Full- and Part-Time Dissent: Examining the Effect of Employment Status on Dissent Expression

Abstract

This study examined whether employment status affected the amount and type of dissent employees expressed to management. To address this full-time and part-time employees in separate data collections completed the Upward Dissent Scale. A comparison of participant scores indicated that full-time employees used comparatively more prosocial (direct-factual appeals and solution presentation) and repetition upward dissent tactics compared to part-time employees. Contrastingly, part-time employees relied more heavily on upward dissent expressions that involved circumventing their bosses and threatening to quit their jobs. The findings indicate that employment status has a notable effect on the expression of upward dissent—with full- and part-time employees relying on differing tactics.

Keywords

employee dissent employment status full- and part-time workers organizational dissent

Part-time employees continue to make up a significant sector of the U.S. workforce, spiking with the recession at just above 20% (in January of 2010) and remaining relatively high since with reports from April 2015 estimating the proportion at 18.7% (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015). Organizational communication studies often overlook this sizeable but at times invisible sector of the workforce. We intend to rectify that oversight by examining how employment status (conceptualized as either full- or part-time) affects communication in the workplace. In particular, we are interested in whether there are significant differences in the amount of dissent full- and part-time employees report sharing with their direct supervisors. This will be accomplished by comparing the volume of upward dissent expressed by full- and part-time employees.

Dissent expression involves sharing one’s concerns or contradictory opinions about workplace policies and practices (Kassing, 1997, 1998). By our estimation there are least three key factors that could account for differentiation in dissent expression between full- and part-time employees. The first of these is risk. Expressing dissent or disagreement on the job can be risky (Waldron & Kassing, 2011). This is particularly relevant when employees seek to express upward dissent to management and supervisors above them in the organizational hierarchy (Kassing, 2011). Employees can opt to share dissent with coworkers or to direct it outside organizational boundaries and toward nonwork audiences like friends and family members (Kassing, 1997). Doing so reduces the risk associated with expressing dissent, but also diminishes the possible effectiveness of achieving one’s goals (Garner, 2009; Kassing, 1997). Recent research suggests that email may help constrain the risk associated with expressing dissent (Hastings & Payne, 2013). Researchers found that employees used email to express upward dissent because it afforded the opportunity to exercise greater control over message construction while practicing impression management. In earlier work, Kassing (2002, 2009) also found that impression management was an important factor that people considered when determining how best to express dissent. Thus, risk is a factor that affects what employees consider before expressing dissent and how they go about actually communicating it.

Understanding the risk associated with dissenting inside organizations leads employees to adopt and use different tactics for expressing upward dissent (Kassing, 2002; Kassing & Kava, 2013). On the more prosocial end of the spectrum (see Table 1), these include direct factual appeals designed to show evidence of the concern that has triggered dissent and solution presentation appeals that involve offering a solution along with a complaint. Other tactics involve repeating the concern over time (i.e., repetition) and those that prove more difficult to enact despite potentially bringing significant and meaningful change for oneself and others (Kassing, 2009, 2011). Circumvention involves going around one’s immediate supervisor to someone higher in the chain of command, whereas threatening resignation entails the forewarning that one will leave the organization if a particular situation is not effectively remedied. These two tactics are high stakes-high reward options that pit effectiveness against appropriateness. Kassing’s (2007, 2009, 2011) work illustrates that there are in fact particular instances in which the use of these tactics while risky is quite effective. Risk, then, is a fundamental consideration for organizational dissenters.

Table 1.

Types of Upward Dissent (Kassing, 2002; Kassing & Kava, 2013).

Prosocial (Direct Factual Appeal + Solution Presentation)	Supporting one’s dissent claim with factual information derived from some combination of physical evidence, knowledge of organizational policies and practices, and personal work experience, providing solutions to address the dissent-triggering issue rather than or in addition to evidence, or both
Repetition	Continuing to draw attention to one’s dissent across time—either verbally or behaviorally—and at times collectively with other employees
Circumvention	Expressing one’s disagreement to someone higher in the chain of command than one’s immediate supervisor
Threatening Resignation	Using the threat of resignation as a form of leverage for obtaining responsiveness and action from supervisors and management

The second factor is participation in and access to decision making. Research indicates that dissent often fluctuates in response to decision-making processes (Goodboy, Chory, & Dunleavy, 2008; Kassing & McDowell, 2008; Olison & Roloff, 2012). For example, Olison and Roloff (2012) discovered that a lack of voice in decision making directly linked to psychological reactance and dissent in response to imposing decisions. Similarly, Kassing and McDowell (2008) found that perceptions of justice in decision making influenced how employees expressed dissent. When managers perceived decisions to be fair they expressed greater upward dissent, whereas when nonmanagers perceived decisions to be fair they refrained from expressing dissent to coworkers, family members, and friends outside of work. Apparently, the perceived fairness of decision-making processes has an impact on dissent expression, but this differs depending on people’s managerial status or lack thereof. Indeed, a lack of involvement can lead those affected by decisions to choose less direct or effective means for expressing dissent (Olison & Roloff, 2012). Thus, how decisions get made, alongside the level of employee involvement in the process of decision making, influence how employees express dissent.

A final consideration relevant to dissent expression is involvement with and assimilation in organizations. Recent research reveals that assimilation has a direct effect on the likelihood of employees expressing upward dissent (Goldman & Myers, 2015). In particular, familiarity with supervisors, recognition, and role negotiation were significant predictors of upward dissent use. With regard to involvement in the organization, there are numerous indications that upward dissent occurs more readily when certain concepts reflecting involvement are present—like organizational commitment, employee satisfaction (Kassing, 1998), organizational identification (Kassing, 2000a), and workplace engagement (Kassing, Piemonte, Goman, & Mitchell, 2012). Moreover, Payne (2014) found that employee trust in supervisors related positively to the expression of upward dissent, whereas Kassing (2000b) discovered that greater levels of superior-subordinate relationship quality contributed to upward dissent expression. In contrast, employees are more likely to channel dissent outside the organization when they are comparatively newer to the company, less engaged, less committed, more likely to leave the organization, and are less trusting of their supervisors (Kassing & DiCioccio, 2004; Kassing et al., 2012; Payne, 2014). All of this leads to the clear conclusion that being involved with and assimilated into one’s organization has an effect on dissent expression.

Dissent occurs in particular instances, but these compound to create organizational climates that are more or less dissent tolerant (Kassing, 2011). So while dissent is episodic, it is important to recognize that one’s exposure to dissent and possible expression of it will be informed by past and present experiences (Garner, 2013). As a result, full-time employees are better situated within organizations in a variety of ways. They possess greater opportunities for developing relationships with supervisors and coworkers, they are more likely to hone a sense of commitment toward the organization and involvement with their jobs, and they have more time to develop an understanding of the organizational culture and its communication climate. These affordances also mean that full-time employees ought to be more comfortable expressing dissent to management within their respective organizations.

Certain forms of upward dissent are understood to be more competent approaches for expressing dissent (Kassing, 2005). We expect that these approaches would be practiced more readily by full-time compared to part-time employees. In particular, offering solutions and providing factual appeals, designated by Kassing and Kava (2013) as prosocial upward dissent, should be more prevalent. Thus, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 1: Full-time employees will report using significantly more prosocial upward dissent than part-time employees.

Additionally, full-time employees have more opportunities to revisit the same issues that have triggered dissent. This is true because of the simple fact that they spend more time in the organization by comparison to part-time employees, but also because of the aforementioned episodic but ongoing nature of dissent. Full-time employees are more likely to have an accurate read on the organizational climate governing dissent expression—whether the climate is more or less favorable toward dissension—and therefore to be current on the reactions to specific and recent dissent episodes. This should translate to more informed senses of the risk associated with repeated expressions of dissent, and perhaps greater comfort levels when directing dissent to management. A second hypothesis is offered to test this reasoning.

Hypothesis 2: Full-time employees will report using significantly more repetition than part-time employees.

Conversely, employees who spend less time in their organizations may find that they have to rely on less optimal forms of expressing dissent. These might include circumvention and threatening resignation (Kassing, 2002, 2005; Kassing & Kava, 2013). Accordingly, part-time employees may choose to circumvent or go around their immediate supervisor to find resolution to an issue they find problematic. This could stem from the fact that they have not been socialized regarding how else or how best to handle the dissent issue. Or it could occur because they have little vested in the organization overall (Kassing & DiCioccio, 2004; Kassing et al., 2012) and a limited relationship with an immediate supervisor (Kassing, 2000b; Payne, 2014). In such cases, employees may opt to practice circumvention or threatening resignation because they see these as a highly effective but low-risk propositions compared to full-time employees. This could be particularly relevant in high turnover sectors of the labor force where employees more readily can move from one part-time position to another. These possibilities lead us to a third and final hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: Part-time employees will report using significantly more circumvention and threatening resignation than full-time employees.

Methodology

Data Collection and Sample

The data collection in this study was completed in two waves, soliciting a unique sample in each by separately targeting full- and part-time employees. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2015) defines part-time employment as 1 to 34 hours per week and full-time as 35 hours or more per week. To help better differentiate full- and part-time employment (beyond a simple cutoff point of more or less than 35 hours per week), we allowed for a 5-hour buffer on either side of this distinction. Accordingly, in the first wave we solicited full-time working adults (i.e., 40 plus hours per week), whereas in the second wave we recruited part-time employees (i.e., 30 hours/week or less). The data collection procedures remained the same for both data collections.

We solicited convenience samples comprising friends, family members, coworkers, and neighbors to complete survey questionnaires. Each participant received a cover letter describing the purpose of the research. The letter also provided a link to the location of the surveys, which participants completed online.

Sample 1

The first sample included 225 full-time employees. Participants reported working in food service (n = 29), information technology (n = 28), utility service (n = 21), telecommunications (n = 20), banking/financial services (n = 18), law enforcement (n = 17), corrections (n = 16), education (n = 13), consulting (n = 11), advertising (n = 9), nonprofit (n = 6), government/public service (n = 5), health care (n = 5), insurance (n = 5), mining (n = 5), publishing (n = 4), sales (n = 4), engineering (n = 3), manufacturing (n = 2), general service (n = 2), transportation (n = 1), recreation (n = 1), and real estate (n = 1). Three respondents (1%) did not classify the type of organization in which they worked.

For these employees, job tenure in their current organization spanned from less than a year to 42 years (M = 6.64, SD = 7.15) and their total years of work experience ranged from less than a year to 48 years (M = 20.00, SD = 10.46). There were more female participants in the sample (56%) than male (44%), and participants ranged in age from 20 to 78 years (M = 41.24, SD = 11.34). Approximately 83% of respondents reported their ethnicity as Caucasian, 5% as African American, 4% as Asian/Pacific Islander, 3% as Hispanic, 1% as Native American/Alaskan Native, and 3% as Other/Multiracial. Three respondents (1%) declined to provide their ethnicity.

Sample 2

The second sample consisted of 169 part-time employees. Participants reported working in general service (n = 28), education (n = 27), food service (n = 23), retail sales (n = 17), recreation (n = 9), health care (n = 7), advertising (n = 6), sales (n = 5), engineering (n = 4), telecommunications (n = 4), banking/financial services (n = 4), government/public service (n = 4), nonprofit (n = 4), utility service (n = 3), manufacturing (n = 2), information technology (n = 2), corrections (n = 2), consulting (n = 2), religious organizations (n = 2), construction (n = 1), hospitality (n = 1), insurance (n = 1), and real estate (n = 1). Eight respondents (5%) did not classify the type of organization in which they worked and two respondents reported that they worked somewhere other than the choices provided (1%).

In this sample, job tenure ranged from less than a year to 18 years (M = 2.04, SD = 2.47), and their total years of work experience ranged from less than a year to 40 years (M = 5.16, SD = 4.86). Male participants accounted for a larger proportion of the sample (53%) than females (45%), with 2% of the sample (n = 4) not reporting their sex. Respondents ranged in age from 18 to 66 years (M = 22.33, SD = 5.54). Approximately 60% of respondents reported their ethnicity as Caucasian, 17% as Hispanic, 9% as Asian/Pacific Islander, 4% as African American, and 3% as Other/Multiracial. Twelve respondents (7%) declined to provide their ethnicity.

Instrumentation

The questionnaire administered to both samples included The Upward Dissent Scale (Kassing & Kava, 2013) and a set of demographic questions. The Upward Dissent Scale is a 20-item measure that asks respondents to report how they communicate their disagreement about workplace policies and practices to management and supervisors in their respective organizations using a 5-point Likert-type scale response format that ranges from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5).

The measure contains four distinct 5-item subscales that tap different upward dissent strategies. The Prosocial dimension considers how likely employees are to express upward dissent by deploying direct factual appeals about the issue (e.g., “I gather evidence to support my concern”) and presenting solutions to the suspected problem (e.g., “I present a well-thought-out solution to the problem”). It achieved a coefficient alpha of .87 (M = 21.09, SD = 2.54) in the first administration and a coefficient alpha of .88 (M = 18.37, SD = 3.50) in the second. The Threatening Resignation dimension assesses people’s tendency to couch their upward dissent expressions within threats to quit or resign from the organization (e.g., “I claim that the problem is serious enough to make me quit”). This subscale produced a coefficient alpha of .93 (M = 7.55, SD = 3.35) with the full-time sample and a coefficient of .91 (M = 10.38, SD = 3.86) with the part-time sample. The Circumvention subscale assesses the degree to which employees are inclined to go around their immediate supervisor to someone higher in the chain of command to express upward dissent (e.g., “I go over my boss’s head”). Circumvention produced a coefficient alpha of .82 (M = 11.16, SD = 4.45) in the first sample and a coefficient alpha of .87 (M = 12.36, SD = 3.88) in the second sample. The Repetition subscale reflects how often employees raise the same dissent issue continuously over time (e.g., “I raise the issue repeatedly”). It achieved a coefficient alpha of .90 in both the first (M = 15.94, SD = 4.19) and second (M = 14.12, SD = 3.73) administrations.

Results

Because there were several significant correlations (see Table 2) between the four dependent variables, the research question was addressed with a single multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). Employment status, differentiated as full-time (n = 225) or part-time (n = 169), functioned as the independent variable. Summated scores on the upward dissent subscales (prosocial, threatening resignation, circumvention, and repetition) served as dependent variables. A priori pairwise comparisons were requested for employment status and all dependent variables. The Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons was requested to limit the likelihood of a Type I error.

Table 2.

Correlations Between Subscales of the Upward Dissent Scale (UDS).

	UDS dimensions
	Pro (FT/PT)	ThRs (FT/PT)	Circ (FT/PT)	Rep (FT/PT)
Pro	—
ThRs	−.13/−.22	—
Circ	−.03/.01	.30/.44	—
Rep	.18/.37	.19/.16	.41/.39	—

Note. Pro = Prosocial; ThRs = Threatening Resignation; Circ = Circumvention; Rep = Repetition; FT/PT = full-time/part-time.

p < .01 one-tailed. *p < .05 one-tailed.

Results of the MANOVA demonstrated that a significant relationship exists between employment status and upward dissent expression, F(4, 350) = 36.60, p < .001, λ = .70. Pairwise comparisons revealed significant differences for all four forms of upward dissent including prosocial (f[1, 353] = 77.43, p < .001), threatening resignation (f[1, 353] = 58.23, p < .001), circumvention (f[1, 353] = 7.34, p < .01), and repetition (f[1, 353] = 18.99, p < .001).

Comparisons of mean scores indicated that full-time and part-time employees differed considerably in their use of upward dissent strategies (see Table 3). In particular, the results suggested that full-time employees reported using significantly more prosocial upward dissent (M = 21.09) when compared to part-time employees (M = 18.37). Additionally, full-time employees indicated that they used significantly more repetition (M = 15.94) compared to part-time employees (M = 14.12). In contrast, part-time employees acknowledged using significantly more threatening resignation (M = 10.38) and significantly more circumvention (M = 12.36) compared to full-time employees (M = 7.55 and M = 11.16, respectively). Thus, all three hypotheses were supported.

Table 3.

Pairwise Comparisons of Full- and Part-Time Employees Upward Dissent Expression.

	Employment status
	Full-time	Part-time	f	p <
Prosocial	21.09^a	18.37^b	77.43	.001
Threatening Resignation	7.55^a	10.38^b	58.23	.001
Circumvention	11.16^a	12.36^b	7.34	.01
Repetition	15.94^a	14.12^b	18.99	.001

Note. Pairs of means with different subscripts represent statistically significant differences at the levels indicated.

Discussion

Upward dissent is a valuable commodity in the workplace as it signals corrective feedback that if addressed appropriately can benefit organizations (Hegstrom, 1995). From this standpoint organizations can profit from receiving and addressing employee dissent effectively (Kassing, 2011). These findings suggest that, when compared to their part-time colleagues, full-time employees are more likely to share prosocial dissent that incorporates evidence of issues and solutions to problems with management. Conversely, part-time employees appear to rely more heavily on circumventing their bosses and threatening to quit their jobs. This pattern is not surprising given the affordances that accompany full-time employment, but nonetheless noteworthy because it suggests that dissent expressed by part-time employees is more likely to be voiced in comparatively less competent and potentially more disruptive ways.

This work demonstrates that there are implicit links between one’s employment status and the likelihood of expressing dissent to management. The major implication of these findings frames an important question. Given the value of dissent, how can organizations cultivate prosocial dissent expression practices among a population of part-time employees? This may be a difficult task but one worth pursuing. For example, some consideration should be directed toward the consistency of an organizational climate generally speaking but also specifically with regard to dissent expression. Can organizations cultivate organizational climates and cultures that solicit candid and effective dissent from their part-time cohort of employees? And if so, what additional insight might be gained regarding the operations of an organization. These are questions that further research on the subject might help to answer.

Future work could consider if there are fundamental differences in the type and nature of dissent expressed by employees who are full- and part-time. For example, part-time employees may be moved by more personal advantage motives versus principled ones when expressing dissent (Hegstrom, 1999; Kassing, 2011) or they may voice dissent in response to substantially different dissent triggering events (Kassing & Armstrong, 2002). Additionally, the type of workplace relationships they foster and maintain could dictate dissent expression (Sollitto & Myers, 2015). There are many factors, then, that could reveal additional insight about how and why part-time employees express dissent.

This work is not without limitations. The samples drawn pull from many organizations and thus potentially wash out any effects that the variance in organizational cultural tolerances for dissent or the position and status of part-time employees may introduce. A replication that draws from specific organizations would help control for some of these possible confounding variables. Likewise, the connections explored here are simplified and what they reveal speculative. It would be wise to collect additional data in future comparisons that allow for consideration of how factors like workplace engagement, organizational commitment, and employee satisfaction coalesce with part-time status to produce particular dissent tendencies. Doing so would reveal a sharper image of what factors contribute to a comparatively heavier reliance on less prosocial dissent tactics.

Part-time employment is a constant in many workplaces, but it has received little attention in organizational communication scholarship. This work begins to address that oversight by emphasizing how employment status affects a specific and important communication activity in dissent expression. Dissent is not reserved for those who possess full-time employment, it occurs too among part-time populations. This work is an early effort to hear and better understand how part-time employees express their workplace concerns.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Jeffrey W. Kassing is professor of Communication in the School of Social and Behavioral Sciences at Arizona State University.

Shea A. Fanelli is a graduate student in Industrial Organizational Psychology at Grand Canyon University.

Laasya Chakravarthy is a graduate of the MA program in Communication Studies at Arizona State University.

References

Garner

J. T.

(2009). Strategic dissent: Expressions of organizational dissent motivated by influence goals. International Journal of Strategic Management, 3, 34-51.

Garner

J. T.

(2013). Dissenters, managers, and coworkers: The process of co-constructing organizational dissent and dissent effectiveness. Management Communication Quarterly, 27, 373-395.

Goldman

Z. W.

Myers

S. A.

(2015). The relationship between organizational assimilation and employees’ upward, lateral, and displaced dissent. Communication Reports, 28, 24-35.

Goodboy

A. K.

Chory

R. M.

Dunleavy

K. N.

(2008). Organizational dissent as a function of organizational justice. Communication Research Reports, 25, 255-265.

Hastings

S. O.

Payne

H. J.

(2013). Expressions of dissent in email: Qualitative insights into uses and meanings of organizational dissent. Journal of Business Communication, 50, 309-331.

Hegstrom

T. G.

(1995). Focus on organizational dissent: A functionalist response to criticism. In Lehtonen

(Ed.), Critical perspectives on communication research and pedagogy (pp. 83-94). St. Ingbert, Germany: Rohrig University Press.

Hegstrom

T. G.

(1999). Reasons for rocking the boat: Principles and personal problems. In Geissner

H. K.

Herbig

A. F.

Wessela

(Eds.), Business communication in Europe (pp. 179-194). Tostedt, Germany: Attikon Verlag.

Kassing

J. W.

(1997). Articulating, antagonizing, and displacing: A model of employee dissent. Communication Studies, 48, 311-332.

Kassing

J. W.

(1998). Development and validation of the Organizational Dissent Scale. Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 183-229.

10.

Kassing

J. W.

(2000a). Exploring the relationship between workplace freedom of speech, organizational identification, and employee dissent. Communication Research Reports, 17, 387-396.

11.

Kassing

J. W.

(2000b). Investigating the relationship between superior-subordinate relationship quality and employee dissent. Communication Research Reports, 17, 58-70.

12.

Kassing

J. W.

(2002). Speaking up: Identifying employees’ upward dissent strategies. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 187-209.

13.

Kassing

J. W.

(2005). Speaking up competently: A comparison of perceived competence in upward dissent strategies. Communication Research Reports, 22, 227-234.

14.

Kassing

J. W.

(2007). Going around the boss: Exploring the consequences of circumvention. Management Communication Quarterly, 21, 55-74.

15.

Kassing

J. W.

(2009). Breaking the chain of command: Making sense of employee circumvention. Journal of Business Communication, 46, 311-334.

16.

Kassing

J. W.

(2011). Dissent in organizations. Cambridge, England: Polity.

17.

Kassing

J. W.

Armstrong

T. A.

(2002). Someone’s going to hear about this: Examining the association between dissent-triggering events and employees’ dissent expression. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 39-65.

18.

Kassing

J. W.

DiCioccio

R. L.

(2004). Testing a workplace experience explanation of displaced dissent. Communication Reports, 17, 111-120.

19.

Kassing

J. W

Kava

(2013). Assessing disagreement expressed to management: Development of the Upward Dissent Scale. Communication Research Reports, 30, 46-56.

20.

Kassing

J. W.

McDowell

(2008). Talk about fairness: Exploring the relationship between procedural justice and employee dissent. Communication Research Reports, 25, 1-10.

21.

Kassing

J. W.

Piemonte

Goman

Mitchel

(2012). Dissent expression as an indicator of work engagement and intention to leave. Journal of Business Communication, 49, 237-253.

22.

Payne

H. J.

(2014). Examining the relationship between trust in supervisor-employee relationships and workplace dissent expression. Communication Research Reports, 31, 131-140.

23.

Olison

W. O.

Roloff

M. E.

(2012). Responses to organizational mandates: How voice attenuates psychological reactance and dissent. Communication Research Reports, 29, 204-216.

24.

Sollitto

Myers

S. A.

(2015). Peer coworker relationships: Influences on the expression of lateral dissent. Communication Reports, 28, 36-47.

25.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2015). Employment situation summary. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

26.

Waldron

V. R.

Kassing

J. W

. (2011). Managing risk in communication encounters: Strategies for the workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.