skip to main content
10.1145/3313831.3376284acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

Designing for Employee Voice

Published:23 April 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

Employee voice and workplace democracy have a positive impact on employee wellbeing and the performance of organizations. In this paper, we conducted interviews with employees to identify facilitators and inhibitors for voice within the workplace and a corresponding set of appropriate qualities: Civility, Validity, Safety and Egalitarianism. We then operationalised these qualities as a set of design goals - Assured Anonymity, Constructive Moderation, Adequate Slowness and Controlled Access - in the design and development of a secure anonymous employee voice system. Our novel take on the Enterprise Social Network aims to foster good citizenship whilst also promoting frank yet constructive discussion. We reflect on a two-week deployment of our system, the diverse range of candid discussions that emerged around important workplace issues and the potential for change within the host organization. We conclude by reflecting on the ways in which our approach shaped discourse and supported the creation of a trusted environment for employee voice.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

a157-abdulgalimov-presentation.mp4

mp4

45.7 MB

References

  1. A Founder of Secret, the Anonymous Social App, Is Shutting It Down: 2015. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/technology/afounder-of-secret-the-anonymous-social-app-shuts-itdown-as-use-declines.html. Accessed: 2017-09--15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Average hours employed people spent working on days worked by day of week: https://www.bls.gov/charts/american-time-use/empby-ftpt-job-edu-h.htm. Accessed: 2018-03--26.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Avey, J.B. et al. 2012. Exploring the process of ethical leadership: The mediating role of employee voice and psychological ownership. Journal of Business Ethics. 107, 1 (2012), 21--34.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Bandura, A. 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review. 84, 2 (1977), 191--215. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033--295X.84.2.191.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Behringer, N. and Sassenberg, K. 2015. Introducing social media for knowledge management: Determinants of employees' intentions to adopt new tools. Computers in Human Behavior. 48, (2015), 290--296.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Birnholtz, J. et al. 2015. Is it weird to still be a virgin: Anonymous, locally targeted questions on facebook confession boards. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15) (2015), 2613--2622.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Bjerknes, G. and Bratteteig, T. 1995. User Participation and Democracy: A Discussion of Scandinavian Research on System Development. 7, (1995), 27.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Braun, V. and Clarke, V. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology. 3, 2 (2006), 77--101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Brown, A.D. and Coupland, C. 2005. Sounds of silence: Graduate trainees, hegemony and resistance. Organization Studies. 26, 7 (2005), 1049--1069. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605053540.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Brown, P. et al. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Bruck, C.S. et al. 2002. The relation between work-- family conflict and job satisfaction: A finer-grained analysis. Journal of vocational behavior. 60, 3 (2002), 336--353. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1836.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Carroll, J.M. et al. 2005. Collective efficacy as a measure of community. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (2005), 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Carroll, J.M. et al. 2005. Collective efficacy as a measure of community. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (2005), 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Chancellor, S. et al. 2017. Multimodal Classification of Moderated Online Pro-Eating Disorder Content. Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '17) (2017), 3213--3226.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Chin, C.P.-Y. et al. 2015. Enterprise Social Networks: A Successful Implementation within a Telecommunication Company. In Proceedings of the 21st Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS '15) (2015), 11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Clifton, J. 2017. The World's Broken Workplace. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Coote, A. and Lenaghan, J. 1997. Citizens' juries: theory into practice. Institute for Public Policy Research.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Deakin, S. 2010. Labor and employment laws. The Oxford Handbook of Empirical Legal Research. (2010), 308--328.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Detert, J.R. et al. 2010. Debunking four myths about employee silence. Harvard business review. 88, 6 (2010), 26--26.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Detert, J.R. and Burris, E.R. 2016. Can Your Employees Really Speak Freely? Harvard Business Review. (2016), 80--87.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Detert, J.R. and Burris, E.R. 2007. Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of management journal. 50, 4 (2007), 869-- 884.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Detert, J.R. and Treviño, L.K. 2010. Speaking up to higher-ups: How supervisors and skip-level leaders influence employee voice. Organization Science. 21, 1 (2010), 249--270.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Donaghey, J. et al. 2011. Reconceptualising employee silence: problems and prognosis. Work, employment and society. 25, 1 (2011), 51--67.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Donovan, S. et al. 2016. Employee voice and silence in auditing firms. Employee Relations. 38, 4 (2016), 563--577.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Draper, H. et al. 2009. Reporting end-of-life practice: can we trust doctors to be honest? Palliative medicine. 23, 7 (2009), 673--674.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Dundon, T. and Rollinson, D. 2004. Employment relations in non-union firms. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Ehn, P. 2017. Scandinavian design: On participation and skill. Participatory design. CRC Press. 41--77.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Emery, F.E. and Thorsrud, E. 2013. Form and content in industrial democracy: Some experiences from Norway and other European countries. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Freeman, R.B. (Richard B., 1943- 1984. What do unions do?. New York : Basic Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Frone, M.R. et al. 1997. Relation of work--family conflict to health outcomes: A four-year longitudinal study of employed parents. Journal of Occupational and Organizational psychology. 70, 4 (1997), 325-- 335.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Hakanen, J.J. et al. 2008. The Job Demands-Resources model: A three-year cross-lagged study of burnout, depression, commitment, and work engagement. Work & Stress. 22, 3 (2008), 224--241.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Half of employees have witnessed racism at work, says survey: https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/news/articles/h alf-employees-witnessed-racism-work. Accessed: 2018-04--19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Holland, P. et al. 2017. Employee voice, supervisor support, and engagement: the mediating role of trust. Human Resource Management. 56, 6 (2017), 915-- 929.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. How Juicy Campus' Founder Became The Poster Boy For Internet Niceness: 2013. https://www.buzzfeed.com/hillaryreinsberg/juicycampus-founder-poster-boy-for-internetkindness?utm_term=.sx3GvrBW8z#.ry6qLbk2n3. Accessed: 2017-09--14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Hron, A. and Friedrich, H.F. 2003. A review of webbased collaborative learning: factors beyond technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 19, 1 (2003), 70--79.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Islam, G. and Zyphur, M.J. 2005. Power, Voice, and Hierarchy: Exploring the Antecedents of Speaking Up in Groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice. 9, 2 (2005), 93--103. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/1089--2699.9.2.93.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Jhaver, S.. et al. 2019. Does Transparency in Moderation Really Matter?: User Behavior After Content Removal Explanations on Reddit. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. 3, CSCW (Nov. 2019), 1--27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3359252.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Joinson, A.N. 2001. Self-disclosure in computermediated communication: The role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. European journal of social psychology. 31, 2 (2001), 177--192.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Kamalou, S. et al. 2019. Social anxiety in the digital age: The measurement and sequelae of online safetyseeking. Computers in Human Behavior. 90, (Jan. 2019), 10--17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.023.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Kilner, P.G. and Hoadley, C.M. 2005. Anonymity options and professional participation in an online community of practice. Proceedings of th 2005 conference on Computer support for collaborative learning: learning 2005: the next 10 years! (2005), 272--280.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Klaas, B.S. et al. 2012. The determinants of alternative forms of workplace voice: An integrative perspective. Journal of Management. 38, 1 (2012), 314--345.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Krüger, N. et al. 2013. A Framework for Enterprise Social Media Guidelines. AMCIS 2013 Proceedings. (May 2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Lampe, C. and Resnick, P. 2004. Slash (dot) and burn: distributed moderation in a large online conversation space. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Laumer, S. et al. 2017. The Challenge of Enterprise Social Networking (Non-)Use at Work: A Case Study of How to Positively Influence Employees' Enterprise Social Networking Acceptanc. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (New York, NY, USA, 2017), 978--994.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Li, Q. and Literat, I. 2017. Misuse or misdesign? Yik Yak on college campuses and the moral dimensions of technology design. First Monday. 22, 7 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Locke, R.M. and Samel, H. 2018. Beyond the Workplace:"Upstream" Business Practices and Labor Standards in the Global Electronics Industry. Studies in Comparative International Development. 53, 1 (2018), 1--24.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Marchington, M. and Suter, J. 2013. Where Informality Really Matters: Patterns of Employee Involvement and Participation (EIP) in a Non-Union Firm. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society. 52, s1 (2013), 284--313.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Mark, G. et al. 2015. Focused, Aroused, but So Distractible: Temporal Perspectives on Multitasking and Communications. Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (New York, NY, USA, 2015), 903--916.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Merz, A. et al. 2015. Social Meets Structure: Revealing Team Collaboration Activities and Effects in Enterprise Social Networks. ECIS 2015 Completed Research Papers. (May 2015). DOI: https://doi.org/10.18151/7217430.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Michael, A. 2006. A handbook of human resource management practice. Cambridge University Press, India. 4843, 24 (2006), 878--889.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Miller, J.G. 1972. Living systems: The organization. Systems Research and Behavioral Science. 17, 1 (1972), 1--182.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Morrison, E.W. and Milliken, F.J. 2000. Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management review. 25, 4 (2000), 706--725.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Niculae, V. and Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C. 2016. Conversational Markers of Constructive Discussions. (Apr. 2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Noveck, B.S. 2004. The electronic revolution in rulemaking. Emory LJ. 53, (2004), 433.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Olson-Buchanan, J.B. and Boswell, W.R. 2002. The role of employee loyalty and formality in voicing discontent. Journal of Applied Psychology. 87, 6 (2002), 1167.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. Osch, W. v et al. 2015. Enterprise Social Media: Challenges and Opportunities for Organizational Communication and Collaboration. In Proceedings of 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'15) (Jan. 2015), 763--772. (CHI '04) (2004), 543--550.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Papacharissi, Z. 2004. Democracy online: civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society. 6, (Apr. 2004), 259--283. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804041444.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. Postmes, T. and Spears, R. 2002. Behavior online: Does anonymous computer communication reduce gender inequality? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 28, 8 (2002), 1073--1083.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. Rastogi, A. et al. 2018. Causes, Contingencies, and Consequences of Disengagement at Work: An Integrative Literature Review. Human Resource Development Review. 17, 1 (2018), 62--94.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  60. Reader, B. 2012. Free press vs. free speech? The rhetoric of ?civility" in regard to anonymous online comments. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 89, 3 (2012), 495--513.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  61. Recker, J. et al. 2016. Using Enterprise Social Networks as Innovation Platforms. IT Professional. 18, 2 (Mar. 2016), 42--49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/MITP.2016.23.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Roser, M. 2019. Working hours. Our World in Data. (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Seering, J. et al. 2017. Shaping Pro and Anti-Social Behavior on Twitch Through Moderation and Example-Setting. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (New York, NY, USA, 2017), 111--125.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Shami, N.S. et al. 2014. Understanding Employee Social Media Chatter with Enterprise Social Pulse. Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (New York, NY, USA, 2014), 379--392.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Staff, M. 2019. Here's the Memo Currently Going Viral at Google. Vice.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Suler, J. 2004. The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & behavior. 7, 3 (2004), 321--326.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Thorsrud, E. and Emery, F.E. 1970. Industrial Democracy in Norway. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society. 9, 2 (Feb. 1970), 187--196. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468232X.1970.tb00505.x.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  68. University of Missouri faces backlash over response to attack threat: 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/usnews/2015/nov/11/university-of-missouri-under-fireagain-over-response-to-attack-threat. Accessed: 2017--10-09.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. Westmead Hospital ICU stripped of training accreditation over alleged bullying: 2018. https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/westmeadhospital-icu-stripped-of-training-accreditation-overalleged-bullying-20181026-p50c8j.html. Accessed: 2019-09-01.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Whitten, A. and Tygar, J.D. 1999. Why Johnny Can't Encrypt: A Usability Evaluation of PGP 5.0. USENIX Security Symposium (1999), 169--184.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Wilkinson, A. et al. 2004. Changing patterns of employee voice: Case studies from the UK and Republic of Ireland. Journal of Industrial Relations. 46, 3 (2004), 298--322.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  72. Wilkinson, A. et al. 2013. Reassessing employee involvement and participation: Atrophy, reinvigoration and patchwork in Australian workplaces. Journal of Industrial Relations. 55, 4 (2013), 583--600.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  73. Wright, S. 2006. Government-run online discussion fora: Moderation, censorship and the shadow of control1. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations. 8, 4 (2006), 550--568.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  74. Zhou, J. and George, J.M. 2003. Awakening employee creativity: The role of leader emotional intelligence. The Leadership Quarterly. 14, 4 (Aug. 2003), 545-- 568. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S10489843(03)00051--1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  75. van Zoonen, W. et al. 2016. How employees use Twitter to talk about work: A typology of work-related tweets. Computers in Human Behavior. 55, (2016), 329--339.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  76. Blind. Teamblind inc. 2017 (https://www.teamblind.com/)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. 2015. Building Productivity in the UK. The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Services.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  78. Patients Like Me Forum 2019 (https://www.patientslikeme.com/).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Designing for Employee Voice

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format