Report Re Report Title

csiro’s wellbeing journey – appendix j
Speaking Up in CSIRO
Internal survey to examine CSIRO’s speaking up climate

Speaking up in CSIRO: A survey on organisational voice

Ongoing, informal voice, particularly when directed at those able to take action, is important for wellbeing, innovation, organisational change, and organisational learning.As in other organisations, CSIRO has numerous mechanisms for employee voice. These include both formal and informal avenues such as grievance procedures, EAP services, Equity and Diversity officers, HR services, team meetings, and Yammer. However, in light of these mechanisms, and the organisation-wide commitment to the Code of Conduct, health and safety practice and the CSIRO values, the underlying cultural factors for speaking up in CSIRO remained to be explored.

The main objective of the Speaking Up survey was to understand the perceived barriers to speaking up (such as leadership, processes, and job insecurity issues) and individual and team-level assumptions, beliefs and expectations that foster a climate for speaking up. The literature offers several theoretical and empirical explanations for speaking up and describes a range of factors that support organisational voice, including inclusive leadership, psychological safety, trust in management, and group and interpersonal functioning. In consideration of these factors, the survey examined when staff speak up, to whom they speak up, in what situations, on what subjects, and why they refrain from speaking up. The development of the survey questions was based on existing measures (see references), and tailored to the CSIRO context.

Supported by the literature, CSIRO’s own exploration of organisational voice revealed several key insights including:

The weighing of personal gains against potential losses that staff undertake before deciding whether or not to speak up. Organisational gains are more likely to be uncertain and delayed, in contrast to outcomes for the individual which are more likely to be certain and immediate. Few situations will present sufficient organisational gains to overcome perceived individual losses. Moreover, speaking up can be challenging when it involves pointing out problemsbecause organisations tend to celebrate and review successes rather than seeking to learn from failures.
Knowledge organisations with data-reliant cultures may unintentionally build a reluctance to speak up without sufficient evidence to refute contentions. Such norms are often appropriate for making technical decisions, and are a logical response to deadlines and various conflicting opinions, however,they may foster climates wheretested ideas and pre-determined outcomes areimplicitly encouraged.
A belief held by individuals that the recipientis unable to receive work-related suggestions as anything but personal criticisms because of the assumption that those with power have ownership over a process/theory/approach etc. Often not testing this assumption, or testing it unsuccessfully, individuals maychoose to refrain from voicing their concerns to the appropriate people.
A positive influence on speaking up is managers/leaders who are described as ‘understanding and willing to listen’. People’s sense of interactional justice, no matter the outcome, is as important as following appropriate procedures and processes and making fair decisions.
Individual differences in communication and openness to hearing comments are integral to the supervisor-employee relationship and the speaking up cycle. Poorly phrased feedback may lead therecipient to be noticeably less open to feedback at a later date, leading the speaker to associate the attempt with negative expectations or consequences, potentially reducing the willingness to speak up/listen in the future.

Overall, the survey addressedindividual-, team- and organisational-level factors that the literature indicates to be important for speaking up. The findings indicated that a multi-level approach that commits to building a positive and trusting team environment for speaking up (inclusive of staff, supervisors, managers, leaders) is likely to have the greatest impact on fostering a positive culture for speaking up in CSIRO.

An Excerpt from CSIRO’S Speaking Up Survey:

Overall, speaking up in CSIRO is associated with:

© Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, 2003-2014. This survey was developed by CSIRO for internal purposes using existing validated scales (refer to reference list). Please contact for further information.

Positive outcomes
No change
Negative consequences

Please consider the following topics/issues and respond to both (i) and (ii).

[1=Never to 5=Very Often]

(i)How often do you want to speak up about:

(ii)How often do you speak up about:

Organisational direction and strategy (e.g. planning, decision making, leadership)
Operational issues (e.g. systems, processes, policies, procedures, budget, allocation, funding)
Science / research matters (e.g. methodologies, science directions, alternative approaches, new ideas)
People issues, values, and behaviour (e.g. performance of self or others, working relationships, personality styles, diversity, misconduct)
Health, safety and environment (e.g. hazards and unsafe behaviour, practices, equipment, facilities)

In deciding whether or not to speak up in CSIRO, to what extent do you consider the following?

[1=Not At All to 5=To A Very Large Extent]

Potential for negative consequences.
Likelihood that things will change for the better.
…

In the past 12 months in CSIRO, how often have you:

[1=Never to 5=Very often]

Personally experienced a situation in which you felt you couldn't speak up.
…
…

If you had a problem in CSIRO, you could depend on your immediate manager to be:

[1=Strongly Disagree to 5=Strongly Agree; 6=N/A]

Available to listen.
…
…

References

Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 45-68.

Bowen, F., & Blackmon, K. (2003). Spirals of silence: The dynamic effects of diversity on organisational voice. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1393-1417.

Carmeli, A., & Hoffer Gittell, J. (2009). High quality relationships, psychological safety, and learning from failures in work organizations, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 709-729.

Carmeli, A., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Ziv, E. (2010). Inclusive leadership and employee involvement in creative tasks in the workplace: The mediating role of psychological safety. Creativity Research Journal, 22(3), 250-260.

Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behaviour and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869-884.

Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Everyday failures in organizational learning: Explaining the high threshold for speaking up at work. Unpublished manuscript, Penn State University, PA.

Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. (2011). Implicit voice theories: Taken for granted rules of self censorship at work. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 461-488.

Detert, J. R., & Trevino, L. K. (2010). Speaking up to higher ups: How supervisors and skip level leaders influence employee voice. Organizational Science, 21(1), 249-270.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behaviour in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350-383.

Huang, C., & Jiang, P. (2012). Exploring the psychological safety of R&D teams: An empirical analysis in Taiwan. Journal of Management and Organization, 18(2), 175-192.

Levy, S. R., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (2006). Lay theories and intergroup relations. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 9(1), 5-24.

Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities. Academy of Management Journal, 23(3), 438-458.

Liang, J., Farh, C. I., & Farh, J. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination, Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 71-92.

May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 11-37.

Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upwards and why. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1453-1476.

Morand, D. A. (2000). Language and power: An empirical analysis of linguistic strategies used in superior-subordinate communication. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 21, 235-248.

Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 941-966.

Premeaux, S. F., & Bedeian, A. G. (2003). Breaking the silence: The moderating effects of self‐monitoring in predicting speaking up in the workplace.Journal of Management Studies,40(6), 1537-1562.

Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice and multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1359-1392.

Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits and employee voice behaviour: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1275-128.

CONTACT US
t1300 363 400
+61 3 9545 2176
e
w
Your CSIRO
Australia is founding its future on science and innovation. Its national science agency, CSIRO, is a powerhouse of ideas, technologies and skills for building prosperity, growth, health and sustainability. It serves governments, industries, business and communities across the nation. / For further information
ORGANISATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Sue Davidson
t+61 2 9490 8502
e