Job dissatisfaction is a reality in the workplace. The responses to job dissatisfaction according to Farrell (1983) are exit, voice, loyalty and neglect. Thus, for purposes of this paper, I intend to investigate the positive impact of voice as a result of job dissatisfaction. The reason for such research is simply that human resources are extremely valuable to the production of any firm. Ideally managers should desire to encourage employees to express dissatisfaction in such a way that it creates more profit potential for the company.
In 2005, Robbins and Judge stated that job dissatisfaction is concerned with factors such as company policy, administration, supervision and salary (p. 191). Since there are no perfect organizations, it is reasonable to state that high levels of dissatisfaction exist for some firms. Therefore, voice should be the desired response to job dissatisfaction. “The voice option [is] defined as any attempt at all to change rather than to escape from an objectionable state of affairs.”(Farrell, 1983, p.597)
However, according to Zhou and George (2001, p. 682) “it is naive to assert that job dissatisfaction will always lead to creativity in the workplace.” Like Farrell (1983), Zhou and George noted the four responses to job dissatisfaction. Exit and voice are both active measures. Exit involves leaving the job, while voice is concerned with active and constructive attempts to improve conditions. However, loyalty and neglect refer to passive measures taken by employees who choose to stay at the organization. Loyalty means that the employee will wait for conditions to improve. Neglect suggests a withdrawal from work while allowing conditions to worsen. Of these responses to job dissatisfaction, one can see that voice would most benefit a company. The positive impact can range from innovation that increases a company’s market share, to perhaps creating an atmosphere of enthusiasm which can result in prompting other...