The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0048-3486.htm

High-performance work systems HPWS and

employee voice
and employee voice behaviour: behaviour

an integrated model and

research agenda
Paula K. Mowbray and Adrian Wilkinson Received 22 December 2019
Revised 15 September 2020
Griffith Business School, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia, and Accepted 9 October 2020
Herman H.M. Tse
Monash Business School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop a conceptual model drawing together and integrating
research from employment relations (ER), human resource management (HRM) and organizational behaviour
(OB) to identify how high-performance work systems (HPWS) encourage voice behaviour.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors identify shortcomings in research on the relationship
between HPWS practices and employee voice behaviour, attributable to the disparate conceptualization of
voice across management disciplines. The authors then present a conceptual model using the ability,
motivation and opportunity (AMO) framework to theorize how the ER climate influences the design of the
HPWS and subsequently how the HPWS encourages voice behaviour. Practical implications and
recommendations for future studies are provided.
Findings – The mutual gains ER climate will influence the design of the HPWS; in turn the HPWS’ practices
will influence line manager AMO to manage voice and the employees’ AMO to engage in voice behaviour,
resulting in the encouragement of both employer and employee interest forms of voice.
Practical implications – The HPWS-voice behaviour interaction model sheds light on the types of HR
practices organisations can implement to optimize employee voice behaviour.
Originality/value – The conceptual model demonstrates how ER, HRM and OB factors influence voice
behaviour within a HPWS, which has not previously been considered by voice scholars. The integrated
conceptual model encourages a multidisciplinary approach to studying employee voice in future research.
Keywords Employee voice, High-performance work systems, Strategic HRM, Line managers, Employee
involvement
Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction
Despite a general consensus that voice is largely about the expression of concerns,
suggestions, ideas and opinions (Morrison, 2014) and the ability of employees “to have a say”
(Wilkinson et al., 2014, p. 5), different conceptualizations and foci of voice have evolved
between the different management disciplines, including the organizational behaviour (OB),
human resource management (HRM) and employment relations (ER) fields (see the following
reviews: Kaufman, 2015a; Mowbray et al., 2015; Barry and Wilkinson, 2016; Knoll et al., 2016).
This siloed approach to examining employee voice has resulted in a significant gap in the
overall employee voice literature, whereby we know much about the psychological
antecedents to informal, individual employee voice behaviour (Chamberlin et al., 2017), the
different types of formal employee voice mechanisms (Marchington, 2007) and the role of
unions in creating collective voice (Budd, 2004), but we know little about the relationships
between each of these (i.e. how formal voice mechanisms and ER, or even other HR practices,
Personnel Review
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0048-3486
The authors thank Professor Bill Harley for his comments and advice on earlier versions of this paper. DOI 10.1108/PR-12-2019-0692
PR influences employee voice behaviour (Morrison, 2014). This paper goes some way towards
addressing that gap by proposing an integrative conceptual model that illustrates how
employee voice behaviour can be facilitated within a high-performance work system (HPWS),
whereby a suite of HR practices and voice mechanisms, alongside the ER climate, influence
voice behaviour. In short, most work on voice is bifurcated: either located within ER and
about collective voice and ignoring individual voice or located within OB/HRM and very
much about individual voice behaviour but ignoring voice systems and collective voice. We
use HPWS as a bridge to build a model of voice which incorporates both and which
illuminates the links and relationships for both these bodies of work within a single model.
Employee voice is considered an integral component of HPWS (Wood and Wall, 2007;
Budd et al., 2010), based on the premise that the opportunity for employees to be involved in
decision-making will contribute to organizational performance (Becker and Gerhart, 1996;
Guest, 1997; Boxall and Purcell, 2011). Central to the HPWS literature is the tenet that voice
opportunity alone does not lead to performance. Rather, it is a bundle of HR practices
(MacDuffie, 1995), including ability-enhancing practices such as selective recruitment,
extensive training and development, along with motivation-enhancing practices, such as
performance related pay and rewards, merit based promotion systems and appraisals, which
together with voice opportunities enabled through empowerment programs, formal
participation programs and regular information sharing initiatives, provide the ability,
motivation and opportunity (AMO) to increase employees’ knowledge, skills and abilities and
subsequent improved performance (Becker and Huselid, 1998; Applebaum et al., 2000; Combs
et al., 2006; Jiang et al., 2012; Kehoe and Wright, 2013). In this paper, we propose there may be a
cumulative effect of these practices on employee voice behaviour, i.e. it is not just the
opportunity-enhancing practices that will influence voice, but the HR practices associated
with motivation and ability will also play a key role in encouraging voice behaviour.
Surprisingly, however, within HPWS’ studies there is little explanation for how the other
HR practices influence voice behaviour. In their meta-analysis of voice antecedents,
Chamberlin et al. (2017) found opportunity-enhancing practices increased employee voice;
however, the influence of other HR practices was not identified. Therefore, in our paper we
make an important contribution to the voice literature by theorizing how the bundle of AMO-
enhancing HR practices that constitute a HPWS can enhance the opportunities provided by
the voice mechanisms to encourage voice behaviour. In doing so, we take a rare integrated
approach to voice drawing from ER, HRM and OB concepts of voice, i.e. prosocial,
constructive voice that is organisation-focused, such as process improvements, i.e. employer
interests, as well as voice related to employee interests, such as wages and working
conditions.
Our integrated conceptual model makes three key contributions to the employee voice
literature. First, we respond to the repeated calls by scholars (Pohler and Luchak, 2014;
Kaufman, 2015a; Mowbray et al., 2015; Barry and Wilkinson, 2016; Knoll et al., 2016) to
integrate the diverse voice literatures by developing a model that illustrates how, within the
context of a HPWS and mutual-gains ER climate, HR practices and formal voice mechanisms
influence employer and employee-interest voice behaviour. In short, we draw on the
combined lens of ER, HRM and OB to provide a greater understanding of the combined effect
of systems and leaders on voice behaviour.
Second, our integrated model illustrates how formal voice mechanisms, along with other
HR practices and the ER climate, interact with employee voice behaviour constructs that have
typically been associated with informal voice in the OB literature, such as leadership traits
and styles (see Morrison, 2011, 2014 for exhaustive reviews). Formal voice has often been
neglected within OB voice studies, given this group of scholars conceptualize voice as an
informal discretionary behaviour (Van Dyne and LePine, 1998). However, both formal and
informal voice behaviour may be subject to similar influences from leaders and HR practices,
which warrants future consideration by voice scholars. In doing so, this paper will provide HPWS and
new insights into the integration of both voice conceptualizations and suggest new directions employee voice
for future research
Third, we contribute to both the employee voice and HPWS literature by showing how HR
behaviour
practices play a key role in influencing the line manager in their management of employee
voice and the employee in their voice behaviour, through the HR practices’ AMO voice-
enhancing properties (Blumberg and Pringle, 1982). In Wood’s (2011) examination of seminal
studies on high involvement management practices (which incorporate practices commonly
associated with HPWS), he highlighted disparate findings showing a link between these
practices and performance, although there were strong links between opportunities to voice
and performance. He therefore called for greater theorization to understand how practices,
such as training and teamwork, may together contribute to performance. While our focus in
this paper is not on the link between HPWS and performance, we do theorize how various HR
practices will work together to optimize employee voice behaviour. Hence, we highlight an
alternative theoretical pathway through which the cumulative effect of HPWS practices may
impact performance, i.e. through its optimizing effect on employee voice.
We proceed by presenting our HPWS-voice behaviour interaction model. In doing so, we
draw on empirical evidence from the ER, HRM and OB voice literature, and HPWS literature,
and make propositions concerning likely relationships. Finally, we identify practical
implications and then make suggestions for future research that will advance the employee
voice literature.

Integrated model of employee voice systems and behaviour within HPWS

It is important to note that unlike most papers which examine HPWS within the context of
performance outcomes (for example, Do et al., 2019; Siddique et al., 2019), our focus here is not
on performance; rather, voice behaviour as an outcome of the HPWS practices. Applying the
AMO framework (Blumberg and Pringle, 1982) to our model (see Figure 1), we are able to
examine not only how the opportunity-enhancing practices influence voice behaviour, but also
to further extrapolate how the ability-enhancing and motivation-enhancing practices within
the HPWS can influence voice behaviour. We also consider how the ER climate within the
context of a HPWS influences voice behaviour. Hence, the aim of this conceptual model is to
illustrate how ER, HR and OB perspectives and literature studies of employee voice and HPWS
can be incorporated to better explain how employee voice can be optimized. Our secondary aim

Figure 1.
HPWS-voice
behaviour model
PR is to provide a novel theoretical contribution concerning how the AMO-enhancing HR
practices within a HPWS can influence voice outcomes. Conceptual models such as this are
important in order to set out an agenda for future integrated studies on employee voice. There
is widespread acceptance that researchers in the voice arena have much to learn from each
other but while this has been a familiar call to arms, it is also noteworthy that there are few
doing the integration even while many call for it (Wilkinson et al., 2020).
Before we begin discussing the detail of the model, it is important to reiterate that to date,
research concerning the relationship between HPWS and employee voice has focused
primarily on the ways HPWS provide opportunities to voice. According to Harley (2020),
voice occurs within a HPWS via three means, including the presence of high autonomy jobs,
where employees have a high level of discretion concerning production processes; second,
autonomous or semi-autonomous work teams, where employees have input to team decisions
about production; and third, the inclusion of mainstream voice mechanisms, such as
suggestions schemes. Each of these encourages a continuous improvement culture and
provides formal avenues for organisation-focused voice, such as problem-solving groups,
team meetings, self-managed teams and information sharing forums (Huselid 1995; Combs
et al., 2006). The relationship between HPWS and voice opportunity is well-established in the
literature (Harley, 2020), so we make no claim in this regard to a novel contribution. However,
its inclusion in the model is important as we propose that along with these opportunity-
enhancing practices, ability and motivation-enhancing practices within the HPWS will also
have effects on both managers and employees and subsequent voice behaviour, which we
explore in the following discussion.

Mutual gains employment relations

We begin our discussion of the model with a consideration of how the ER climate influences
employee voice within a HPWS. When characterized by a cooperative relationship between
the union and organisation, this can lead to mutual gains, i.e. improved productivity and
enhanced quality of working life (Harley, 2020; Jo et al., 2020). Research indicates in a mutual
gains environment, unionized workplaces can enhance the implementation and outcomes of
the HPWS (see for example: Gill, 2009; Pyman et al., 2010; Gill and Meyer, 2013; Vernon and
Brewster, 2013; MacKenzie et al., 2015; Cook et al., 2017). It follows that workplaces with a
HPWS and a mutual gains ER arrangement may provide greater opportunities for employees
to express organisation and employee-focused voice, as there will be pressure on the
organisation to design voice mechanisms that facilitate both forms of voice.
Laroche and Salesina (2017) found positive effects of employee representation on variable
compensation and employee participation practices within HPWS organisations, thus
providing greater levels of workplace democracy. Therefore, another argument offered in
favour of union influence over HPWS is that the system will be more reflective of workers’
preferences and the HR practices will be more likely to improve workers’ motivation, through
a ‘collective voice/institutional response dynamics’ (Laroche and Salesina, 2017, p. 178). An
explanation for this positive union and HPWS relationship can be found in Newman et al.’s
(2019) study which identified that a positive union influence increased employees’ trust in
management, an important precursor to voice (Hu and Jiang, 2018).
Alternatively, non-union employee representation (NER) voice mechanisms can operate
alongside the direct voice mechanisms within the HPWS (or act as a hybrid model in
unionized workplaces) and also promote mutually beneficial interests. Gollan et al. (2015)
discuss the need for both employers and employees to commit to a long-term mutual gain
strategy when investing in NER, by providing employees with training, job security and
gainsharing, in order to create trust and build employee commitment (see also
Kaufman, 2015b).
 Therefore, we see that a mutual gain ER climate will have an influence over voice HPWS and
behaviour, starting with the design of the HPWS and inclusion of voice mechanisms that employee voice
provide the opportunity to voice on organisation and employee interests (Saridakis et al.,
2017); second, through HR practices that support and motivate employees to voice (De Prins
behaviour
et al., 2020); and third, by signalling to employees they can trust their organisation (Pyman
et al., 2006). Given trust has already been identified as an antecedent to informal voice
behaviour (Gao et al., 2011), we propose then that under this arrangement, employees will be
more likely to voice on both organisation and employee interests.

Line manager AMO

We know from the extant HR research that the line manager plays a significant role in
implementing the organisation’s HR practices and in the people management of their team,
and thus there is likely to be variability within and across organisations with respect to how
those HR practices are implemented by the line manager on the basis of their skills and
motivation (Purcell and Hutchinson, 2007; Bos-Nehles et al., 2013). If there is a lack of
visibility, consensus and consistency in how the practices have been implemented by the line
manager (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004), it is likely that the actual HR practices will be
experienced differently by employees within the same organisation (Alfes et al., 2020). In this
section, we discuss how the HPWS can improve line managers’ management of voice and
implementation of practices through changes to line manager AMO.
The involvement of line managers in the successful implementation of HR practices, or
otherwise, is very much dependent upon the inclination of the line manager to be involved in
HR duties (their motivation) and their own ability to do so (Fenton-O’Creevy, 1998, 2001;
Larsen and Brewster, 2003; Watson et al., 2006; Purcell and Hutchinson, 2007). Applying
AMO theory to line managers, Bos-Nehles et al. (2013) found that ability was the most
important variable contributing to line managers successfully managing HRM, and this was
enhanced by opportunity. Similarly, Van Waeyenberg and Decramer (2018) found that line
manager AMO was related to the successful implementation of performance management
practices, while McGovern et al. (1997) found that ensuring performance targets were met
with a significant motivator in line managers’ HR implementation. Given a HPWS is
comprised of motivation-enhancing practices often associated with encouraging those
performance targets, such as incentive-based pay and promotion (Wood, 2011), line managers
will be more motivated to implement those voice mechanisms designed as part of the HPWS
and to encourage voice that can contribute to their team’s performance targets. Within a
HPWS, line managers will also have greater opportunities to solicit voice and genuinely
respond to issues, suggestions and concerns raised by their employees, as they have access to
embedded formal voice mechanisms which they can implement within their own teams and
which provide the line manager with the opportunity to escalate issues to higher levels of the
organisation (Mowbray, 2018).
Following on from this, through the HPWS’ AMO-enhancing HR practices, managerial
self-efficacy (Fast et al., 2014) can be improved, thus improving the line manager’s ability to
effectively manage voice and ability to provide a supportive environment for voice
behaviours. Research on leaders and employee voice have shown there are a number of
leadership behaviours that can signal to employees that their supervisor is supportive of
voice and which contribute to employee perceptions of voice safety and efficacy (Morrison
and Milliken, 2000; Detert and Burris, 2007). For example, ethical and authentic leadership
have been identified as contributing to psychological safety to speak up (Walumbwa and
Schaubroeck, 2009), empowerment (Walumbwa et al., 2010), higher levels of leader–member
exchange (LMX) quality and evidence of procedural justice (Hsiung, 2012). By empowering
and consulting their employees and soliciting suggestions from them (Gao et al., 2011;
Tangirala and Ramanujam, 2012) as well as acting on this input from below (Detert and
PR Burris, 2007), this creates a voice climate whereby employees will perceive their manager has
given them an opportunity to voice.
When line managers have the AMO to effectively manage voice and thus exhibit these
supportive voice leadership behaviours, this in turn can impact their employees’ AMO by
increasing the employees’ opportunities to voice, through the encouragement and solicitation
of voice within the formal and informal voice channels. Likewise, through line managers
exhibiting coaching and mentoring behaviours, skills associated with the successful
implementation of HPWS (Jyoti and Rani, 2019), the employees’ ability to voice could be
improved (Detert and Burris, 2007). When the line manager exhibits distributive and
procedural justice with respect to the administering of rewards and recognition, key practices
within a HPWS (Karadas and Karatepe, 2019), the employees’ motivation may be activated
(Tyler, 1994). Likewise, when line managers empower their employees, commonly associated
with HPWS continuous improvement and decision-making practices (van Assen, 2020), this
can activate intrinsic motivation and lead to a pro-social motivation to voice (Raub and
Robert, 2010; Frazier and Fainshmidt, 2012; Wang et al., 2016).
Therefore, we propose that the practices associated with the HPWS will enhance the line
manager’s AMO to manage employee voice and to develop leadership behaviours that are
supportive of voice, such that the line manager’s AMO will be positively related to the
employees’ AMO to voice and their subsequent voice behaviour.

Employee AMO
Next, we propose that the practices associated with the HPWS will enhance employees’ AMO
to voice. Voice mechanisms such as self-managed teams, continuous improvement groups
and suggestion schemes will provide employees with clear and unambiguous opportunities
to then engage in voice behaviour. Mechanisms such as these are designed to encourage high
levels of involvement and voice (Birdi et al., 2008) at the team or organizational level. Voice
mechanisms, such as grievance procedures or indirect mechanisms such as committees, will
enhance procedural justice and downward information sharing, and the latter can provide
opportunities to be involved in decision-making (Heffernan and Dundon, 2016). This signals
to the employee that they are respected and valued (Colvin, 2006), hence encouraging
employee attitudes to voicing (Wood and de Menezes, 2011).
The ability-enhancing HR practices will also have a positive effect on employees’ voicing
behaviour. Selective recruitment can be used to select employees who have a greater
propensity to voice, such as those with conscientiousness and extraversion personality
attributes, which are antecedents to voice behaviour (LePine and Van Dyne, 2001). Practices
such as training and coaching can be utilized to improve employees’ ability to voice and to
influence employees’ attitudes to voicing (Boselie, 2010). Additionally, HPWS practices can
improve employees’ knowledge concerning work tasks and the organisation and enhance
their ability to identify issues to voice on (Lawler, 1986). For example, information sharing
forums can improve an employee’s ability to engage in voice behaviour, as the employee will
have greater knowledge of the organisation’s strategy and can thus frame their voice to
ensure the issue is aligned with that strategy (Wilkinson et al., 2013).
Another route to voice using the AMO framework is that the HPWS will encourage an
employees’ pro-social motivation to voice and the enactment of voice that benefits others.
Gittel et al. (2010) found the design of work teams within HPWS organisations enables greater
employee–employee interaction, i.e. relational coordination, when employees are involved in
cross-functional teams. These authors suggest that this relational coordination provides a
pathway to performance through the creation of an organizational climate where employees
are motivated to act in the best interests of the organisation. Other HR practices within the
HPWS may also fuel voice motivations and subsequent behaviour. For example, Dysvik and
Kuvaas (2008) found employees’ perceptions of training and development opportunities were HPWS and
positively related to OCBs. Using the social exchange theory, they explain this occurrence due employee voice
to employee perceptions they are valued, which triggers their motivation to reciprocate with
their employer. Hence, an OCB such as voice is likely to be triggered by these HPWS
behaviour
motivation-enhancing HR practices.
Extrinsic rewards, such as performance pay, also provide a motivation to voice (Gerhart
and Fang, 2015). Within a HPWS workplace, collective forms of performance pay based on
groups or teams will be more prevalent (Wood and de Menezes, 2011) and effective
compensation bundles such as profit-sharing, group performance pay and employee stock
ownership are often used (Laroche and Salesina, 2017). Shared perceptions that the
organisation is supportive of voice and rewards performance will subsequently enhance an
employee’s pro-social motivation to speak up (Sun et al., 2007).
Therefore, we propose it is not just the opportunity to voice through the voice mechanisms
that leads to voice behaviour. Rather, it is also the ability-enhancing and motivation-
enhancing HR practices which cumulatively may influence employees’ behaviours and their
inclination to voice.

Optimizing employee voice under a HPWS

We have theorized how mutual gains ER creates a positive climate for HPWS and the full
range of voice behaviour, including content that will be associated with both employer and
employee interests. Our discussion has theorized that a combination of AMO-enhancing
practices within the HPWS practices will amplify voice behaviour through their influence
over both line managers and employees. Given that line managers are key actors who
implement formal voice mechanisms and provide a supportive environment where both
formal and informal voice can flourish (Townsend and Mowbray, 2020), the line managers’
AMO to unlock the voice of their employees will be paramount to employees expressing voice.
Therefore, both the HPWS AMO-enhancing practices and the line managers will signal to
employees an expectation to voice on issues and concerns that may be associated with
employer-interests, while the mutual gains ER will ensure that employees also have the AMO
to voice on employee interests.
While our list of factors is not exhaustive, in summary of our model we identify the
following main factors as contributing to the effectiveness of a HPWS in relation to voice
behaviour: (1) an ER climate characterized by mutual gains; (2) line managers’ AMO to
implement the HWPS and display supportive voice leadership behaviours, which will be
optimized through the HPWS and (3) employees’ AMO to express voice, optimized through
the HPWS and line manager behaviours.
We attest that such a model is something of an ideal type and there are other factors that
may also contribute to the optimization of employee voice. Indeed, there is also the argument
that the shift in responsibility in problem-solving and decision-making from managers to
employees might lead employees to perceive the HPWS practices as causing work
intensification (Ramsay et al., 2000; Harley, 2005, 2010; Boxall and Macky, 2014) and
expectations to engage in voice will not necessarily be seen as a positive experience by
employees (Harley, 2020). While we recognize the complexities of voice, it is beyond the scope
of this paper to consider all contingencies that may affect voice behaviour. What we have set
out to do, however, is to use an integrated ER, HRM and OB lens to develop a model and
theorize the ways in which both employee and employer interest voice can be encouraged
within a HPWS.

Practical implications
At the outset, those organisations which have unions should be mindful of having
cooperative union–employer relationships based on mutual gains that can contribute to the
PR successful implementation of HPWS and subsequent line manager and employee voice
behaviours (see Black and Lynch 2004). Given the AMO-enhancing voice effect will vary
based on the how the HR practices have been implemented at the team level, organisations
and leaders should ensure there is consistency in how the HR practices are implemented
(Bowen and Ostroff, 2004). We have shown that HPWS practices can enhance the line
managers’ AMO to manage employee voice and to develop their ability to exhibit
empowering and participative behaviours. Therefore, there should be consideration of
including HR practices that build the knowledge, skills and ability of line managers to create
supportive voice climates. Having appropriate policies in place that provide procedures for
leaders responding to voice will also be important. For example, having an open-door policy
and set response times that managers are required to acknowledge voice episodes will
encourage positive voicing behaviour (Blackburn and Rosen, 1993) and opportunities for
voicing behaviour to occur. Organisations should encourage their managers to share
important information and to provide autonomy to their employees (Holland et al., 2012).
We have illustrated how HR practices within a HPWS provide employees with greater
AMO to engage in voice. When designing the HR system, organisations should consider
those HR practices that enhance employee AMO to voice, such as selective recruitment,
training, reward and recognition and formal voice mechanisms. For example, selection
methods could include peer evaluation whereby potential employees work alongside current
employees in assessment centres to determine their ability to problem-solving and engage in
continuous improvement (Blackburn and Rosen, 1993). Providing employees with training in
communication, such as the use of critical language and assertion, can provide employees
with greater confidence and ability to express voice and to raise challenging issues, thus
improving voice efficacy (Okuyama et al., 2014). Organisations will need to consider the most
effective compensation and reward bundle that will motivate their employees to voice. For
example, team performance may be the most optimal when job design is based around self-
managing teams and continuous improvement performance goals are set at the team level
(Laroche and Salesina, 2017).
We have also raised the issue that employees could perceive the HPWS as leading to work
intensification. Increasing employees’ perception that the expectation to voice is part of one’s
job role while ensuring that employees are engaged will increase the likelihood that
employees will express voice (Van Dyne et al., 2008; Rees et al., 2013). Ensuring that job
resources, such as a supportive leader or training, offset the demands will be important to
establishing this relationship, however (Demerouti et al., 2001).
Of course, one needs to be realistic in determining what practices any given organisation
should invest in, to ensure that performance is maximized while minimizing waste (Meuer,
2017). As such, Van Rhee and Dul (2018) argue that consideration needs to be given to
individual necessity and specific job requirements, which differs within organisations. They
suggest spending resources on those factors that are currently limiting performance, such as
motivation. On this basis, spending additional money on practices that provide opportunities
to voice, for example, would be futile if motivation to voice is lacking. Consequently, to yield
the greatest investment, priority should be given to practices that can enhance those factors
which are currently limiting voice behaviour. This could give rise to new practices and the
removal of others over the life cycle of the HPWS and the differentiation of practices for
individual employees.

Implications for research

The HPWS-voice behaviour model we have presented offers several directions for research,
which could be quantitatively or qualitatively studied by HPWS or voice scholars across
various disciplines. The model incorporates strands from ER, HRM and OB within the
context of HPWS and offers opportunities for these researchers, who have hitherto ignored HPWS and
each other, to connect within this context. In addition to our proposed relationships, there is employee voice
the need to examine what specific HR practices lead to an increase in line managers’ AMO to
implement and manage voice and which ones will increase the AMO of employees to engage
behaviour
in voice behaviour. For example, longitudinal studies could be conducted to determine the
effect of participative leadership training (Gao et al., 2011) on the line manager’s ability to
create a supportive team voice climate, encouraging either formal or informal voice
behaviour. Future research which examines intrinsic and extrinsic motivators to voice, such
as empowerment and contingent pay, could expand our understanding of what motivates
employees to engage in different types of voice behaviour, such as individual, team or
collective, or organisation-focused or employee-focused.
Closer examination of the effect of ER on employee voice behaviour is warranted. For
example, the extent to which a mutual gain climate increases individual and direct employee
voice (rather than collective voice which is typically examined by ER scholars) provides a
promising avenue to explore. There is the need to better understand the implications of
working under a HPWS and whether perceptions of work intensification lead to silence or
neglect on certain types of voice, such as employer-focused improvement-oriented voice,
while at the same time leading to an increase in voice behaviour related to employee interests.
To conclude, our HPWS-voice behaviour interaction model has illustrated the routes
through which employee voice can be optimized within a HPWS, through mutual gains ER
and the AMO voice-enhancing practices. Our discussion of our model involved an integrated
ER, HRM and OB lens to examine voice behaviour within a HPWS, which helps shed light on
how HPWS HR practices not only provide opportunities to voice but also to enhance the
ability and motivation of line managers to manage voice and for employees to express voice.
Our theoretical model provides academics with suggested avenues for future research
concerning how HR practices can encourage voice, while we also have provided practitioners
with practical advice regarding the use of HR practices to maximize voice in their own
organisations.

References
urstenberg, N. (2020), “The relationship between perceived high-performance
Alfes, K., Veld, M. and F€
work systems, combinations of human resource well-being and human resource performance
attributions and engagement”, Human Resource Management Journal, pp. 1-24, doi: 10.1111/
1748-8583.12310.
Applebaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P. and Kalleberg, A. (2000), Manufacturing Advantage: Why High
Performance Work Systems Pay Off, ILR Press, Ithaca, NY.
Barry, M. and Wilkinson, A. (2016), “Pro-social or pro-management? A critique of the conception of
employee voice as a pro-social behaviour within organizational behaviour”, British Journal of
Industrial Relations, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 261-284.
Becker, B. and Gerhart, B. (1996), “The impact of human resource management on organizational
performance: progress and prospects”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 779-801.
Becker, B.E. and Huselid, M.A. (1998), “High performance work systems and firm performance: a
synthesis of research and managerial implications”, Research in Personnel and Human
Resources Journal, Vol. 16, pp. 53-101.
Birdi, K., Clegg, C., Patterson, M., Robinson, A., Stride, C.B., Wall, T.D. and Wood, S.J. (2008), “The
impact of human resource and operational management practices on company productivity: a
longitudinal study”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 467-501.
Black, S.E. and Lynch, L.M. (2004), “What’s driving the new economy?: The benefits of workplace
innovation”, The Economic Journal, Vol. 114 No. 493, pp. F97-F116.
PR Blackburn, R. and Rosen, B. (1993), “Total quality and human resources management: lessons learned
from Baldrige Award-winning companies”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 7 No. 3,
pp. 49-66.
Blumberg, M. and Pringle, C.D. (1982), “The missing opportunity in organizational research: some
implications for a theory of work performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 7 No. 4,
pp. 560-569.
Boselie, P. (2010), “High performance work practices in the health care sector: a Dutch case study”,
International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 42-58.
Bos-Nehles, A.C., Van Riemsdijk, M.J. and Kees Looise, J. (2013), “Employee perceptions of line
management performance: applying the AMO theory to explain the effectiveness of line
managers’ HRM implementation”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 52 No. 6, pp. 861-877.
Bowen, D.E. and Ostroff, C. (2004), “Understanding HRM–firm performance linkages: the role of the
‘strength’ of the HRM system”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 203-221.
Boxall, P. and Macky, K. (2014), “High-involvement work processes, work intensification and
employee well-being”, Work Employment and Society, Vol. 28 No.6, pp. 963-984.
Boxall, P.F. and Purcell, J. (2011), Strategy and Human Resource Management, Palgrave Macmillan,
Basingstoke.
Budd, J.W. (2004), Employment with a Human Face: Balancing Efficiency, Equity, and Voice, Cornell
University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Budd, J.W., Gollan, P.J. and Wilkinson, A. (2010), “New approaches to employee voice and
participation in organisations”, Human Relations, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 303-310.
Chamberlin, M., Newton, D.W. and Lepine, J.A. (2017), “A meta-analysis of voice and its promotive and
prohibitive forms: identification of key associations, distinctions, and future research
directions”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 11-71.
Colvin, A.J. (2006), “Flexibility and fairness in liberal market economies: the comparative impact of the
legal environment and high-performance work systems”, British Journal of Industrial Relations,
Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 73-97.
Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A. and Ketchen, D. (2006), ““How much do high-performance work practices
matter? A meta-analysis of their effects on organizational performanc””, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 501-528.
Cook, H., MacKenzie, R. and Forde, C. (2017), “Union partnership as a facilitator to HRM: improving
implementation through oppositional engagement”, The International Journal of Human
Resource Management. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2017.1399431.
De Prins, P., Stuer, D. and Gielens, T. (2020), “Revitalizing social dialogue in the workplace: the impact of
a cooperative industrial relations climate and sustainable HR practices on reducing employee
harm”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 31 No. 13, pp. 1684-1704.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2001), “The job demands-resources
model of burnout”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 499-512.
Detert, J.R. and Burris, E.R. (2007), “Leadership behaviour and employee voice: is the door really open?
”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 869-884.
Do, H., Budhwar, P. and Patel, C. (2019), “High-performance work system practices in Vietnam: a
study of managers’ perceptions”, Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and
Performance, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 145-160.
Dysvik, A. and Kuvaas, B. (2008), “The relationship between perceived training opportunities, work
motivation and employee outcomes”, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 12
No. 3, pp. 138-157.
Fast, N.J., Burris, E.R. and Bartel, C.A. (2014), “Managing to stay in the dark: managerial self-efficacy,
ego defensiveness, and the aversion to employee voice”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 1013-1034.
Fenton-O’Creevy, M. (1998), “Employee involvement and the middle manager: evidence from a survey HPWS and
of organisations”, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 67-84.
employee voice
Fenton-O’Creevy, M. (2001), “Employee involvement and the middle manager: saboteur or scapegoat?”,
Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 24-40.
behaviour
Frazier, M.L. and Fainshmidt, S. (2012), “Voice climate, work outcomes, and the mediating role of
psychological empowerment: a multilevel examination”, Group and Organisation Management,
Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 691-715.
Gao, L., Janssen, O. and Shi, K. (2011), “Leader trust and employee voice: the moderating role of
empowering leader behaviors”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 787-798.
Gerhart, B. and Fang, M. (2015), “Pay, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, performance, and
creativity in the workplace: revisiting long-held beliefs”, Annual Review of Organizational and
Psychology and Organizational Behavioural., Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 489-521.
Gill, C. (2009), “Union impact on the effective adoption of high performance work practices”, Human
Resource Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Gill, C. and Meyer, D. (2013), “Union presence, employee relations and high performance work
practices”, Personnel Review, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 508-528.
Gittell, J.H., Seidner, R. and Wimbush, J. (2010), “A relational model of how high-performance work
systems work”, Organisation Science, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 490-506.
Gollan, P.J., Kaufman, B.E., Taras, D. and Wilkinson, A. (2015), Voice and Involvement at Work:
Experience with Non-union Representation, Axon Routledge, New York, NY and Abingdon.
Guest, D.E. (1997), “Human resource management and performance: a review and research agenda”,
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 263-276.
Harley, B. (2005), “Hope or hype? High performance work systems”, in Harley, B., Hyman, J. and
Thompson, P. (Eds), Participation and Democracy at Work: Essays in Honour of Harvey
Ramsay, Palgrave, Basingstoke, pp. 38-54.
Harley, B. (2020), “High performance work systems and employee voice”, in Wilkinson, A., Donaghey, J.,
Dundon, T. and Freeman, R. (Eds), The Handbook of Research on Employee Voice, 2nd ed.,
Edward Elgar Press, London, pp. 313-327.
Harley, B., Sargent, L. and Allen, B. (2010), “Employee responses to ‘high performance work system
practices: an empirical test of the disciplined worker thesis”, Work Employment and Society,
No.4, Vol. 24, pp. 740-760.
Heffernan, M. and Dundon, T. (2016), “Cross-level effects of high-performance work systems (HPWS)
and employee well-being: the mediating effect of organisational justice”, Human Resource
Management Journal, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 211-231.
Holland, P., Cooper, B.K., Pyman, A. and Teicher, J. (2012), “Trust in management: the role of employee
voice arrangements and perceived managerial opposition to unions”, Human Resource
Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 377-391.
Hsiung, H.H. (2012), “Authentic leadership and employee voice behaviour: a multi-level psychological
process”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 107 No. 3, pp. 349-361.
Hu, X. and Jiang, Z. (2018), “Employee-oriented HRM and voice behaviour: a moderated mediation
model of moral identity and trust in management”, The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 746-771.
Huselid, M.A. (1995), “The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity,
and corporate financial performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 3,
pp. 635-672.
Jiang, K., Lepak, D.P., Han, K., Hong, Y., Kim, A. and Winkler, A.L. (2012), “Clarifying the construct of
human resource systems: relating human resource management to employee performance”,
Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 73-85.
PR Jo, H., Aryee, S. and HsiungandGuest, H.H.D. (2020), “Fostering mutual gains: explaining the influence
of high-performance work systems and leadership on psychological health and service
performance”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 98-225.
Jyoti, J. and Rani, A. (2019), “Role of burnout and mentoring between high performance work system
and intention to leave: moderated mediation model”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 98,
pp. 166-176.
Karadas, G. and Karatepe, O.M. (2019), “Unraveling the black box: the linkage between high-
performance work systems and employee outcomes”, Employee Relations, Vol. 41 No. 1,
pp. 67-83.
Kaufman, B.E. (2015a), “Theorising determinants of employee voice: an integrative model across
disciplines and levels of analysis”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 1,
pp. 19-40.
Kaufman, B.E. (2015b), “Employee involvement and voice at Delta Air Lines: the leading edge of
American practice”, in Gollan, P.J., Kaufman, B.E., Taras, D. and Wilkinson, A. (Eds), Voice and
Involvement at Work: Experience with Non-union Representation, Axon Routledge, New York,
NY and Abingdon, pp. 295-340.
Kehoe, R.R. and Wright, P.M. (2013), “The impact of high-performance human resource practices on
employees’ attitudes and behaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 366-391.
Knoll, M., Wegge, J., Unterrainer, C., Silva, S. and Jønsson, T. (2016), “Is our knowledge on voice and
silence in organisations growing? Building bridges and (re)discovering opportunities”, German
Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 30 Nos 3-4, pp. 161-194.
Laroche, P. and Salesina, M. (2017), “The effects of union and nonunion forms of employee
representation on high-performance work systems: new evidence from French microdata”,
Human Resource Management, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 173-189.
Larsen, H.H. and Brewster, C. (2003), “Line management responsibility for HRM: what is happening in
Europe?”, Employee Relations, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 228-244.
Lawler, E.E. (1986), High Involvement Management, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
LePine, J.A. and Van Dyne, L. (2001), “Voice and cooperative behaviour as contrasting forms of
contextual performance: evidence of differential relationships with big five personality
characteristics and cognitive ability”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 2, pp. 326-336.
MacDuffie, J.P. (1995), “Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: organizational logic
and flexible production systems in the world auto industry”, ILR Review, Vol. 48 No. 2,
pp. 197-221.
MacKenzie, R., Forde, C., Cook, H. and Valizade, D. (2015), “The effect of trade unions on High
Performance Work Systems (HPWS): assessing the impact of trade union power and the
mediating role of industrial relations climate”, Conference proceedings from 17th ILERA World
Conference September 2015, Cape Town, pp. 7-11.
Marchington, M. (2007), “Employee voice systems”, in Boxall, P., Purcell, J. and Wright, P. (Eds), The
Oxford Handbook of Human Resource Management, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
pp. 231-250.
McGovern, P., Gratton, L., Hope-Hailey, V., Stiles, P. and Truss, C. (1997), “Human resource
management on the line?”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 12-29.
Meuer, J. (2017), “Exploring the complementarities within high-performance work systems: a set-
theoretic analysis of UK firms”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 651-672.
Morrison, E.W. (2011), “Employee voice behaviour: integration and directions for future research”,
The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 373-412.
Morrison, E.W. (2014), “Employee voice and silence”, The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology
and Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 173-197.
Morrison, E.W. and Milliken, F.J. (2000), “Organizational silence: a barrier to change and development
in a pluralistic world”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 706-725.
Mowbray, P.K. (2018), “Giving a voice to managers: forging the desire line through the creation of HPWS and
informal employee voice channels and productive resistance”, The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 941-969. employee voice
Mowbray, P.K., Wilkinson, A. and Tse, H.H.M. (2015), “An integrative review of employee voice:
behaviour
identifying a common conceptualization and research agenda”, International Journal of
Management Reviews, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 382-400.
Newman, A., Cooper, B., Holland, P., Miao, Q. and Teicher, J. (2019), “How do industrial relations
climate and union instrumentality enhance employee performance? The mediating effects of
perceived job security and trust in management”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 58 No. 1,
pp. 35-44.
Okuyama, A., Wagner, C. and Bijnen, B. (2014), “Speaking up for patient safety by hospital-based
health care professionals: a literature review”, BMC Health Services Research, Vol. 14
No. 1, pp. 1-8.
Pohler, D.M. and Luchak, A.A. (2014), “The missing employee in employee voice research”, in
Wilkinson, A., Donaghey, J., Dundon, T. and Freeman, R. (Eds), The Handbook of Research on
Employee Voice, Edward Elgar Press, London, pp. 188-207.
Purcell, J. and Hutchinson, S. (2007), “Front-line managers as agents in the HRM-performance causal
chain: theory, analysis and evidence”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 17
No. 1, pp. 3-20.
Pyman, A., Cooper, B., Teicher, J. and Holland, P. (2006), “A comparison of the effectiveness of
employee voice arrangements in Australia”, Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 37 No. 5,
pp. 543-559.
Pyman, A., Holland, P., Teicher, J. and Cooper, B.K. (2010), “Industrial relations climate, employee
voice and managerial attitudes to unions: an Australian study”, British Journal of Industrial
Relations, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 460-480.
Ramsay, H., Scholarios, D. and Harley, B. (2000), “Employees and high-performance work systems:
testing inside the black box”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 501-531.
Raub, S. and Robert, C. (2010), “Differential effects of empowering leadership on in-role and extra-role
employee behaviors: exploring the role of psychological empowerment and power values”,
Human Relations, Vol. 63 No. 11, pp. 1743-1770.
Rees, C., Alfes, K. and Gatenby, M. (2013), “Employee voice and engagement: connections and
consequences”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 24 No. 14,
pp. 2780-2798.
Saridakis, G., Lai, Y. and Johnstone, S. (2017), “Does workplace partnership deliver mutual gains at
work?”, Economic and Industrial Democracy, pp. 1-27, doi: 10.1177/0143831X17740431.
Siddique, M., Procter, S. and Gittell, J.H. (2019), “The role of relational coordination in the relationship
between high-performance work systems (HPWS) and organizational performance”, Journal of
Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 246-266.
Sun, L.Y., Aryee, S. and Law, K.S. (2007), “High-performance human resource practices, citizenship
behaviour, and organizational performance: a relational perspective”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 558-577.
Tangirala, S. and Ramanujam, R. (2012), “Ask and you shall hear (but not always): examining the
relationship between manager consultation and employee voice”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 65
No. 2, pp. 251-282.
Townsend, K. and Mowbray, P.K. (2020), “Situating line managers towards the centre of employee
voice research”, in Wilkinson, A., Donaghey, J., Dundon, T. and Freeman, R. (Eds), The
Handbook of Research on Employee Voice, 2nd ed., Edward Elgar Press, London, pp. 137-155.
Tyler, T.R. (1994), “Psychological models of the justice motive: antecedents of distributive and
procedural justice”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 5, pp. 850-863.
PR van Assen, M.F. (2020), “Empowering leadership and contextual ambidexterity–The mediating role of
committed leadership for continuous improvement”, European Management Journal, Vol. 38
No. 3, pp. 435-449.
Van Dyne, L. and LePine, J.A. (1998), “Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: evidence of construct
and predictive validity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 108-119.
Van Dyne, L., Kamdar, D. and Joireman, J. (2008), “In-role perceptions buffer the negative impact of
low LMX on helping and enhance the positive impact of high LMX on voice”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 6, pp. 1195-1207.
Van Rhee, H. and Dul, J. (2018), “Filling the black-box of HR: unraveling the AMO model and elevating
it to the organizational level”, Academy of Management Proceedings, Vol. 2018 No. 1, p. 13840,
Academy of Management, Briarcliff Manor, NY.
Van Waeyenberg, T. and Decramer, A. (2018), “Line managers’ AMO to manage employees’
performance: the route to effective and satisfying performance management”, The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 3093-3114.
Vernon, G. and Brewster, C. (2013), “Structural spoilers or structural supports? Unions and the
strategic integration of HR functions”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 1113-1129.
Walumbwa, F.O. and Schaubroeck, J. (2009), “Leader personality traits and employee voice behaviour:
mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 5, pp. 1275-1286.
Walumbwa, F.O., Wang, P., Wang, H., Schaubroeck, J. and Avolio, B.J. (2010), “Psychological processes linking
authentic leadership to follower behaviors”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 901-914.
Wang, D., Gan, C. and Wu, C. (2016), “LMX and employee voice: a moderated mediation model of
psychological empowerment and role clarity”, Personnel Review, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 605-615.
Watson, S., Maxwell, G.A. and Farquharson, L. (2006), “Line managers’ views on adopting human
resource roles: the case of Hilton (UK) hotels”, Employee Relations, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 30-49.
Wilkinson, A., Dundon, T. and Marchington, M. (2013), “Employee involvement and voice”, in Bach, S. and
Edwards, M. (Eds), Managing Human Resources, 5th edn, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, pp. 744-761.
Wilkinson, A., Dundon, T., Donaghey, J. and Freeman, R. (2014), “Employee voice: charting new
terrain”, in Wilkinson, A., Donaghey, J., Dundon, T. and Freeman, R. (Eds), The Handbook of
Research on Employee Voice, Edward Elgar Press, London, pp. 3-16.
Wilkinson, A., Barry, M. and Morrison, E. (2020), “Toward an integration of research on employee
voice”, Human Resource Management Review. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.11.002.
Wood, S. (2011), “High involvement management and performance”, in Wilkinson, A., Gollan, P.J.,
Marchington, M. and Lewin, D.D. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Participation in
Organisations, Oxford University, New York, pp. 407-426.
Wood, S. and de Menezes, L.M. (2011), “High involvement management, high-performance work systems and
well-being”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 1586-1610.
Wood, S.J. and Wall, T.D. (2007), “Work enrichment and employee voice in human resource
management-performance studies”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 1335-1372.

Corresponding author
Paula K. Mowbray can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]