Consider This: A Comparison of Factors Contributing to Employees' Expressions of Dissent

Abstract

In this study, full-time employees were surveyed to determine the degree to which different considerations factored into their decisions to express upward or lateral dissent. Employees rated considerations similarly when reportedly dissenting to either supervisors or coworkers, with organizational climate and organizational attachment considerations being comparatively stronger than concerns associated with being perceived as adversarial and experiencing retaliation. A comparison across types of dissent revealed that organizational climate, organizational attachment, and adversarial perception/retaliation were more important considerations when employees expressed upward versus lateral dissent. Additionally, results suggested no significant differences in the way management and non-management employees weighed considerations when expressing dissent.

Keywords:

• Employee Dissent
• Organizational Democracy
• Organizational Participation
• Superior-Subordinate Communication

Notes

Note. Means with different superscripts in the same column differ significantly at the p < .001 level of confidence.

Note. ∗Upward and lateral means differ significantly at the p < .05 level of confidence.

Regarding the expression of upward dissent, employees reported a variety of concerns. There were concerns that emerged as a result of employees' expectancy violations that included how budgets were dispersed, how staff was trained inefficiently to use new software, and how a president failed to honor a lunch date with rank and file employees. A significant portion of upward dissent expression focused on supervisors' behaviors, such as supervisors gossiping about employees, assigning work tasks unfairly, inappropriately disciplining employees, and generally demonstrating incompetence. Similarly, employees dissented about coworkers who were disrespectful, unprofessional, rude, and absent often. Additionally, employees expressed upward dissent about the way they perceived that they were treated by their respective organizations. Employee treatment concerns involved insufficient compensation, inadequate training, lack of support, health and safety concerns, racial and sexual harassment, and favoritism/nepotism. The way in which work was conducted also gave rise to upward dissent with employees reporting concerns about work flow, work outcomes, and workplace policies. Unethical behavior including falsifying information, delivering substandard products, and failure to comply with federal and state guidelines, triggered dissent as well. Finally, organizational changes, such as reorganization, reallocation of workspace, and new policy development, led to the expression of upward dissent. Similar concerns emerged when employees reported the reasons for expressing lateral dissent. Expectancy violations included unequal distribution of sales leads, inconsistency with corporate dress codes, changing the mission statement, and conducting supervisor evaluations without employee input. Issues with supervisors included supervisors' mixed messages, attitudes, inappropriateness, as well as their failures to address issues, perform job duties, and keep appointments. Likewise, coworker concerns sparked the expression of lateral dissent and did so with regard to unethical behavior, personality conflicts, and job responsibilities, as well as coworkers' capabilities and performance. Employee treatment entailed concerns about insufficient compensation, layoffs, favoritism, and sexual harassment, and involved feeling taken advantage of, underutilized, and overworked. General work practices, for instance, on how employees' personnel files were maintained, how performance evaluations were conducted, and how work assignments were made constituted another set of concerns that resulted in the expression of lateral dissent. Finally, workplace/organizational climate regarding workplace gossip, employee morale, and lack of leadership gave rise to the expression of lateral dissent.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jeffrey W. Kassing

Jeffrey W. Kassing (PhD, Kent State University, 1997) is an associate professor in the Department of Communication Studies at Arizona State University, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.