Upward Dissent Research Articles

Raised to Dissent: Family-of-Origin Family Communication Patterns as Predictors of Organizational Dissent

This article extends Kassing's (1997, 1998) model of organizational dissent by evaluating the extent to which family-of-origin communication predicts upward (i.e., to superior) and lateral (i.e., to peer) dissent. Specifically, building from Koerner and Fitzpatrick's theory of family communication schemas, we predicted that family communication patterns (i.e., conversation and conformity orientations) would serve as an individual factor that meaningfully predicts employee dissent. Significant findings emerged for upward dissent but not lateral dissent, with both a main effect for conformity orientation and interaction between conversation and conformity orientations. Decomposition of the interaction effect indicated that, as hypothesized, employees from pluralistic (high conversation, low conformity) families were more likely to express upward dissent than employees from consensual (high conversation, high conformity) families. This pattern of results informs both organizational practice and the theoretical intersection between family and organizational communication.

Accuracy, Coherence, and Discrepancy in Self- and Other-Reports

The purpose of this study was twofold and involved examining the viability of using the Organizational Dissent Scale as an other-report instrument, and developing additional perceptual data related to dissent expression. A sample of 291 people completed survey questionnaire measures of organizational dissent. Equal-sized groups ( n = 97) completed either a self-report, a workplace colleague other-report, or an organizational outsider other-report. Results indicated the Organizational Dissent Scale performed reliably as an other-report, but it showed some tendency for social desirability. In addition, findings suggested that certain indicators of proximity to the dissenter reduced discrepancy between self- and other-reports for upward dissent, but not lateral dissent. By comparison, lateral dissent produced the most discrepant reports of dissent expression, while displaced dissent produced the most coherent reports.

Contradicting Coach or Grumbling to Teammates

The purpose of this study was to examine dissent expressed by athletes. Seventy-three former high school or college athletes from a variety of sports completed an online survey. Results indicated that athlete status and coaches’ openness to feedback associated with upward dissent expressed to coaches. And that for high school coaches a lack of openness to athlete feedback and less time spent in a starting role associated with lateral dissent expressed to teammates. Overall the findings suggest that dissent functions similarly within the coach–athlete/sport context as it does within the superior–subordinate/organizational context, particularly with regard to high school athletics.

Assessing Disagreement Expressed to Management: Development of the Upward Dissent Scale

The purpose of this study was to create a quantitative measure that would be capable of capturing variation in upward dissent expression. Two hundred twenty-five working adults completed a survey questionnaire that included an initial set of items. Exploratory factor analyses produced a reliable and multidimensional 20-item scale that measured upward dissent along four dimensions: prosocial, threatening resignation, circumvention, and repetition. Early evidence of measurement validity was generated as well, with dimensions relating as expected to upward influence, unfair treatment, and supervisor responsiveness.

Stressing Out about Dissent: Examining the Relationship Between Coping Strategies and Dissent Expression

This study examined how coping strategies related to dissent expression. A sample of full-time employees from various organizations completed a survey questionnaire reporting about their use of emotion-focused coping strategies and how they expressed dissent. Findings indicated that coping strategies did significantly associate with upward, lateral, and displaced dissent. In particular, disengagement and denial coping strategies related to upward dissent expressed to management, disengagement and venting coping strategies related to lateral dissent shared with coworkers, and denial and venting coping strategies related to displaced dissent directed to nonwork friends and family members.

“In Case You Didn't Hear Me the First Time”

This study explores how employees express dissent to management about the same issue on multiple occasions across time (i.e., how they practice repetition). Employees completed a survey instrument reporting how often they used varying upward dissent tactics, how often and for how long they raised the same issue, and how they perceived their supervisors responded to their concerns. Results indicate that employees relied predominantly on competent upward dissent tactics but that they adopted less competent and more face-threatening tactics as repetition progressed. In addition, employees' perceptions of their supervisors' responses to repetition related to the overall duration of repetition but not to the frequency with which employees raised issues or the amount of time that elapsed between dissent episodes.

Consider This: A Comparison of Factors Contributing to Employees' Expressions of Dissent

In this study, full-time employees were surveyed to determine the degree to which different considerations factored into their decisions to express upward or lateral dissent. Employees rated considerations similarly when reportedly dissenting to either supervisors or coworkers, with organizational climate and organizational attachment considerations being comparatively stronger than concerns associated with being perceived as adversarial and experiencing retaliation. A comparison across types of dissent revealed that organizational climate, organizational attachment, and adversarial perception/retaliation were more important considerations when employees expressed upward versus lateral dissent. Additionally, results suggested no significant differences in the way management and non-management employees weighed considerations when expressing dissent.

Disagreeing about What's Fair: Exploring the Relationship between Perceptions of Justice and Employee Dissent

This study examined the relationship between employees' perceptions of justice within their organizations and their tendencies for expressing dissent. A sample of full-time working adults (N = 141) completed a survey instrument. Results indicated that managers' perceptions of justice related positively to their use of upward dissent and negatively to their use of displaced dissent, and that non-managers' perceptions of justice related negatively to their use of latent and displaced dissent. Overall, the findings suggest that although managers and non-managers respond differently to perceptions of justice, how fair employees perceive organizational decision-making practices to be relates to their dissent expression.

Employees' Expressions of Upward Dissent as a Function of Current and Past Work Experiences

This study considered the degree to which employees' current and past work experiences related to employees' expressions of upward dissent. A sample of full-time working adults completed a survey questionnaire that assessed workplace freedom of speech, current job tenure, employment history, and upward dissent. Findings indicated that perceptions of workplace freedom of speech and current job tenure related to upward dissent about other-focused issues, that employment history related to upward dissent about functional issues, and that perceptions of workplace freedom of speech and employment history related to upward dissent about protective issues.

Speaking Up Competently: A Comparison of Perceived Competence in Upward Dissent Strategies

Recent dissent research indicates that employees report using several different strategies for expressing their dissent to management and supervisors (i.e., upward dissent). The purpose of this study was to compare previously recognized upward dissent strategies in terms of perceived competence. Employees completed a survey instrument that asked them to assess the competence of different upward dissent strategies. Results indicate that employees perceived solution presentation to be the most competent upward dissent strategy, followed by direct-factual appeal, repetition, and circumvention. Threatening resignation was perceived as the least competent upward dissent strategy.

Speaking Up

Previous researchers have considered the nature of dissent as well as the audiences to whom employees express dissent. Absent in these treatments is a specific focus on the actual dissent strategies that employees use. The purpose of this study was to assess strategies employees use to express upward dissent within contemporary organizations. Employees completed a survey instrument that asked them to provide a dissent account. Five distinct strategies emerged from an interpretive thematic analysis of the accounts. Results indicated that employees used direct-factual appeal, repetition, solution presentation, circumvention, and threatening-resignation strategies for expressing upward dissent.

Someone’s Going to Hear about This

The purpose of this study was to examine how the nature of dissenttriggering events influenced to whom employees chose to express dissent. This was accomplished by asking respondents to report the frequency with which they expressed upward dissent to managers and supervisors, lateral dissent to coworkers, and displaced dissent to people external to their organizations (i.e., family and nonwork friends) in response to different dissent-triggering events. Structural equation models were employed. Results revealed that employeeswere more likely to express dissent to supervisors and coworkers about issues related to their coworkers and about organizational functions such as decision making and organizational change than they were to express dissent about ethical practices and preventing harm to employees. Employees did not appear to differentiate the amount of dissent they expressed to people outside of their organizations as a function of dissent-triggering events.