of employee voice can be traced back to Hirschman (1970:30), where voice is viewed as a vehicle for “changing the
objectionable state of affairs”. However employee silence remains underexplored, which can be a manifestation of ‘exit’ under
Hirschman's framework (e.g., employees leave when faced with no voice) or extend ‘loyalty’ (e.g., workers remain but may suffer in
silence hoping things will improve). HRM tends to use OB insights to explain voice and silence (e.g., for example, Kwon, Farndale, &
Park, 2016; Morrison, Wheeler-Smith, & Kamdar, 2011; Farndale et al., 2011; Park & Nawakitphaitoon, 2018; Rees, Alfes, & Gatenby,
2013; Wang, Wu, Liu, Hao, & Wu, 2016). In this article it is proposed that HR audiences can gain deeper insight from the integration
of what are often competing approaches, namely organizational behaviour (OB), industrial relations (IR) and labour process (LP)
perspectives. Wilkinson et al. (2014:5) define voice as the “opportunities for employees to have a say and potentially influence
organizational affairs relating to issues that affect their work and the interests of managers and owners”. Silence may reflect si-
tuations where employees either do not have opportunities for voice, or do not use them for various reasons (Donaghey, Cullinane,
Dundon, & Wilkinson, 2011).
The article provides a multi-dimensional and multi-layered conceptual framework of voice and silence, based on the inter-
disciplinary integration of OB, IR and LP perspectives. The article contributes to advancing HR knowledge in four important ways.
First, the integrated framework encourages HR audiences to extend HRM beyond any one paradigm by incorporating indirect, direct,
informal and formal forms of social dialogue. In this way the approach captures how voice and silence reflect a power-centric
relationship; that is, a relationship shaped by an unequal power exchange. Second, the integrated framework enables HR scholars to
connect different contextual levels, layers and dimensions of employee silence to paint a ‘fuller picture’ of why employees do not
speak-up. While OB renders useful insights into forces such as collective sense-making, managerial behaviours, individual traits and
psychological safety, IR helps understand the institutional contexts for voice, and LP informs a deeper appreciation about agentic
influences connecting wider social structures of accumulation with the politics of enterprise level HR decision-making. Third, the

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (E. Nechanska), [email protected] (T. Dundon).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.11.002
Received 2 January 2017; Received in revised form 23 November 2018; Accepted 25 November 2018
1053-4822/ © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
E. Nechanska, et al. Human Resource Management Review 30 (2020) 100674

article builds on HRM literatures (e.g., for example Farndale et al., 2011; Morrison et al., 2011; Rees et al., 2013; Knoll and Redman,
2011; Avery, McKay, Wilson, Volpone, & Killham, 2011) to build a critical pluralist perspective on voice and silence across diverse
workplace settings (Godard, 2014; Ramsay, Scholarios, & Harley, 2000; Wright, 2000). In particular, the article evokes the critical
pluralist concept of ‘structured antagonism’ (Edwards, 1986), neglected in the majority of HRM studies (e.g., Knoll and Redman,
2016; Morrison et al., 2011; Avery et al., 2011; Kwon et al., 2016; Farndale et al., 2011; Park & Nawakitphaitoon, 2018; Wang et al.,
2016). ‘Structured antagonism’ elucidates how structural power imbalances may undermine voice and silence, depending on the
formation and articulate of competing interests between employer and employee (e.g. between cooperation vs conflict and control vs
consent tensions). Finally, the proposed integrative framework can support managerial, union and wider public policy debates. For
example, the article highlights to HR audiences that silence may occur because effective voice mechanisms are inaccessible; or
employees remaining silent may be a form of resistance and/or misbehaviour. HR practices can then be critically evaluated using
understandings from multiple disciplinary perspectives to help move beyond narrow performance-driven metrics that could have
little meaning to employees.
This review considers the intersection of OB, IR and LP analysis concerning voice and silence. The article is structured as follows.
Next, a short overview of HRM voice is provided. OB contributions on voice and silence are then reviewed, incorporating HRM when
appropriate. Following this, the relevance of structured antagonism to voice and silence is considered, which is extended in section
four to advance an integrated OB-IR-LP sensitizing framework. The paper concludes with possible directions for further research
based on the arguments posed.

2. HRM voice and silence

The main focus of HRM literature is typically how the opportunities for ‘direct’ voice mechanisms help improve organizational
processes (Fu et al., 2017; Huselid, 1995; Knoll & Redman, 2016). For example, Knoll and Redman (2016:832) focus on employer-
sponsored upward voice where employees “express ideas that aim at process improvements and innovation”. Rees et al., (2013:2782)
examine “employees' perceptions of the extent to which they engage in voice behaviour aimed at improving the functioning of their
work group”. Fu et al., (2017:344) encourage “easy-to-implement HR practices focusing on creating opportunities for employees to
get involved as a means to pursue high performance”. They suggest internal newsletters, or social media intranets, where employees
can exchange knowledge, information and ideas for improving existing practices.
Furthermore, HRM interpretations often assume that voice mechanisms can align employee and organizational goals through
enhanced commitment and engagement (Farndale et al., 2011:115). Holland, Pyman, Cooper, & Teicher, 2011 (2011:97) explain that
union decline “has been accompanied by the diffusion of direct voice, with priority being placed on voice as a means to enhance
productivity and employee commitment to the organization.” Rees et al., 2013 (2013:2780) claim a positive link between employee
voice and engagement, where engagement strategies are ways of “aligning employee interests more closely with organizational goals,
predicted on an assumption that this in turn will improve organizational performance”. Such a narrative presents a unitary focus on
direct voice where employees share ideas to benefit organizational goals. However, this can overlook divergent (or conflicting)
interests between managers and employees and the structural power imbalance between them (Cullinane & Dundon, 2014; Kaufman,
2015; Marchington, 2015).
Scholars have argued that employer-led voice schemes provide employee voice on managements' terms, which may be limited to
lower-level communications and short on decision-making inclusion (Barry, Dundon, & Wilkinson, 2018). Scrutinizing the ‘depth’
(i.e., extent of influence), the ‘scope’ (i.e., over what issues), ‘level’ (i.e., department, team or company) and ‘form’ (i.e., direct,
formal, informal) of voice mechanisms is vital for HR academics and practitioners (Wilkinson et al., 2014). Indeed, Holland et al.
(2011:106–107) recognize that they measure the presence of a voice mechanism, which is not “how embedded (the depth and
breadth) of voice arrangements are at workplace level”. Rees et al., 2013 (2013:2793) further caution: “we have considered per-
ceptions of voice, not the reality of voice”. Similarly, Farndale et al., (2011:124) note, “this study has used an indirect measure of
voice, exploring how well employees believe their managers provide opportunities for voice, rather than actual voice.”
It could be argued that HRM focuses heavily on generating employee perceptions of voice, rather than providing insight about the
depth of voice. For instance, Farndale et al., 2011 (:116 emphasis added) state: “voice may engender long-term positive attitudes
because employees perceive the potential to influence decisions, regardless of whether the impact of employee voice on the decision
outcome is realized”. Moreover, they infer that perceptions of voice builds trust relationships “irrespective of whether the decision
outcome is favourable for employees or not” (:123). ‘Perceptions of voice’ without extensive voice may “motivate employees to
respond as organizations desire” (Kwon et al., 2016:3) and legitimate decisions with negative employee outcomes in the short-term,
but this is unsustainable.
Overall, then, the danger is that a unitary HR view of voice is premised on a misconceived notion of a voice mechanism as
evidence of common interests and shared goals. Further, this becomes a pro-market orientation where voice is primarily predicated
on presumed value for shareholder and organization interests, rather than a right to extend or enhance workplace democracy (Boxall,
Purcell, & Wright, 2008; Dundon & Rafferty, 2018). HRM literatures on voice and silence often evoke OB insights (e.g., Goldberg,
Clark, & Henley, 2011; Kwon et al., 2016; Knoll and Redman, 2011; Avery et al., 2011; Farndale et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2016Park &
Nawakitphaitoon, 2018; Rees et al., 2013) and are therefore incorporated into the following section, where appropriate.

3. Organizational behaviour voice and silence

Similarly to HRM, OB research overwhelmingly emphasizes how ‘opportunities to have a say’ are provided by direct voice

2
E. Nechanska, et al. Human Resource Management Review 30 (2020) 100674

mechanisms premised on unitarist, improvement-orientated assumptions (Ashford & Barton, 2007; Burris, Detert, & Chiaburu, 2008;
Detert, Burris, Harrison, & Martin, 2013; Fast, Burris, & Bartel, 2014; Grant, 2013; Liu, Tangirala, & Ramanujam, 2013; Tangirala &
Ramanujam, 2008). For example, building on multiple OB voice definitions, Morrison (2011:375, emphasis added) conceptualizes it as
the “communication of ideas or suggestions about work-related issues with the intent to improve organisational or unit functioning”.
Similarly, Grant (2013:1703) defines voice as “a proactive behaviour that involves speaking up with suggestions for improvement”.
Detert et al. (2013: 626) explain that “Voice is a challenging, prosocial, organizational citizenship behaviour specifically intended to
be instrumental in improving the organization by changing existing practices. They investigate three different “voice flows of ideas or
proposals to attract more business, improve customer satisfaction, and improve effectiveness” (:659). Voice flows include employees
voicing to 1) peers, 2) immediate managers and 3) other managers. Their aim is to “see if and how they are different in ways relevant
to predictions that might be made about their impact on performance” (:629).
Reflecting a unitary perspective where conflict is perceived as dysfunctional, employee complaints and grievance-raising are not
usually considered ‘voice’ because they do not directly support organizational goals (Barry & Wilkinson, 2016; Mowbray, Wilkinson,
& Tse, 2015). According to Detert et al. (2013:641), a disadvantage of voice between co-workers is that it will be “coded by outside
observers or internal leaders as “venting,” “blowing off steam,” or even “complaining” and that “while such communication may
make speakers feel better in the short run it likely only detracts from the unit's climate and performance over time”. This echoes
Morrison's (2014:179–180) statement that “the primary intent [of voice] is to bring about positive change, improvement, or redress,
and not to merely complain or get a positive outcome for oneself.” Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008 convincingly argue that employees
with a lack of autonomy express voice. But they view voice as “change-oriented ideas and suggestions about work-related issues” not
“personal grievances resulting from perceived injustice.”
OB voice mechanisms are typically direct channels, building on work around organizational climate and socially shared cognition
between workers and leaders (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Morrison et al., 2011). Morrison (2011:386) explains that recent OB
research “have not given much consideration to the role of formal communication mechanisms, probably due to the con-
ceptualization of voice as a discretionary extra-role behaviour occurring in a face-to-face context.” Exceptions include Morrison and
Milliken (2000), who encourage formal upward communication channels to promote voice, and Miceli, Near, and Dworkin (2008),
who state that whistleblowing is more likely if internal reporting procedures exist.
Employee silence within OB literature is the “purposeful withholding of ideas, questions, concerns, information or opinions by
employees about issues relating to their jobs and organisation in which they work” (Van Dyne, Ang, & Botero, 2003:1389). Silence is
portrayed as undesirable because employees not communicating their ideas may harm organizational interests. For example, silence
has “significant implications for team and organizational performance” because, “key decision makers or teams may not have the
information that they need to make appropriate decisions or to correct potentially serious problems.” (Morrison, 2011:374). Fast
et al. (2014:1028) state that “withholding improvement-oriented voice denies the organization access to ideas that fuel growth,
learning, and adaptation.” Similarly to HRM research highlighting employee engagement, Morrison (2014:88) notes how silence can
stimulate “high levels of employee stress, dissatisfaction, and disengagement, which can undermine performance and retention”.
OB studies discuss two important issues shaping whether employees speak-up or not (Morrison, 2011, 2014). First, employees
judge ‘voice efficacy’, hence, they may remain silent if they perceive speaking-up is futile and/or nobody will listen (Detert & Trevino,
2010; Milliken, Morrison, & Hewlin, 2003; Pinder & Harlos, 2001; Van Dyne et al., 2003). Second, voice is shaped by ‘psychological
safety’, “people's perceptions of the consequences of taking interpersonal risks in a particular context such as a workplace”
(Edmondson & Lei, 2014). Silence in such contexts is labelled ‘quiescent silence’ (Pinder & Harlos, 2001) and ‘defensive silence’ (Van
Dyne et al., 2003). Negative repercussions may concern how others perceive their image, co-worker relations, identity, social capital,
termination, career development restrictions and unappealing job tasks (Ashford & Barton, 2007; Bowen & Blackmon, 2003; Grant,
2013; Liang, Crystal, Farh, & Farh, 2012; Miceli et al., 2008; Milliken et al., 2003; Morrison & Milliken, 2003). These OB ideas are
applied in HR studies; for instance, Goldberg et al. (2011) evoke psychological safety and voice efficacy (see also Kwon et al., 2011;
Farndale et al., 2011; Park & Nawakitphaitoon, 2018; Rees et al., 2013).
‘Organizational identification’ is a salient notion within OB voice and silence, echoing ideas about commitment and engagement
with a unitarist posture for shared goals and common interests. Organizational identification is “the extent to which employees feel
oneness or belongingness with their organization and include attributes of the organization in their self-definition” (Tangriala and
Ramunjam, 2008:1190). It reflects “the perceived amount of interests an individual and an organization share” (Smidts, Pruyn, & Van
Riel, 2001:1051). Ashford and Barton (2007:231) affirm that organizational identification fosters voice by creating “a motive to try
and help and improve those organizations.” Liu et al. (2013:199) contend that “managers who want to encourage voice behaviour
need to establish or strengthen employee identification.” They find a positive relationship between transformational leaders and
voice. Such leaders “emphasize the collective identity as well as the values and vision of a whole organization (or a group)” and make
“the organizational or group goal meaningful for the employees” (:192). Organizational identification is also considered a positive by-
product of voice. Smidts et al. (2001) contend that when employees perceive voice opportunities, organizational identification is
enhanced. Moreover, as Morrison and Milliken (2000) state, if employees evaluate voice opportunities favourably they feel valued,
thereby increasing commitment and organizational identification.
Of interest is the argument that organizational identification can also instigate silence, because the attachment to the organization
overrides employee dissatisfaction (Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008). Related, Ashford and Barton (2007) contend that employees may
not speak-up because it may threaten their (and the organization's) identity. Highly identified employees do not always recognize
issues outside the organizations' current frame of reference and they tend not to contradict a prevailing norm, hence remain silent.
Burris et al.'s (2008:914) research does not support the hypothesis that the greater employees are psychologically attached to the
organization (that is, “identify with their organization's goals and values”), the more they engage in improvement-orientated voice.

3
E. Nechanska, et al. Human Resource Management Review 30 (2020) 100674

They suggest this may be because strongly attached employees like the organization as it is. Similar arguments are made within HRM
literatures. For example, Knoll and Redman (2011:833) find that employees who feel “a sense of belonging to the organization” and
show “a strong psychological connection to their organization”, are likely to engage in promotive voice. However, they conclude that
such employees may also engage in pro-social silence where they “withhold views that might disturb the unimpeded functioning of
the workplace” (:832) and “withhold their opinion or concerns if they think expressing them would challenge relationships at work”
(:833).
Like HRM, OB silence and voice research is therefore overwhelmingly predicated on a unitary view of common goals and in-
terests, where employees speak-up to meet shared objectives, and may be silent because of strong organizational identification.
Morrison & Milliken, 2000 acknowledge that reducing employee silence is essential for creating pluralist organizations, which they
define as “one that values and reflects differences among employees and that allows for the expression of multiple perspectives and
opinions”. However, as Fox (1979) notes, although pluralism is attractive in principle, it can be aspirational and difficult in practice
owing to various external forces and because management hold a structural power advantage. Furthermore, a pluralist organization
providing mechanisms to express alternative concerns is different to a pluralist organization that facilitates power-sharing in deci-
sion-making through those mechanisms. There seems more of a focus within OB on observing perceptions of voice rather than
establishing workplace democracy. For example, Milliken et al. (2003:5) note that when top management are “perceived to be willing
to listen”, this motivates voice, but this is not the same as assessing whether managers share power over decision-making outcomes
when voice is expressed.
OB insights do draw attention to how positional and hierarchical power relationships shape voice and silence (Morrison &
Milliken, 2000; Fast et al., 2013; Kish-Gephart, Detert, Trevino, & Edmondson, 2009; Detert & Trevino, 2010). Kish-Gephart et al.
(2009:174) argue that the emotion of ‘fear’ has a significant bearing when employees consider confronting authoritative individuals.
In this context, “contemplating voice stokes a prepared fear of angering higher-status others, which automatically triggers recognition
of the potential for negative consequences.” Similarly, Detert and Trevino (2010:263) find that fear prevents employees exercising
voice to managers and that this “fear can stem simply from the notion of speaking up to more senior authority figures”. They argue
that employees develop beliefs about interacting with authoritative individuals from early relations with parents, teachers and
religious figures. Furthermore, Morrison and Milliken (2000) and Fast et al. (2013) affirm that managerial perceptions of employee
voice as threatening and suspicious are largely shaped by position power and hierarchical relations. HR studies also discuss similar
power relations (e.g., Kwon et al., 2011; Avery et al., 2011; Farndale et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2016).
In summary, OB/HRM perspectives generally gravitate towards direct voice mechanisms, downplaying indirect forms. While OB
research focusses on informal voice behaviours (Morrison, 2011), HRM literatures examine formal and informal practices (Mowbray
et al., 2015). OB offers useful coverage of employee motivations to speak-up or remain silent, including voice efficacy, psychological
safety, leader-member exchange, identity, emotions and positional and hierarchical power sources (Detert & Edmondson, 2011;
Detert & Trevino, 2010; Kish-Gephart et al., 2009; Morrison, 2014). These ideas feature in HRM research with a distinct psychological
bent (e.g., Goldberg et al., 2011; Kwon et al., 2011; Knoll and Redman, 2011; Avery et al., 2011). However, OB shortcomings include
giving too much attention to individual-level factors and neglecting broader socio-economic, political and institutional forces
(Godard, 2014; Barry et al., 2018), as discussed in forthcoming sections.
Moreover, a weakness in much OB and related HRM research is the premise of unitarist shared goals and aligning employee and
organizational interests (e.g., Ashford & Barton, 2007; Liu et al., 2013; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008; Farndale et al., 2011; Rees
et al., 2013). This creates a bias towards ‘improvement-orientated’ voice (Detert et al., 2013; Grant, 2013; Burris et al., 2008; Fast
et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2013; Tangriala and Ramanujam, 2008; Ashford & Barton, 2007; Morrison, 2011; Knoll & Redman, 2016; Fu
et al., 2017) and overlooks how divergent employer-employee interests within a structurally imbalanced power relationship shape
voice and silence outcomes. Finally, the focus in OB/HRM seems to be on the presence and perceptions of voice behaviours and
mechanisms, rather than whether they provide workplace democracy or how deep such arrangements are embedded (Holland et al.,
2011; Farndale et al., 2011; Rees et al., 2013; Morrison & Milliken, 2000; Milliken et al., 2003).

4. Similarities within IR and LP interpretations

In keeping with the definition of voice as ‘opportunities to have a say’, employees may use these opportunities to support
organizational goals; but importantly, they may also contest management and HR practice by seeking to influence alternative out-
comes. Crucially, ‘opportunities to have a say’ reflect ‘structured antagonism’ permanently embedded within people management
systems (Edwards, 1986; Kaufman, 2014).
While different positions are adopted within IR/LP streams, including pluralist, Marxist, post-modernist and critical discourse
dialectics, our framework supports a critical pluralist orientation favouring inclusion and integration (Dundon & Dobbins, 2015;
Edwards, 1986). Underpinned by structured antagonism and political economy theory, the framework seeks to chart phenomena
surrounding employee silence to better capture how and why workers remain silent, recognising both external and endogenous
contexts and processes.
A HRM approach building a critical pluralist view of acknowledges that the common goal alignment may be desirable yet
problematic. Despite a degree of mutual dependence between employers and employees, an inherent power imbalance usually
favours employers. Power here is more structurally rooted and extends deeper than the ‘position’ and ‘hierarchical’ power relations
featured in some OB/HR studies (Detert & Trevino, 2010; Fast et al., 2014; Kish-Gephart et al., 2009). Both parties have structurally
opposed interests because employers and employees seek control. Potential tensions exist, where employees can pursue individual
interests and beliefs that differ from those of management, which can instigate conflict. However, both parties also seek to secure

4
E. Nechanska, et al. Human Resource Management Review 30 (2020) 100674

potentially shared objectives, for example the continued survival of the firm (Edwards, Bélanger, & Wright, 2006), generating op-
portunities for co-operation (Dobbins & Dundon, 2017; Edwards & Ram, 2009) and organizational efficiency (Johnstone & Wilkinson,
2016). Furthermore, employers not only actively seek to control worker effort and job tasks, but also seek to support employee
commitment and loyalty (Edwards, 1986; Fox, 1966; Johnstone & Wilkinson, 2016).
Employee costs and benefits including social and monetary rewards reflect an indeterminacy where employee exchanged effort is
unbalanced, unpredictable, variable and can be perceived differently by workers when comparing to referent groups (Baldamus,
1961; Fox, 1966). Accordingly, employers and employees are engaged in continuous effort-reward bargain and their respective
concerns may converge or diverge day-to-day. But how different managers adapt to or engage in voice relations is complex. Managers
are under pressure to deliver company goals and constrained by owner and shareholder interests, particularly under financialized
capitalism (Thompson, 2003, 2013). This is evident within HR literature, for example Ulrich (1998:125–126) states: “Line managers
have ultimate responsibility for both the processes and the outcomes of the company”. However, as Jaros (2005:8) reminds us,
managers may have “a degree of discretion that is independent from profit or value maximisation imperatives”, which can determine
the nature and quality of voice or the extent of structured antagonisms. Managers are employees themselves, yet also agents of
owners, and thus can pursue their own objectives which may contradict owner (and worker) concerns. Manager preferences to
balance conflict-co-operation and control-consent tensions are important, as elaborated on in the following sections.
Based on the view that employment embeds ‘structured antagonism’, IR/LP perspectives may help explain three key issues around
employee voice and silence neglected in HRM/OB perspectives discussed in the previous sections. First, given a power imbalance
relationship and potentially divergent employer-employee interests, IR/LP perspectives provide thicker explanations of why em-
ployees do not always express voice to benefit organizations, but rather to advance their individual and/or collective interests, which
can compete with organizational goals. Importantly for HR audiences, providing employees with effective mechanisms to express
these potentially conflicting interests may benefit organizations in the long-term (Dundon & Rafferty, 2018; Mowbray et al., 2015).
Second, employees may withhold potentially valuable information to resist managerial authority, or ameliorate degrading work.
Such ideas have a long and established pedigree in work sociology and policy theory studies about work and employment re-
lationships (e.g. Braverman, 1974; Burawoy, 1979; Thompson, 1989). These recognize both cooperative and conflictual debates over
how human resource practices can alter work practices that expose exploitative outcomes, or enhance sustainability and protect
workers and organizations over time and space. Third, acknowledging the intricate tensions underpinning managing people, silence
may manifest as a form of co-operation and compromise, which may be manipulated or coerced by management actions (Burawoy,
2013). For example, MacMahon, O'Sullivan, Murphy, Ryan, and MacCurtain (2018) report incidents where HR procedures to counter
workplace bullying were at times futile and management actions engendered a culture of employee silence owing to perceptions of
fear about possible reprisals against those who speak out.
Although IR/LP perspectives incorporate a more socio-political world view of workplace relations grounded in ‘structured an-
tagonism’, their explanations of voice and silence differ in some major aspects, uncovered in the forthcoming sections.

4.1. Industrial relations voice and silence

IR analysis evokes numerous academic disciplines such as history, economics, law, politics, sociology and psychology, and focuses
broadly on all employment actors, including management, labour, worker/employer associations and government agents (Kaufman,
2014). Multiple levels of analysis are explored within IR, examining external influences on the behaviours of ‘actors’, labour market
‘institutions’, on IR ‘processes’ (e.g. bargaining, reward, commitment etc), and ‘outcomes’ (such as voice and silence). IR research has
for decades contributed to public policy; from the Wagner Act (1935) of the US New Deal and the UK Donovan Commission (1968), to
gig-economy employee rights, or robotic technology implications on work (Ackers, 2010; Berg, 2016; Kochan, 2015). While IR
examines managerial behaviour, the way it connects workplace relations to macro-level factors, such as legal and institutional job
regulation, helps inform a broader understanding of contextual diversity within contemporary HRM vis-à-vis employee voice and
silence (Wilkinson, Gollan, Kalfa, & Xu, 2018). Contrary to HRM/OB, IR builds a unique structure-agency focus for employee voice
oriented towards both direct and indirect forms, including trade unions, works councils, consultative committees and Civil Society
Organizations (CSOs) (Williams, Abbott, & Heery, 2011).
Institutional voice outcomes are studied within IR. For instance, mandatory works councils have been shown to support two
benefit claims. The first is a rent-producing effect: when workers have a collective voice via a works council, employee quit rates have
been shown to be lower (Nienhüser, 2014). The effect has been to share information and support organizational efficiencies. The
second is a rent-seeking outcome. Through mandatory collective dialogue workers are able to regulate labour supply and support
higher earning than under free competitive labour markets (Nienhüser, 2014:247). Furthermore, institutional economists have de-
monstrated that collective bargaining has evidenced positive income distributional effects, along with social and ethical values about
supporting greater fairness (Kaufman, 2007). Studies have also examined relations between union and non-union employee voice
mechanisms (Willman, Bryson, & Gomez, 2009.). For example, Dundon, Wilkinson, Marchington, and Ackers (2004) find both union
and non-union HRM voice mechanisms across multi-plant organizations in the UK and Ireland to be complex, involving contestation
alongside coexistence. A well cited finding in union settings is that reported by Black and Lynch (2004), who demonstrate a positive
relationship between bargaining and labour productivity. Likewise, Dobbins and Gunnigle (2009) report, in capital-intensive man-
ufacturing, that workplace union-management bargaining systems can help reconcile divergent interests that support new and in-
novative HR arrangements.
Contrary to OB, IR analysis seeks to capture the ‘depth’ of voice influence, over which issues employee can contribute, and at what
level in the organization (Wilkinson et al., 2014). This is important because research suggests that silence may be a by-product of

5
E. Nechanska, et al. Human Resource Management Review 30 (2020) 100674

shallow voice systems, and managers imposing decisions unilaterally. According to Cullinane and Donaghey (2014:402), ‘uninten-
tional’ silence may foment where ‘no voice’ prevails in organizations. Further, Dobbins, Dundon, Cullinane, Hickland, and Donaghey
(2017) examine the outcomes of organization-level voice mechanisms established under the Information and Consultation Regula-
tions (ICE) (2004) in the UK and Ireland. They find that minimalistic weak regulations provided employers with high levels of
discretion when responding to legal regulations for voice that resulted in shallow worker participation over minor/trivial issues.
To this end a relevant contextual factor acknowledged in IR research is social-economic and political characteristics across
different employment regimes (see also Barry, Wilkinson, & Gollan, 2014). For instance, voice is generally shallower in Liberal
Market Economies (LME), such as the UK, US, Australia or Ireland, where voice and employment regulations lack mandated statutory
support (see also Gallie, 2011). In contrast, voice may be more expansive in Coordinated Market Economies (CME), such as Germany,
when voice is backed by harder institutional support for social dialogue (Dobbins et al., 2017). IR also recognizes that institutional
structures can be radically different. For instance, Artus (2013) discusses shallow voice found in precarious service sectors in Ger-
many. Important here is that institutional employment regime divergence matters in terms of employment practices and HR design
(Holman & Rafferty, 2018).
Arguably, therefore, IR contributions have a lot to offer in addressing issues of employee voice and silence. Few OB studies
analyse beyond organizational level (e.g., Morrison & Milliken, 2000). IR research links workplace level voice and silence to in-
stitutional arrangements such as unionisation, labour law and regulation, civil society organizations and employer associations.
However, an exclusive IR approach can be seen as partial for several reasons. First, despite shifts to direct forms and employee
involvement (Ackers, 2010), IR studies generally focalize indirect employee voice to the neglect of individualised or hybrid voice
systems combining unions and non-union mechanisms (Barry & Wilkinson, 2016). Only some studies highlight the growing im-
portance of informal voice (Marchington & Suter, 2013; Townsend, Wilkinson, & Burgess, 2013). For example, non-union SME
workers may utilize familial and friendly relations to modify employment conditions (Edwards & Ram, 2009). Relatedly, IR often
prioritises the institutional level of analysis, mainly job regulation, collective bargaining and more recently non-union representation
(Wilkinson et al., 2014). This can lead to IR downplaying the influence of individual-level factors that OB sheds insights about; for
example, employees may feel they are not treated with dignity, even if they are satisfied with other conditions (Hodson, 2001).
Similarly to OB/HRM, pluralist IR strains do not always acknowledge deep-rooted structural contradictions to the same extent as
more radical perspectives (Dundon & Dobbins, 2015; Edwards, 1986, 2014). Extensive voice is widely perceived as somehow good for
employees because it will be good for unions and managerial effectiveness (Goodman, Earnshaw, Marchington, & Harrison, 1998).
Yet, this view may not fully appreciate that employees could remain silent even when voice mechanisms are extensive, possibly as a
form of distress (e.g. suffer in silence) or to ameliorate the effects of inherent power imbalances (e.g. change the current state of
affairs) as discussed in the following section (Burawoy, 1979; van den Broek & Dundon, 2012; Woodcock, 2017). Hence, pluralist IR
downplays silence as benefiting employees or as a rational and intentional worker action. Further, recent “neo”-pluralist IR (Ackers,
2014) is less encompassing when explaining situations where employee voice suppresses worker interests; for instance, employees
sharing knowledge of organizational improvements and processes with management may instigate exploitation through increased
workload, reduced autonomy, or job insecurity (Adler, 1993).
In sum, IR research may lack an appreciation of individual-level social processes and psychological traits, informal voice and line
management involvement underpinning HRM. It does draw insight about institutional structures, regulations and other macro-level
context factors which may leverage or pattern silence. LP voice and silence research offers added explanatory utility in these areas,
considered in the next section.

4.2. Labour process voice and silence

Sociological LP antecedents may assist with a more integrative approach by examining contradictions and tensions in people
management, with an inclusion of societal forces and the attendant implications on worker voice at the organizational-level.
LP stresses that because of an indeterminacy of labour power and the potential for conflicting interests, voice and silence can
become manifest in forms of individual and/or collective worker resistance (Ackroyd & Thompson, 1999:31). LP theory adds that
employee silence may manifest in various forms of resistance, misbehaviour and/or mischief, to contest HR practices that workers
believe undermine their interests. Resistance may stem from concerns around autonomy, skills, reconfigured manager control
boundaries, organizational structure and job design. It may involve employees seeking to ‘get-back’ at management for some prior
decision or imposed condition by withholding information/ideas that could otherwise improve the job or organizational outcomes, or
increase managements' ability to control or intensify employee effort. For example, Graham (1993) shows that Subaru-Isuzu em-
ployees purposely refused to share job improvement information with management. Here, silence effectively limited management's
ability to speed-up the production line. Thompson (1989:137) discusses silence by Chrysler workers, who followed management
instructions to fit doors on vehicles, despite knowing that management sent the vehicles on the line in the wrong order. The error
meant costly corrections. Van den Broek and Dundon (2012) find that workers in non-union call centres regulated information flows
and feedback to customers and management as distinct acts of employee silence, to ‘get-back’ at managers for intense surveillance.
Woodcock (2017) makes similar observations. Importantly, these may or may not be acts employees want to carry out, but they are
embedded within a power-centred economic and social relationship.
As well as seeking to ‘get-back’ at management, silence may help workers cope and ‘get-by’ in degrading jobs. For example,
employees may feel ‘alienated’ because they have limited job autonomy and ownership over the decisions that affect them and their
work (Donovan, O'Sullivan, Doyle, & Garvey, 2016; Woodcock, 2017). While OB research discuss the influence of managerial beliefs
with a concern for organizational effectiveness, LP assumes that managerial beliefs can have an altogether ideological value, such

6
E. Nechanska, et al. Human Resource Management Review 30 (2020) 100674

that voice may be regarded by managers as “an undesirable obstruction of effective work processes” (Kaufman, 2014:19). As such,
employers may actively limit the opportunities for employees to have voice as a way to actively consolidate employer power and
worker silence can elicit control gains from a managerial point of voice (MacMahon et al., 2018:14). Reflecting to some extent OB
‘psychological safety’, workers acknowledging negative managerial attitudes towards voice or unions, may remain silent for ‘fear’ of
retaliation should management view them as troublemakers (Artus, 2013).
However, unlike OB, LP situates these ideas in a broader political economy framework that recognizes structured antagonism
associated with how people are managed at work. For example, the perceived consequences of voicing to employers is influenced by
worker views of management style, occupational identity, gender, contract status and job security, legal rights along with employee
interests at any given point in time (Artus, 2013). For example, at Nippon CTV in Delbridge's (1998:132) factory study, workers
believed management “did not want to hear questions” at meetings. Under LP, indeterminacy of labour power embedded within
unbalanced employment relationships means that conflict and co-operation co-exist (Dundon & Dobbins, 2015; Edwards, 1986;
Edwards et al., 2006; Wright, 2000). Co-operative relations may motivate employees to suggest ideas in support of organizational
goals, reflecting the OB idea of a good quality leader-member exchange. However, acknowledging structured antagonism also un-
covers other implications. Managers may create a more favourable environment for voice in particular contexts, even if this con-
tradicts some manager interests, to gain employee co-operation over other matters. For example, Dobbins (2010) explains how
managers relaxed direct control at Anguish Alumina and gave work-teams a voice over different matters, ranging from minor issues
like scheduling holidays to more major budgeting issues. However, permitting employee voice enabled managers to introduce in-
direct control measures like performance targets and technical controls.
Furthermore, silence may occur because employees are ‘getting-on’ with their employment experience through relations of
compromise and co-operation. In Dobbins' (2010) study, giving voice to teams (which also included union representatives) sparked
less conflict and grievances decreased from 150 per year to 3–4 a year. Moreover, remaining silent about issues which compete with
organizational goals may mean other future favours from management relating to career development, work-life balance, job tasks or
other perks. In MacMahon et al.'s (2018:13) research, employees did not speak-out against bullying actions when they had previous
negative experiences of HR procedures that failed to protect employees who voiced their grievances.
Notwithstanding, employees ‘getting-on’ with their work can indicate the manufacturing of silence: that is employees do not
necessarily view HR policy as undermining their interests or forming shallow participation. For instance, in Burawoy's (1979, 2013)
factory study, union-employer concession bargaining gave an ‘illusion’ of employee involvement. The piece-rate system made
workers compete against co-workers, yet also gave them opportunities to have a say over how they carried out their work tasks (e.g.
how much effort was expanded working the piece rate system). However, the system divided workers, undermined collective em-
ployee representation, and ultimately concealed a reality that the company was enjoying increased productivity while paying
workers very little. Nyberg and Sewell (2014) also find evidence of an illusory compromise, where a ‘happy family’ culture was built
to persuade employees that union voice was not required, which further legitimated managerial control over workers. Hence, LP
theory shows deeper insight about otherwise less visible power dynamics and how they may be played out through HR policy for
voice.
A crucial point for OB/HR audiences is that manager-employee co-operation must be understood in a context of structural power
imbalances and divergent employer-employee interests (Edwards et al., 2006; Belanger and Edwards, 2007). For example, silence as a
form of ‘co-operation’ does not indicate that conflict is somehow eliminated, and when employer and employee interests are aligned,
antagonism can still be present. Equally, if employees voice concerns co-operatively in support of organizational goals, an underlying
conflict of interest can remain, which may instigate voice in other contexts that undermines organizational objectives. Similarly, if
managers provide deeper employee voice and participation to secure co-operation, a structural power imbalance can linger. As
Dobbins and Gunnigle (2009:23) note, providing workers with more voice “constituted new ways of managing contradictions in the
employment relationship and negotiating workplace order. Management control was not displaced, but re-cast in new guises.”
LP further adds to conceptualizations of voice and silence by considering broader forces in the circuit of capital, such as fi-
nancialization and globalization. As advanced in Thompson's (2003) Disconnected Capitalism Thesis (DCT), due to volatile markets
and economic uncertainty, management emphasis turned towards financialization, which tends to intensify HRM around narrow
market-driven performance metrics (Cushen & Thompson, 2016). Consequently, managers often fail to deliver their side of the
expected deal (aka psychological contract violation), including reneging or simply being unable to provide the opportunities for
employees to have a say. This may fuel a collective counter-mobilisation (e.g., through unions), or result in a culture of silence either
as a form of resistance or employee withdrawal owing to fear of managerial reprisals. For instance, in Artus (2013:416) precarious
workers had little access to union protection, and non-standard contract employees were more likely to remain silent because of
insecurity and “a permanent fear of opening one's mouth”. To some extent, silence can be seen as a way to ameliorate precariousness
and poor working conditions.
Ramsay's (1977:481) ‘cycles of control’ thesis argues that “participation has not evolved out of humanisation of capitalism, but
appears cyclically based on tightening conditions within the labour market”. Accordingly, managers are more likely to implement
employee voice initiatives to secure labour compliance when employer authority may by challenged by organised labour, such as
during rising union membership periods. However, Ackers, Marchington, Wilkinson, and Goodman (1992) questioned Ramsay's
(1977) thesis because of its macro-level societal focus. They find that because organizational-level managerial approaches are re-
configured over time by interactions between numerous micro and macro level forces, employee voice initiatives emerge in fluid
‘waves’ rather than cycles. Therefore, while examining how employee voice and silence is shaped by the balance of broader social,
political and economic forces under capitalism, it is not the only approach and intra-organizational analysis remains important,
including individual values, management choices and institutional regulations.

7
E. Nechanska, et al. Human Resource Management Review 30 (2020) 100674

Overall, LP analysis has a rich explanation of the contested nature of people management under contemporary capitalism, which
adds a utility to examining silence and voice. It weaves and dovetails with IR perspectives (especially radical and critical pluralist
frames), while also signalling discrete points of intellectual divergence. LP helps explain how voice and silence could be outcomes as
well as processes through which employees seek to ameliorate degrading effort-reward exchanges. Amelioration may include workers
‘getting back’ at management by withholding information; willingly ‘getting-on’ with co-workers and/or their employer because of
compromise or ‘manufactured consent’, or they may find themselves simply ‘getting-by’ when facing a tough job.
Some influencing forces discussed in LP research relate to OB, for example, managerial attitudes/perceptions, voice repercussions,
voice futility and manager-employee exchanges. But, LP adds another valuable analytical lens, based on the dynamic contestation of
micro and macro level forces, within antagonistic and unbalanced social relationships. One possible way to integrate these debates
and issues into a multi-layered sensitizing framework of voice and silence is considered next.

5. Integrating IR, LP and OB perspectives: towards a multi-layered voice and silence framework

The discussion thus far has provided an overview of OB, IR and LP positions on employee voice and silence, pinpointing their
strengths and weaknesses. In advancing a future research agenda, we propose a critical pluralist framework integrating OB, IR and LP
perspectives to help develop a more heuristic HRM perspective of voice and silence complexities.

5.1. Extending HRM voice and silence

Research suggests that weak voice systems permitting shallow and narrow worker influence, prevent organizations from reaping
the full benefits of worker voice, and may instigate ‘silence’ in the long-term (Cullinane & Donaghey, 2014). Recognising variations
around the depth, scope, level and forms of voice mechanisms can help HR audiences, including managers (Wilkinson et al., 2014).
Formal and informal voice often takes place simultaneously in organizations (Marchington & Suter, 2013). HRM, IR and LP
perspectives could give more attention to face-to-face informal voice, as more widely captured in OB research (Morrison, 2011).
Similarly, OB literatures could focus more on behaviour of actors within formal institutions affecting direct and representative voice,
including trade unions, works councils and civil society agents, as covered in IR/LP. Furthermore, HRM approaches generally lean
towards management-initiated voice systems, but employees are more likely to secure deeper voice by influencing the initiation and
terms of voice (Barry et al., 2018). Combining direct, formal, indirect and informal mechanisms may generate a deeper con-
ceptualization of worker voice, its motives and variable contested outcomes. Finally, IR/LP traditions need not side-step non-union
voice, classing union voice as effective and non-union voice as ineffective, which has been argued as too simplistic (Cullinane &
Dundon, 2014).
Although HRM discusses ‘employee grievance procedures’ and OB research considers alternative voice motives (Burris, 2012;
Klaas, Olson-Buchanan, & Ward, 2012), the focus is mainly predicated on a unitarist assumption of improvement-based voice sup-
porting common interests (Barry & Wilkinson, 2016). Some OB studies note ‘organizational pluralism’ reflecting different employer-
employee interests (Morrison & Milliken, 2000), however too often the OB literatures do not integrate cooperative with conflictual
dynamics, or combine internal and external factors surrounding ‘structured antagonism’ (Dundon & Dobbins, 2015; Edwards, 1986).
In contrast, more critical pluralist perspectives stress how employee voice and silence reflects enduring structural determinants,
potentially conflicting employer-employee interests, relational power imbalances, and changing institutional and legal contexts af-
fecting HR policy and practice.
More consideration is needed within OB streams of HRM of these fundamental structural factors to better explain why employees
express voice, irrespective of the presumed need to defend organizational goals, and how employees may contest management
objectives by resistance, mischief or acts of silence. Viewing voice and silence in this way may be perceived by HR audiences as
undermining management objectives, but this is context-dependent and, indeed, it may stimulate positive outcomes for organizations
long-term.

5.2. Deepening HRM theorization of the forces shaping voice and silence

The proposed sensitizing framework, graphically depicted in Fig. 1, is drawn from Goodrich's (1920) ‘frontier of control’. It builds
on and extends the contested nature of silence advanced by Donaghey et al. (2011:61) through the potentially integrative synergies
across OB/HRM, IR and LP, as discussed in the previous sections thus far. As noted in Fig. 1, some of these dimensions overlap
between disciplinary boundaries, while others remain distinct and separate. Stage 1 depicts ‘interest formation’ and ‘structured
antagonism’ as foundational principles shaping silence and HR practice. OB contributions include insights into pro-social behaviour,
informal voice, its efficacy and safety, sense-making, emotions and individual traits and behaviours. In addition, LP helps compre-
hend a range of contextual influences including the influence of the market and capitalism, management beliefs, voice depth and
scope, skill and gender identity (among others). Crucially, LP theory connects these to structured antagonism and diverse manager-
employee interests. IR contributions provide a fine-grained institutional canvas, unpicking dynamic interactions among contexts (e.g.,
markets, financialisation), actors (e.g., trade unions, management styles, the state etc.), processes (e.g., union bargaining, voice depth
and scope etc.) and outcomes (e.g., feminisation of work, precarious employment contracts, engagement or satisfaction). These ideas
prompt important HR debates around how managers can better balance competing internal/external forces under contemporary
capitalism, to provide deeper employee voice and protect the sustainability of work practices.
Stage 1 influencing factors combine with inter-organizational HR practices to shape manager/employee interest formations, voice

8
 E. Nechanska, et al.

9
Fig. 1. A Sensitizing framework of HRM voice and silence. ⁎Denotes there is a degree of overlap between separate perspective approaches/dimensions.
Human Resource Management Review 30 (2020) 100674
E. Nechanska, et al. Human Resource Management Review 30 (2020) 100674

and silence. Crucially, such mediating influences may coexist in organizations simultaneously, depending on the issue (e.g., whether
it is an employee concern about wages, hours, etc.; and/or a suggestion that would make employees' jobs more intense and re-
petitive), management/supervisory power resources (including more latent power) and employer/employee interests. Importantly
for HR audiences, depending on the unique configuration of Stage 1 forces (e.g., management support or opposition to trade unions,
market changes, employee-supervisory support, etc.), the type of HR practices implemented can differ across and between contexts.
Interactions between Stage 1 forces help explain meaningful voice, intentional and/or unintentional silence, and workers ‘getting-
back’, ‘getting-on’ and ‘getting-by’, as illustrated in Stages 2 and 3. Shallow/weak voice may engender episodes or a culture of
‘intentional’ and/or ‘unintentional’ silence. These may provoke silence whereby workers seek to ‘get-back’ at their employer; for
example by withholding information in various ways. Such silence may ameliorate degrading employment experiences, but could
decrease productivity and co-operation. Cooperation often prevails and coexists alongside dissatisfaction: otherwise, the relationship
would cease over time (Johnstone & Wilkinson, 2016). Thus, employees may pro-actively ‘get-on’ with their job through relations of
compromise, without contributing ideas or expressing grievances and are compliant, but not necessarily committed to organizational
objectives. Further, workers may purposely withhold information or withdraw emotionally and psychologically, yet continue to be
compliant. Fear, potential retribution and/or the futility of speaking-out may engender degrees of employee silence (MacMahon
et al., 2018). To some extent, silence may function as a rationale coping mechanism for employees to ‘get by’ in their jobs. Equally,
employees may engage in ‘meaningful voice’ through union bargaining and/or non-union employee representation channels
(Kaufman, 2014). However, the scope and degree of such voice is not static or universal, but is elastic and underpinned by structured
antagonism.
HR audiences would benefit from a more critical pluralist and integrative approach to explain whether, and if so why, workers are
silent to ‘get-back’, ‘get-on’ and/or ‘get-by’. All three actions indicate that diverse worker interests are not being met and are likely to
inhibit organizations from fully meeting their objectives either now, or in the future. The task then for policy-makers, HR practi-
tioners and OB/IR/LP academics, is to explore ways of better meeting worker interests, for example by providing more effective
worker-initiated voice and making jobs less degrading and insecure. To this end, the sensitizing framework has potential wider public
policy as well as organizational practice implications.
The final column, Stage 4, depicts voice and silence outcomes shaped by how manager/employee interests, structural antagon-
isms and subsequent HR policy interventions mediate the aforementioned social relationship interactions across Stages 1, 2 and 3.
Recognising structural antagonisms arguably embellishes a deeper HR understanding of why employees may express voice to
challenge management as a power dynamic, as well as to support organizational objectives. This is not to judge whether employee (or
indeed HR manager) behaviours are good or bad in mobilising power resources for particular interests. The integrative contribution is
predicated on a social science paradigm of knowledge generation to develop a heuristic picture of why workers may speak-up or not
by locating HRM voice and silence within a multi-level political economy and institutional framework (Kaufman, 2014; Thompson,
2013; Wilkinson et al., 2018).
Such a critical pluralist HRM orientation has a pro-business ontology. For example, it can help move beyond the narrow as-
sumption of correcting or improving organizational effectiveness. It does not reject the importance of meeting organizational ob-
jectives, yet acknowledges embedded power imbalances significantly shape how people are managed, which may in part help address
labour market and societal inequalities.

6. Future research and conclusion

This article has reviewed OB, IR and LP perspectives to develop a multi-layered and multi-level conceptual framework that HR
audiences can use to better understand employee voice, and more importantly silence. OB voice and silence research has utility, but
could be integrated with an IR-LP fusion, which connects actors, processes, and institutions, while embedding micro workplace
relationships with macro and meso socio-political contexts of change and continuity. Our framework contributes understanding to
both voice and silence as a dynamic interface combining the formal/informal, direct/indirect and structure/agency within a context
of structural power imbalances and diverse interests.
Designing effective voice systems to benefit workers and organizations into the future requires a thicker conceptualization of what
voice is, and an understanding of why silence exists as a distinct purpose in its own right. The framework extends HRM voice and
silence by considering how it reflects ‘structured antagonism’ as a deeply-entrenched power imbalance that is multi-layered.
Relatedly, the framework also encourages HR audiences to critically evaluate the voice mechanisms provided to employees. This
includes examining their depth, level and scope, how indirect and informal voice could compliment direct HR forms and whether
employees could initiate voice practices (Barry et al., 2018).
Second, the framework seeks to help explain the multi-dimensional internal and external situational factors and social relations
shaping the forms and patterns of employee silence in context (e.g., intentional silence, unintentional silence, meaningful voice). This
includes OB ideas around pro-social motivations, psychological safety, identity, image, group norms, position power, perceptions,
emotions, leadership and co-worker relations (Morrison, 2011, 2014; Morrison & Milliken, 2000, 2003). Notwithstanding, IR/LP
insights into the ‘structured antagonism’ embedded within people management processes captures wider external political economy
forces operating under capitalism (Thompson, 2013). The framework also offers deeper silence meanings, for example, it may reflect
worker strategies of ‘getting-back’, ‘getting-on’ and ‘getting-by’. This will hopefully ignite debate among HR audiences as to how to
better fulfil divergent worker concerns, in the interests of employees, organizations and society.
The analysis calls for a future research agenda that tests, refutes and adapts sources of relationship influence about voice and
silence as sources of observable and more covert power. To gain fuller and deeper insights, future research could be anchored around

10
E. Nechanska, et al. Human Resource Management Review 30 (2020) 100674

a critical pluralist approach linking micro individual actions to meso organizational contexts and broader macro political economy
forces. Examining how workers, unions, local managers, the state, shareholders, consumers and civil society groups shape voice and
silence could better enrich a more reflective HR knowledge base. Such research may employ qualitative and/or quantitative in-
struments designed to probe ‘why’ employees remain silent and/or ‘how’ employers restrict employee voices that socially regulate
forms of engendered or systematic silence. Unpicking the internal/external challenges HR managers face concerning voice and silence
also merits attention to stimulate debates around ways of better balancing these tensions without suppressing employee interests.
Although OB's unitarist posture towards supporting organizational goals has been critiqued, this does not mean established
psychological research methodologies have limited appeal. Indeed, capturing both employee and management attitudes about silence
is important and has a valuable contribution to make, but could benefit from linking to structured antagonism and macro-level
political economy forces. A challenge here remains around how to encourage rich interdisciplinary research using disciplinary ap-
proaches that address related phenomena (e.g. voice and silence), but speak alterative dialects of meaning and understanding. To this
end, future research may explore employee silence in relation to inter-disciplinary issues and methodologies reflective of employment
fragmentation, precarious pressures and demands, flexible work arrangements, reward or pay determination and the extent to which
employers include, or exclude workers when designing voice arrangements. We hope the framework offers a future research path for
HR/OB/IR/LP scholars and practitioners to better explore empirical nuances about employee silence.

References

Ackers, P. (2010). An Industrial relations perspective on employee participation. In A. Wilkinson, P. J. Gollan, M. Marchington, & D. Lewin (Eds.). The Oxford
Handbook of Participation in Organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ackers, P. (2014). Rethinking the employment relationship: a neo-pluralist critique of British industrial relations orthodoxy. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 25(18), 2608–2625.
Ackers, P., Marchington, M., Wilkinson, A. J., & Goodman, J. (1992). The use of Cycles? Explaining Employee Involvement in the 1990s. Industrial Relations Journal,
23(4), 268–283.
Ackroyd, S., & Thompson, P. (1999). Organisational Misbehaviour. London: Sage.
Adler, P. S. (1993). Time and motion regained. Harvard Business Review, 97–108 January–February.
Artus, I. (2013). Precarious delegates: Irregular forms of employee interest representation in Germany. Industrial Relations Journal, 44(4), 409–424.
Ashford, S. J., & Barton, M. (2007). Identity-based issue selling. In S. CA Bartel, & A. W. Blader (Eds.). Identity and the Modern Organization (pp. 223–234). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Avery, D. R., McKay, P. F., Wilson, D. C., Volpone, S. D., & Killham, E. A. (2011). Does voice go flat? How tenure diminishes the impact of voice. Human Resource
Management, 50(1), 147–158.
Baldamus, W. (1961). Efficiency and Effort: An Analysis of Industrial Administration. London: Tavistock Publications.
Barry, M., Dundon, T., & Wilkinson, A. (2018). Employee voice: conceptualisations, meanings, limitations and possible integration. In A. Wilkinson, T. Dundon, J.
Donaghey, & A. Covin (Eds.). Routledge Companion of Employment Relations. London and New York: Routledge.
Barry, M., & Wilkinson, A. (2016). Pro-Social or Pro-Management? A Critique of the Conception of Employee Voice as a Pro-Social Behaviour within Organizational
Behaviour. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 54(2), 261–284.
Barry, M., Wilkinson, A., & Gollan, P. J. (2014). Voices from around the globe. In A. Wilkinson, G. Wood, & R. Deeg (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Employment
Relations: Comparative Employment Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bélanger, J., & Edwards, P. (2007). The conditions promoting compromise in the workplace. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 45(4), 713–734.
Berg, J. (2016). Income security in the on-demand economy: Findings and policy lessons from a survey of crowdworkers. Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal,
37(3), 543–577.
Black, S. E., & Lynch, L. M. (2004). What's driving the new economy? The benefits of workplace innovation. The Economic Journal, 114(493), F97–F116.
Bowen, F., & Blackmon, K. (2003). Spirals of silence: The dynamic effects of diversity on organizational voice. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1393–1417.
Boxall, P., Purcell, J., & Wright, P. (2008). Human resource management: scope, analysis, and significance. In P. Boxall, J. Purcell, & P. M. Wright (Eds.). The Oxford
Handbook of Human Resource Management. Oxford University Press.
Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and Monopoly Capitalism: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. NYU Press.
Burawoy, M. (1979). Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the Labour Process under Monopoly capitalism. University of Chicago Press.
Burawoy, M. (2013). Ethnographic fallacies: Reflections on labour studies in the era of market fundamentalism. Work, Employment and Society, 27(3), 526–536.
Burris, E. R. (2012). The risks and rewards of speaking up:Managerial responses to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 851–875.
Burris, E. R., Detert, J. R., & Chiaburu, D. S. (2008). Quitting before leaving: The mediating effects of psychological attachment and detachment on voice. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93(4), 912.
Cullinane, N., & Donaghey, J. (2014). Employee silence. In A. Wilkinson, J. Donaghey, T. Dundon, & B. Freeman (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Employee Voice (pp.
398–409). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Cullinane, N., & Dundon, T. (2014). Unitarism and employer resistance to trade unionism. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(18),
2573–2590.
Cushen, J., & Thompson, P. (2016). Financialization and value: Why labour and the labour process still matter. Work, Employment and Society, 30(2), 352–365.
Delbridge, R. (1998). Life on the line in contemporary manufacturing: The workplace experience of lean production and the ‘Japanese’ model. Oxford University Press.
van den Broek, D., & Dundon, T. (2012). Up to no good: Reconfiguring the boundaries of worker resistance and misbehaviour in an increasingly unorganised world.
Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 67(1), 97–121 Still.
Detert, J. R., Burris, E. R., Harrison, D. A., & Martin, S. R. (2013). Voice Flows to and around Leaders: Understanding when units are helped or Hurt by Employee Voice.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(4), 624–664.
Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. (2011). Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted rules of self-censorship at work. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 461–488.
Detert, J. R., & Trevino, L. K. (2010). Speaking up to higher ups: How supervisor and skip-level leaders influence employee voice. Organization Science, 21, 241–270.
Dobbins, A., & Gunnigle, P. (2009). Can voluntary workplace partnership deliver sustainable mutual gains? British Journal of Industrial Relations, 47(3), 546–570.
Dobbins, T. (2010). The case for ‘beneficial constraints’: Why permissive voluntarism impedes workplace cooperation in Ireland. Economic and Industrial Democracy,
31(4), 497–519.
Dobbins, T., & Dundon, T. (2017). The chimera of sustainable labour-management partnership. British Journal of Management, 28(3), 519–533.
Dobbins, T., Dundon, T., Cullinane, N., Hickland, E., & Donaghey, J. (2017). Employment regulation, game theory, and the lacuna in employee participation in liberal
economies. International Labour Review, 156(Issue 3/4), 395–422.
Donaghey, J., Cullinane, N., Dundon, T., & Wilkinson, A. (2011). Reconceptualising employee silence: Problems and prognosis. Work Employment Society, 25, 51–67.
Donovan, S., O'Sullivan, M., Doyle, E., & Garvey, J. (2016). Employee voice and silence in auditing firms. Employee Relations, 38(4), 563–577.
Dundon, T., & Dobbins, T. (2015). Militant Partnership: A radical pluralist analysis of workforce dialectics. Work, Employment and Society, 29(6), 912–931.
Dundon, T., & Rafferty, A. (2018). The (potential) demise of HRM? Human Resource Management Journal, 28(3), 377–391.
Dundon, T., Wilkinson, A., Marchington, M., & Ackers, P. (2004). The meanings and purpose of employee voice. International Journal of Human Resource Management,

11
E. Nechanska, et al. Human Resource Management Review 30 (2020) 100674

15(6), 1150–1171.
Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav.
1(1), 23–43.
Edwards, P. (1986). Conflict at work. Oxford: Blackwell.
Edwards, P., Bélanger, J., & Wright, M. (2006). The bases of compromise in the workplace: A theoretical framework. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 44(1),
125–145.
Edwards, P. and Ram, M. (2009). HRM in small firms: Respecting and regulating informality, Sage Handbook of Human Resource Management. London: Sage.
Farndale, E., Van Ruiten, J., Kelliher, C., & Hope-Hailey, V. (2011). The influence of perceived employee voice on organizational commitment: An exchange
perspective. Human Resource Management, 50(1), 113–129.
Edwards, P. K. (2014). Were the 40 Years of ‘Radical Pluralism’ a Waste of Time? Warwick papers in Industrial Relations, no. 99, June. Coventry: Warwick University.
Farndale, E., Ruiten, J., Kelliher, C., & Hope-Hailey, V. (2011). The influence of perceived employee voice on organisational commitment: an exchange perspective.
Human Resource Management, 50(1), 113–129.
Fast, N. J., Burris, E. R., & Bartel, C. A. (2014). Managing to stay in the dark: Managerial self-efficacy, ego defensiveness, and the aversion to employee voice. Academy
of Management Journal, 57(4), 1013–1034.
Fox, A. (1966). Research Paper 3, Royal Commission on Trade unions and Employer Association, her Majesty's Stationary Office, London. Industrial Sociology and Industrial
Relations.
Fox, A. (1979). A note on industrial relations pluralism. Sociology, 13(1), 105–109.
Fu, N., Flood, P. C., Bosak, J., Rousseau, D. M., Morris, T., & O'Regan, P. (2017). High-Performance work systems in professional service firms: Examining the practices-
resources-uses-performance linkage. Human Resource Management, 56(2), 329–352.
Gallie, D. (2011). Production Regimes. Employee Job Control and Skill Development, published by the Centre for Learning and Life Chances in Knowledge Economies and
Societieshttp://www.llakes.org.
Godard, J. (2014). The psychologisation of employment relations? Human Resource Management Journal, 24, 1–18.
Goldberg, C. B., Clark, M. A., & Henley, A. B. (2011). Speaking up: A conceptual model of voice responses following the unfair treatment of others in non-union
settings. Human Resource Management, 50(1), 75–94.
Goodman, J., Earnshaw, J., Marchington, M., & Harrison, R. (1998). Unfair dismissal cases, disciplinary procedures, recruitment methods and management style.
Employee Relations, 20(6), 536–550.
Goodrich, C. (1920). The Frontier of Control. London: Harcourt, Brace and company.
Graham, L. (1993). Inside a Japanese Transplant: A critical Perspective. Work and Occupations, 20, 147–173.
Grant, A. M. (2013). Rocking the boat but keeping it steady: The role of emotion regulation in employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1703–1723.
Hirschman, A. (1970). Exit, voice and loyalty: Responses to declines in firms, organisations and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hodson, R. (2001). Dignity at work. Cambridge University Press.
Holland, P., Pyman, A., Cooper, B. K., & Teicher, J. (2011). Employee voice and job satisfaction in Australia: The centrality of direct voice. Human Resource
Management, 50(1), 95–111.
Holman, D., & Rafferty, A. (2018). The Convergence and Divergence of Job Discretion between Occupations and Institutional Regimes in Europe from 1995 to 2010.
Journal of Management Studies, 55(4), 619–647.
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 38(3), 635–672.
Jaros, S. J. (2005). Marxian Critique of Thompson's (1990) ‘core’ Labour Process Theory: An Evaluation and Extension, Ephemera theory & politics in organizations. Vol. 5,
5–25.
Johnstone, S., & Wilkinson, A. (2016). Developing positive Employment Relations, International Experiences of Labour Management Partnership. London: Palgrave McMillan.
Kaufman, B. (2014). Theorising Determinants of Employee Voice: An Integrative Model across Disciplines and Levels of Analysis. Human Resource Management, 25,
19–40.
Kaufman, B. (2015). Market competition, HRM, and firm performance: The conventional paradigm critiqued and reformulated. Human Resource Management Review,
25, 107–125.
Kaufman, B. E. (2007). The institutional economics of John R. Commons: Complement and substitute for neoclassical economic theory. Socio-Economic Review, 5(1),
3–45.
Kish-Gephart, J. J., Detert, J. R., Trevino, L. K., & Edmondson, A. C. (2009). Silenced by fear: The nature, sources and consequences of fear at work. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 29, 163–193.
Klaas, B. S., Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & Ward, A. K. (2012). The determinants of alternative forms of workplace voice: And integrative perspective. Journal of
Management, 38, 314–345.
Knoll, M., & Redman, T. (2016). Does the presence of voice imply the absence of silence? The necessity to consider employees' affective attachment and job en-
gagement. Human Resource Management, 55(5), 829–844.
Kochan, T. A. (2015). Shaping the Future of work: What Future Worker, Business, Government, and Education Leaders need to do for all to Prosper. New York: Business Expert
Press.
Kwon, B., Farndale, E., & Park, J. G. (2016). Employee voice and work engagement: Macro, meso, and micro-level drivers of convergence? Human Resource
Management Review, 26(4), 327–337.
Lepine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 853.
Liang, J., Crystal, I., Farh, C., & Farh, J. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management
Journal, 55, 71–92.
Liu, W., Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2013). The relational antecedents of voice targeted at different leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 841–851.
MacMahon, J., O'Sullivan, M., Murphy, C, Ryan, L and MacCurtain, S. (2018), ‘Speaking up or staying silent in bullying situations: The significance of management
control’, Industrial Relations Journal, on-line early (https://doi.org/10.1111/irj.12230).
Marchington, M. (2015). Human resource management (HRM): Too busy looking up to see where it is going longer term? Human Resource Management Review, 25(2),
176–187.
Marchington, M., & Suter, J. (2013). Where informality really matters: Patterns of employee involvement and participation in a non-union firm. Industrial Relations,
52(S1), 284–313.
Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., & Dworkin, T. M. (2008). Whistleblowing in Organizations. New York: Routledge.
Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An Explanatory Study of Employee Silence: Issues that employees Don't Communicate Upward and why. Journal
of Management Studies, 40(6), 1453–1476.
Morrison, E., & Milliken, F. (2003). Speaking up, remaining silent: The dynamics of voice and silence in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1353–1358.
Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behaviour: Integration and directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 373–412.
Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behaviour, 1, 173–197.
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational Silence: A Barrier to Change and Development in a Pluralistic Worlds. The Academy of Management Review,
25(4), 706–725.
Morrison, E. W., Wheeler-Smith, S. L., & Kamdar, D. (2011). Speaking up in groups: A cross-level study of group voice climate and voice. Journal of Applied Psychology,
96, 183–191.
Mowbray, P. K., Wilkinson, A., & Tse, H. H. M. (2015). An Integrative Review of Employee Voice: Identifying a Common Conceptualization and Research Agenda.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 17, 382–400.
Nienhüser, W. (2014). Works councils. In A. Wilkinson, J. Donaghey, T. Dundon, & R. Freeman (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Employee Voice. Cheltenham: Edward

12
E. Nechanska, et al. Human Resource Management Review 30 (2020) 100674

Elgar.
Nyberg, D., & Sewell, G. (2014). Collaboration, Co-operation or Collusion? Contrasting Employee responses to Managerial Control in three call Centres. British Journal
of Industrial Relations, 52(2), 308–332.
Park, J. Y., & Nawakitphaitoon, K. (2018). The cross-cultural study of LMX and individual employee voice: The moderating role of conflict avoidance. Human Resource
Management Journal, 28(1), 14–30.
Pinder, C. C., & Harlos, K. P. (2001). Employee silence: Quiescence and acquiescence as response to perceived injustice. In G. R. Ferris (Vol. Ed.), Research in Personnel
and Human Resource Management. Vol. 20. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management (pp. 331–369). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Ramsay, H. (1977). Cycles of control: worker participation in sociological and historical perspective. Sociology, 11, 481–506.
Ramsay, H., Scholarios, D., & Harley, B. (2000). Employees and High-Performance Work Systems: Testing inside the Black Box. British Journal of Industrial Relations,
38(4), 501–531.
Rees, C., Alfes, K., & Gatenby, M. (2013). Employee voice and engagement: Connections and consequences. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
24(14), 2780–2798.
Smidts, A., Pruyn, A. T. H., & Van Riel, C. B. (2001). The impact of employee communication and perceived external prestige on organizational identification. Academy
of Management Journal, 44(5), 1051–1062.
Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2008). Employee silence on critical work issues: The cross-level effects of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 61, 37–68.
Thompson, P. (1989). The Nature of work: An Introduction to debate on the Labour Process (2nd edition). London: Macmillan.
Thompson, P. (2003). Disconnected capitalism: Or why employers Can't keep their Side of the bargain. Work Employment and Society, 17, 359–378.
Thompson, P. (2013). Financialization and the workforce: Extending and applying the disconnected capitalism thesis. Work, Employment and Society, 27, 472–488.
Townsend, K., Wilkinson, A., & Burgess, J. (2013). Filling the gaps: Patterns of formal and informal participation. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 34(2), 337–354.
Ulrich, D. (1998). A new mandate for human resources. Harvard Business Review, 124–134 Jan-Feb.
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40,
1359–1392.
Wang, H., Wu, W., Liu, Y., Hao, S., & Wu, S. (2016). In what ways do Chinese employees speak up? An exchange approach to supervisor–subordinate guanxi and voice
behavior. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1–23.
Wilkinson, A., Dundon, T., Donaghey, J., & Freeman, R. (2014). Employee voice: Charting new terrain. In A. Wilkinson, J. Donaghey, T. Dundon, & R. Freeman (Eds.).
Handbook of Research on Employee Voice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Wilkinson, A., Gollan, P. J., Kalfa, S., & Xu, Y. (2018). Voices unheard: Employee voice in the new century. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
29(5), 711–724.
Williams, S., Abbott, B., & Heery, E. (2011). Non-union worker representation through civil society organisations: Evidence from the United Kingdom. Industrial
Relations Journal, 42(1), 69–85.
Willman, P., Bryson, A., & Gomez, R. (2009). Voice at the workplace 1980–2004. In W. Brown, A. Bryson, J. Forth, & K. Whitfield (Eds.). The Evolution of the Modern
Workplace (pp. 97–102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Woodcock, J. (2017). Working the phones: Control and Resistance in Call Centres. London: Pluto Press.
Wright, E. O. (2000). Working-class power, capitalist class interests, and class compromise. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 957–1002.

13