Exploring the connection between informed employee voice and

organisational engagement

1. Introduction

The term “employee voice” has a relatively long history in academic literature, dating
back to the 1970s when Hirschman (1970) used it in relation to employees' efforts to
change dissatisfying work situations. This was a focus on declining firms and
employees in terms of exit and voice. According to Wilkinson et al (2004) the word
‘voice’ was popularised by Freeman and Medoff (1984) who argued that it made
good sense for both company and workforce to have a ‘voice’ mechanism. Spencer
(1986) developed this theme and concluded that giving employees opportunities to
voice their dissatisfaction increased the likelihood that they would stay with the
organisation. However, Spencer (1986, p. 500) also noted that “…On the
organizational level of analysis, future research should consider not only formal voice
mechanisms and their quality, but also informal organizational cultures that create
and sustain those mechanisms”. This has led to wider thinking about employee voice
and according to Van Dyne et al (2003, p. 1369) the management literature contains
two major conceptualizations. The first approach describes speaking up behaviour
such as when employees proactively make suggestions for change. The second
uses the term to describe procedures that enhance justice judgments and facilitate
employee participation in decision making. This implies both informal and formal
mechanisms are required, though little attention has been given in the literature to an
open organisational culture that accepts and promotes voice in these ways.
Summarising the literature, Van Dyne et al (2003, p. 1370) conclude that the term
voice is used to “represent the intentional expression of work-related ideas,
information, and opinions”. Budd et al (2010, p. 305) argue that there is now a
renaissance in interest in participation, based on economic (generation of higher
levels of performance in the post mass production era), moral/ethic, and pragmatic
grounds.
This paper explores different dimensions of voice and argues that voice is dependent
upon employees being well informed; employees can only use their voice effectively
if their ideas and suggestions are based upon a strong understanding of what is
happening in the organisation. This leads on to the concept of informed employee
voice, which in turn, can potentially contribute to higher levels of employee
engagement.

Copyright: Kevin Ruck

Contact: kevin.ruck@pracademy.co.uk
2. Employee voice is a multi-dimensional construct

According to Van Dyne et al (2003, p. 1370) it is incorrect to think of employee voice

as a single construct and they propose three specific types of voice; ProSocial Voice,
Defensive Voice, and Acquiescent Voice (see table 1 below).

PROSOCIAL VOICE DEFENSIVE VOICE ACQUIESCENT VOICE

Examples: Examples: Examples:

Expressing solutions to Expressing ideas that shift Expressing supportive
problems based on attention elsewhere based ideas based on
cooperation on fear resignation

Suggesting constructive Proposing ideas that focus Agreeing with the group
ideas for change to on others to protect the due to low self efficacy
benefit the organization self to make a difference

Table 1 ProSocial Voice, Defensive Voice, and Acquiescent Voice

This approach is based on three specific employee motives within the existing
management literature on silence and voice: disengaged behaviour based on
resignation, self-protective behaviour based on fear, and other oriented behaviour
based on cooperation. It is a useful extension of the concept that illustrates some of
the underlying reasons that drive the way that employees express their voice. For the
purposes of this paper, informed employee voice is discussed primarily from the
concept of ProSocial voice as this is where organisational wide practices are
focused. This is not to downplay the importance of understanding Defensive and
Acquiescent Voice. Indeed, effective employee engagement practices need to
ensure that fear and resignation are minimised in order to gain maximum benefits for
the employee and the organisation.
In an alternative approach, Dundon et al (2004, p. 1152) suggest four categories of
employee voice; individual dissatisfaction, collective organisation (as a counter to the
power of management), management decision-making, and mutuality (a partnership
for long term sustainability). This extends the concept to include the idea that
employees work in partnership with senior managers for the benefit of the
organisation. Liu et al (2009, p. 191) point out that there are three alternative
characteristics of voice; discretionary (it’s not actually required), challenge oriented,
and potentially risky (it may be viewed negatively or damage relationships). The risks
involved may explain why employees are “usually reluctant to voice their thoughts”

Copyright: Kevin Ruck

Contact: kevin.ruck@pracademy.co.uk
(Liu et al, 2010, p.189). These perspectives on voice highlight the complexity of the
concept and the differing reasons why voice is, or is not, used.
Wilkinson et al (2004, pp. 6-7) take a broader, multi-dimensional approach to
employee voice, suggesting that is based upon five factors:
1. communication/exchange of views (an opportunity for employees and
managers to exchange views about issues)
2. upward problem-solving (an opportunity for employees to provide feedback
on specific topics)
3. collective representation (an opportunity for employee representatives to
communicate the views of the workforce to managers)
4. engagement (a feeling on the part of staff that they are able to express their
views to managers in an open environment)
5. a say about issues (the opportunity not just to have a ‘voice’ on issues but an
expectation that these views will be taken into account and may lead to
changes in how decisions are made).
This is essentially a communicative process with an emphasis on openness and
upward feedback that is taken seriously. In a qualitative study of employee voice,
Wilkinson et al (2004, p.7) conclude that voice as communication was by far the most
common immediate response to the question asking managers to explain their
understanding of the term ‘voice’. For example, the HR Manager at Eiretel is quoted
as saying that, “voice is about corporate communications and the strategy is
designed in such a way that all employees can represent their views to management,
rather than it just being the other way around”. However, the importance of informing
employees so that they are able to make an effective contribution is omitted from this
discussion. The critical importance of being well informed is supported by academic
research conducted for the CIPD by Truss (2006, p. 45) that identified the three main
factors that influence employee engagement as; 1) having opportunities to feed your
views upwards, 2) feeling well informed about what is happening in the organization,
and 3) thinking that your manager is committed to your organization. The third
aspect, management commitment to the organization, points to the importance of the
quality of the processes rather than the processes themselves.

Copyright: Kevin Ruck

Contact: kevin.ruck@pracademy.co.uk
Employee voice is also a term that overlaps with others such as involvement,
empowerment and democracy and is linked to participation in organizations (Budd,
Gollan, and Wilkinson, 2010). Marchington and Wilkinson (2005) suggest that there
are three dimensions; direct communication, upward problem-solving and
representative participation. Peccei et al (2010) take a similar approach, based on
three voice mechanisms: the recognition of a union for collective bargaining, the
presence of joint consultation through an establishment-level joint committee or
works council, and the existence of formal mechanisms of direct participation, such
as team briefings, quality circles, and problem-solving groups. However, there is little
attention given to how these three mechanisms are best integrated within an
organisation, the significance of more informal levels of voice, or the importance of
employees being suitably well informed to be able to make an effective contribution.
In a longitudinal study in the UK, Peccei at al (2010, p.433) found an upward trend in
information disclosure between 1990 and 1998, followed by a levelling off between
1998 and 2004. Importantly, according to Peccei at al (2010, p.432) “disclosure does,
in fact, seem to have a positive effect on financial performance…nevertheless, many
managers are clearly disinclined to share information with employees”. Peccei at al
(2010, p. 436) conclude that “there is, therefore, a need for management to learn
about, and to come to terms with, the processes of information-sharing”. How this is
to be achieved is not tackled in the paper.
Edmondson (2006) argues that the ubiquitous employee survey is an
overlooked voice mechanism as it offers a safe and ethical way of employees
being able to voice their concerns. Edmondson (2006, p. 307) offers three
general principles to guide future researchers in helping overcome organizational
communication problems:
1) build trust in the organizational survey process, the researcher(s), and the
organization, 2) eliminate the adversarial relationship that often exists between
management and employees who speak up and 3) provide evidence that the
organization does more than purport to value the things that it says it values.
However, the validity of an employee survey is dependent on the research
methodology (usually quantitative) and asking the right questions. This is not as
straightforward as it may seem. For example, Macey and Schneider (2008, p. 21)
argue that “…any measure that asks how satisfied an employee is with conditions at
or of work or asks about the presence of particular conditions of or at work is not a
measure of any of the three facets of the engagement construct we have elucidated”.

Copyright: Kevin Ruck

Contact: kevin.ruck@pracademy.co.uk
Different approaches to employee voice are integrated at three levels in table 2
below: individual/informal group, formal group, and organisation.

Individual/informal Formal group Organisation

group
Exchange of views on
specific issues
Problem solving
Management decision
making
Collective bargaining
Joint consultation
Team briefings
Problem solving
Management decision
making
Opportunity to have a say
as part of the culture
Partnership approach for
long term sustainability of
the organisation
Survey

Table 2 A summary of different levels of employee voice

MacLeod and Clarke (2009, p. 75) reflect that of the people consulted for their report
to the UK government, most highlighted four broad engagement drivers/enablers;
leadership, engaging managers, integrity and voice. Voice is described as
“employees’ views are sought out; they are listened to and see that their opinions
count and make a difference. They speak out and challenge when appropriate”. At a
basic level, according to Royer et al (2008, p. 238) “the utilisation of different
employee voice mechanisms improve managerial responsiveness to employee
needs, improve employee control over their jobs and assist employees in influencing
job rewards”. Liu et al (2010, p. 191) highlight the importance of “transformational
leadership” that incorporates an approach whereby “employees are allowed more
leeway in communicating and challenging the status quo”. In their questionnaire
based research in China with 324 MBA students, Liu et al (2010, p. 199) found that
“strong personal identification with the leader might encourage followers to speak up
(e.g. share critical thinking with the leader) rather than keep silent”. This is important,
as Tourish and Hargie (2004, p. 194) suggest that “The danger is that top managers
can become like rock stars surrounded by a sycophantic entourage”. The move from
transactional to transformational styles of leadership with an inherent tolerance of
more dissent in the workplace may mitigate against this. However, resistance or
critical feedback may still be seen as something to overcome rather than as useful
insight to inform strategy.

Copyright: Kevin Ruck

Contact: kevin.ruck@pracademy.co.uk
Dundon and Gollan (2007, p. 1186) highlight the link between voice and trust and
claim that, “The evidence suggests that more effective non-union voice channels are
based on managerial strategies that place a premium on high levels of trust between
management and employees”. An absence of opportunities for voice may be
symptomatic of a view emanating from the strategic management literature that only
senior managers are critical resources (Royer et al, 2008, p 240). Dundon and Gollan
(2007, p. 1188) go on to argue that a “lack of voice or a perception among
employees that their voice arrangements afford little utility, could be interpreted as a
sign that management is untrustworthy”.
The CIPD (2010, pp. 11-12) reinforces Dundon at al’s (2004) view on voice as
mutuality and notes that there is an appetite for a collective voice at work that is
similar to partnership working where “employees are at the heart of strategy
development and delivery”. The report suggests (2010, p. 16) that employers are
“increasingly looking to OD specialists to develop internal communications” though it
does not explain how OD consultants are more qualified to do this than corporate
communication professionals. Though collective voice may be enjoying a
renaissance (albeit through non-union forms), it is the appetite for critical upward
feedback that is the nub of the matter. Establishing employees as partners includes
the willingness to express things that senior managers may not wish to hear. As
Tourish and Hargie (2004, p. 197) point out, “…senior managers have a tendency to
over-critique negative feedback, while instantly agreeing with positive feedback”.
Deetz and Brown (2004, pp. 173-8) raise further concerns about involvement,
participation and workplace decision processes by suggesting that “…communication
has been largely treated as unproblematic, thus leading to a focus on developing
participation forums”, whereas the challenge is in “providing new ways to think about
and do communication in places where participation is genuinely favoured”. The lack
of understanding about the nature of the communicative process is compounded by
the fact that “Business schools more often require public speaking and presentation
skills rather than listening or negotiation skills” (Deetz and Brown, 2004, p. 177). It is
not so much about giving employees a voice per se as it is allowing them more
freedom about how they use it on the basis that senior managers are prepared to
accept, or better still, welcome, critical commentary. As Deetz and Brown (2004, p.
179) highlight, “talking to have a say is very different from talking to invent a choice to
which all can commit”. In the next section, the question of how information is shared
is examined in more detail.

Copyright: Kevin Ruck

Contact: kevin.ruck@pracademy.co.uk
3. Informed employee voice – beyond platitudes

In this paper it is argued that employee voice can and does, in itself, contribute to
employee engagement and improved financial performance. However, unless it is
based on highly effective information sharing the gains are going to be limited. Truss
(2006, p.18) reports that only 32 per cent of employees feel that they are both
fully/fairly well informed and also have opportunities for upward feedback. This is
group is, unsurprisingly, highly engaged. Truss (2006, p.41) goes on to argue that
“allowing people the opportunity to feed their views and opinions upwards is the
single most important driver of engagement”. However, the basis on which views and
opinions are expressed has to be a transparent, authentic and timely approach to
information sharing, otherwise any views or opinions expressed may not be well
enough informed. As Dundon and Gollan highlight (2007, p. 1186), “Effective
employee voice is about affording employees the opportunity to develop their
knowledge and skills so that they can contribute to decisions normally reserved for
management…”.The concept of informed employee voice is therefore introduced to
emphasise the dual importance of effective information sharing and opportunities to
express work-related ideas, information, and opinions.

In academic research, Forth and Millward (2002, p. 1) note that direct communication
between managers and employees is growing and communication through employee
representatives is declining. Between 1984 and 1998, based on evidence from
Workplace Employee Relations Surveys that involve 2000 workplaces in Great
Britain, “the proportion of workplaces where managers relied solely on direct
communication increased from 11 to 30 per cent” Forth and Millward (2002, p. 1). In
the same period, the use of newsletters increased from 34 to 50 per cent and the use
of more two-way communication in the form of “briefing groups” was noted as a
“pervasive phenomenon”, increasing from 36 to 65 per cent” Forth and Millward
(2002, pp. 4-5). This is useful as a reflection on the way that information sharing is
changing, though it does not investigate the content of the communication and gives
no indication as to whether employees feel that they are adequately informed to
participate fully in briefing groups. Peccei et al (2005, p. 12) raise some concerns
about the way that “information-sharing is often operationalized in process rather
than in content terms”. Furthermore, in a recent study on voice and engagement, the
CIPD (2010, p. 2) highlight the need for employers to focus on “the quality of voice
across their organisation, not just the process of consultation”. For example, some

Copyright: Kevin Ruck

Contact: kevin.ruck@pracademy.co.uk
employees say that “Employer’s newsletters can often be seen as management
propaganda” (CIPD, 2006, p. 7). Peccei et al (2005, p. 12) claim that “few studies
focus explicitly on the substantive content of disclosure practice” and that the impact
of disclosure “…varies depending on the level of commitment of employees, the type
of information disclosed and the performance outcome involved”.
Peccei et al (2005, p. 33) claim that, “… management’s systematic sharing of
information on performance targets relating to various aspects of the operation of the
organization can help to enhance employee commitment”. However, Deetz and
Brown (2003, p. 173) attribute the lack of voice, among other things to “inadequate or
distorted information.” This reflects a need to focus on the quality of information
sharing and trust in it. Despite the trend towards more direct communication between
managers and employees and the clear links to engagement, there is still some way
to go to get this to acceptable levels. According to Truss (2006, p. 13-14), 25 per cent
of employees say that their manager rarely or never makes them feel their work
counts. And only around half of all employees say that their manager usually or
always “consults me on matters of importance” or “keeps me in touch with what is
going on”. In general, 42 per cent of employees say that they are not kept very well
informed about what is going on in their organisation (Truss, 2006, p. 17) and this
applies to both the public and private sectors. If a large number of employees do not
feel very well informed there is only limited benefit to be gained (by the organisation
and the employee) from upward feedback sessions.

4. The connection between informed employee voice and organisational

engagement

In this section, the connection between informed employee voice and organisational
engagement is examined in more detail. The term informed employee voice is used
to describe organisational processes that enable employees to feel well informed and
to have a say about what goes on that is genuinely welcomed and seriously
considered. The term organisational employee engagement is used to focus on the
connection between the employee and the organisation. This is linked to
organisational identification (Edwards 2009) and organisational commitment. It is
different from some academic definitions of work engagement that are suggested by
Schaufeli and Bakker (2010, p. 13) to focus either on the individual role or the work
activity with both approaches incorporating behavioural-energetic (vigor), emotional
(dedication) and cognitive (absorption) dimensions. Indeed, in an examination of
concepts related to work engagement, Schaufeli and Bakker (2010, pp. 13-15)
Copyright: Kevin Ruck
Contact: kevin.ruck@pracademy.co.uk
suggest that “when engagement is considered to be equivalent to organizational
commitment, as in some definitions that are used in business, the very notion of
engagement is superfluous”. In contrast to this, it can be argued that when employee
engagement is linked solely to the individual and his/her role and work activity it is
too individualistic and diminishes the impact of social groups and organisational
factors. Other concepts that, according to Schaufeli and Bakker (2010) are linked, but
not equivalent to work engagement are extra-role behaviour, personal initiative, job
involvement, job satisfaction, positive affectivity, flow, and workaholism. This paper
argues that if organisational identification is not equal to employee engagement then
it is at least is a critical component, one that is worthy of special attention in the
context of informed employee voice as without it role and work activity have less
meaning. As Leiter and Bakker (2010, p. 2) acknowledge, “Employees’ responses to
organizational policies, practices and structures affect their potential to experience
engagement”. It is precisely the input to and response to organisational strategy and
practices that determines levels of vigor, dedication and absorption at work. This is
illustrated in a social identity theory approach to organisational identification adopted
by Millward and Postmes (2010, p. 335) in an academic study involving 51 business
managers in the UK. They reported that “The fact that identification with the
superordinate grouping of “the organisation” was particularly relevant to performance
is important for theoretical, empirical and pragmatic reasons”. This reinforces
research by Wieseke (2009) that found the higher the level of organisational identity
of sales managers the greater the sales quota achievement. Furthermore, a lack of
organisational identification has, according to Knight and Haslam (2010, p. 721) been
associated with increased stress and burnout, withdrawal, and sickness. This
thinking is based on social identity theory that argues that a person’s sense of self is
multidimensional (personal, social and human) and a shared social identity is a key
determinant of social behaviour. If a shared social identity in an organisational setting
is important it begs the question as to how it is developed. The concept of internal
corporate communication has been introduced by Welch and Jackson (2007, p. 186)
to link internal communication to employee engagement:

The internal corporate communication dimension is defined as

communication between an organisation’s strategic managers and its internal
stakeholders, designed to promote commitment to the organisation, a sense
of belonging to it, awareness of its changing environment and understanding
of its evolving aims.

Copyright: Kevin Ruck

Contact: kevin.ruck@pracademy.co.uk
Welch and Jackson (2007, p. 186) go on to state that academics and practitioners
“emphasise the role of clear, consistent and continuous communication in building
employee engagement”. However, clarity and consistency is just the starting point. A
lack of clarity and inconsistent communication is confusing for employees. However,
internal communication can be clear, consistent and distorted. It is the content and
tone of internal corporate communication that is more important. Internal corporate
communication, by its very nature in large organisations, is likely to be one-way
(though it can also be two-way). Feeling “well-informed” relies on receiving relevant,
timely, honest, information, though for it to be fully understood some element of two-
way discussion (with managers or peers) is also required. So, a combination of one-
way internal corporate communication with more localised team peer, project peer
and line manager is required to offset a potential cynicism with an overload of one-
way communication (Welch and Jackson, 2007, p. 185). This is encapsulated in
diagram 1 (see below) of continuous employee dialogue that emphasises the
combination of sharing information, providing opportunities for it to be discussed for
clarification (with more information provided if necessary), providing opportunities for
concerns to be raised and suggestions made, having these seriously considered, and
taking action or providing feedback on the concerns or suggestions. In some ways
this is a wider, alternative, application of creative problem solving, often summarised
in the literature (Henry 2001, pp. 45-6) as involving three phases;

Preparation – understanding and identifying the problem

Production – development of different solution alternatives
Judgment – choice of best solution

Copyright: Kevin Ruck

Contact: kevin.ruck@pracademy.co.uk
Diagram 1 Continuous employee dialogue

The key point is that providing information in itself is not enough. It has to be timely,
relevant, clear, and consistent and above all else it has to be honest and wholesome
to be trusted. The information shared needs to be discussed, put into context and
opportunities provided for employees to clarify what is being said. Only after this has
been done is it meaningful to provide opportunities for voice, where, in MacLeod and
Clarke’s terms (2009, p. 75), “employees’ views are sought out”. These views have to
be taken seriously and, to demonstrate it, employees are told what action is taken as
a result, or if no action is proposed the reasons for this are explained. The linkages of
this process are shown in diagram 2 below.

Copyright: Kevin Ruck

Contact: kevin.ruck@pracademy.co.uk
Diagram 2 Informed employee voice and employee engagement

The implications of adopting an informed employee voice approach to internal

communication are significant. It requires an understanding of the value of
communication within organisations, going beyond thinking of communication as an
add-on to the day job; it is fundamentally part of the day job. Every day. Levels of
employee engagement in the UK (as elsewhere) are low and this is impacting UK plc
productivity. However, approaches that reduce employee engagement to an
individual’s role or job are too limited. Low levels of information sharing need to be
addressed and, furthermore, opportunities for clarifying understanding need to be
provided before employee voice can become a genuine partnership between the
employee and the organisation.

Copyright: Kevin Ruck

Contact: kevin.ruck@pracademy.co.uk
Bibliography

Budd, J., P. Gollan, et al. (2010). "New approaches to employee voice and
participation in organizations." Human Relations 63(3): 303.
CIPD (2010). "Voice and engagement: how does collective consultation
contribute?": 1-21.
Deetz, S. and D. Brown (2004). "Conceptualising involvement, participation
and workplace decision processes: A communication theory
perspective." Key issues in organizational communication: 172-187.
Dundon, T. and P. Gollan (2007). "Re-conceptualizing voice in the non-union
workplace." The International Journal of Human Resource
Management 18(7): 1182-1198.
Dundon, T., A. Wilkinson, et al. (2004). "The meanings and purpose of
employee voice." The International Journal of Human Resource
Management 15(6): 1149-1170.
Edmondson, V. C. (2006). "Organizational Surveys: A Systsem for E,ployee
Voice." Journal of Applied Communication Research 34(4): 307-310.
Edwards, M. (2009). "HR, perceived organisational support and organisational
identification: an analysis after organisational formation." Human
Resource Management Journal 19(1): 91-115.
Forth, J. and N. Millward (2002). The growth of direct communication, CIPD
Publishing.
Freeman, R. and J. Medoff (1984). "What do unions do." Indus. & Lab. Rel.
Rev. 38: 244.
Henry, J. (2001). Creative management, Sage Publications Ltd.
Hirschman, A. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms,
organizations, and states, Harvard Univ Pr.
Knight, C. and S. Haslam (2010). "Your Place or Mine? Organizational
Identification and Comfort as Mediators of Relationships Between the
Managerial Control of Workspace and Employees' Satisfaction and
Well-being." British Journal of Management 21: 717-735.
Leiter, M. a. B., A.B., Ed. (2010). Work engagement: Introduction. Work
Engagement, A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research. Hove
and New York, Psychology Press.
Liu, W., R. Zhu, et al. (2009). "I warn you because I like you: Voice behavior,
employee identifications, and transformational leadership." The
Leadership Quarterly.
MACEY, W. and B. Schneider (2008). "The meaning of employee
engagement." Industrial and Organizational Psychology 1(1): 3-30.
MacLeod, D. and N. Clarke (2009). Engaging for success : enhancing
performance through employee engagement : a report to Government.
[Great Britain], Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
Marchington, M. and A. Wilkinson (2005). "Direct participation and
involvement." Managing human resources: personnel management in
transition: 398.
Millward, L. and T. Postmes (2010). "Who we are affects how we do: the
financial benefits of organizational identification." British Journal of
Management 21: 327-339.

Copyright: Kevin Ruck

Contact: kevin.ruck@pracademy.co.uk
Peccei, R., H. Bewley, et al. (2005). "Is it good to talk? Information disclosure
and organizational performance in the UK." British Journal of Industrial
Relations 43(1): 11-39.
Peccei, R., H. Bewley, et al. (2010). "Antecedents and outcomes of
information disclosure to employees in the UK, 1990--2004: The role of
employee voice." Human Relations 63(3): 419.
Royer, S., J. Waterhouse, et al. (2008). "Employee voice and strategic
competitive advantage in international modern public corporations-an
economic perspective." European Management Journal 26(4): 234-
246.
Schaufeli, W. B. a. B., A. B, Ed. (2010). Defining and measuring work
engagement: Bringing clarity to the concept. Work Engagement, A
Handbook of Essential Theory and Research. Hove and New York,
Psychology Press.
Spencer, D. (1986). "Employee voice and employee retention." Academy of
Management Journal 29(3): 488-502.
Tourish, D. and O. Hargie (2004). Key issues in organizational
communication, Routledge.
Truss, C. (2006). Working life : employee attitudes and engagement 2006 :
[research report]. London, Chartered Institute of Personnel and
Development.
Van Dyne, L., S. Ang, et al. (2003). "Conceptualizing Employee Silence and
Employee Voice as Multidimensional Constructs*." Journal of
Management Studies 40(6): 1359-1392.
Welch, M. and P. Jackson (2007). "Rethinking internal communication: a
stakeholder approach." International Journal 12(2): 177-198.
Wieseke, J., M. Ahearne, et al. (2009). "The role of leaders in internal
marketing." Journal of Marketing 73(2): 123-145.
Wilkinson, A., T. Dundon, et al. (2004). "Changing patterns of employee voice:
Case studies from the UK and Republic of Ireland." Journal of Industrial
Relations 46(3): 298.

Copyright: Kevin Ruck

Contact: kevin.ruck@pracademy.co.uk