1 Employee Voice in Saudi Arabia

Faculty Mentor: Dr. Amelia Stillwell (Management, University of Utah)

Abstract

Within organizations, employees are faced with the decision when they have a new idea or suggestion: either speaking up (i.e. voice; Morrison, 2011), or remaining silent. Employee voice has been shown to increase creativity in organizations. Yet, the research around employee voice has been largely focused on Western workplace contexts. Little research has examined voice in other cultural contexts, even though culture is known to guide norms around discussion and dissent. In this study, we look deeper into how employees voice in the Saudi Arabian work context.

Introduction

Employee voice– the voluntary decision to speak up with suggestions to improve the organization (Morrison, 2011)– has important positive impacts for organizations. As a form of idea sharing, voice also increases creativity (Carnevale, J.B., Huang, L., Crede, M., Harms, P., and Uhl-Bien, M. (2017). Employee Voice also increases organizational performance through the transfer of knowledge (Argote & Ingram, 2000). Therefore understanding and enabling voice is vital for an organization’s success.

Research on employee voice has mainly focused on Western workplaces, implicitly assuming that these findings generalize to other cultural contexts, such as Saudi Arabia. Yet, organizations don’t exist in isolation from their broader cultural context: they are influenced by the national culture in which they are embedded (Kwon, Farndale, 2016). Saudi Arabia is a high power distance culture with tight norms and high context, meaning that in Saudi culture, hierarchy is well-established and socially accepted (i.e. high power distance; Hofstede, 1982), norms are strict, and there is low tolerance for deviance (i.e. tightness; Gelfand et al., 2011), and social context shapes the meaning of interpersonal communication (i.e. high context; Hall, 1959, 1976). The combination of these norms likely creates a different context for voice than that observed in Western cultures, where voice has previously been studied. Thus, existing research on employee voice may not generalize to Saudi Arabia, as culture influences norms for appropriate behavior in a given context (Lapinski & Rimal, 2005; Zhou et al., 2015). Indeed, cultural tightness and hierarchy, in particular, influence tolerance of dissent, a closely related construct to voice (Blair & Bligh, 2018; Harrington & Gelfand, 2014; Morgan & Kelly, 2021). Because research suggests that both power distance and cultural tightness are associated with a lower tolerance for dissent and deviance (Blair & Bligh, 2018; Harrington & Gelfand, 2014), we argue that these differences in Saudi culture shape workplace voice norms in ways not understood by previous research.

To address this missed opportunity, we sought to better understand the strategies employees use to voice in Saudi Arabia – a hierarchical, tight, and high context work context. Saudi Arabia’s culture is high in power distance, cultural tightness, and context. As a high power distance culture, in Saudia Arabia, “less powerful members of an organization accept and expect power to be distributed unequally”(Hofstede,1982), meaning that hierarchy is mutually accepted and valued within society. Saudi Arabia is also culturally tight, meaning there is low tolerance for the violation of social norms (Gelfand et al., 2011; Harrington & Gelfand, 2014). In addition, Saudi Arabia is high context, meaning that individuals depend more on the social context of a message to guide its meaning, compared to low context cultures that put more weight on the content of the message (Hall, 1959, 1976). Individuals in high-context cultures are more sensitive to social rules, especially when addressing individuals of higher status in the social hierarchy. As such, initial research suggests that high-context-oriented individuals are less likely to voice in the workplace, but also that these behaviors depend greatly on the content of their message and their relationship with the listener (Ward, Ravlin, Klaas, Ployhart, & Buchan, 2016) Thus, multiple elements of culture in Saudi Arabia– high power distance, tight social norms, and high context– likely suppress the traditional forms of research studies in management research.

Though Saudi Arabian cultural norms around hierarchy, tightness, and context likely discourage dissent as it has traditionally been studied, the high context of Saudi culture may offer novel avenues for employees to indirectly voice contrary opinions. We expect that despite the cultural pressures against voice and dissent in Saudi workplaces, the high context culture may offer heretofore unrecognized means for employees to voice their opinions in a culturally appropriate way. For example, employees may suggest alternatives as a way to dissent from the current course of action or utilize analogies and metaphors to express their opinion without being confrontational. To investigate this possibility, we leverage narrative analysis of real workplace experiences from employees in Saudi Arabia to examine how norms around the voice in Saudi culture influence workers’ choices and strategies to voice at work. Using these narratives as well as existing measures of cultural values, we explore how lower-level employees in Saudi Arabia navigate age-based hierarchy to put forward their ideas and express concerns.

We will contribute to the practice and theory on voice in organizations in three key ways. First, we generate new and important insights on how to engage in effective workplace communication in a heretofore under-researched cultural context: Saudi Arabia. This knowledge comes at a particularly important time in Saudi Arabia’s development, The nation’s relatively recent moves to open its national economy to foreign capital and organizations necessitate a greater understanding of how to engage in culturally appropriate business communication in this context. Second, we suggest that existing measures of voice might be improved by attention to additional strategies employees use in highly hierarchical, tight, and high-context work environments. Given the reliance of the field on voice measures developed in Western contexts, the present work suggests these measures likely neglect the unique forms employee voice may take in hierarchical, tight, and high context cultures in general and in Saudi Arabia in particular. Finally, we expand the field’s understanding of what constitutes voice behavior at work, arguing that cultural context may facilitate more indirect forms of voice in certain cultures. While we focus here on Saudi Arabia, the tools and strategies utilized by employees in this particular cultural context may also be effective in other cultures characterized by high power distance, tight norms, and/or high context. Taken together, these contributions offer a more culturally- comprehensive understanding of workplace voice behavior.

Methodology

The aim of this study was to find how employees in the Saudi Arabia cultural context voice their opinions at work. In order to reach the maximum number of participants while maintaining their anonymity, we developed an online survey that participants could take anywhere. Given that existing measures related to voice were developed and validated in Western cultural contexts, we acknowledge that some of the existing measures we utilize in this research may miss valuable insights on voice in the Saudi context. Thus, our survey included both existing survey measures of culture and voice and open-ended qualitative responses.

Procedure

We distributed the survey through King Saud University in Saudi Arabia. Though we targeted students and student workers via this method of distribution, anyone over the age of 18 qualified to participate. We focus our analysis on participants who indicated they had prior work experience. We also aim to distribute the survey to small and medium businesses to their employees. Participants will be presented with a consent form, and then they will proceed to answer demographic questions, such as age, gender, etc. After demographic questions, they proceed to answer qualitative questions in which they will need to type their answers either in Arabic or English. The next set of questions is a scales question in which they will need to indicate to which degree they agree or disagree with a given situation that they will be asked about. Participants were able to choose and toggle between viewing the survey in English or Arabic.

Measures

Translation Procedure

The most challenging aspect of this research was the translation of research materials to Arabic. We faced several obstacles in translating some of the questions to fit the Saudi cultural context. Cultural differences embedded in how Arabic and English are used led to challenging decisions about word choice. For example, for the item “it is important for him/her that no one should shame [them]” (Schwartz, 1992), we wrestled with finding words that would convey shame in the way intende(Innovation Strategy, Voice Practices, Employee Voice Participation, and Organizational Innovation | Voice & Dissent Across Cultures | Zotero, n.d.)d in the question because in Arabic words have different meanings based on the context in which they are stated. Another challenge came from the very basic assumptions underlying the certain cultural value questions. For example, one question asked how much participants agreed that “It is important to [them] that the weak and vulnerable in society be protected’ (Schwartz, 1992). In Saudi Arabia, it’s culturally believed that the weak and vulnerable should be protected, specifically by the government. Therefore the question was not capturing valuable information. We decided to keep the question to be consistent with the scale. In order to overcome these obstacles, we consulted two native experts outside of the research team– a Saudi professor of linguistics and a professional Saudi social science researcher– in order to better determine the proper terms to convey the meaning of questions in the local Arabic dialect used in Saudi Arabia.

Qualitative Items

After filling out demographic information, participants answered a series of detailed, open-response qualitative questions. Participants responded to the following:

For the first question, we were aiming to capture an instance when employees either voiced their opinions or withhold them; this will enable us to capture valuable insight into how employees deal with moments of disagreement or voice. “Think of a situation in the workplace that you experienced when you had a different opinion from someone who was of higher status than you (A manager or a senior manager in the organization)”. The second question aimed at digging deeper to understand if the age hierarchy played a role in interaction “ Was this person older, younger, or same age?” In the third question, we aimed at understanding if age played a difference in their decision to voice.“What was the gender of this person?” In this question our aim was to understand if the decision to voice was affected by other people witnessing the conversation.“Did others witness the conversation, or was it a private conversation?” In this question, we were trying to harness more information about the interaction that took place “Describe the context and what happened in those moments.” in this question we were wanted to understand if there were any consequences from the persons managers or leaders “What stopped you or motivated you to speak up?” Finally, in this question what was the reaction of other other employees, specifically followers “What happened after you spoke up? Did others acknowledge your disapproval?”

Survey Items

Schwartz’s Cultural Values. We utilized the Schwartz values model in a survey form. Participants were asked to think of a person, and that person was subjected to different value propositions. Participants then had to indicate the degree to which that person was similar to them. For instance, one item stated: “It is important for him to form his views independently;” participants rated each item on a 6-item Likert scale (1 = Not like me at all – 6 = Very much like me).

Cultural Tightness-Looseness. We utilized Gelfand’s model in a survey form. Participants were asked a series of questions regarding social norms and situations and asked the degree to which they agreed or disagreed to the given statement. For example, “There are many social norms that people are supposed to abide by in this country.” to which participants answered each item on a 6-item Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree – 6 = -strongly agree).

Belief in the co-production of leadership. In this survey, we were trying to understand how participants viewed the role of followers in relation to their leaders.. Participants had to indicate how much they agreed to each statement. For example, one item stated: “Followers should be on the lookout for suggestions they can offer to superiors.” participants answered each item on a 6-item Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree – 6 =strongly agree).

Constructive resistance. In this survey, we aimed to understand what tactics participants utilized when their manager to leader asked them to finish a task they thought was not useful.

Participants were presented with a series of tactics; they had to indicate the degree in which they utilized that particular tactic. For example, “I explain that I think it should be done a different way.” participants rated each item on a 6-item Likert scale (1 = I cannot remember ever using this tactic – 6 = I almost always use this tactic )

Current Progress and Discussion

In this study, we sought to better understand the voice strategies used by employees in Saudi Arabia, an underresearched cultural setting characterized by hierarchical, tight, and high- context cultural norms. We translated the survey and submitted it to King Saudi University in Saudi Arabia for approval and distribution. Though we have obtained initial approval, we are still waiting on the final approval to publish the survey. Once we have data, we anticipate several themes are likely to appear in workers’ narratives; specifically, we expect workers to observe that maintaining vs. risking relationships, the age-based hierarchy between individuals, and individual manager influence, are each important factors determining when and how they choose to voice at work.

Relationships. In Saudi Arabia, the relationship between the follower and the leader is likely significant in determining an employee’s choice to voice. In this context, relationships are significant to one’s social status, and relationships outside the workplace permeate the organization’s boundaries. Thus, the interpersonal relationship between leader and follower, connecting leader and follower outside of the organization, may carry more weight in Saudi Arabia than in Western cultures.

Age. Age and power hierarchies play an important role in setting expectations for followers and leaders in Saudi Arabia; thus, it may be difficult for employees to voice opinions because of the norms to listen and value the opinions and directions of the elderly in Saudi culture, even if they share a good relationship. In Saudi culture, respect for the elderly is highly valued and regarded. For example, when an older person makes a decision, it is best to trust in them due to their age and experience. As such, it may be hard for younger employees to voice their opinion due to age differences.

Manager Influence. Managers generally set normative expectations for employees in the workplace and thus may amplify or dampen the cultural norms that govern these relationships. For example, a manager might endorse tighter social norms and convey these expectations to employees; as a result, employees might perceive that voice and dissent come with greater interpersonal risk. Therefore, the manager’s own cultural values may influence how employees choose to voice.

References

Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 82(1), 150-169.

Blair, B. A., & Bligh, M. C. (2018). Looking for leadership in all the wrong places: The impact of culture on proactive followership and follower dissent. Journal of Social Issues, 74(1), 129– 143.

Carnevale, J. B., Huang, L., Crede, M., Harms, P. D., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2017). Leading to engage: A motivational model of leadership, employee engagement, and perceived effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(3), 439-458.

Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L., Leslie, L. M., Lun, J., Lim, B. C., … & Yamaguchi, S. (2011). Differences Between Tight and Loose Cultures: A 33-Nation Study. Science, 332(6033), 1100-1104. DOI: 10.1126/science.1197754

Hall, E. T. (1959). The Silent Language. Doubleday.

Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond Culture. Anchor Press/Doubleday.

Harrington, J. R., & Gelfand, M. J. (2014). Tightness–looseness across the 50 United States. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(22), 7990–7995.

Hofstede, G. (1982). Dimensions of national cultures in fifty countries and three regions. International Journal of Psychology, 17(1-4), 41-49.

Kwon, B., Farndale, E., & Park, J. G. (2016). Employee voice and work engagement: Macro, meso, and micro-level drivers of convergence? Human Resource Management Review, 26(4), 327–337.

Lapinski, M. K., & Rimal, R. N. (2005). An Explication of Social Norms. Communication Theory, 15(2), 127–147.

Morgan, J., & Kelly, N. J. (2021). Inequality, exclusion, and tolerance for political dissent in Latin America. Comparative Political Studies, 54(11), 2019-2051.

Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee Voice Behavior: Integration and Directions for Future Research. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373–412.