Centering Workers in Voice Research: Emerging Frontiers in Worker Voice
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Since Hirschman’s Exit, Voice, and Loyalty (1970), worker voice was largely seen as an extension of Hirschman’s conceptualization as a mean to “change, rather than escape from an objectionable state of affairs.” Many organizational scholars conceptualize voice as “the communication of ideas, suggestions, concerns, problems, or opinions about work-related issues, with the intent to bring about improvement or change” (Morrison, 2023). In the management literature, voice is usually framed as a prosocial behavior (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006) intended to benefit the organizations (Detert & Burris, 2007; Morrison & Milliken, 2000; Van Dyne, Ang, & Botero 2003). Much of the management research is preoccupied with macro, meso, and micro-level antecedents of voice as well as the consequences of voice for individuals, teams, and the organization. Voice is of interest to scholars and practitioners alike because cultivating worker voice may lead to improvements in efficiency (Kim, MacDuffie, & Pil 2010), quality (Litwin & Eaton 2018), turnover (Batt, Colvin & Keefe, 2002), and safety (Li, Liao, Tangirala, & Firth, 2017). Although management scholars have developed rich theories on worker voice, a sizable voice gap exists in American workplaces today. Many workers today just don’t have much clout when it comes to the things that matter most to them on the job. A survey of American workers found that a majority of American workers report having less influence at work than they believe they should have on benefits, compensation, promotion, job security, respect shown to employees, protection from abuses, and new technologies (Kochan, Yang, Kimball, & Kelly, 2019). To close the voice gap, it requires us to develop and evaluate multi-option systems of worker voice in contrast to both labor law and prevailing managerial practices. In this symposium, we challenge the traditional conceptualization of worker voice and explore how different group of workers exercise voice in their everyday lives and how their voice can shape their job quality and working conditions. In keeping with the theme of the annual meeting—putting the worker front and center—our symposium raises the question of how and when workers voice in service of their specific needs. We explore this question by centering the problems that workers raise about organizations, be they material, emotional, and/or moral issues. Recent work has documented worker participation can aid in organizational problem-solving (Satterstrom, Kerrissey, & DiBenigno, 2021), but scholars know less about how and why specific problems get identified, socialized, and addressed by workers themselves. Set against a pervasive norm not to complain or talk about issues, it is crucial for contemporary research to amplify the organizational issues that workers experience and to explain how and why such problems are ignored or solved. The missing worker voice in job quality: Developing a conceptual framework and survey instrument Author: Yaminette Diaz-Linhart; Massachusetts Institute of Technology Author: Arrow Minster; Massachusetts Institute of Technology Author: Dongwoo Park; ILR at Cornell Author: Duanyi Yang; Massachusetts Institute of Technology Author: Thomas A. Kochan; Massachusetts Institute of Technology Partners on the frontline: When and how frontline managers aid in solving workers' problems Author: Arrow Minster; Massachusetts Institute of Technology When and how technology developers can facilitate worker voice Author: Jenna E. Myers; U. Of Toronto-Ind Rel Lbr Voice without Representation: Worker Voice in China’s Networked Public Sphere Author: Duanyi Yang; Massachusetts Institute of Technology Author: Tingting Zhang; U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».