Workers’ Voice Part 3: Managers: Attuned To Change But Tone-Deaf to Worker Voice
By Larry W. Beeferman, Contributing Author/ March 1, 2023
Larry W. Beeferman is a Fellow at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program (LWP) and an Independent Consultant. He joined the LWP in 2004 to help establish and for 14 years led the Pensions and Capital Stewardship Project (PCSP), focusing on both the design and management of pre-funded retirement plans and the capital stewardship of their and other institutional investors’ assets. The PCSP’s and Dr. Biederman’s ongoing work have included publications, conferences, other convenings, trustee education programs, and presentations on a wide range of topics, with extensive attention to labor and human rights and more broadly, workplace-related issues.
As a professor of law at the Massachusetts School of Law and faculty member at the Western New England School of Law, he taught constitutional and administrative law, legislation and legislative drafting, conflict of laws, cyberspace and the law, and private sector labor law. He helped establish and headed the Asset Development Institute at Brandeis University’s Heller School for Social Policy and Management, where he formulated an asset-based policy framework for social welfare policy and conducted research and promoted dialogue among diverse constituencies on specific asset-based policies. As Associate Counsel to the Ward Commission in Massachusetts, he led a team which researched and analyzed corruption and mismanagement in the public building process; drafted legislation on capital planning and budgeting, real property management, and project management; and did similar work in reference to political campaign finance reform. He has also written books and articles on matters of law, science and technology, policy, and other issues. He is currently finishing the first of a two-volume study – to be published by Routledge Press – on the interests and role of public and private actors in decision-making with respect to infrastructure projects.
Certainly, there is some truth to the company-side narratives – which we canvassed in the first article of this series – about the fact and pace of changes at and with respect to the workplace. These narratives include who the workforce might be, what workers might want at and from work, and the larger business, political, social, and other contexts for recruiting and retaining them. In turn, the narratives reflect efforts to adapt to shifts in roles, responsibilities, and capabilities of company executives and managers and reconfigured policies and practices to meet the challenges of a “new” workplace. However, the narratives fall short and the shifts are inadequate to the task. A good number of the reasons for both relate to matters of worker voice. Here, we turn to the gaps, reasons which might explain them; and in the next article, suggest a different approach which companies might take.
Limitations of the Company-Side Narratives
In general terms, even if one takes it at face value, prominent rhetoric like workers being a company’s “most valuable asset” is striking and puzzling. At first blush, whatever the altered landscape (writ large) of enterprises, over the decades, workforces have, on an ongoing basis, been central to the operation of companies, let alone to their success; and correspondingly, companies have had an ongoing challenge of recruiting, employing, and retaining workers under conditions and on terms consistent with how they define their aspirations for success. Moreover, the past is replete with significant changes (with varying degrees of swiftness) – dramatic population movements, by reason of a wave of internal or external emigration, the application of technology profoundly transformative of markets and/or workplaces, dramatic law and/or enterprise driven shifts in the geographic reach, character, and scope of trade and competition – with corresponding import for workplaces which have posed a corresponding challenge for companies to navigate. Of course, the relative absence of significant change may result in relative inattention or complacency. If things, however important, don’t seem “broke” (or the perceived course of events suggests no threat of “breakage”), then there is no need to “fix” it.
Strikingly, the narratives cast a number of the changes as having originated from outside companies, though, at minimum, they are the aggregate consequence of actions by many individual companies. The extent and character of people’s need for work and the circumstances under which they seek, accept, and engage in it reflects, in part, the great – and in recent decades, increased – income and wealth inequality in the U.S. That inequality can be traced in important ways to the cumulative effect of significant disparities in those to whom the financial rewards of a company’s operation and success were directed. The same is true with respect to access to health insurance, retirement benefits, and the like. Ironically, the passage of the Affordable Care Act in response, in part, to lack of access to health insurance from employment may have, in some measure, given individual workers more leverage in their relationships with companies. Further, while the fracturing of workplace relationships – the greatly increased reliance on part-time, temporary, part-time, contract, agency, and supply chain workers – may reflect the appeal of such arrangements under some circumstances for some workers, it might fairly be viewed as largely a consequence of company decisions. The overall effect of those decisions has contributed to workers wanting relatively shorter-term jobs and having weaker commitments to the companies at which they are currently employed.
The preceding observations aside and, for the moment, taking the characterization of changes – and their rapidity – as a given, there are inter-related questions about (1) the effectiveness and durability of proposed shifts in roles, responsibilities, and capabilities; (2) the strength of the interpretation of the narratives as the basis for what needs to be done in both general and specific terms; and (3) the real-life implications for HR-related professionals themselves from how they, in new roles (and new relationships with C-Suites and boards), strive to spur changes to workplace-related policies and practices drawing on those narratives
Challenges, In General, in the Performance of New Roles Informed by the Narratives
The questions are interrelated. First, the assumption of new roles presupposes that CEOs (and arguably boards) have become convinced – on their own, by their consultants and advisors, or others – that the narratives and their interpretation have merit; and that their merit is sufficient to warrant an expectation that in those roles HR-related professionals will be important in the formulation of new strategies and concomitant specific changes to workplace policies and practices. Apposite with the narrative and its interpretation, the belief is that those strategies and changes will sufficiently contribute to the company’’s success. Second, tensions or complications arise if things run amiss, if CEOs see the strategies or policies and practices as failures, for whichever of a variety of reasons or if, at the outset, again for a variety of reasons, CEOs resist or reject the strategies, policies, and/or practices recommended by those professionals.
We focus on the latter considerations first. Clearly, the stakes for current or would-be CHROs are likely to be fairly high: at minimum, a move into or a much closer relationship with the C-suite (and perhaps with the Board as well) and at the extreme, perhaps, a clearer path to becoming a CEO; a position of influence on decisions of the greatest significance, e.g., choices about business and linked workforce strategies and their implementation, perhaps engagement at a high level across the organization at least insofar as they appear sufficiently linked with workforce matters, a concomitant enjoyment of greater status and prestige, higher remuneration and benefits. In the first instance, aspirations of this sort are hardly unusual and certainly understandable. However, the motivations behind such aspirations may extend beyond the above to the intrinsic nature of what they are called upon and want to do and to the significance they attribute to the new tasks. For example, the newly envisaged positions arguably require new and greater capabilities in terms of the reach and importance of the subject matter, the mastery and application of which HR-professionals might experience as greatly rewarding in a personal – not financial – sense. For example, the reward might extend beyond to the satisfaction of taking on and fulfilling tasks which are seen as contributing to achievement of a larger end, whether the “success” of the enterprise, variously understood, or perhaps beyond.
We write “success” and “perhaps beyond” because the company-side narratives reference and in certain ways hinge upon not only an understanding of what “success” for a company means but also, relatedly, upon the “success” (properly understood) of others, e.g., members of the workforce. This is important because aspirants – at least good faith ones – for the new roles sufficiently believe in the factual predicates of the narratives and their interpretation of those facts. That interpretation is typically framed in terms of a need for a new relationship between companies and workers. However, the critical premise is that creation and fulfillment of the new roles will not just enable establishment of those relationships but will yield promised outcomes for the company. However, assessment and interpretation of the facts are made in light of how the objectives to be achieved are framed, for the company as such or perhaps otherwise. So (again, good faith) aspirants must sufficiently embrace those objectives.
This is a non-trivial point because companies, are to varying degrees, in flux in response to the kinds of changes articulated in the narrative; differ in their willingness to accept, in principle, the narratives and, in turn, the proposals for change. Moreover, even when companies nominally accept those proposals, they may vary widely in their willingness (or perhaps even their ability) to implement them. In other words, if HR-related professionals (and perhaps others) are to play and, succeed in new roles, they likely need to press the case for the narrative and its practical implications in the face of varying degrees of opposition which may be principled (and well-grounded or perhaps not), opportunistic, or perhaps at the extreme, even disingenuous on the part of those to whom they ultimately report. So to justify their new roles, HR-related professionals are pressed to demonstrate that the literal changes in policies and practices they advance offer a sufficient prospect of and ultimately, a sufficient contribution to “success” as the company has ostensibly defined it. The (hardly unanticipated) reality is that the narratives as HR-related professionals have taken them up – especially in their invocation of “people analytics” – focus on one or another measure of company financial performance. So, whether and how hard the case is pressed in the face of tensions between giving substance to promises of more “successful” workplace relationships and experiences held out to workers and achievement of success for the company, depends on the career opportunities and risks posed for HR-related professionals in doing so.
The Underlying Importance of Worker Voice to the Narratives
Such challenges as are posed in that regard depend in part on the strength of the interpretation of the narrative and how company leaders in general and HR-related professionals, in particular, translate it into practice. Here we focus on the underlying importance of worker voice to the narrative and its link to that practice. For the purpose of this discussion, worker voice is concerned with the opportunity and ability of workers to speak out and up about their experience at or with respect to the workplace and how what they say is heard, discussed, and acted upon.
In this regard, consider the results of an extensive scholarly survey, reported in 2019 by Kochan, Yang, and Kelly, of a representative sample of American workers. Analysis of the survey responses shows that “workers believe they should have a voice on a broad set of workplace issues” – which include those identified in company-side narratives – but that “substantial gaps exist between their expected and their actual level of voice at work.” The gap is most dramatic with regard to issues associated with unions and collective bargaining, such as pay, benefits, job promotion and security, training, and health and safety – with almost 50% of workers reportedly voting for a union if the opportunity to do so were available, compared with just 33% some 40 years ago (and the current figure is likely higher). But there was also substantial need seen for greater voice with regard to “personal” matters at work ranging from how jobs are done to problem solving, discrimination, harassment, and with respect to issues of “organizational strategy,” such as the impact of technology, the quality of products, and company values. It is important to note that the particular concerns about a voice gap and the importance of different kinds of voice mechanisms vary with the age, gender, race, and education of the individual.
In essence, then, many workers want more voice to spur companies to meaningfully address a wide range of concerns they have at or with respect to the workplace – which reflect not only concern about their “success” as a worker, but also that of the company – the importance of which are, at least at the rhetorical level, recognized in company-side narratives.
Consonant with those across-the-board findings, a number of the changes highlighted in the company-side narratives canvassed in the first article of this series can be viewed as rooted in issues of worker voice.
For example, the dramatically increased attention to diversity, equity, and inclusion has been driven by demands for change by those who for too long were denied a full role in American society, including at the workplace – especially by reason of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, ability/disability, veteran status, and immigration status – and their supporters. Those efforts are strongly grounded in the idea that such individuals should be present at workplaces and there, be recognized/be “seen,” accorded respect/treated with dignity, and have effective means not only to give voice to who they are, what they bring to the company, and what they expect of or from the company for that contribution, but also to assure meaningful dialogue and responsive action in light of it. Although issues of voice might be posed very strongly for the groups noted above, the underlying concerns are shared by all members of the workforce.
The importance of worker voice is highlighted most starkly in the described generational shift away from (unreflective) respect for authority and for autonomy in workday life, reflecting an unwillingness of Gen Zers (and others) to simply be told what to do, how to do it, and on what terms and an insistence on a greater role in certain kinds of decision-making as such (and how, ultimately it translates into their experience at or with respect to work),
The focus in the narrative on the changes wrought by the “digital revolution” highlights not only workers’ greatly increased ability to share with one another their dissatisfaction with their experiences at or with respect to work, but also that what is shared gives rise to expressions of their collective voice to companies. Where a lack of voice within companies is associated with serious failures to meet worker expectations and needs, not surprisingly, workers have looked beyond the company for allies and support. So workers’ parallel increased ability to communicate with the larger society about those experiences is an important source of broader support for workers being heard and for companies to listen to and engage them for change in that experience. Certainly that shift is likely one reason for the recent findings of the long-running Gallup Work and Education Survey that American “approval” of labor unions was in 2022 the highest – 71 percent – in nearly seven decades.
The narrative gives great attention to the dramatic and rapid changes wrought by the advent of COVID which raised great uncertainty about and posed serious threats to workers’ livelihoods, their health and safety, the way work needed to be organized, the demands on and patterns of family life, etc. Those circumstances demanded that companies communicate to workers that they were aware of those consequences, take very serious account of them, engage workers through timely, direct, and responsive communications about what needed to be done (and then do what was needed). Certainly, there were a wide range of responses by companies. However, the failure of far too many to respond as needed strongly suggests that existing mechanisms for voice were inadequate – perhaps even grossly so – and/or that companies were ill-equipped or unwilling to fashion new, effective ones or able to fashion ones only on an ad hoc basis. The result was worker pushback in various forms. Arguably the “extreme” circumstances cast greater – and harsher – light on the lack of voice and its implications under prior “ordinary” circumstances which workers, for whatever reasons, had previously “accepted”.
Worker Voice and People Analytics
Lastly, we turn to one aspect of the translation of the described narrative into practice which has some association with the notion of worker voice. That aspect is closely linked with the interpretive conclusion that for companies to effectively respond to the kinds of workforce-related changes the narratives recount, they need to know more about the individual members of their workforce and what they experience at or with respect to the workplace. On its face, this is a hardly problematic and arguably a welcome proposition, indeed, one which seems apposite with notions of worker voice. The difficulty is with the way the response seems to be frequently translated into practice under various rubrics, e.g., “people analytics”.
First, as a general matter the literature describing and advocating for people analytics in certain respects seems driven by fascination with its technical and quantitative aspects: the digital means available for data collection and analysis seem so powerful that that the use of them is immensely attractive in and of itself; those means readily lending themselves to translation into numerical results which can be cast in terms of having “measured” something (of ostensible importance); and by (perhaps too easily) seeing measurability as the defining feature of what should be managed (and perhaps how).
Second, the published literature tends to focus on those technical means, with relatively less attention to how, as a general matter, understandings about how the experience of work and the workplace – more specifically, the theories, hypotheses, beliefs, assumptions, etc. – inform the analytic exercise. Whatever their shortcomings, those understandings are more likely to be thought of only in technical terms, i.e., as a matter of getting to the right “facts” and the seeming relationships between or among them. They are less likely to be viewed in terms of commitments to or assumptions about values/purposes associated with the existence and operation of enterprises and the role of workers in or with respect to them.
Third, there is occasional or episodic talk about analytic learning about the experience of all of a company’s workers at or with respect to work. However, when the literature gets down to cases, the talk seems to be largely about its import for companies, e.g., their financial performance or otherwise, not for workers as such. That is, whatever the claims to a broad, (arguably) new vision for companies, as value creators for diverse stakeholders, including workers, the specific cases, and arguments for translating that vision into practice, appear to be cast far more frequently in terms of financial value for companies as such and their shareholders.
Fourth, and in some respects related, there is often reference to workers having knowledge of and arguably some control over the collection of data about them and in certain respects a sense of its use, especially as it might redound to their benefit; but the accord of actual practice with that commitment in the abstract seems currently and prospectively to be hardly obvious. Numerous red flags have been raised, among them the use of algorithms with built-in flaws or biases and tracking of performance and time usage which is overly simplistic and/or invasive of autonomy and privacy.
Fifth, the last two noted issues are linked with fundamental issues relating to how data is collected, that is indirectly about workers or directly from workers. To be sure, the latter is long familiar in the form of periodic or spot/”pulse” surveys, e.g., of “engagement” or “satisfaction,” which have for some time been grist for the analytics mill, though perhaps in less extensive or sophisticated ways than today. However, on the whole, reports on analytic work seem to focus predominantly on information about workers obtained indirectly, for example, by tracking what workers say, e.g., by email, chats, etc., or by what they do, e.g., their patterns of computer use, of the networks among them, and communications made across those networks, in the course of their work.
With this consideration and those others canvassed here and in the previous two articles, in the next and final one, we discuss their import going forward.