for the presentation at nca 2012 @ orlando, fl

To “Voice” or Not, and How?

Masaki MatsunagaCollege of Business, Rikkyo Univ.

Employee “Voice” Strategy Use and Its Antecedents

Employee “Voice” Strategy Use and Its Antecedents

2

Conceptualization ofEmployee “Voice”

Employee “Voice” Strategy Use and Its Antecedents

3

About Work-Related Issues

Employee “Voice” Strategy Use and Its Antecedents

4

Intend To Improve Work Group

Employee “Voice” Strategy Use and Its Antecedents

5

NOT Merely To Criticize

Employee “Voice” Strategy Use and Its Antecedents

6

Challenge status quo = Risky

Employee “Voice” Strategy Use and Its Antecedents

7

Hypotheses & RQof the Current Study

Employee “Voice” Strategy Use and Its Antecedents

8

What Predicts Employees’Speaking Up?

Employee “Voice” Strategy Use and Its Antecedents

9

How Do EmployeesCommunicate Their “Voice”?

Employee “Voice” Strategy Use and Its Antecedents

10

Method & Results

11

N = 539 full-timers in JPN(Age M = 28.4 yrs, SD = 5.1)

3-Wave Online Survey(2-week interval; response rate = 77.0%)

Employee “Voice” Strategy Use and Its Antecedents

12

“Voice” Strategy Measure= Risky Revelation Strategies (Afifi & Steuber, 2009)

Employee “Voice” Strategy Use and Its Antecedents

Directness

IncrementalDisclosure

“Entrapment”

Preparation & Rehearsal

Third-Party Revelation

Indirect Medium

Employee “Voice” Strategy Use and Its Antecedents

13

Direct (approx. 10%)

Speak up “voice”face-to-face

Little use of CMC

Employee “Voice” Strategy Use and Its Antecedents

14

Deniable (approx. 20%)

Third-Party or“Entrapment”

Employee “Voice” Strategy Use and Its Antecedents

15

Careful (approx. 20%)

Express “Voice”only incrementally

Employee “Voice” Strategy Use and Its Antecedents

16

Multichannel (approx. 8%)

Express “Voice”through various channels

Employee “Voice” Strategy Use and Its Antecedents

17

Undisclosed (approx. 45%)

Almost no “voice”

Vast majority

Employee “Voice” Strategy Use and Its Antecedents

18

Discussion

Employee “Voice” Strategy Use and Its Antecedents

19

Employees convey “voice” through various approaches

Employee “Voice” Strategy Use and Its Antecedents

20

Those who explicitly speak upmay NOT be true opinion leaders

Employee “Voice” Strategy Use and Its Antecedents

21

Need to identify appropriatetheoretical frameworks

Employee “Voice” Strategy Use and Its Antecedents

22

Need to explore nomological netof employee voice dynamics

Employee “Voice” Strategy Use and Its Antecedents

23

Need to clarify cultural influenceon employee voice dynamics

Employee “Voice” Strategy Use and Its Antecedents

24

Need to develop and validatea new measurement scale

25

Thank youMasaki MatsunagaCollege of Business, Rikkyo Univ.

Employee “Voice” Strategy Use and Its Antecedents

27

What Predicts Employees’Speaking Up?

Employee “Voice” Strategy Use and Its Antecedents

28

Direct (approx. 10%)

Strong intentionand peer support

Impartial supervisor

Employee “Voice” Strategy Use and Its Antecedents

29

Deniable (approx. 20%)

Strong intention, but little support

Strong partialityat workplace

Employee “Voice” Strategy Use and Its Antecedents

30

Careful (approx. 20%)

Seek close tie withsupervisor

Not affected bypeers or workplaceenvironment

Employee “Voice” Strategy Use and Its Antecedents

31

Multichannel (approx. 8%)

Fear missing opportunities

Strong support bypeers and impartialsupervisor

Employee “Voice” Strategy Use and Its Antecedents

32

Undisclosed (approx. 45%)

Little peer support

Strong partialityat workplace