If an employee decides to dissent, they will do so in one of three distinct ways: articulated, latent or displaced. Articulated dissent involves the direct communication to influence members of an organization. According to Kassing (1998), persons who use articulated dissent express their concerns within their organizations to audiences who can positively influence changes or adjustments, such as direct management, supervisors, and corporate executives or officers. This type of dissent is also more likely to occur when employees feel their opinions are more likely to be perceived as constructive and helpful, as opposed to possibly leading to retaliation or negativity in the work environment. Latent dissent, which is typically the most common, is characterized by employees who express dissent, but do so to ineffective persons or those who do not have the organizational power to resolve the issues, such as co-workers. Kassing noted this type of dissent is usually seen when the employee believes they will be seen as adversarial but still feel the need to have some type of security against potential retaliation. However, dissenters in this group do hold some sort of leverage within the organization, such as family relationships, status in a minority group, seniority or tenure, or expertise that tends to immune them from retaliation. Therefore, employees who exercise latent dissent are most likely to express their dissent amongst audiences who might be captive or potentially influential, although not leaders in the organization. Meanwhile, displaced dissenters represent a group of persons who disagree without attempting to change the workplace situation. These persons differ as they believe their dissent will be viewed as adversarial and will lead to some type of negative workplace situation, including retaliation or job loss. Therefore, these persons express their dissent to both external audiences, such as friends, family and others outside of the work place, and internal audiences who do not have the ability to address the concern directly. These audiences are chosen because the risk of retaliation or loss of job greatly decreases by expressing to these audiences. While dissenting employees tend to find themselves in one of three main categories in expressing their dissent to their possible audiences, Kassing (2000) suggested the employees likely use various types of dissent messages, such as personal-advantage principled dissent, boat rocking and whistle-blowing. Only one study (Croucher et al., 2009) has really looked at organizational dissent outside the United States. This study found slight differences between Americans and Indians in levels of articulated and displaced dissent, with Americans reporting more articulated and Indians more displaced. The authors further encouraged further research on cultural and organizational explanations for differences in levels of dissent. Croucher et al. stated, future work should examine this phenomenon not only in the U.S. but also in different national, ethnic, and religious cultures (187). Therefore, based on the discussion of cultural dimensions and previous findings of differences in organizational dissent in different cultural groups/nations, the following research question is posed to explore how organizational dissent may differ in the U.S., India, and Thailand: RQ1: Levels of organizational dissent will significantly differ between the United States, India, and Thailand. Method Participants and Procedures A total of 1481 individuals participated in this study: India (657), Thailand (232), and the U.S. (592). Table 1 details the demographics of the participants in each nation. Data for the study were collected through paper and online questionnaires distributed in 2009 and 2010 after completion of Institutional Review Board Approval. The principal researcher recruited participants from all the nations through various social networks, with the assistance of religious and non-profit organizations, and at numerous universities in the U.S. (in Ohio and New York), India (in Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai, Ahmadabad, and Mumbai) and in Thailand (Bangkok). Participants received no financial incentive for participation. Insert Table 1 here Instruments All surveys included demographic questions and the Organizational Dissent Scale. Surveys were prepared in English, Hindi, and Thai. After the instrument was written in English, native speakers of Hindi and Thai translated it. Bilingual speakers then back translated the instruments. All translations were then compared to insure accuracy. Organizational Dissent Scale Kassings (1998) 20-item Organizational Dissent Scale assesses individuals expression of contradictory opinions and disagreements about organizations. For the purpose of this study, individuals were asked to answer the questions about their current employer. The scale measures three types of dissent: articulated, displaced, and latent. The scale ranges from (1) never to (5) always. In the 1998 study, Cronbach alphas were .88 for articulated, .87 for displaced, and .76 for latent dissent. See Table 2 for alphas for this study broken down by nation. Analysis and Results Analysis An analysis of variance was conducted to explore the research question. As the dependent variable in this case is categorical, and the independent variable is continuous, ANOVA is the most appropriate method of analysis. Research Question The research question proposed there would be differences in levels of organizational dissent between India, Thailand, and the U.S. The ANOVA revealed significant differences in levels of dissent between the three groups. The means and standard deviations are displayed in Table 2.
| |
No comments:
Post a Comment