By Louisa Baczor, CIPD Research Adviser
The Matthew Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices highlights the importance of effective worker voice for creating good work. We believe that having a meaningful voice is critical to better experience and outcomes of work, and therefore welcome Taylor’s inclusion of the CIPD’s viewpoint that ‘having a voice is essential not just at the moment of entering an employment relationship, but as it progresses, too.’ The review outlines several purposes of voice in the workplace, from raising concerns to influencing business decisions, and discusses the role of trade unions and Information and Consultation of Employees (ICE) regulations in employee representation.
We know that voice has a positive impact on outcomes like employee engagement and job satisfaction, but the CIPD view is that it also has intrinsic value to individuals, which is currently not considered by organisational voice mechanisms. Employers tend to see employee voice as being valuable if it’s constructive and positively contributes to the organisation’s goals and objectives – i.e. if it has some instrumental value. We argue that the outcomes for people should be considered alongside the outcomes for the organisation, in order to create environments for people to have meaningful voice at work.
For instance, having the freedom to express oneself in the way you choose at work might be important for establishing individuality and a sense of personal identity. While this may not necessarily contribute to organisational goals, the choice to do so could certainly have an impact on employee well-being. Voice can also be used as an instrument to vent and release emotions, which can be beneficial for individuals as a coping mechanism or to reduce stress. But, current models of employee voice tend to view dissenting voices as counter-productive, and therefore as something that should be discouraged. Our call is for employers to look beyond the traditional paradigm of voice, which considers its instrumental value in contributing to performance, but ignores the intrinsic value to individuals.
The review also calls for a stronger voice for self-employed people, and recommends that the Government work with employers to support technology that helps the self-employed discuss issues that are affecting them. Modern working practices are clearly changing and challenging people’s ability to have a say at work, with, for example, ‘gig economy’ workers interacting with a piece of software rather than a human employer. While such remoteness from other people in the organisation could negatively impact well-being, social media can provide a channel for workers in the gig economy to connect with each other.
Taylor suggests that the Government should work with other bodies to develop better employee engagement and workforce relations, particularly for those in atypical forms of work. While we welcome this recommendation, we are calling for a greater appreciation of the value of employee voice as an outcome for individuals, beyond its instrumental value in driving engagement and performance. CIPD research on voice is exploring the HR practices that could support this alternative approach to employee voice, and the issues that people feel unable to express at work.
The upsurge in voice in society – namely, the Grenfell Tower disaster and the UK General Election - is underlining the need for voice and the consequences of alienated or suppressed voices. We therefore need to better understand how we can uncover the unheard voices, and support voice mechanisms that are inclusive of individual needs.
