Employee Dissatisfaction: Causes and Responses, Explained

UPI Study › Courses › Human Resources Management › Free lessons › Lesson 6.6 Free with a free account

Employee Dissatisfaction: Causes and Responses

Human Resources Management · Chapter 6: Reviewing Employee Performance: Methods, Tools, and FeedbackSection 6.6 · lesson 41 of 9117 min · free with a free account

← Management by Objectives: Goal Setting and TrackingNext lesson: The Basics of How Employees Get Paid →

Earn 3 college credits for Human Resources ManagementRecommended for credit by NCCRS · Business 306 · self-paced · one payment, lifetime access
Enroll in Human Resources Management · $250 →Download the syllabus (PDF)

In this lesson

Fair outcomes, credible processes, respectful treatment, and useful explanations.

  • Identify dissatisfaction created by performance and reward systems
  • Distinguish 4 kinds of organizational justice
  • Explain exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect
  • Design credible voice mechanisms and investigate patterns

Free study notes

Get this lesson's notes by email

The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.

One email. Unsubscribe in one click.

Transcript

Everything said in the video, section by section (2,032 words). Read along, or search it.

Chapter 6

Employee Dissatisfaction

Performance and reward systems can create dissatisfaction through their own design and delivery choices. This section focuses on that process, building on broader attitudes introduced earlier in the course. Employees assess outcomes, procedures, treatment, and explanations, rather than simply whether a rating feels pleasant. These are distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice, four related but distinct judgments about one decision. An unfavorable outcome can still follow a fair process, delivered respectfully and with honest reasons. That does not guarantee acceptance, or repair an outcome based on inconsistent or irrelevant evidence. Dissatisfied employees may exit, voice concerns, wait loyally, or remain while withdrawing effort and care. The organization influences these responses through credible routes, respectful treatment, timely investigation, and visible follow-through. Compare turnover, complaints, appeals, and survey evidence together, because each alone can conceal the pattern. No complaints may mean satisfaction with the current situation. They may also reflect expected harm or futility in speaking. Tomas's fictional review shows how weak explanations undermine credibility, while listening also reveals missing context.

Sources of Dissatisfaction

Employees Judge the Rating and What It Promised

Perceived rating unfairness arises when employees believe the score fails to reflect their actual work. Relevant, dated evidence helps examine that concern, rather than assume either participant must be correct. Manager inconsistency raises concern, when comparable work appears to receive different treatment across departments. Check genuine comparability and the standards used, before concluding that a difference proves unfairness. Late feedback raises problems that could have been addressed earlier, turning annual reviews into surprises. Give specific feedback while the person can act, instead of waiting until the rating is final. Hidden standards judge employees against expectations they did not know, undermining the objective-setting discipline described previously. The rating–reward gap appears when promised distinctions fail to match increases. Explain the actual allocation rules and what was promised. Explain whether ratings affect rewards, along with genuine constraints and other legitimate allocation considerations. Employees compare colleagues, prior years, and promises; incomplete pay information can leave those comparisons uncertain. Investigate and explain actual rules, rather than assume secrecy removes concern or every gap is unjust.

4 Kinds of Justice

Ask a Different Question About the Same Decision

Distributive justice asks whether the outcome was fair, including comparisons with other employees' results. Ratings, raises, and promotions are outcomes people assess through this lens of appropriate allocation. Procedural justice asks about known criteria, accurate evidence, consistency, and a credible challenge route. Newly revealed targets primarily raise a procedural concern, even if the final number seems plausible. Interpersonal justice asks whether treatment was respectful, without unnecessary humiliation during the decision's delivery. Publicly reading a rating or using sarcasm raises this issue, alongside any separate assessment weakness. Informational justice asks whether the explanation was honest, sufficiently complete, and understandable to the employee. Specific incidents, links to standards, improvement expectations, and honest constraints help explain the actual decision. Research distinguishes all four dimensions, relating them to satisfaction, commitment, withdrawal, and other organizational outcomes. Do not assume one dimension always matters most, or that good conversations guarantee acceptance. Improve process, treatment, and reasons even when a supported rating remains. Revise outcomes when the evidence warrants a different judgment.

Preparing the Conversation

Do the Evidence Work Before the Meeting

The review needs preparation, rather than a manager arriving with an unread form and limited time. Read relevant evidence, and compare treatment of employees doing genuinely comparable work before the meeting. Know the standard and evidence supporting a different rating, so improvement has a concrete meaning. Understand reward constraints before explaining them, rather than invent an allocation rule during the meeting. Schedule sufficient private time, allowing a conversation instead of a hurried handoff of the paperwork. State the rating, standard, and dated incidents connecting the judgment to the work being assessed. Hear the employee's account, recording disagreements or context rather than treating their response as an interruption. New information can change the interpretation of an incident. Listening is therefore part of evidence quality, alongside accurate records. Explain improvement and how an appeal can challenge a factual or procedural problem with the assessment. Respectful treatment does not require softer ratings; clarity does not require humiliating or dismissing the person. HR supports consistent preparation, while managers remain responsible for understanding and discussing the actual evidence.

Exit, Voice, Loyalty, Neglect

Activity and Direction Distinguish the Responses

Exit means leaving, or seeking another job when the employment relationship no longer seems worthwhile. Voice means raising a problem to change it, through questions, appeals, or other suitable channels. Loyalty means waiting optimistically for improvement, maintaining commitment rather than immediately seeking change or departure. Neglect means remaining while reducing effort, attention, or care, so performance weakens without a resignation event. Exit and voice are active, because the employee takes a step to alter the situation. Loyalty and neglect are passive, distinguished by whether waiting supports or weakens the employment relationship. Voice and loyalty are constructive in this framework; exit and neglect are classified as destructive. These labels describe organizational direction, rather than judge employees' moral worth or require continued employment. Leaving an unfair workplace can be a sensible employee choice. Silence alone does not establish hopeful loyalty to the organization. Declining voluntary overtime does not prove neglect; workload, health, or other circumstances may explain it. Use categories to guide inquiry, rather than infer motives from one behavior without the employee's account.

Signals and Conditions

Voice Can Reveal Problems Before Capability Is Lost

Exit becomes more available when skills are portable, alternatives attractive, and internal voice seems ineffective. Regretted departures reveal capability loss, alongside replacement costs and disruption to the remaining colleagues. Voice depends partly on believing concerns can be raised safely, and that someone may act. Appeals, candid surveys, and questions provide information, even when handling them takes time and causes discomfort. Loyalty can reflect accumulated trust, or belief that a temporary problem is already being addressed. If nothing improves, waiting can become departure or withdrawal, rather than remain constructive indefinitely. Neglect may emerge when dissatisfaction combines with exit barriers and no credible route for voice. Withdrawal, reduced care, or rising absence can be signals, but each also has other possible explanations. Investigate health, caregiving, staffing, workload, and operations, rather than treat every absence as an attitude problem. Neglect can hide falling output, while exit visibly removes people. Actual costs vary by role and the circumstances involved. Voice helps identify problems earlier, but its value depends on the issue and the response.

Voice Mechanisms

An Accessible Route Needs a Visible Response

An open-door practice allows concerns to reach a manager above the employee's immediate supervisor. Skip-level conversations connect managers with employees below the immediate reporting layer, supporting another perspective. Employee forums or councils provide collective channels, with appropriate arrangements for representation and issues discussed. Formal grievances provide defined stages for complaints, evidence gathering, reasons, and review of the outcome. Engagement surveys collect views, while participation and candor themselves offer clues about trust in the route. Each mechanism needs accessibility and a visible response, rather than merely appear in a handbook. Acknowledge issues, explain who will examine them, and communicate appropriate progress or reasons for decisions. Track agreed action, so employees can see follow-through after being asked for their views. Responses need not grant every request; explain genuine constraints or why another remedy is appropriate. Repeated silence can teach futility, undermining the credibility of the next invitation to participate. Protect confidentiality appropriately, without promising absolute secrecy that investigation or applicable obligations may make impossible.

Grievance Design

Make the Stages and Safeguards Clear

A grievance process sets clear stages and timescales, so complaints do not disappear between managers. Informal resolution may come first, where the issue makes that route suitable and safe. A formal written complaint records the concern, identifying the treatment or decision requiring examination. An appropriately independent investigator gathers evidence, rather than the person complained about judging their own actions. A meeting hears the employee's account, with representation or accompaniment according to applicable rights and procedure. The written outcome explains findings, reasons, and any action or remedy following from them. An appeal uses a different, appropriately impartial decision-maker for review. It must do more than recirculate the same unsupported judgment. Collective agreements may define stages, deadlines, representation, and arbitration, which employers must understand in that setting. Elsewhere, policy design matters alongside legal rights; accompaniment is not one universal rule everywhere. Do not force protected complaints through unsuitable informal routes, or obstruct lawful reports to external bodies. Credibility depends on actual independence, timely responses, useful reasons, and follow-through on established outcomes.

Appraisal Appeals and Protected Activity

Review the Evidence Without Punishing the Challenge

Appraisal appeals examine evidence, procedural compliance, and consistency of treatment, through focused and prompt review. Provide a suitably impartial reviewer and HR support, with a written outcome explaining the findings. Do not replace an unsupported impression with another reviewer simply substituting their own unsupported impression. Correct factual or explanatory problems even when the rating stays, and change it when justified. Some discrimination, harassment, safety, or pay complaints are protected, depending on applicable coverage and facts. Lower appraisals because of protected activity can be unlawful retaliation, rather than ordinary responses to dissatisfaction. Relevant laws include those enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and safety protections administered by OSHA. Protection does not shield actual poor performance from legitimate assessment, based on nonretaliatory and nondiscriminatory reasons. Check evidence, actual reasons, timing, and comparable treatment, before an adverse decision about the employee. Timing is relevant without itself proving a violation of the law. Obtain appropriate HR or legal advice for the actual circumstances. Keep internal routes available and respect protected external reporting, rather than require silence for fair treatment.

Pattern Diagnosis

Read Turnover, Voice, and Surveys Together

Read turnover, grievances and appeals, and surveys together, rather than treat separate dashboards as separate problems. Segment turnover by team, manager, tenure, and whether the organization particularly wanted to retain the person. Few grievances are ambiguous: employees may be satisfied, or may expect complaining to be useless or unsafe. Interpret survey scores with participation, because lower response rates can conceal dissatisfaction or caution. Exit interviews can omit sensitive reasons, particularly when people protect references or avoid difficult conversations. Use them as one input, rather than assume stated reasons fully explain every departure. High turnover without voice suggests checking why people prefer leaving to challenging the situation internally. Low turnover, weaker surveys, and absence suggest withdrawal, alongside possible health, workload, or equipment explanations. Concentrated complaints suggest a local inquiry; widespread concerns may indicate shared policies or systems. Sharp rating differences can reveal inconsistent standards, but require genuinely comparable evidence before establishing error. Use combinations to form and test hypotheses, rather than diagnose motives or fairness from one indicator.

Composite Case

Tomas Receives a Supported Rating Without the Reasons

Tomas is a technician at fictional Rivermark Foods, receiving a middle rating that initially appears supported. Incidents cover two missed maintenance schedules and a repeat fault after incomplete repair, with comparable ratings elsewhere. His supervisor spends four minutes at shift end, handing over the form before leaving for a meeting. Tomas cannot explain the part reported missing twice, or hear which incidents support the assessment. He completes assigned work, but stops extra repairs, minor-fault reports, and training the new technician. Downtime gradually rises, without a resignation or disciplinary event making withdrawal visible to the organization. Informational justice is central, while interpersonal treatment suffers from the hurried and dismissive delivery. The missing-part account also tests procedural quality, because initially supported records may omit relevant context. The accepted response schedules thirty-minute private reviews, attaches evidence, and provides a ten-working-day appeal window. Ask what prevented performance, surfacing barriers that may change part of the original assessment. This takes managerial time, rather than assume a better form alone produces fairness or commitment.

Reverse Problem and Chapter Synthesis

Silence Is Ambiguous When Other Signals Deteriorate

The reverse problem combines stable headcount, no grievances for two years, weaker surveys, and declining participation. Short absences rise and output falls, while almost all ratings remain in the middle category. Operations cites aging equipment, which should be investigated rather than dismissed as merely an excuse. Possible neglect is a hypothesis, because people remain while several dissatisfaction or withdrawal signals appear together. Weak voice or inconsistent standards could undermine procedural trust, but the pattern does not prove either cause. First provide a credible, safe channel, with independent conversations and visible follow-through on the concerns raised. Then review standards, evidence, explanations, and appeals, checking comparable work and hearing relevant employee accounts. Investigate equipment, staffing, and workload too, because operational and interpersonal problems may coexist in the department. Chapter six connected appraisal purposes, criteria, instruments, comparative methods, rater errors, objectives, and perceived fairness. Assessment needs relevant evidence, clear expectations, context, and processes that can examine challenges honestly. Chapter seven turns to pay and reward, where assessment's uses must also be clear and credible.

About Human Resources Management at UPI Study

Human Resources Management (Business 306) is a self-paced online course of 91 video lessons in 12 chapters, from what HR does and how jobs are designed to hiring, training, performance reviews, pay and benefits, safety, employment law, unions, global staffing and remote work. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.

Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Business courses

Why take it here

Why students take Human Resources Management with UPI Study

How organizations hire, pay and keep peopleHuman Resources Management covers the work of an HR department: job design, recruiting and onboarding, training and discipline, performance reviews, pay and benefits, safety, U.S. employment law, unions and collective bargaining, and staffing across countries. It is a core course in business, management and human resources degrees.
Credit at a fraction of the priceThe same 3 credits can cost $750 or more at a US college. Here it is one payment, self-paced, with lifetime access.
Finish your degree soonerTransfer credits reduce the courses you still owe, so you can graduate earlier or lighten a heavy semester.
Strengthen an applicationA completed college-level course on an official transcript shows admissions and scholarship committees you can do the work.
Study on your own scheduleNo start dates, no deadlines. Watch the lessons, practice, and take the final when you are ready.
130,000+students helped with college creditsACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Where the credit goes

Universities that work with NCCRS

Human Resources Management carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Thomas Edison State UniversityThomas Edison State UniversitySigned partnerUniversity of the PeopleUniversity of the PeopleSigned partnerCharter Oak State CollegeCharter Oak State CollegeSigned partnerStrayer UniversityStrayer UniversitySigned partnerColumbia Southern UniversityColumbia Southern UniversitySigned partnerIndiana TechIndiana TechSigned partnerPenn StatePenn StateWorks with NCCRSSouthern New Hampshire UniversitySouthern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRSSUNYSUNYWorks with NCCRS +many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →

Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.

FAQ

Questions students ask us

About Employee Dissatisfaction: Causes and Responses

What are the four types of organizational justice?
The four types are distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice. Distributive justice asks whether the outcome, such as a rating or raise, was fair. Procedural justice asks about known criteria, accurate evidence, consistency, and a credible appeal route. Interpersonal justice asks whether the person was treated with respect, and informational justice asks whether the explanation was honest, complete, and understandable. An unfavorable outcome can still follow a fair process.
What is the exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect model?
The exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect model describes four responses to job dissatisfaction. Exit means leaving or seeking another job, voice means raising the problem to change it, loyalty means waiting optimistically for improvement, and neglect means staying while reducing effort or care. Exit and voice are active, while loyalty and neglect are passive; voice and loyalty are constructive for the organization, while exit and neglect are destructive.
What are the steps of an employee grievance procedure?
A typical grievance procedure moves from informal resolution, where suitable, to a formal written complaint, an investigation by someone appropriately independent, a meeting to hear the employee with representation or accompaniment where rights allow, a written outcome with findings and reasons, and an appeal to a different impartial decision-maker. Clear stages and timescales keep complaints from disappearing, and collective agreements may define the steps, often ending in arbitration.
Does a lack of employee complaints mean employees are satisfied?
Not necessarily. Few grievances can mean satisfaction, but they can also mean employees expect complaining to be useless or unsafe. Read turnover, grievances, appeals, survey scores, and survey participation together: falling participation, rising short absences, and declining output with stable headcount may signal neglect, though equipment, health, or workload could also explain them. Credible, safe voice channels with visible follow-through help surface problems earlier.

About the Human Resources Management course

How many college credits is Human Resources Management?
Human Resources Management (Business 306) carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
How much does Human Resources Management cost and what is included?
$250, paid once, with lifetime access: all 91 video lessons, a practice quiz after each, the graded work and final exam, and an official transcript when you finish. It is sold on its own and is not part of UPI Study PRO.
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
UPI Study has signed partner agreements with universities such as Thomas Edison State University, University of the People and Charter Oak State College, and works with universities such as Penn State, SNHU and SUNY. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities. Use "Find my college" on this page to check yours.
How long does Human Resources Management take?
It is self-paced with no deadlines. The 91 lessons total about 23 hours of video; most students add reading and practice time and finish in a few weeks to a few months, on their own schedule.
How are the exams done?
Quizzes and assignments are online in the course. The final exam is taken online with proctoring; a person on the UPI Study team checks assignments, usually within two days.
How do my credits reach my college?
When the course shows 100% complete, request the official transcript from your dashboard. It is sent to the college you name, and you can send it to more than one. Check your college first with "Find my college" on this page, or ask Athena.

Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Human Resources Management.

91 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.

Enroll in Human Resources Management →Download the syllabus
Human Resources Management
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →