for the presentation at nca 2012 @ orlando, fl
DESCRIPTION
This set of presentation slides are used for the presentation at a panel scheduled during the annual convention of the National Communication Association in Orlando, FL. The presented study investigated the strategies used by organizational members to communicate their "voice," or work-related ideas intended to improve the efficiency of their work group. All correspondence should be directed to Dr. Masaki Matsunaga ([email protected]), an assistant professor of College of Business at Rikkyo University.TRANSCRIPT
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