The value of voice in participative decision making.

Abstract

Relying on concepts found in prospect theory (D. Kahneman & A. Tversky, 1979), the value function of voice-based participation (i.e., the relationship between the amount of voice received and the value attached to that quantity) was examined. In keeping with tenets of prospect theory, the value function of voice exhibited a nonlinear pattern. Points were identified in which voice displayed significant improvements and diminishing marginal returns on response measures of process fairness, decision control, and outcome satisfaction. Task meaningfulness, a moderator of voice-based participation, did not change the general shape of the value function but did influence the intensity of participant reactions at low and high levels of voice. Voice influence, a second moderator of voice-based participation, had minimal impact on participant responses.

Features of the Value Function for Voice and Their Consistency across Participants from Four Countries: Great Britain, Mexico, The Netherlands, and the United States

“…The current study seeks to replicate and extend previous research examining the value function for voice (Hunton et al, 1998). Consistent with this goal, we expect to replicate results of earlier studies that document a nonlinear value function for voice.…”

“…Research cited earlier, by Hunton et al (1998), directly supports theorizing by Kahneman and Tversky (1979). Hunton et al (1998) reported that increases in the magnitude of voice were associated with declining increases in the value of voice.…”

“…Consequently, under these conditions, more voice may be accompanied by incremental increases in the value of voice when initial solicitations of voice fall within the domain of losses. When the quantitative amount of voice exceeds expectations, more voice may be better, although accompanied with diminishing marginal returns (Hunton et al, 1998). Qualitatively, there is less to be gained from each increment of voice.…”

“…Research by Van den Bos, Vermunt, and Wilke (1996) reports that participants who expect no voice, yet receive voice, perceive the process as less fair and perform at lower levels than participants who neither expect nor receive voice. Examining the impact of higher levels of voice, when expectations for voice were not violated, Hunton, Hall, and Price (1998) found that increases in the magnitude of voice resulted in diminishing marginal returns. In samples of experienced financial managers and business students, higher levels of voice were associated with positive but declining increases on response measures of fairness, control, and satisfaction.…”

“…Hunton et al (1998) reported that increases in the magnitude of voice were associated with declining increases in the value of voice. However, the research by Hunton et al (1998) did not assess participants' expectations. Consequently, the role played by expectations in the value function for voice is unknown.…”