Dissent Expression as an Indicator of Work Engagement and Intention to Leave

Abstract

This study examined how dissent expression related to employees’ self reports of work engagement and intention to leave. A sample of full-time employees completed a multi-instrument questionnaire. Findings indicated that dissent expression related to both employees’ work engagement and their intention to leave. In particular, dissent expressed to management and coworkers associated with work engagement, whereas dissent expressed to nonmanagement audiences associated with intention to leave. Additional analysis revealed that for managers, work engagement was primarily a function of refraining from expressing dissent.

Keywords

employee voice intent to leave organizational dissent work engagement

Employees routinely face dissatisfying conditions in the workplace (Hirschman, 1970). In response they often resort to expressing dissent—that is, to sharing their disagreement and contradictory opinions about workplace policies and practices (Kassing, 1997, 1998). Dissent can be expressed to a variety of audiences, using a range of strategies and in order to achieve any number of interpersonal goals (Garner, 2009a; Kassing, 1997, 1998, 2002). It is part of the routine communicative ebb and flow occurring daily in organizations. But expressing dissent can be risky, jeopardizing people’s livelihood, professional standing, and coworker relationships (Waldron & Kassing, 2011). Thus, employees exercise caution when voicing disagreement (Kassing, 2007, 2009a).

Despite the clear risks associated with dissent, employees readily express it (Kassing, 2007, 2009a). This happens when particular concerns create enough inertia to move employees to speak out. And while a host of problems, including affronts like ethical breaches, substandard employee treatment, and poor decision making, can trigger disagreement (Kassing & Armstrong, 2002), not all troubling workplace issues lead to organizational dissent. Rather, employees determine if, when, and how to express dissent by relying on a complex set of filters that take into account individual, relational, and organizational factors. This filtering process provides employees with the footing necessary to estimate the possible risk of retaliation and the likelihood of being perceived as adversarial when expressing dissent (Kassing, 1997).

Dissent certainly can occur instantaneously and instinctively when employees find themselves in particularly dangerous and challenging situations (Kassing, 2002), but more often it is a calculated communicative response. Dissent, then, is more akin to a communication process than a mere isolated and emotional reaction (Kassing, 1997). As such, Kassing (1997) conceptualized organizational dissent as a two-step process. Accordingly, employees first recognize some incongruence between the actual and desired state of affairs. This recognition distances them from others in the organization who either fail to see or choose not to acknowledge the incongruence. Dissent is merely felt but not necessarily voiced at this point. For employees to come to the realization that dissent must be expressed, the issue at hand needs to exceed their individual tolerance for dissent (Kassing, 1997; Redding, 1985). That is, it must surpass the threshold employees set regarding when situations are grave enough to warrant speaking out given the accompanying risks (Kassing, 1997, 2002, 2007, 2009b).

Employees determine if, when, and how to express dissent by relying on a complex set of filters that take into account individual, relational, and organizational factors.

Dissatisfying workplace conditions of this magnitude also likely exert some influence on how engaged employees are with their work and the degree to which they give consideration to leaving their organization. There should be a connection therefore between the expression of organizational dissent and employees’ relative levels of work engagement and intention to leave. Previous research illustrates that dissent expression relates to other pertinent workplace outcomes, such as employee burnout, organizational identification, employee satisfaction, and organizational commitment (Avtgis, Thomas-Maddox, Taylor, & Richardson, 2007; Kassing, 1998, 2000a). Dissent expressed to management, for example, relates positively to satisfaction, identification, and commitment, whereas dissent directed to coworkers correlates negatively with these constructs (Kassing, 1998, 2000a). Interestingly, employees express modest amounts of dissent to management and little to coworkers when they report high levels of burnout (Avtgis et al., 2007). Given the clear and regular connection with other pertinent workplace outcomes, we suspect that dissent expression may serve as a communicative signal of work engagement and intention to leave.

Literature Review

Employee Dissent

By definition, employee dissent entails the expression of disagreement or contradictory opinions about organizational policies and practices (Kassing, 1997, 1998). Originally, dissent research focused primarily on whistle-blowing, which is the expression of dissent to media outlets or industry-governing bodies about issues of principle (Graham, 1986; Near & Jensen, 1983; Stewart, 1980; Westin, 1986). Dissent research has grown to include a broader focus that incorporates consideration of the multiple and various audiences that hear employee dissent (Kassing, 1997, 1998, Kassing & DiCioccio, 2004), examination of a plethora of issues that trigger employee dissent (Hegstrom, 1999; Kassing, 2008; Kassing & Armstrong, 2002; Sprague & Ruud, 1988), and development of typologies describing how employees express dissent (Garner, 2009b; Kassing, 2002, 2007, 2009a).

Kassing (1997, 1998) argued that employees express dissent to multiple audiences, including management, coworkers, and friends and family outside of work. Employees choose to express upward dissent to management when they are more satisfied and committed (Kassing, 1998), when they possess comparatively higher levels of organization-based self-esteem (Payne, 2007), when they are more highly identified and see their workplaces as more tolerant of employee voice (Kassing, 2000a), and when they hold management positions (Kassing & Armstrong, 2001; Kassing & Avtgis, 1999). Additional research indicates that upward dissent occurs when subordinates perceive that they possess comparatively higher quality relationships with their supervisors (Kassing, 2000b) and when they perceive that their organizations engage them in decision making (Kassing & McDowell, 2008).

In contrast, employees who perceived that they have poorer quality superior-subordinate relationships expressed more lateral dissent to coworkers (Kassing, 2000b). Lateral dissent also occurred when employees believed that their respective organizations stifled workplace freedom of speech (Kassing, 2000a). Findings indicate that the expression of lateral dissent relates negatively to employee satisfaction and commitment (Kassing, 1998) and that nonmanagement employees favor expressing lateral dissent (Kassing & Armstrong, 2002; Kassing & Avtgis, 1999). Recent work revealed that lateral dissent diminished when employees experienced burnout symptoms (Avtgis et al., 2007) and that it declined when employees observed greater degrees of perceived fairness regarding organizational decision making in their respective organizations (Kassing & McDowell, 2008). However, other findings showed that informational justice or employees’ perceptions of justice tied to receiving adequate and thorough information about decisions related positively to latent dissent; this led the researchers to conclude that receiving better information about organizational decision making resulted in employees having more content about which to express lateral dissent to coworkers (Goodboy, Chory, & Dunleavy, 2008).

Employees also can direct their dissent outside of the organization by expressing displaced dissent (Kassing, 1997, 1998; Kassing & DiCioccio, 2004). This entails sharing one’s dissent with family and nonwork friends. Kassing (1998) uncovered a negative correlation between displaced dissent and employee commitment but no other significant relationships between variables of interest (e.g., personal influence, employee satisfaction). In subsequent work, Kassing and DiCioccio (2004) found that younger employees with less total work experience, occupying nonmanagement positions, expressed displaced dissent. These findings coupled with earlier work led them to conclude that the expression of displaced dissent was an indicator of employee caution being exercised as they learned the parameters and constraints dictating employee dissent in their respective organizations.

Thus, employees express dissent in a variety of ways, and do so in response to many different factors. It is apparent from previous research that dissent expression varies along with employee attitudes and orientations regarding work. We are interested in extending this line of research by examining the relationship between dissent expression and employee’s reports of work engagement and intention to leave.

Work Engagement

Work engagement is typically conceptualized as the antipode of employee burnout (Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2005). Employee burnout refers to mental weariness (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004) or inadequate energy levels required to work effectively (Bakker et al., 2005). Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter (2001) acknowledged three commonly discussed dimensions of employee burnout: (a) exhaustion or the depletion of emotional resources; (b) cynicism and depersonalization, which entail adopting a pessimistic and cynical attitude; and (c) lack of professional efficacy or effectiveness denoted by a deficiency in personal accomplishments. Maslach and Leiter (1997) posited that burnout and engagement were at opposing ends of a single spectrum, characterizing work engagement as the opposite of the three dimensions of employee burnout. More specifically, energy (as opposed to exhaustion), involvement (as opposed to cynicism), and efficacy (as opposed to lack of professional efficacy) comprise the makeup of work engagement (Bakker et al., 2005). However, Bakker et al. noted the possibility that an employee could experience low engagement but not necessarily experience burnout. That is, an employee could work in a job that requires little dedication or responsibility and thus be comparatively less engaged but without necessarily experiencing burnout. Thus, Bakker et al. recognized that work engagement and burnout are clearly related but argued that they should be examined as separate constructs.

The expression of displaced dissent was an indicator of employee caution being exercised as they learned the parameters and constraints dictating employee dissent in their respective organizations.

Scholars determined to measure work engagement as a unique construct contend that it is a mind-set derived from a positive and fulfilling work experience (Schaufeli, Martinez, Marques Pinto, Salanova, & Bakker, 2002). Accordingly, the dimensions of vigor, dedication, and absorption constitute work engagement. High mental resilience and high levels of energy in the workplace, clear and conscientious efforts to devote oneself to work, and persistence when facing difficulties demonstrate vigor. Enthusiasm, inspiration, and pride indicate dedication. Absorption entails full concentration and being highly engrossed in one’s work. Whereas vigor and dedication oppose dimensions of burnout (exhaustion and cynicism, respectively), absorption is not seen as the opposite of a lack of professional efficacy.

Dissent expression appears to fluctuate with symptoms of employee burnout (Avtgis et al., 2007). Recognizing the conceptual link between employee burnout and work engagement discussed above, it makes sense to speculate that dissent expression should fluctuate with employees’ levels of work engagement. We offer the following hypothesis to explore this idea:

Hypothesis 1: Dissent expression will associate with work engagement.

Intention to Leave

Although intention to leave suggests people’s attitudes or opinions toward leaving their respective organizations, it does not refer to actual employee turnover (Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, & Meglino, 1979). However, many researchers consider intention to leave to be the most effective predictor of actual employee turnover (Brown & Peterson, 1993; Randall, 1990; Shore, Newton, & Thornton, 1990). While earlier research suggested that turnover could be directly predicted by employee attitudes (Porter, Steers, & Mowday, 1974), more recent research suggests that the single best predictor of employee turnover is intention to leave (Liou, 2009; Randall, 1990; Shore et al., 1990).

Organizational commitment, the combination of employees’ identification with and involvement in one’s organization, is a strong predictor of intention to leave (Liou, 2009). Research has consistently shown a significant and negative correlation between organizational commitment and intention to leave (Brown & Peterson, 1993; Johnston, Parasuraman, Futrell, & Black, 1990; Moore, 2000). In fact, intention to leave, turnover, absenteeism, and tardiness all correlate negatively with organizational commitment (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Wiener, 1982). Put simply, the less committed an employee is to an organization, the more likely that employee is to be absent from work or to leave the organization altogether. Conversely, more committed employees are more likely to remain with their organizations (Johnston et al., 1990).

Additional research has identified a critical connection between employee burnout and intention to leave (Moore, 2000). In particular the exhaustion component of employee burnout, which refers to the lessening of mental resources (Moore, 2000), has received considerable attention. Exhaustion relates to lower job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Burke & Greenglass, 1995; Jackson, Turner, & Brief, 1987) and to higher levels of turnover and intention to leave (Firth & Britton, 1989; Jackson, Schwab, & Schuler, 1986).

Given that previous research that links dissent expression to employee commitment and organizational identification (Kassing, 1998, 2000a) and the fact that dissent expression varies in response to employee burnout (Avtgis et al., 2007), we suspect that dissent expression ought to relate to intention to leave an organization. We pose the following hypothesis to examine this relationship:

Hypothesis 2: Dissent expression will associate with intention to leave.

One regular, consistent, and potent predictor of dissent expression is a person’s organizational position. Research indicates that managers tend to favor expressing upward dissent, while nonmanagers resort to expressing comparatively more lateral and displaced dissent (Kassing & Armstrong, 2002; Kassing & Avtgis, 1999; Kassing & DiCioccio, 2004). Status affects how involved people believe they are in decision making as well as how fair they perceive decision making processes to be (Kassing & McDowell, 2008; Van Prooijen, Van den Bos, & Wilke, 2004, 2005). It is conceivable then to suspect that managers and nonmanagers who differ with regard to workplace engagement and intention to leave may express dissent to different audiences. The following research question is offered to explore this possibility:

Research Question 1: When managers and nonmanagers differ in their self-reported levels of work engagement and intention to leave, will differences in their preferences for expressing dissent surface?

Methodology

Sample

A sample (N =137) of full-time employees (i.e., 40 or more hours per week) participated in this study. Participants worked for a variety of organizations that included: health care (n = 25), education (n = 25), professional services (n = 10), finance/banking (n = 9), government (n = 8), customer service (n = 8), law (n = 7), manufacturing (n = 6), nonprofit (n = 6), sales (n = 5), computers/information technology (n = 4), consulting (n = 4), development/construction (n = 4), research (n = 3), food service (n = 3), and distribution (n = 2). Eight respondents did not identify their organization.

The job tenure of participants ranged from less than a year to 29 years (M = 4.29, SD = 4.95), total years work experience from less than a year to 46 years (M = 14.58, SD = 10.54), and number of full-time employers from 1 to 30 (M = 4.68, SD = 3.96). Approximately 7% of the respondents reported holding top management positions, 22% management positions, 48% nonmanagement positions, and 23% other organizational positions.

Sixty-two percent of the sample was female and 36% male. Three respondents (2%) did not report their sex. The age of participants ranged from 19 to 66 years (M = 35.80, SD = 12.60). Approximately 64% of respondents reported their ethnicity as Caucasian, 12% as Hispanic, 11% as Asian, 4% as African American, 2% as Native American, and 6% as something other than the choices provided. Two respondents (1%) did not report their ethnicity.

Data Collection Procedure

Survey methodology was used to collect data. Graduate students enrolled in a research methods seminar at a midsized southwestern university contacted participants as part of a class research project. The sampling method involved soliciting participation from friends, family members, coworkers, and neighbors. Participants received a cover letter describing the purpose of the research, which directed them to the online site where the questionnaire was located. Respondents completed the questionnaire online.

Instrumentation

The questionnaire was composed of several measures, some of which were not examined in this particular study. Those addressed in this study included the following: (a) the Organizational Dissent Scale, (b) selected dimensions of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale, and (c) a measure of intention to leave. To keep the length of the questionnaire manageable for respondents, we chose to administer only two of three dimensions of the Utrech Work Engagement Scale (i.e., those that we deemed most relevant to the hypotheses). We discuss all of the measures we administered in greater detail in the paragraphs that follow.

The 24-item Organizational Dissent Scale (Kassing, 1998) measures how employees express their concerns about workplace policies and practices they find troubling. The measure uses a 5-point Likert-type scale that ranges from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) and contains three dimensions: articulated/upward, latent/lateral, and displaced. All three dimensions have produced acceptable reliabilities in previous administrations that consistently range from .78 to .86 for the articulated/upward dimension, from .72 to .90 for the latent/lateral dimension, and from .71 to .84 for the displaced dimension. The articulated/upward dimension comprises 9 items (e.g., “I speak with my supervisor or someone in management when I question workplace decisions”). In this administration, it produced a coefficient alpha of .83 (M = 31.21, SD = 5.81). The latent/lateral dimension contains 8 items like “I join in when other employees complain about workplace changes” (α = .82, M = 24.07, SD = 5.77). The displaced dimension, which includes 6 items (e.g., “I talk about my job concerns to people outside of work”), produced a coefficient alpha of .75 (M = 20.50, SD = 4.02).

The 17-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale contains three dimensions—vigor, dedication, and absorption—measuring the degree to which people feel engaged, energized, and consumed by their work (Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, & Bakker, 2002). The measure uses a 7-point Likert-type scale that ranges from never (0) to always (6). In this work, we administered only the vigor and dedication dimensions. In previous administrations, the vigor and dedication dimensions have produced reliability coefficients ranging from .60 to .88 and from .75 to .90, respectively. The vigor dimension consists of 6 items such as “At my work, I feel bursting with energy” (α = .85, M = 21.81, SD = 4.18), whereas the dedication dimension includes 5 items like “My job inspires me” (α = .89, M = 18.45, SD = 4.06).

Due to historically high correlations between the factors (ranging in a recent study from .83 to .97), researchers have recommended treating the scale as unidimensional when the focus of the research is work engagement in general— stating that “the high correlations between the three factors indicate substantial overlap between them, and thus restrict their use as separate dimensions” (Seppälä et al., 2009, p. 476). A principal components factor analysis with oblimin rotation indicated that this was the case with the current data. Only one factor was extracted in the analysis (Kaiser’s Measure of Sampling Adequacy = .90, Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity = 922.77; p < .001.), indicating that the two dimensions collapsed into a single factor with an eigenvalue of 6.38 that accounted for 58.04% of the total variance. All 11 items loaded on this dimension, with factor loadings ranging from .60 to .84. Thus, the dedication and vigor dimensions of the scale were combined into a single variable by summing all 11 items. When dimensions have been combined in previous administrations, reliability coefficients have ranged from .85 to .92. In this case, the overall measure of work engagement produced a coefficient alpha of .93 (M = 40.31, SD = 7.89).

To assess intention to leave we adopted Singh’s (2000) three-item measure. The unidimensional scale measures the degree to which people have considered leaving their current position using items like “I often think of quitting.” It has performed reliably in past administrations with coefficients ranging from .87 to .94. We administered the measure using a 5-point Likert-type scale that ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The measure produced a coefficient alpha of .91 (M = 7.35, SD = 3.47).

Data Analysis

To determine which types of dissent expression associated with work engagement (Hypothesis 1) and intention to leave (Hypothesis 2) we used two forced-entry multiple regressions. For each multiple regression, the three forms of dissent expression (upward, lateral, and displaced) served as independent variables. In the first multiple regression, work engagement was the dependent variable, whereas in the second, intention to leave was the dependent variable. Because there was a statistically significant correlation between lateral and displaced dissent (r = .30), regression analysis, whereby displaced dissent was regressed against lateral dissent, was conducted to produce a residual for lateral dissent that eliminated the multicolinearity between independent variables. The residual of latent dissent was used in the subsequent multiple regression analyses. Correlations between all variables of interest appear in Table 1.

Table 1.

Correlations Between Variables of Interest

	Upward Dissent	Lateral Dissent	Displaced Dissent	Work Engagement	Intention to Leave
Upward dissent	—
Lateral dissent	.00	—
Displaced dissent	−.01	.30**	—
Work engagement	.37**	−.45**	−.10	—
Intention to leave	−.14	.35**	.20*	−.62**	—

p < .05, two-tailed. **p < .01, two-tailed.

To explore whether organizational status/role affected the relationship between the variables of interest (Research Question 1), we collapsed the aforementioned categories respondents used to differentiate their organizational role. Top management and management were combined to form a management classification (n = 37), and nonmanagement and other were combined to create a nonmanagement category (n = 93). Then the management and nonmanagement classifications were compared with one another for both work engagement and intention to leave using two-tailed t tests of independent means. There were significant differences in levels of work engagement reported by management and nonmanagement employees, t(128) = −2.85, p < .01, with managers reporting higher levels of work engagement (M = 43.22) than their nonmanagement counterparts (M = 39.00). However, there were no apparent differences between managers and nonmanagers with regard to intention to leave, t(134) = −.28, p = .78. To better understand if the significant difference in work engagement would affect how employees chose to express dissent, the forced-entry multiple regression for work engagement was rerun using just management employees in one analysis and just nonmanagement employees in a second analysis.

Results

The first hypothesis suggested that dissent expression would relate to work engagement. Multiple regression analysis revealed that two independent variables accounted for 36% of the overall variance in work engagement, F(3, 115) = 20.98, p < .001. Upward dissent (β = .41, t = 5.38, p < .001) and lateral dissent (β = −.43, t = −5.70, p < .001) emerged as significant predictors of work engagement. These findings suggest that the presence of upward dissent and the absence of lateral dissent predict work engagement.

The second hypothesis indicated that dissent expression would relate to intention to leave. Multiple regression analysis indicated that two independent variables accounted for 14% of the overall variance in intention to leave, F(3, 118) = 6.40, p < .001. Lateral dissent (β = .28, t = 3.29, p < .01) and displaced dissent (β = .21, t = 2.34, p < .05) emerged as a significant predictors of intention to leave. These findings demonstrate that an employee’s expression of lateral and displaced dissent indicated intention to leave one’s organization. Table 2 displays statistics for the multiple regression analyses.

Table 2.

Results of Forced-Entry Multiple Regressions

Dependent Variable/Independent Variable	β	Tolerance	t	p
Work engagement
Upward dissent	.41	1.00	5.38	.01
Lateral dissent	−.43	1.00	−5.70	.01
Displaced dissent	−.09	1.00	−1.16	.25
R² = .36
Intention to leave
Upward dissent	−.15	1.00	−1.73	.09
Lateral dissent	.28	1.00	3.29	.05
Displaced dissent	.20	1.00	2.33	.01
R² = .12

The research question speculated about whether differences in organizational status/role would affect the association between work engagement and dissent expression. Multiple regression analysis revealed that different patterns did in fact emerge regarding dissent expression for managers and nonmanagers. For managers, only lateral dissent associated with work engagement, accounting for 34% of the overall variance, F(3, 31) = 5.39, p < .01; β = −.50, t = −3.36, p < .01. For nonmanagers, both upward dissent and lateral dissent produced significant associations with work engagement accounting for 29% of the overall variance, F(3, 76) = 10.53, p < .001, with the use of upward dissent being a stronger predictor of work engagement (β = .46, t = 4.62, p < .01) than the avoidance of lateral dissent (β = −.40, t = −4.04, p < .01). These additional analyses qualify the overall findings, indicating that patterns revealed regarding dissent expression and work engagement hold for nonmanagers but not necessarily for managers. Instead, work engagement appears to relate communicatively to a strong tendency for managers primarily to avoid lateral dissent. Table 3 presents the multiple regression analyses comparing managers and nonmanagers.

Table 3.

Results of Forced-Entry Multiple Regressions Comparing Management and Nonmanagement Employees

Dependent Variable/Independent Variable	β	Tolerance	t	p
Work engagement (management)
Upward dissent	.19	.95	1.28	.21
Lateral dissent	−.50	.96	−3.36	.01
Displaced dissent	−.15	.97	−1.06	.30
R² = .34
Work engagement (nonmanagement)
Upward dissent	.46	.94	4.62	.01
Lateral dissent	−.40	.94	−4.04	.01
Displaced dissent	−.05	.99	−0.48	.63
R² = .29

Discussion

We can draw several conclusions from the current work. First, dissent expression is a communicative indicator of work engagement and intention to leave. In the case of work engagement, dissent expression is a particularly robust indicator as it accounted for notable amounts of variance. Second, dissent directed to nonmanagement audiences (i.e., coworkers or family and friends outside of work) indicates when employees are giving consideration to leaving their current organizations. Clearly, other factors are at work in determining intention to leave as dissent expression accounted for only a modest proportion of the variance. Yet the findings are revelatory as they suggest that dissent expression, particularly dissent directed away from supervisors, may serve as a beacon to management regarding the likelihood of employee turnover. In contrast, the expression of upward dissent and the avoidance of lateral dissent appear to signal work engagement. This finding implies that organizations that foster upward dissent may very well benefit by having more engaged employees. This is not unexpected given the unmistakable relationship that exists between upward dissent and organizational climates open to employee voice (Kassing, 1998, 2000a, 2008) or the established relationships between upward dissent and employee satisfaction, organizational commitment, and employee identification (Kassing, 1998, 2000a).

Multiple regression analysis revealed that different patterns did in fact emerge regarding dissent expression for managers and nonmanagers.

Of particular note here though is the finding that the expression of upward dissent as an indication of work engagement washed out for management employees. Instead, it appears that work engagement for managers equates heavily with avoiding the expression of lateral dissent. This perhaps reflects the ongoing prevalence and continued entrenchment of the “go along to get along” mode of operation Charles Redding challenged a quarter century ago (Redding, 1985). That is, for members of the managerial ranks, holding one’s tongue and not criticizing the company remain hallmarks of loyalty. This is somewhat troubling given the move to make workplaces more participatory and democratic for rank-and-file employees (Carroll & Arneson, 2003; Cheney, 1995) and reflects one of many paradoxes found in such efforts (Stohl & Cheney, 2001). Paradoxically, highly engaged managers may neglect dissent as a viable communication choice for themselves while soliciting it from subordinates. Unfortunately for managers, dissent—even in democratically structured workplaces—may still conflate with disloyalty despite eloquent arguments to the contrary (Vandekerckhove & Commers, 2004).

Third, the current findings combine with previous results to demonstrate how dissent expression appears to be a useful, communicative indicator of work engagement and employee burnout. In this work, both upward and lateral dissent related to work engagement. Apparently, upward dissent indicates greater levels of work engagement, whereas lateral dissent associates with waning levels of work engagement. Another recent study found that upward dissent diminished and lateral dissent essentially was absent when employees reported high levels of burnout, particularly exhaustion and depersonalization (Avtgis et al., 2007). Across these findings, dissent expression plots a specific trajectory for interpreting where employees reside with regard to work engagement and burnout. Nonmanagement employees who are engaged express upward dissent, whereas those who are less engaged look to lateral dissent. Lateral dissent, in turn, diminishes as employees slip from low levels of engagement to actually experiencing burnout.

From a practical standpoint, this work brings into focus a potentially valuable facet of dissent expression in the contemporary workplace. Past research has emphasized what can be gained from hearing organizational dissent (Hegstrom, 1995; Kassing, 1997). This work highlights what can be signaled or detected when dissent occurs. The findings suggest that monitoring dissent can help an organization estimate how engaged and likely to stay employees are or how disconnected and likely to leave they may be. Monitoring organizational dissent, then, stands to inform organizational leaders about the energy and dedication of their workforce as well as the likelihood that they will remain with the company.

But the findings present an interesting caveat that organizational leaders should consider as well. That is, how do managerial personnel practice dissent? Is it shared openly with others in the managerial ranks or muted? In this study, engagement plays out for managers as the relative absence of upward dissent and an avoidance of lateral dissent. In essence, it equates to showing overall restraint with regard to dissent expression. However, this practice results in the forfeiture of valuable critical feedback (Hegstrom, 1995), the very kind of feedback that engaged subordinates often are expected and implored to provide. Which gives rise to the question: Will engaged subordinates continue to dissent when they do not see the value of doing so behaviorally modeled or regularly confirmed at higher levels of the organization? Future research should explore the actual causes of managerial restraint (vs. the speculation offered above) as well as the impact it may have on how lower ranking employees express dissent. It would be interesting and worthwhile to see how employees confront the paradox of expressing dissent to managers who in turn do not choose to share dissent themselves.

Monitoring organizational dissent, then, stands to inform organizational leaders about the energy and dedication of their workforce as well as the likelihood that they will remain with the company.

As with all research, this work is not without limitations. It relies on a limited range of variables to test the relationships being examined. The variance accounted for in the current results suggests that other variables are at play with regard to work engagement and intention to leave. It would be worthwhile to consider how dissent expression compares with other constructs in relative terms. This design, then, could be expanded on in future research by incorporating a greater representation of variables that predict work engagement and intention to leave. At the same time, a larger sample than the comparatively modest one used here could be solicited. Additionally, this work relies on a convenience sample. This shortcoming limits the ability to generalize the findings to other work settings, particularly given possible industry, organizational, or cultural differences that a larger random sample may have addressed.

In spite of these limitations, there are two clear communication patterns revealed across these data. Work engagement is at least for nonmanagement employees a function of dissent expressed to management, whereas intention to leave is a function of dissent expressed to audiences other than management. Taken together, these findings present important considerations for management with regard to facilitating and hearing employee voice. Simply put, companies that are better equipped to foster employee dissent can expect to have employees who are more engaged at work and less inclined to leave. Attending to work engagement and intention to leave are critical as they represent powerful indicators of employee wellness with obvious links to employee burnout and commitment. They are clearly relevant to overall organizational health too as higher levels of turnover tax human resource systems and impede efforts to keep well-trained employees. This work adds to our growing understanding of dissent expression and the apparent role it plays regarding work engagement and intention to leave. In so doing, the work reminds us that dissent can be beneficial for employees and organizations alike.

Footnotes

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Bios

Jeffrey W. Kassing, (PhD, 1997, Kent State University) is Professor of Communication Studies in the Division of Social and Behavioral Sciences at Arizona State University.

Nicole M. Piemonte (MA, 2011, Arizona State University) is a doctoral student at the Institute for the Medical Humanities at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston.

Carmen C. Goman (MA, 2011, Arizona State University) is a doctoral student in the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Georgia.

Curtis Mitchell is an MA student in Communication Studies at Arizona State University.

References

Avtgis

T. A.

Thomas-Maddox

Taylor

Richardson

B. R.

(2007). The influence of employee burnout syndrome on the expression of organizational dissent. Communication Research Reports, 24, 97-102.

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2005). The crossover of burnout and work engagement among working couples. Human Relations, 58, 661-690.

Brown

S. P.

Peterson

R. A.

(1993). Antecedents and consequences of salesperson job satisfaction: Meta-analysis and assessment of causal effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 63-77.

Burke

R. J.

Greenglass

(1995). A longitudinal study of psychological burnout in teachers. Human Relations, 48, 187-202.

Carroll

L. A.

Arneson

(2003). Communication in a shared governance hospital: Managing emergent paradoxes. Communication Studies, 54, 35-55.

Cheney

(1995). Democracy in the workplace: Theory and practice from the perspective of communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 23, 167-200.

Firth

Britton

(1989). Burnout: Absence and turnover amongst British nursing staff. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, 55-60.

Garner

J. T.

(2009a). Strategic dissent: Expressions of organizational dissent motivated by influence goals. International Journal of Strategic Management, 3, 34-51.

Garner

J. T.

(2009b). When things go wrong at work: An exploration of organizational dissent messages. Communication Studies, 60, 197-218.

10.

Goodboy

A. K.

Chory

R. M.

Dunleavy

K. N.

(2008). Organizational dissent as a function of organizational justice. Communication Research Reports, 25, 255-265.

11.

Graham

J. W.

(1986). Principled organizational dissent: A theoretical essay. In Staw

B. M.

Cummings

L. L.

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 8, pp. 1-52). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

12.

Hegstrom

T. G.

(1995). Focus on organizational dissent: A functionalist response to criticism. In Lehtonen

(Ed.), Critical perspectives on communication research and pedagogy (pp. 83-94). St. Ingbert, Germany: Rohrig University Press.

13.

Hegstrom

T. G.

(1999). Reasons for rocking the boat: Principles and personal problems. In Geissner

H. K.

Herbig

A. F.

Wessela

(Eds.), Business communication in Europe (pp. 179-194). Tostedt, Germany: Attikon Verlag.

14.

Hirschman

A. O.

(1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

15.

Jackson

S. E.

Schwab

R. L.

Schuler

R. S.

(1986). Toward an understanding of the burnout phenomenon. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 630-640.

16.

Jackson

S. E.

Turner

J. A.

Brief

A. P.

(1987). Correlates of burnout among public service lawyers. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 8, 339-349.

17.

Johnston

Parasuraman

Futrell

Black

(1990). A longitudinal assessment of the impact of selected organizational influences on salespeople’s organizational commitment during early employment. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 333-344.

18.

Kassing

J. W.

(1997). Articulating, antagonizing, and displacing: A model of employee dissent. Communication Studies, 48, 311-332.

19.

Kassing

J. W.

(1998). Development and validation of the Organizational Dissent Scale. Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 183-229.

20.

Kassing

J. W.

(2000a). Exploring the relationship between workplace freedom of speech, organizational identification, and employee dissent. Communication Research Reports, 17, 387-396.

21.

Kassing

J. W.

(2000b). Investigating the relationship between superior-subordinate relationship quality and employee dissent. Communication Research Reports, 17, 58-70.

22.

Kassing

J. W.

(2002). Speaking up: Identifying employees’ upward dissent strategies. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 187-209.

23.

Kassing

J. W.

(2007). Going around the boss: Exploring the consequences of circumvention. Management Communication Quarterly, 21, 55-74.

24.

Kassing

J. W.

(2008). Consider this: A comparison of factors contributing to expressions of employee dissent. Communication Quarterly, 56, 342-355.

25.

Kassing

J. W.

(2009a). Breaking the chain of command: Making sense of employee circumvention. Journal of Business Communication, 46, 311-334.

26.

Kassing

J. W.

(2009b). In case you didn’t hear me the first time: An examination of repetitious upward dissent. Management Communication Quarterly, 22, 416-436.

27.

Kassing

J. W.

Armstrong

T. A.

(2001). Examining the association of job tenure, employment history, and organizational status with employee dissent. Communication Research Reports, 18, 264-273.

28.

Kassing

J. W.

Armstrong

T. A.

(2002). Someone’s going to hear about this: Examining the association between dissent-triggering events and employees’ dissent expression. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 39-65.

29.

Kassing

J. W.

Avtgis

T. A.

(1999). Examining the relationship between organizational dissent and aggressive communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 13, 76-91.

30.

Kassing

J. W.

DiCioccio

R. L.

(2004). Testing a workplace experience explanation of displaced dissent. Communication Reports, 17, 111-120.

31.

Kassing

J. W.

McDowell

(2008). Talk about fairness: Exploring the relationship between procedural justice and employee dissent. Communication Research Reports, 25, 1-10.

32.

Liou

S. R.

(2009). Nurses’ intention to leave: Critically analyse the theory of reasoned action and organizational commitment model. Journal of Nursing Management, 17, 92-99.

33.

Maslach

Leiter

M. P.

(1997). The truth about burnout: How organizations cause personal stress and what to do about it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

34.

Maslach

Schaufeli

W. B.

Leiter

M. P.

(2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397-422.

35.

Mathieu

Zajac

(1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-194.

36.

Meyer

J. P.

Allen

N. J.

(1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

37.

Mobley

W. H.

Griffeth

R. W.

Hand

H. H.

Meglino

B. M.

(1979). Review and conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 493-522.

38.

Moore

J. E.

(2000). One road to turnover: An examination of work exhaustion in technology professionals. MIS Quarterly, 24, 141-168.

39.

Near

J. P.

Jensen

T. C.

(1983). The whistleblowing process: Retaliation and perceived effectiveness. Work and Occupations, 10, 3-28.

40.

Payne

H. J.

(2007). The role of organization-based self-esteem in employee dissent expression. Communication Research Reports, 24, 235-240.

41.

Porter

L. W.

Steers

R. M.

Mowday

R. T.

(1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603-609.

42.

Randall

D. M.

(1990). The consequences of organizational commitment: Methodological investigation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 361-378.

43.

Redding

W. C.

(1985). Rocking boats, blowing whistles, and teaching speech communication. Communication Education, 34, 245-258.

44.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Bakker

A. B.

(2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293-315.

45.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Martinez

Marques Pinto

Salanova

Bakker

A. B.

(2002). Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 464-481.

46.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Salanova

Gonzalez-Roma

Bakker

(2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71-92.

47.

Seppälä

Mauno

Feldt

Hakanen

Kinnunen

Tolvanen

Schaufeli

(2009). The construct validity of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: Multisample and longitudinal evidence. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10, 459-481.

48.

Shore

L. M.

Newton

L. A.

Thornton

G. C.

III (1990). Job and organizational attitudes in relation to employee behavioral intentions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 57-67.

49.

Singh

(2000). Performance productivity and quality of frontline employees in service organizations. Journal of Marketing, 64, 15-34.

50.

Sprague

J. A.

Ruud

G. L.

(1988). Boat-rocking in the high technology culture. American Behavioral Scientist, 32, 169-193.

51.

Stewart

L. P.

(1980). “Whistle Blowing”: Implications for organizational communication. Journal of Communication, 30(4), 90-101.

52.

Stohl

Cheney

(2001). Participatory processes/paradoxical practices: Communication and the dilemmas of organizational democracy. Management Communication Quarterly, 14, 349-407.

53.

Vandekerckhove

Commers

M. S. R.

(2004). Whistle blowing and rational loyalty. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 225-233.

54.

Van Prooijen

J. W.

Van den Bos

Wilke

H. A. M.

(2004). Group belongingness and procedural justice: Social inclusion and exclusion by peers affects the psychology of voice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 66-79.

55.

Van Prooijen

J. W.

Van den Bos

Wilke

H. A. M.

(2005). Procedural justice and intragroup status: Knowing where we stand in a group enhances reactions to procedures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 664-676.

56.

Waldron

V. R.

Kassing

J. W.

(2010). Managing risk in communication encounters: Strategies for the workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

57.

Wiener

(1982). Commitment in organizations: A normative view. Academy of Management Review, 7, 418-428.

58.

Westin

A. F.

(1986). Professional and ethical dissent: Individual, corporate and social responsibility. Technology in Society, 8, 335-339.