THE RISKS AND REWARDS OF SPEAKING UP: MANAGERIAL

RESPONSES TO EMPLOYEE VOICE

ETHAN R. BURRIS
University of Texas at Austin
This article examines whether managerial responses to employees speaking up depend
on the type of voice exhibitedthat is, whether employees speak up in challenging or
supportive ways. In one field study and two experimental studies, I found that man-
agers view employees who engage in more challenging forms of voice as worse per-
formers and endorse their ideas less than those who engage in supportive forms of
voice. Further, perceptions of loyalty and threat mediated these relationships, but in
different ways. I discuss implications for research on voice, proactivity, and social
persuasion.
Getting employees to voice ideas has long been
recognized as a key driver of high-quality decisions
and organizational effectiveness (Argyris & Schn,
1978; Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Research on
voice has shown positive effects of employees
speaking up on decision quality (Nemeth, 1997),
team performance (Dooley & Fryxell, 1999), and
organizational performance (Argote & Ingram,
2000). Consequently, researchers have highlighted
the antecedent factors that encourage employees to
speak up (Ashford, Rothbard, Piderit, & Dutton,
1998; Withey & Cooper, 1989), and recent research
has shown that managers play a vital role in the
voice process because they are perceived as having
the power to address the issues about which voice
is raised (Ashford, Sutcliffe, & Christianson, 2009;
Detert & Burris, 2007). Scholars have argued that
managerial behaviors can signal how favorable an
organizational context is to employee input (Mor-
rison & Milliken, 2000). Employees well recognize
the sometimes futile nature of trying to change the
status quo (Detert & Trevino, 2010) and the per-
sonal risks involved in speaking up (Milliken, Mor-
rison, & Hewlin, 2003). Thus, given that employees
both want to generate managerial endorsement for
their suggested changes and avoid any risks to their
image, employees are more willing to speak up
when they perceive managers as being open (Ash-
ford et al., 1998) and not abusive (Burris, Detert, &
Chiaburu, 2008).
Although employees often read the wind in an
attempt to understand how welcoming their super-
visors are to voice (Dutton, Ashford, ONeill,
Hayes, & Wierba, 1997), their assessments may not
always be accurate. That is, even if employees con-
clude that it is safe and worthwhile to speak up,
managers may not always respond in accordance
with those conclusions. Conversely, employees
may believe that their speaking up is dangerous or
futile when it is actually safe and welcomed (Detert
& Edmondson, 2011). Given that managerial beliefs
and behaviors play a large role in developing a
climate of silence or voice (Morrison & Milliken,
2000), examining how managers react to employees
who speak upas opposed to how employees esti-
mate they will reactand the mechanisms under-
lying these managerial reactions is important. In
particular, it is critical to understand both when
managers endorse the ideas raised and when they
view employees who raise these ideas positively.
Research examining how managers actually re-
spond to voice has been limited, and what little has
been done has reported mixed results. First, virtu-
ally no research has examined whether managers
endorse the ideas raised by employees, either
through implementation or through advocating
them to higher levels of management. Second, in
theory, because voicedefined as upward-di-
rected, discretionary, verbal behavior by a member
intended to benefit an organization (Detert & Bur-
ris, 2007)can help managers who receive it be-
come more successful, those managers should view
those who speak up positively. In this vein, some
experimental research on voice has shown positive
effects of speaking upthat is, employees who
speak up are rated as better performers (Whiting,
Podsakoff, & Pierce, 2008). But other research has
shown mixed findings; for example, supervisor rat-
ings of voice were positively associated with super-
visor ratings of employee performance, yet peer
I gratefully acknowledge the useful advice received
from Caroline Bartel, Jim Detert, Dave Harrison, Martin
Kilduff, Beta Mannix, Kathleen OConnor, and Melissa
Thomas-Hunt. I also thank Adam Grant and the three
anonymous reviewers for their many helpful suggestions.
Academy of Management Journal
2012, Vol. 55, No. 4, 851875.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0562
851
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holders express
written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
ratings and employee self-ratings of voice were not
related to these performance evaluations (Van Dyne
& LePine, 1998). Further, other research has shown
that speaking up actually has significant costs
(Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001). Hence, input
from below may fall on deaf ears, or worse, employ-
ees may be explicitly punished for challenging
managements objectives and a current system of
practices.
The inconsistency in arguments and lack of find-
ings in extant research on voice may be due, in part,
to two issues. First, prior empirical research has
focused predominantly on how managers evaluate
the performance of those who speak up without
focusing on whether they endorse the ideas raised
for implementation. Managers may choose to with-
hold their endorsement for ideas that are raised
without explicitly lowering their evaluation of the
employees who raise them. Second, many mea-
sures of voice appear to be fairly general and
do not specifically reflect making innovative sug-
gestions for change and recommending modifica-
tions to standard procedures (Organ, Podsakoff, &
MacKenzie, 2006: 296). This suggests that the mea-
sures may incorporate several types of voice that
are theoretically distinct. Managerial reactions to
voice that specifically challenges the status quo
and reactions to other types of voice that are more
supportive likely differ. Thus, gaining specificity
on the content of what is said and, specifically, the
extent to which the content is challenging, may
help address the conflicting findings.
In sum, although the benefits of voice for organ-
izations are well understood, it is less clear how
managers to whom voice is directed actually re-
spond. To address this gap, the purpose of the
present research is to examine why, in some cases,
voice is not seen favorably and, in other cases,
generates both managerial endorsement for the
ideas raised as well as formal rewards for those
speaking up. I argue that positive versus negative
reactions surface for some types of voice. This re-
search extends the literature in three ways. First, I
propose that the managerial reactions to speaking
up depend on the type of voice exhibitedthat is,
whether employees speak up in challenging or sup-
portive ways. Second, I propose two mechanisms
underlying why employee voice may incur signifi-
cant costs or garner significant rewards: managerial
perceptions of (1) employee loyalty to their organ-
ization and (2) personal threat associated with what
was said. Third, I integrate organizational theories
of voice and the elaboration likelihood model of
social persuasion to examine how managers re-
spond to voice both in terms of the level of endorse-
ment given to the ideas raised and the performance
evaluations of the employees who speak up.
RESPONSES TO VOICE
Two types of managerial responses are predomi-
nantly associated with employees speaking up.
First, managers receive voice when their employees
want to initiate change rather than escape from an
objectionable state of affairs (Hirschman, 1970:
30). The level of managerial endorsement for the
ideas raised, displayed through managers allocat-
ing additional attention and resources for these
ideas, is an important precursor to making substan-
tive changes in organizational routines or processes
(Ashford & Dutton, 1993). Therefore, persuading
managers to endorse and eventually adopt their
suggestions is a substantive outcome that employ-
ees assess when speaking up (Detert & Trevino,
2010; Dutton et al., 1997). The second outcome is
the managers evaluation of the employees who
speak up with those ideas. This evaluation has
been conceptualized as employees image (Dutton
et al., 1997), credibility (Dutton & Ashford, 1993),
and reputation (Milliken et al., 2003). More gener-
ically, these assessments point toward an evalua-
tion of the employees overall performance and po-
tential to positively contribute to their organization
(Van Dyne & LePine, 1998).
Types of Improvement-Oriented Voice
The main contention of this article is that differ-
ent types of employee voice will differentially af-
fect how managers evaluate the ideas raised and the
individuals who are expressing those ideas. Early
work on voice characterized it as any attempt to
initiate changes in an organization (Hirschman,
1970). For instance, Withey and Cooper (1989) sug-
gested that voice is any activity that individuals
direct toward improving the situation at work.
Later, research on voice incorporated the notion
that it specifically challenges and upsets the status
quo but in a constructive manner (Van Dyne, Cum-
mings, & McLean Parks, 1995). For example, Le-
Pine and Van Dyne defined voice as speaking out
and challenging the status quo with the intent of
improving the situation (1998: 853). This chal-
lenging voice specifically involves speaking up in
ways intended to alter, modify, or destabilize gen-
erally accepted sets of practices, policies, or strate-
gic directions that make up the status quo to those
individuals who have devised or are in charge of
sustaining those aspects of an organization. Chal-
lenging voice is characteristic of employees who
are agentic and anticipatory in their actions, and it
852 August Academy of Management Journal
is inherently change-oriented in that it is a call for
modifications in the way things are in the organ-
ization (Detert & Burris, 2007). As such, challeng-
ing voice is decidedly proactive (Grant & Ashford,
2008; Bateman & Crant, 1993). Challenging types of
voice are often more personal, because they implic-
itly or explicitly criticize a manager or the sets of
routines that are the managers responsibility for
overseeing. The content of challenging forms of
voice may include explicit disagreement and con-
frontation with ones manager (Grant, Gino, & Hoff-
man, 2011) which could enhance the amount of
task conflict between an employee and a manager
(De Dreu & Weingart, 2003).
But not all voice necessarily includes this chal-
lenge characteristic. Rather, voice can be support-
ive of the status quo. Supportive voice is intended
to stabilize or preserve existing organizational pol-
icies or practices. Such support can be offered
through routine involvement in decision-making
processes or specifically defending the way things
are in response to a threat to the status quo. For
instance, an individual can speak up in favor of
changes already planned or in the implementation
process through involvement in various discus-
sions about the planned implementation. Or he/she
can also speak up with incremental suggestions
that defend (or do not meaningfully alter) the work
context in response to other suggestions that fun-
damentally change how work is done. The stabiliz-
ing nature of supportive voice and the likelihood of
its manifesting in response to challenges to the
status quo make it more reactive than proactive
(Grant & Ashford, 2008). Supportive voice may not
generate conflict with the status quo in an organi-
zation and is more consistent with dominant con-
ceptualizations of citizenship behaviors (Organ et
al., 2006). Additionally, supportive voice can be
ingratiatory if employees true intentions for engag-
ing in it are not authentic (Bolino, 1999), or it can
arise out of an honest belief that the status quo is
better than other alternatives under consideration
(Hambrick, Geletkanycz, & Fredrickson, 1993;
Schweitzer, 1994). Thus, although challenging ver-
sus supportive forms of voice are both efforts to
benefit an organization through suggestions, and
thus meet the definition of prosocial (Organ et al.,
2006) and earlier conceptualizations of voice (e.g.,
Hirschman, 1970), they manifest with very differ-
ent content and therefore likely engender different
reactions from managers to whom they are
directed.
Voice that fundamentally challenges is likely to
be met with resistance by managers. Social psycho-
logical research on persuasion shows that people
tend to reject influence attempts that are more dis-
tant from their own position and beliefs (Hovland,
Harvey, & Sherif, 1957), especially if they are mo-
tivated to scrutinize and evaluate the messages con-
tained in these influence attempts (Brinol & Petty,
2009) or are biased toward a particular response
(Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Moreover, people may
not only reject the influence attempts but also be-
come more steadfast in their prior beliefs and more
resistant to change (Hovland et al., 1957). Challeng-
ing voice, because it personally conflicts with man-
agers viewpoints or is more aggressive in style and
tone, may lead managers to react unfavorably.
Therefore, compared to those who engage in sup-
portive voice, employees who offer voice that is
more challenging may encounter stronger resis-
tance from managers, in terms of both the level of
managerial endorsement given to the ideas voiced
and the evaluation of the individuals suggesting
the ideas.
Speaking up in challenging ways can be seen as
fracturing unity and collective commitment to ac-
complishing organizational goals (Morrison & Mil-
liken, 2000), and as a result, managers may view
those engaging in challenging voice as disrupting
the execution of their tasks and being uncommitted
to broader organizational goals. These disruptions
by employees who engage in challenging voice
likely worsen their perceived performance as com-
pared to the perceived performance of those offer-
ing more supportive suggestions. Further, even
though challenging suggestions may pertain only to
the tasks and routines that are relevant to a partic-
ular employee or group, task conflict may also spill
over to affect relationship conflict, which can lead
to poorer performance (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003).
Managers may come to direct their reprisals for
lowered performance to employees who engage in
challenging voice and initiate conflict. This is es-
pecially true if the critical and personal nature of
more challenging forms of voice questions the sta-
tus of managers and thus likely invite defensive
reactions that could result in lowered evaluations
of employee performance (Bendersky & Hays,
in press).
Hypothesis 1. Managers view employees who
more frequently engage in challenging voice as
being worse performers than those engaging in
supportive voice.
Faced with an employee who engages in chal-
lenging voice, managers may also limit how much
they endorse the implementation of the idea ex-
pressed in the challenging voice. Ashford et al.
(2009) suggested that managers may be reticent to
listen and to respond positively to voice from be-
low because they are biased toward information
2012 853 Burris
that affirms their opinions and are skeptical of in-
formation that disconfirms their intuitions. Criti-
cisms that relate to managers personally are likely
to invite their intense scrutiny and reluctance to
adopt suggestions or advocate them to more senior
managers. This is consistent with early social psy-
chological theory on persuasion suggesting that
people can become more steadfast in their own
attitudes when encountering vastly different opin-
ions (Hovland et al., 1957). Such defensive reac-
tions may be expected when managers are con-
fronted with employees who voice in dominant,
assertive ways (Grant, Gino & Hoffman, 2011). Fur-
thermore, managers may hold the beliefs that em-
ployees are self-interested, that managers know
best, and that unity is good (Morrison & Milliken,
2000). These views are likely accentuated when
employees engage in more challenging voice. Since
managers are often responsible for devising or car-
rying out the policies and practices in place, they
likely will choose to endorse ideas that do not
explicitly challenge their own opinions.
In contrast, managers may be more receptive to
the ideas expressed via more supportive forms of
voice. It may become easier for managers to endorse
the ideas of those who simply stay involved in
decision-making processes and make only incre-
mental suggestions that are still consistent with the
managers strategic agenda. This may be especially
true when the ideas are conveyed in an indirect or
unassuming fashion (Ambady, LaPlante, Nguyen,
Rosenthal, Chaumeton, & Levinson, 2002; Norton,
1978). Therefore, managers likely endorse the ideas
of employees who engage in challenging voice less
than those of employees engaging in support-
ive voice.
Hypothesis 2. Managers endorse the ideas of
employees who more frequently engage in
challenging forms of voice less than they en-
dorse the ideas of those engaging in
supportive voice.
Voice, Loyalty, and Threat
Drawing on the elaboration likelihood model of
social persuasion and the literature on upward
communication, I propose that perceptions of loy-
alty and threat mediate the relationship between
type of voice and the extent to which managers may
be persuaded to endorse the ideas that employees
raise and their overall judgments of employee per-
formance. A core premise of the elaboration likeli-
hood model of social persuasion is that a recipient
receives a communication from a source and that
recipients are persuaded to the extent that they see
the source and messages sent as credible and com-
pelling (Brinol & Petty, 2009). In an organizational
setting, this may mean that a manager (the recipi-
ent) should be persuaded by an employee speaking
up (the source communicating a message) to en-
dorse the ideas raised to the extent that the manager
sees the employee as contributing suggestions that
benefit the organization (Bolino, 1999; Grant &
Ashford, 2008; Grant, Parker, & Collins, 2009). Ad-
ditionally, this means that managers should be
willing to reward those contributing such sugges-
tions when the managers see those employees as
legitimately wanting to improve the organization.
Believing that employees are committed to the or-
ganizations well-being, managers should respond
favorably to their suggestions and reward them ac-
cordingly (Mayer & Davis, 1999).
Challenging voice involves a greater degree of
questioning the status quo and suggesting funda-
mental changes to existing policies or practices,
and consequently managers may come to question
the loyalty of those who engage in it. Morrison and
Milliken (2000) suggested that managers often be-
lieve that unity, agreement, and consensus are a
sign of organizational health and commitment to its
objectives and that challenges to the status quo can
corrode those values. As a consequence, managers
may become upset when opinions surface that call
into question their objectives and disrupt the
smooth flow of their group toward its goals. Such
reactions likely surface for managers who are
charged with maintaining the status quo and carry-
ing out directions from higher level leaders (Fen-
ton-OCreevy, 1998). Many managers try to silence
opinions that challenge the accepted goals of their
organization and sanction individual team mem-
bers by questioning their loyalty to the organiza-
tion, and such manager reactions are strengthened
when the challenges are aimed at values that the
manager personally holds (Janis, 1982). For in-
stance, in an internal study on integrity in the CIA,
one officer remarked that those who do speak up
challenge the most prized value of the (operations
division)loyalty. They are considered wave mak-
ers who are not on the team or in revolt. (Pekel,
1998: 8889).
In contrast, when an individual contributes in-
formation that is supportive, managers likely
do not question their own belief that the current
course of action is the best one possible. As man-
agers are often charged with managing the accom-
plishment of organizational goals (Fenton-
OCreevy, 1998), those voicing their ideas or
proposals for incremental changes to practices and
policies that help achieve those goals should be
viewed as actively championing and displaying
854 August Academy of Management Journal
loyalty to their organization. For instance, Shore,
Barksdale, and Shore (1995) showed that employ-
ees who are seen by managers as fulfilling organi-
zational goals were rated as more loyal.
In short, challenging voice calls into question
what managers accept as the proper course of ac-
tion. Because those who engage in more challeng-
ing forms of voice seek fundamental changes in
policy, practices, or strategic decisions, they can
explicitly or implicitly state their dissatisfaction
with current practices and with those making the
decisions about those policies. Further, suggestions
stemming from more challenging forms of voice are
likely to be more extreme and distant from manag-
ers current opinions than suggestions for incre-
mental changes, and as a result, managers are un-
likely to see challenging suggestions as consistent
with their own beliefs and the larger organizational
goals (Hovland et al., 1957). Given that a strong
acceptance of an organizations goals and values
are a hallmark of commitment and loyalty to the
organization (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1979),
managers will likely perceive those engaging in
challenging voice more frequently to be less loyal
than those engaging in supportive voice.
Hypothesis 3. Managers view employees who
more frequently engage in challenging forms of
voice as being less loyal than those engaging in
supportive voice.
Even if what employees suggest is intended to
benefit their organization, managers may see these
suggestions as personally threatening. As Argyris
and Schn (1978) noted, upward communication
intended to spark learning and changes can be seen
as defiant and challenging to the managers who are
targeted to make the changes. An argument in re-
search on upward feedback is also that the self-
threatening nature of information is a critical di-
mension on which it is evaluated (Kluger & DeNisi,
1996). Although people certainly have concerns for
the larger collective to which they belong, they also
seek to improve or protect themselves from threats
to their self-image or standing in their organization
(De Dreu, Nijstad, & van Knippenberg, 2008),
which may in turn affect how they value sugges-
tions made and those who make them (Menon,
Choi, & Thompson, 2006). That is, managers likely
have mixed motives whereby they judge what is
best for their organization yet are balancing the
extent to which the comments threaten their stand-
ing within the organization as well.
Although organization members can use voice to
criticize some aspect of their organization (e.g., pol-
icies, practices, and routines), it can be taken per-
sonally if directed toward those who have devised,
agree with, or are responsible for carrying out those
aspects. Managers who have the power to change
aspects of their organization have often designed
those aspects in the first place and may be espe-
cially sensitive to voice that is more challenging.
Part of the problem stems from a need to avoid
embarrassment or vulnerability triggered by these
implicit criticisms (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Morri-
son & Milliken, 2000). As a result, challenging
forms of voice can spark defensiveness and feelings
of threat (Argyris & Schn, 1978). Managers may
feel as if they are losing standing or status in their
unit because others are challenging their authority
or competence in some domain. Furthermore, the
threats invoked by challenging voice are intensified
when they surface from within an organization as
opposed to from outside it (Menon et al., 2006) and
especially when the challenging voice comes from
subordinates. Indeed, researchers examining re-
lated concepts such as principled organizational
dissent (Graham, 1986) have argued that speaking
up can be particularly threatening for managers in
part because it calls for significant changes to the
status quo.
In contrast, supportive voice may not invite such
harsh defensive reactions from managers. Involve-
ment in decision-making processes and suggesting
incremental changes likely do not result in strong
confrontations with managers. Such submissive
and tactful communication may not engender de-
fensive reactions from feeling threatened. Thus,
managers may also perceive employees who more
frequently engage in challenging forms of voice as
more threatening than those who engage in sup-
portive voice.
Hypothesis 4. Managers view employees who
more frequently engage in challenging forms of
voice as being more threatening than those
engaging in supportive voice.
The effects of the type of voice on the level of
endorsement and performance evaluations given
by managers likely stem, in part, from how loyal
managers perceive these employees to be. Loyal
individuals are likely to gain endorsement for their
ideas because they are perceived as eager to im-
prove their organization. Shore and colleagues
(1995) argued that employees who are rated as be-
ing more committed to their organization by their
managers generate more positive expectations.
These expectations lead managers to believe that
loyal employees are concerned with and behave in
ways that positively impact the organization. As a
result, they give preferential treatment to these
loyal employees by endorsing their ideas and sug-
gestions because they are seen as credible, compel-
2012 855 Burris
ling, and benevolently intended (Brinol & Petty,
2009; Grant, Parker & Collins, 2009). Employees
who are viewed as being loyal also enjoy greater
formal rewards, including higher performance rat-
ings by managers (Shore et al., 1995). Whiting and
colleagues (2008) also found that employees who
were seen as loyal were rated as better performers.
In contrast, less loyal employees are likely to be
viewed with suspicion because of uncertainty as to
whether they intend to help the organization. This
uncertainty likely leads managers to scrutinize and
discount contributions made by them. Thus, those
engaging in challenging voice should be endorsed
less and rated as poorer performers by managers
than those who engage in supportive voice, in part
because they are viewed as being less loyal.
Hypothesis 5a. The more employees are seen
as loyal, the more strongly managers endorse
their ideas.
Hypothesis 5b. The more employees are seen
as loyal, the better managers rate their
performance.
Hypothesis 5c. Managerial perceptions of loy-
alty partially mediate the relationship between
the type of voice and managerial performance
evaluations.
Hypothesis 5d. Managerial perceptions of loy-
alty partially mediate the relationship between
the type of voice and the level of endorsement
given by managers.
Managers who feel threatened may also withhold
their endorsement for ideas that are challenging. As
Staw, Sandelands, and Dutton (1981) pointed out,
individuals react to threat by rigidly engaging in
familiar, habituated responses to reduce the threat,
and these reflexive responses are often aimed at
preserving what is best for themselves. Therefore, if
suggestions are deemed threatening, individuals
are likely to take action to undermine that input by
refusing to agree with or to endorse the suggestions,
even if the ideas have merit (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996;
Menon et al., 2006). Further, managers may re-
spond to challenges to their authority or standing
in their organization by attacking those who pose
the threat. Rating threatening individuals as worse
performers marginalizes their contributions and
relative importance to the organization. Therefore,
because those engaging in challenging voice are
viewed as more threatening than those engaging in
supportive voice, and higher levels of threat likely
result in lowered levels of endorsement and perfor-
mance evaluations, perceptions of threat should
mediate the relationship between the type of voice
and these outcomes.
Hypothesis 6a. The more employees are seen
as threatening, the less managers endorse
their ideas.
Hypothesis 6b. The more employees are seen
as threatening, the poorer managers rate their
performance.
Hypothesis 6c. Managerial perceptions of
threat partially mediate the relationship be-
tween the type of voice and managerial perfor-
mance evaluations.
Hypothesis 6d. Managerial perceptions of
threat partially mediate the relationship be-
tween the type of voice and the level of en-
dorsement given by managers.
Overview of the Present Research
To test my hypotheses, I followed a full-cycle
research approach (Chatman & Flynn, 2005: 234),
which suggests studying the naturally occurring
phenomenon of interest in the field first and then
traveling back and forth between observation and
manipulation-based research settings by using a
series of one field study and two experiments. In
Study 1, I used cross-sectional survey data to ex-
amine the outcomes of engaging in challenging ver-
sus supportive voice for store managers in a chain
of 281 corporation-owned restaurants to test Hy-
pothesis 1. Although Study 1 has high external
validity, it also has several limitations, including
concerns about reverse causality, lower internal va-
lidity, lower predictive validity, and testing only a
subset of the hypotheses. In Studies 2 and 3, I
addressed these shortcomings by using two exper-
iments with different operationalizations of chal-
lenging and supportive voice to test all hypotheses,
including the mediating mechanisms. In Study 2, a
vignette study, I compared managerial evaluations
of an employee who engages in challenging versus
supportive forms of voice. Although a vignette
study offers many strengths (e.g., control over what
is said, control over the frequency of each type of
voice), in Study 3 I extended the findings of Study
2 by conducting an experiment with interacting
groups to increase psychological realism. Addition-
ally, I explicitly measured the frequency with
which an individual engaged in challenging versus
supportive forms of voice and explored whether
engaging in more or less of each form of voice
generated more extreme positive or negative
reactions.
856 August Academy of Management Journal
STUDY 1
Setting, Sample, and Procedures
The data for this study, testing Hypothesis 1,
were collected from 281 store managers and their
supervisors in 281 corporation-owned stores of a
restaurant chain. All measures for this study were
included as part of an organizational climate and
employee satisfaction assessment. Each restaurant
also contained one store manager who managed the
store operations, including staffing, and was pri-
marily responsible for managing and evaluating the
performance of the frontline employees.
Store managers completed a questionnaire dur-
ing specified sessions that took place during the
workday or on their own time. Additionally, the
supervisor of each store manager (the district man-
ager) provided ratings of store manager perfor-
mance; each district manager rated a median of five
store managers. Store and district managers
were not required to complete the questionnaire,
but the senior management of the organization en-
couraged participation. Multiple data confidential-
ity and security processes were used to maximize
respondent willingness to respond honestly.
Measures
Types of voice. The survey items most often used
in the literature to measure voice are from Van
Dyne and LePines (1998) measure. However, this
measure has been criticized as including behaviors
that do not explicitly challenge the status quo or
suggest material changes for improvement (Organ
et al., 2006). In particular, the behaviors entailing
involvement in issues that affect the work unit
and keeping informed about issues where ones
opinions might be useful do not seem to connote
the same degree of challenge as other behaviors
included in the measure, such as communicating
about work issues even when the group disagrees
or speaks up with ideas for changes in proce-
dures. Other researchers have noted these distinc-
tions by adapting Van Dyne and LePines measure
to only include (1) items concerning verbal com-
munications and (2) items concerning specific chal-
lenges or improvements to the status quo (e.g., Detert
& Burris, 2007). Thus, I measured each type of voice
by taking the items from the Van Dyne and LePine
(1998) measure and grouping them into two con-
structs, adapting the items to fit the organizational
context. For each measure, respondents were asked to
think about how often they engaged in each behavior
toward their supervisor. I measured challenging voice
with three items ( .71), rated from 1 almost
never, to 5 almost always: I challenge my District
Manager to deal with problems around here, I give
suggestions to my District Manager about how to
make this restaurant better, even if others disagree,
and I speak up to my District Manager with ideas to
address employees needs and concerns. I measured
supportive voice using three items ( .76) using the
same scale anchor points: I keep well-informed
about issues where my opinion might be useful, I
get involved in issues that affect the quality of work-
life here, and I speak up and encourage others to get
involved in issues that affect [this organization].
Please see Appendix A for more information on the
construct validation of the supportive voice measure.
Performance ratings. District managers visited
each store routinely and worked with all store man-
agers continually. Additionally, district managers
are responsible for performance evaluations, rec-
ommendations for wage increases, and recommen-
dations for promotions. Therefore, I assessed per-
formance ratings by asking each district manager to
provide an overall evaluation ranging from 1,
needs significant improvement, to 4, outstand-
ing, for each store manager in his/her district.
Control variables. I controlled for several alter-
native explanations for performance ratings. First,
because job attitudes such as satisfaction affect per-
formance (Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006) and
voice (Zhou & George, 2001), I controlled for job
satisfaction with three items ( .73; e.g., Over-
all, I am satisfied with [this organization] as a place
to work). I also controlled for other cues that may
influence ratings of performance, such as tenure in
store manager position, tenure in organization, in-
dustry experience (excluding current organization),
and gender, which were obtained from survey re-
sponses (Bunderson, 2003). Lastly, I controlled for
supervisor openness with four items ( .92; e.g.,
Takes action on things brought up by me). Previ-
ous research has shown that openness creates a
more inviting context for speaking up; therefore,
managers who are more open may also be more
inclined to reward voice behaviors (Detert & Bur-
ris, 2007).
Construct Validation
To provide evidence of construct validity and
distinctness, I first conducted an exploratory factor
analysis (EFA; principal axis factoring) with an
oblique rotation (direct oblimin), on the voice items
(Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999).
Evaluation of the eigenvalues greater than 1 and the
scree plot suggested two primary factors account-
ing for 69.4 percent of the variance. I then con-
ducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the
survey items from the four variables with the same
2012 857 Burris
source: challenging voice, supportive voice, job sat-
isfaction, and managerial openness. As shown in
Table 1, the hypothesized four-factor structure fit
the data well (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). All model
fit indexes had values indicating poorer fit com-
pared to the four-factor model when fitting a three-
factor model combining the items from the two
voice constructs, a two-factor model combining the
voice items and the items for job satisfaction and
supervisor openness, and a one-factor model. Ad-
ditionally, the chi-square differences between the
four-factor model and all other models were also
significant. These results suggest that the two types
of voice constructs can be empirically differenti-
ated from each other and from the other control
variables measured from the same source.
Results and Discussion
Descriptive statistics and correlations for the
study variables are presented in Table 2. Although
supportive voice was significantly and positively
related to performance ratings, challenging voice
was not. Additionally, the correlation (r) between
the two types of voice is only .44 (p .01). Al-
though this correlation is significant, it is not large
enough to suggest that the two types of voice are
measuring the same construct.
Store managers are nested within districts, and
the district manager of each store provided perfor-
mance ratings for each employee in the store. The
ICC1 was .12 (p .01), indicating that a significant
portion of the variance in performance ratings was
due to district membership. I employed multilevel
analyses to explicitly model this nonindependence
resulting from district membership (Raudenbush &
Bryk, 2002). In model 1 of Table 3, I first entered
the control variables. Only job satisfaction was sig-
nificantly (and positively) related to store manager
performance (t[274] 4.33, p .001). In model 2,
I entered both types of voice. Supportive voice was
significantly and positively associated with perfor-
mance (t[272] 3.40, p .001). In contrast, chal-
lenging voice was significantly and negatively re-
lated to performance (t[272] 2.26, p .05). The
effect of challenging voice shifts from nonsignifi-
cance in the bivariate correlation to significantly
negative in the multilevel analysis. This shift is
likely due to including the control variables and
especially supportive voice. That is, controlling for
the shared variance between the two types of voice,
the analysis shows that engaging in challenging
voice has a stronger negative effect.
These results support the core prediction of this
study that managerial reactions to employees
speaking up depend on the type of voice displayed
(Hypothesis 1). In particular, although previous re-
search has shown that employees perceive that
voice can contain an element of risk (Detert & Bur-
ris, 2007), the results of this study consistently
suggest that there is some reality to those risks, but
only for those engaging in challenging voice: the
results show that managers rated employees engag-
ing in challenging voice more frequently as poorer
performers. Conversely, employees engaging in
supportive voice were rated more positively as they
spoke up more. This initial test shows that the
different types of voice have contrasting perfor-
mance implications. There are, however, several
limitations to this first study. Whereas Study 1 can
provide external validity by examining the core
prediction in an organizational setting, it is limited
in internal validity. For instance, the measure of
supportive voice relies on existing measures of
voice, which included individuals behaviors cap-
turing involvement in decisions affecting their or-
ganization and their keeping informed of issues
affecting the work unit. These predominantly used
TABLE 1
Study 1: Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Types of Voice and Control Variables
a
Model
2
df CFI RMSEA
Chi-Square
Difference Test
1. Four factor: Challenging voice,
supportive voice, job satisfaction, and
supervisor openness
168.48 59 .95 .06
2. Three factor: Challenging and supportive
voice on same factor
240.65 62 .92 .08
2
(3) 72.17***
3. Two factor: Challenging and supportive
voice on same factor, job satisfaction and
supervisor openness on same factor
479.96 64 .82 .13
2
(5) 311.48***
4. Single factor 885.43 65 .65 .18
2
(6) 716.95***
a
The disattenuated factor correlation between challenging and supportive voice is .72.
*** p .001
858 August Academy of Management Journal
measures of voice did not include actually making
suggestions explicitly supportive of the status quo.
Additionally, the measure of challenging voice,
though incorporating making suggestions that re-
quested changes, did not include more challenging
elements such as explicit disagreement with ones
supervisor. Given the nature of field studies, I also
cannot rule out the possibility of alternative expla-
nations and omitted third variables using this cor-
relational design. Additionally, good performers
may become more motivated to support their su-
pervisors, whereas poorer performers may be more
inclined to challenge their supervisors, raising con-
cerns of reverse causality. Finally, I was unable to
test the full set of hypotheses, including those per-
taining to the level of managerial endorsement for
the ideas suggested and the mediation hypotheses.
In Study 2, I addressed these limitations by using
vignettes in which I manipulated the type of voice
displayed and measured all relevant variables to
test the full set of hypotheses.
STUDY 2
Design, Task, and Manipulations
A total of 45 MBA students, executive MBA stu-
dents, and working professionals participated in
this study. Participant ages ranged from 24 to
50 years, with an average age of 33. Of the partici-
pants, 25 were male (55%). The participants had an
average of 8.18 years of work experience. The de-
sign had two within-subjects experimental condi-
tions: challenging voice versus supportive voice.
Type of voice. Participants were asked to adopt
the role of a manager in a scenario involving the
design and implementation of new bus routes in a
transportation services company. The focal man-
ager in the scenario announced a new plan to reor-
ganize the bus routes during a weekly staff meeting
one week before the new routes would start. I used
a within-subject manipulation of voice in which
the respondent provided ratings for both an indi-
vidual who engaged in more challenging voice and
an individual who engaged in supportive voice. For
the challenging voice condition participants read
this scenario:
Several days before the new routes would start, dur-
ing your weekly staff meeting with all of your bus
drivers and maintenance crew members, Brandon,
the chief maintenance scheduler, raised his hand
and asked to raise a small concern with your new
TABLE 2
Study 1: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
a
Variable Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Time in position 4.63 5.72
2. Tenure 6.80 5.38 .84**
3. Industry tenure 3.80 1.18 .45** .38**
4. Gender
b
0.40 0.49 .11 .16** .08
5. Job satisfaction 3.77 0.87 .21** .17** .22** .03
6. Supervisor openness 3.88 0.83 .05 .04 .05 .05 .47**
7. Challenging voice 3.74 0.81 .05 .02 .07 .00 .12* .28**
8. Supportive voice 4.13 0.72 .06 .04 .03 .04 .37** .46** .44**
9. Supervisor rated performance 2.86 0.83 .05 .10 .07 .07 .31** .23** .02 .25**
a
n 281.
b
0 male, 1 female.
* p .05
** p .01
TABLE 3
Study 1: Results of Multilevel Analyses for Type of
Voice and Performance Ratings
a
Variables Model 1 Model 2
Intercept 1.34*** (.29) 1.16*** (.35)
Control variables
Time in position 0.02 (.02) 0.02 (.02)
Tenure 0.03

(.02) 0.03* (.02)

Industry experience 0.01 (.04) 0.01 (.04)
Gender
b
0.10 (.09) 0.08 (.09)
Job satisfaction 0.27*** (.06) 0.23*** (.06)
Supervisor openness 0.10 (.06) 0.05 (.07)
Independent variables
Challenging voice 0.14* (.08)
Supportive voice 0.26** (.08)
Supervisor-level variance
c
0.10* (.05) 0.12* (.05)
2 residual log-likelihood 679.70 673.32
2 residual log-likelihood 6.38*
a
n 281. Unstandardized coefficients are reported, with
standard errors in parentheses.
b
0 male, 1 female.
c
Estimate of the random variance between supervisors.

p .10
* p .05
** p .01
*** p .001
2012 859 Burris
plan. Brandon proceeded to explain to everyone that
he wasnt sure your proposal would work because
you had not allotted enough time for the daily bus
maintenance and scheduled breaks (fueling, clean-
ing the bus, breaks for the drivers, etc.) and monthly
maintenance (changing the oil, checking the brakes,
engine tune-ups, etc.). Because of the lack of main-
tenance, he felt that the busses would begin to ex-
perience significant problems with increasing regu-
larity in about a month with costs soaring within
three months. He suggested that the time the busses
need in the monthly maintenance would mean that
at least one bus would be unavailable for several
days per month, meaning that one of your routes
would need to be shut down. He then recommended
a new plan that called for more maintenance time
and personnel. He ended by saying that if you take
into account his proposed changes, he thought your
plan would be a resounding success for the
ABC area.
Participants then read the supportive voice con-
dition scenario:
Knowing you need your team strongly committed to
your plan in order for it to succeed, you ask for
thoughts on your plan. George volunteered his point
of view. George said that he didnt think there was a
problem with your plan. After all, as you said, your
plan made only slight adjustments to the current
maintenance schedule. Your plan shaves off mini-
mal amounts of time from each maintenance sched-
ule, which should not seriously affect day-to-day
operations. In addition, under the previous plan, he
never encountered the maintenance problems that
Brandon mentioned. George thought that scaling
back the time for daily and monthly maintenance
should not pose any serious problems for the busses
that would lead to significant downtime.
I conducted a pretest to determine whether Bran-
don and Georges arguments were equal enough in
strength to rule out the possibility that participants
could respond more favorably to George if his ar-
guments were stronger than Brandons. However, I
found that they were equally strong (mean 4.20,
s.d. 1.11, vs. mean 4.50, s.d. 1.32, for Bran-
don and George, respectively; t[19] 0.71, n.s.).
Dependent Measures
Performance. I measured performance ratings
using a three-item scale: How would you rate this
persons performance based on what you know?,
If a position were available, I would recommend
this person for a promotion, and If this person
was promoted and you were colleagues, I would
expect him to perform in his new position
( .77).
Endorsement. I measured participants endorse-
ment for the ideas of each employee using a five-item
scale ( .83). Items included How likely is it that
you will take this persons comments to your super-
visors? and How likely is it that you will support
this persons comments when talking with your su-
pervisors? (1 very unlikely, to 5 very likely)
and I think this persons comments should be im-
plemented, I agree with this persons comments,
and This persons comments are valuable (1
strongly disagree, to 5 strongly agree).
Loyalty. To measure loyalty, I adapted Mayer
and Davis (1999) measure of the benevolence di-
mension of trust to specifically focus on intentions
or motives to benefit the welfare of an organization
rather than the raters personal interests. Sample
items from this six-item measure ( .82) include
This organizations needs are important to this
person and This person really looks out for what
is important to this organization.
Threat. To assess feelings of threat, I adapted
Menon, Choi, and Thompsons (2006) measure of
threat. I used six items ( .73) that included
How likely is it that you will lose status in the
organization if your superiors heard this persons
comments? and How likely is it that your supe-
riors will question your ability to devise an effec-
tive plan if your superiors heard this persons
comments?
Results
Manipulation check and correlations. All par-
ticipants reported that Brandon spoke up in a way
that challenged the managers plan whereas none
reported that George did. The descriptive statistics
for the four conditions along with the correlations
among the mediators and dependent variables are
presented in Table 4.
Performance ratings and level of endorsement
given. In Hypothesis 1, I argue that engaging in
challenging voice would result in lower perfor-
mance ratings than would engaging in supportive
voice. As shown in Table 4, in support of Hypoth-
esis 1, Brandon, who engaged in more challenging
voice, was rated as being a poorer performer than
George, who engaged in supportive voice
(t[44] 10.74, p .001). In support of Hypothesis
2, the results showed a significant effect for the
type of voice (t[44] 8.28, p .001), with respon-
dents endorsing the ideas of those who engaged in
challenging forms of voice less than they endorsed
the ideas of those engaged in supportive voice.
Loyalty, threat and mediation. Hypothesis 3
would be supported if the type of voice was signif-
icant, with those engaging in more challenging
860 August Academy of Management Journal
forms of voice (Brandon) being viewed as less loyal
than those engaging in supportive voice (George).
In support of Hypothesis 3, I found that partici-
pants rated Brandon as significantly less loyal than
George (t[44] 6.32, p .001). Hypothesis 4 would
be supported if Brandon was viewed as more
threatening than George. In support of Hypothesis
4, the type of voice exhibited was significant
(t[44] 4.00, p .001), with Brandon being rated
as more threatening than George.
In Hypotheses 5a5d and 6a6d, I predict that
managerial perceptions of loyalty and threat would
mediate the effects of the type of voice on perfor-
mance ratings and the level of endorsement given.
The more commonly used Baron and Kenny (1986)
test for mediation does not provide clear recom-
mendations for testing multiple mediators simulta-
neously. As a result, I used the recommendations of
Preacher and Hayes (2008), who suggested testing
mediation by evaluating the statistical significance
of the indirect effect of the predictor variable on the
outcome variable through the mediator while con-
trolling for the other mediators (computed by the
product of path a
1
b
1
, and a
2
b
2
separately while
controlling for the others and their total combined
effect, as is shown in Figure 1). For testing signifi-
cance, Preacher and Hayes (2008) suggested using a
bootstrapping technique to compute confidence in-
tervals for the indirect effect through each media-
tor, since this technique allows one to test all me-
diational effects simultaneously. If zero falls
outside this 95% confidence interval, then the in-
direct effect is significant, and mediation can be
said to be present. In addition, I followed the sug-
gestions of Judd, Kenny, and McClelland (2001) for
testing mediation with within-subjects factors.
I first examined whether loyalty (Hypotheses 5a
5b) and threat (Hypotheses 6a6b) significantly
predicted the dependent variables and whether in-
cluding the mediators significantly reduced the ef-
fect of the experimental manipulation on the de-
pendent variable, which would collectively indicate
partial mediation for both loyalty (Hypotheses 5c5d)
and threat (Hypotheses 6c6d). Multilevel analyses,
controlling for the participant who provided ratings
for both Brandon and George, showed that loyalty
TABLE 4
Study 2: Correlations, Means, Standard Deviations, and Paired-Sample t-Test Results of the Effects of Type of Voice
a
Dependent Variable Loyalty Threat Performance
Supportive
Voice
Challenging
Voice
Paired-Sample
t-Test Cohens d
Loyalty 3.64
(0.57)
2.91
(0.61)
6.32***
0.94
Threat .02 2.76
(0.71)
3.46
(0.70)
4.00***
0.89
Performance .53** .09 3.76
(0.74)
2.17
(0.62)
10.74***
1.70
Endorsement .48** .17 .37* 3.90
(0.61)
2.53
(0.75)
8.28***
1.24
a
Standard deviations are in parentheses. The degrees of freedom for each test is 44.
* p .05
** p .01
*** p .001
FIGURE 1
Illustration of Predicted Mediated Design
2012 861 Burris
(t[44] 3.09, p .001) was significantly and posi-
tively related to managerial performance ratings but
threat (t[44] 0.71, n.s.) was not (see models 1 and
2 of Table 5). Further, the effect of voice, although still
significant, was reduced by including the mediator
variables (b 1.24, t[44] 7.15, p .001, vs.
b 1.55, t[44]t[44] 10.93, p .001). The boot-
strap analyses revealed a significant total indirect ef-
fect of the type of voice to performance that was 0.31,
with a standard error of 0.12 (z 2.63, p .01). The
95% confidence interval ranged between 0.10 and
.54, excluding zero, which indicates support for me-
diation. I further analyzed each indirect effect sepa-
rately. I found that loyalty (a
1
b
1
.25, s.e. .10,
z 2.72, p .01) had a significant mediational effect.
However, perceptions of threat did not have a signif-
icant effect (a
2
b
2
.06, s.e. .06, z 0.72, n.s.).
Collectively, these results support for Hypotheses 5a
and 5c but not 6a or 6c.
In models 3 and 4, multilevel analyses showed
that both loyalty (t[44] 2.71, p .001) and threat
(t[44] 2.52, p .001) were significantly related
to the level of managerial endorsement. Addition-
ally, the effect of the type of voice decreased when
including the mediator variables, although it was
still significant (b .95, t[44] 5.62, p .001 vs.
b 1.38, t[44] 9.72, p .001). The mean for
the bootstrap estimate of the total indirect effect
from the type of voice to the level of endorsement
given was 0.43, with a standard error of 0.12
(z 3.62, p .001). The confidence interval (.19,
.70) excludes zero, which is evidence of a signifi-
cant indirect effect and therefore mediation. More
specifically, the mediation analysis shows that loy-
alty (a
1
b
1
.21, s.e. .12, z 2.46, p .05) and
threat (a
2
b
2
.22, s.e. .10, z 2.37, p .05)
were significant mediators. These results indicate
support for Hypotheses 5b, 5d, 6b, and 6d.
Discussion
Collectively, the findings from Study 2 suggest
that challenging versus supportive forms of voice
have very different and material consequences for
employees. Those who engaged in challenging
voice were rated as less loyal and more threatening
than those who engaged in supportive voice. Addi-
tionally, engaging in challenging voice led to lower
levels of endorsement and overall perceptions of
performance than engaging in supportive voice.
Although the effects of the type of voice on man-
agerial responses were consistent, I found differ-
ences in how the mediators affected the dependent
variables of endorsement and performance evalua-
tion. Managerial perceptions of loyalty mediated
the relationship between the type of voice and the
levels of both endorsement given and perceived
performance, whereas managerial perceptions of
threat only mediated the relationship between the
type of voice and endorsement given and not per-
ceived performance. One interpretation of this pat-
tern of results is that managers make a distinction
between which individuals they see as loyal, a per-
ception that therefore influences whom they would
want to reward, and what ideas would threaten
their organizational standinga perception that
impacts the extent to which they would endorse
those ideas. A supervisor might not endorse an idea
because of the potential threat it poses yet still
reward the individual proposing it for the proactiv-
TABLE 5
Study 2: Results of Multilevel Analyses Predicting Performance and Endorsement
a
Variables
Promotability Endorsement
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Intercept 2.21***(.10) 1.39** (.53) 2.52***(.10) 2.44***(.51)
Independent variables
Type of voice
b
1.55***(.14) 1.24***(.17) 1.38***(.14) 0.95***(.17)
Mediators
Loyalty 0.36** (.12) 0.31** (.11)
Threat 0.07 (.09) .23** (.09)
Participant-level
variance
c
0.00 (.00) 0.00 (.00) 0.00 (.00) 0.00 (.00)
2 residual log-likelihood 188.32 182.00 187.42 177.43
2 residual log-likelihood 6.32* 9.99**
a
n 45. Unstandardized coefficients are reported, with standard errors in parentheses.
b
0 supportive voice, 1 challenging voice.
c
Estimate of the random variance between participants.
* p .05
** p .01
*** p .001
862 August Academy of Management Journal
ity displayed if the employee is deemed to have the
potential to make a positive contribution to their
organization (Grant, Parker, & Collins, 2009). This
speaks more broadly to differences in two different
types of outcomes: the extent to which a manager is
persuaded by one particular idea and how that
manager more globally evaluates the employee who
contributes the idea.
Although vignette studies offer high internal va-
lidity, they can suffer low external validity and
psychological realism (Berkowitz & Donnerstein,
1982). Vignette studies involve responding to hy-
pothetical scenarios; the measures of the constructs
assess how participants would rate those that en-
gaged in challenging or supportive voice as op-
posed to how they actually rate each party. Addi-
tionally, whereas Study 2 manipulated the types of
voice through the vignettes, it did not measure
voice and cannot address whether engaging in each
type of voice more frequently produces more ex-
treme consequences. It also presented the challeng-
ing statements from Brandon before the supportive
statements from George, opening up the possibility
of contrast effects. Therefore, in a third study, I
designed an experiment to increase psychological
realism and to capture both behavioral measures of
the types of voice displayed by employees as they
occur more naturally and managers subsequent re-
sponses. More specifically, Study 3 uses interacting
groups to capture behavioral measures of each type
of voice and assess how engaging in each type more
or less frequently impacts managerial reactions in a
more dynamic, interactive setting.
STUDY 3
Design, Task, and Manipulations
Participants. Fifty-one teams of four undergrad-
uates participated in the experiment and, in ex-
change, received $10 on average. The average age of
the participants was 19.7 years (s.d. 1.22) and
110 were female (54%).
Task. I used a business simulation task to assess
the responses to challenging versus supportive
voice. Participants were randomly assigned into
teams of four undergraduates and then randomly
assigned to one of the four roles on a management
team: chief of operations, retail manager, central
warehouse manager, and trucking operations man-
ager. Teams were charged with making strategic
decisions about the supply strategy for the new
music department in a small bookstore chain.
Teams were charged with selecting a supply strat-
egy and implementing it in a computer simulation
lasting 60 days. Each participant read background
information on the company along with informa-
tion about supply strategies in general as an intro-
duction. The teams were instructed to minimize
two sources of costs: transaction costs associated
with placing orders and holding costs associated
with housing inventory. Possible strategies could
range from a just-in-time inventory system in
which one order is placed every day for the amount
of inventory sold the previous day (total of 60 or-
ders; maximizes order costs and minimizes holding
costs) to a bulk order system in which one large
order is placed for the entire 60-day period (total of
1 order; maximizes holding costs and minimizes
order costs).
Upon agreeing to take part in the experiment,
participants were told that a personality inventory
would be used to select a leader. The experimenter
explained that certain personality characteristics
were associated with effective leadership in this
particular task. After participants had filled out the
inventory, the experimenter actually selected a
leader at random. Participants reviewed their
packet of materials and met together as a team to
decide what strategy to implement. Team members
were free to take their information sheets into the
group discussion and to physically show their ma-
terials to others to provide justification for their
opinions. The team discussion was not a consensus
decision; rather, the leader had complete decision-
making power. After the team discussion, the teams
went on to implement their decision using a com-
puter simulation.
Participants were compensated in three ways:
They received a base payment for showing up and
participating ($7). They also received a team-level
incentive to perform well: the team that minimized
costs would win an extra $50 bonus. Finally, the
leaders of each group recommended one of their
subordinates for promotion. The participant who
was chosen was entered into a lottery for a prize
worth $50.
Voice. Information was provided to all of the
members indicating that a just-in-time inventory
system was currently considered the optimal sup-
ply strategy through four lines of reasoning: (1)
some accounting information suggested that this
was the most cost-efficient strategy, (2) a just-in-
time system had been used in the books department
over the past five years with good success, (3) a
successful marketing program used in the books
department made use of the just-in-time system,
and this program could extend easily to the music
department, and (4) the owner of the bookstore
chain gave a personal recommendation for just-in-
time. Thus, because the task charged the groups
with deciding on a new supply strategy for the new
2012 863 Burris
music department, all suggestions made that sup-
ported this initiative would meet early definitions
of voice characterized by initiating positive
changes in an organization (Hirschman, 1970;
Withey & Cooper, 1989).
One member of each team was given additional
information suggesting that a just-in-time inventory
system might not be the best strategy. This member
was told that some of the economic indicators jus-
tifying a just-in-time inventory system were flawed
and that additional estimates suggested that a bulk
order system was the optimal strategy. Additional
analyses were provided to justify this conclusion.
Finally, instructions were provided directing this
person to challenge the just-in-time system by con-
tributing these facts and opinions. Thus, one per-
son in each team was instructed to speak up by
challenging the status quo. Because I could manip-
ulate parameters in the computer simulation sup-
ply chain game, I knew a priori that the bulk order
system would be more profitable than the just-
in-time system. Therefore, this information was
objectively correct and would yield performance
benefits if adopted and implemented, yet this in-
formation was not demonstrable without actually
engaging in the simulation.
In sum, one subordinate of every group was given
extra information indicating that just-in-time in-
ventory system was not the best strategy and was
subsequently instructed to make that view known.
As the just-in-time system was already used in the
rest of the organization, suggestions to use an alter-
native supply strategy should be considered more
challenging. Thus, one person in each group was
instructed to engage in challenging voice by argu-
ing for a bulk order system. However, I did not
manipulate voice in that I did not control the fre-
quency of how much this individual voiced this
perspective or how much the other subordinates
engaged in supportive voice.
I measured the frequency of the two types of
voice through process data collected by videotap-
ing, transcribing, and coding each team meeting.
The transcripts were unitized into speaking turns
wherein one unit was the amount spoken by any
one person without being interrupted by another
team member. These speaking turns were then cat-
egorized into four types: (1) a statement that sup-
ported the just-in-time system, (2) a statement that
supported a bulk order system, (3) a compromise
statement in which a person tried to tie arguments
from both sides together or suggested a concession
for both sides to arrive at a strategy that was not
weighted heavily toward one strategy or another,
and (4) a miscellaneous category that included fact-
finding comments that did not argue for one strat-
egy or another, process comments (e.g., time man-
agement), and comments related to implementing
the strategies on the computer simulation. Two in-
dependent coders, blind to the conditions, trained
together and coded 10 of the 49 transcripts (2 tran-
scripts were lost due to videotape malfunction) to
establish adequate reliability (Cohens .87).
One coder coded the rest of the transcripts. Each
speaking turn could vary in length (e.g., one speak-
ing turn could constitute a couple of words or sev-
eral long sentences); therefore, I counted the num-
ber of words in each speaking turn. I measured
challenging voice by summing the number of words
in speaking turns in which a person advocated for
the bulk order system. I divided this total by the
groups total number of words to control for the
length of discussion and multiplied by 100 to ob-
tain a percentage. I followed a similar strategy to
measure supportive voice, counting the number of
words in speaking turns in which a person advo-
cated for the just-in-time system, dividing by the
groups total number of words, and multiplying
by 100.
Performance. Only leaders of each team pro-
vided ratings of performance. The leader chose to
promote one team member who would become el-
igible to receive an extra monetary bonus on the
basis of performance during the discussion. The
leader answered the question What is the likeli-
hood that you would promote this person, if a
position was available? for each team member on
a 0100 scale.
Endorsement. All other responses used the scale
1, strongly disagree, to 9, strongly agree. Lead-
ers responded to two items ( .81) measuring
level of endorsement: This persons comments
were valuable and I supported this persons com-
ments throughout the discussion.
Mediators. Leaders also provided the ratings for
each of the mediators. The measures for team mem-
bers loyalty ( .88) and threat ( .86) were the
same as those used in Study 2 except that I short-
ened the scales to be four items instead of six to
save space on the questionnaire.
Gender as a control. Even though people were
randomly assigned to each condition, group, and
role within their group, there was still a possibility
that gender might influence managerial judgments
and evaluations, especially those of assertive be-
haviors such as voice (Heilman, 2001). I therefore
controlled for the gender of subordinates in the
following analyses.
RobustnessExpert status. As a robustness
check, I manipulated the expert status of the sub-
ordinates instructed to engage in challenging voice.
Theories of social persuasion note that sources are
864 August Academy of Management Journal
differentially persuasive depending on certain
characteristics (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). In partic-
ular, experts have been shown to be more persua-
sive (Brinol & Petty, 2009) and thus may not expe-
rience the negative effects of engaging in more
challenging forms of voice. Participants were ran-
domly assigned across the two between-subjects
conditions. In half of the groups, the subordinate
who was instructed to challenge the status quo pos-
sessed expert status. In groups with experts who chal-
lenged the status quo, all of the team members were
told that it is common for teammates in organizations
to possess different information and that these differ-
ences lead some members to be more or less expert
than others. They also were told that, in this group,
one teammate (the person instructed to engage in
challenging voice) possessed additional information
that could help the group make a more profitable
decision. This manipulation is consistent with previ-
ous research that has manipulated expert status
(Stewart & Stasser, 1995). The other half of groups
with nonexperts who were instructed to engage in
challenging voice received no information about any
group members expertise. Thus, other group mem-
bers would presumably think that the person in-
structed to challenge the status quo simply had a
different point of view.
Results
Descriptive statistics, correlations, and manip-
ulation checks. The descriptive statistics and cor-
relations among all of the variables are presented in
Table 6. I first checked to ensure that those who
were instructed to engage in challenging voice did,
in fact, do so. During the team discussion, those
who were instructed to speak up in challenging
ways did speak up by arguing for the bulk order
system much more than their teammates did
(mean 8.08, s.d. 9.45 and mean .77,
s.d. 4.01, respectively, t[142] 6.52, p .001,

2
.23). In turn, other teammates spoke up in
favor of the just-in-time system (mean 9.57,
s.d. 9.61) more than those who were instructed to
engage in challenging voice (mean 4.58,
s.d. 7.22, t[142] 3.17, p .01,
2
.07).
To assess the effectiveness of the expert status
manipulation for the robustness check, leaders
were asked rate all other members as to whether
they were considered an expert and had more
information about todays task than I do. I found a
significant interaction between expert status and
the ratings of those who engage in challenging ver-
sus supportive forms of voice (F[1,48] 35.54,
p .001,
2
.42). Leaders rated experts (mean
7.15, s.d. 1.79) as being more expert than their
teammates (mean 3.45, s.d. 1.54, t[24] 6.33,
p .001,
2
.62). There were no differences
between nonexperts instructed to engage in chal-
lenging voice (mean 3.52, s.d. 1.55) and their
teammates (mean 3.74, s.d. 2.10, t[24] .62,
n.s.). I also found that among those who were in-
structed to engage in challenging voice, experts
engaged in a level of challenging voice (mean
4.67, s.d. 5.84) similar to that of nonexperts
(mean 4.17, s.d. 4.02, t[47] .34, n.s.).
Performance ratings and level of endorsement
given. Because leaders provided assessments for
each subordinate, I employed multilevel analyses
to explicitly model nonindependence resulting
from the leaders assessments of multiple subordi-
nates (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). A multilevel
analysis of performance evaluations showed a sig-
nificant and negative effect of the challenging form
of voice (t[140] 3.53, p .001, see model 1 of
Table 7) and a significant and positive effect of
supportive voice (t[140] 4.33, p .001). These
results show that engaging in more versus less
TABLE 6
Study 3: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
a
Variable Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Compromise statements 2.17 5.22
2. Gender
b
0.52 0.50 .11
3. Expert status 0.17 0.38 .05 .18*
4. Challenging voice 3.21 7.21 .02 .01 .32**
5. Supportive voice 7.90 9.17 .01 .03 .18* .23**
6. Loyalty 6.24 1.57 .02 .26** .13 .32** .18*
7. Threat 3.93 1.86 .13 .10 .34** .52** .29** .41**
8. Promotability 54.93 26.83 .22** .19* .10 .31** .34** .35** .26**
9. Endorsement 5.74 2.10 .12 .09 .07 .32** .05 .21* .37** .21*
a
n 150.
b
0 male, 1 female.
* p .05
** p .01
2012 865 Burris
T
A
B
L
E
7
S
t
u
d
y
3
:
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
o
f
M
u
l
t
i
l
e
v
e
l
A
n
a
l
y
s
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
E
f
f
e
c
t
s
o
f
V
o
i
c
e
a
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
P
r
o
m
o
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
E
n
d
o
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
L
o
y
a
l
t
y
T
h
r
e
a
t
M
o
d
e
l
1
M
o
d
e
l
2
M
o
d
e
l
3
M
o
d
e
l
4
M
o
d
e
l
5
M
o
d
e
l
6
M
o
d
e
l
7
M
o
d
e
l
8
M
o
d
e
l
9
M
o
d
e
l
1
0
I
n
t
e
r
c
e
p
t
5
2
.
5
5
*
*
*
(
3
.
8
7
)
3
7
.
4
0
*
*
(
1
2
.
3
4
)
5
2
.
3
6
*
*
*
(
4
.
0
1
)
5
.
7
6
*
*
*
(
0
.
3
3
)
6
.
2
2
*
*
*
(
1
.
0
5
)
5
.
7
7
*
*
*
(
0
.
3
4
)
6
.
6
1
*
*
*
(
0
.
2
4
)
6
.
6
4
*
*
*
(
0
.
2
4
)
3
.
5
1
*
*
*
(
0
.
2
5
)
3
.
5
6
*
*
*
(
0
.
2
6
)
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
C
o
m
p
r
o
m
i
s
e
s
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
s
0
.
8
4
*
(
0
.
3
6
)
0
.
9
4
*
*
(
0
.
3
5
)
0
.
9
0
*
(
0
.
3
6
)

0
.
0
5
(
0
.
0
3
)

0
.
0
4
(
0
.
0
3
)

0
.
0
5
(
0
.
0
3
)

0
.
0
1
(
0
.
0
2
)

0
.
0
1
(
0
.
0
2
)
0
.
0
4
(
0
.
0
2
)
0
.
0
4

(
0
.
0
2
)
G
e
n
d
e
r
b

1
4
.
6
2
(
3
.
7
1
)

1
2
.
5
6
*
*
*
(
3
.
6
7
)

1
5
.
2
9
(
3
.
7
0
)
0
.
2
8
(
0
.
3
3
)
0
.
4
4
(
0
.
3
3
)
0
.
2
5
(
0
.
3
3
)

0
.
6
4
*
*
(
0
.
2
0
)

0
.
6
6
(
0
.
2
0
)
0
.
2
0
(
0
.
2
6
)
0
.
2
1
(
0
.
2
6
)
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
C
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
i
n
g
v
o
i
c
e

0
.
9
5
*
*
*
(
0
.
2
7
)

0
.
4
2
(
0
.
2
9
)

0
.
7
3
*
(
0
.
3
3
)

0
.
1
0
*
*
*
(
0
.
0
2
)

0
.
0
5

(
0
.
0
3
)

0
.
0
9
*
*
(
0
.
0
3
)

0
.
0
6
*
*
*
(
0
.
0
1
)

0
.
0
6
*
*
(
0
.
0
2
)
0
.
1
1
*
*
*
(
0
.
0
2
)
0
.
1
0
*
*
*
(
0
.
0
2
)
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
v
e
v
o
i
c
e
0
.
9
3
*
*
*
(
0
.
2
2
)
0
.
8
3
*
*
*
(
0
.
2
1
)
0
.
9
3
*
*
*
(
0
.
2
3
)
0
.
0
0
(
0
.
0
2
)

0
.
0
1
(
0
.
0
1
)
0
.
0
0
(
0
.
0
2
)
0
.
0
1
(
0
.
0
1
)
0
.
0
1
(
0
.
0
1
)

0
.
0
3
*
(
0
.
0
1
)

0
.
0
3
*
(
0
.
0
2
)
M
e
d
i
a
t
o
r
s
L
o
y
a
l
t
y
3
.
5
6
*
(
1
.
4
9
)
0
.
1
3
(
0
.
1
3
)
T
h
r
e
a
t

2
.
3
5

(
1
.
2
1
)

0
.
3
7
*
*
*
(
0
.
1
1
)
R
o
b
u
s
t
n
e
s
s
E
x
p
e
r
t
s
t
a
t
u
s
1
8
.
6
3
*
*
(
4
.
8
7
)
2
0
.
3
0
*
*
*
(
4
.
7
3
)
2
0
.
5
7
*
*
(
6
.
7
7
)
0
.
8
8
*
(
0
.
4
4
)
1
.
1
7
*
*
(
0
.
4
3
)
0
.
9
2
(
0
.
6
2
)
0
.
0
2
(
0
.
2
6
)

0
.
1
2
(
0
.
3
5
)
0
.
8
1
*
(
0
.
3
5
)
0
.
5
1
(
0
.
4
8
)
E
x
p
e
r
t
s
t
a
t
u
s

c
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
i
n
g
v
o
i
c
e

0
.
7
1
(
0
.
5
8
)

0
.
0
4
(
0
.
0
5
)
0
.
0
0
(
0
.
0
3
)
0
.
0
3
(
0
.
0
4
)
E
x
p
e
r
t
s
t
a
t
u
s

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
v
e
v
o
i
c
e
0
.
5
6
(
0
.
5
7
)
0
.
0
4
(
0
.
0
5
)
0
.
0
4
(
0
.
0
3
)
0
.
0
2
(
0
.
0
4
)
L
e
a
d
e
r
-
l
e
v
e
l
v
a
r
i
a
n
c
e
c
1
5
4
.
2
4
*
(
6
4
.
2
5
)
1
8
1
.
9
8
*
*
(
6
8
.
3
7
)
1
6
3
.
2
7
*
(
6
6
.
6
7
)
0
.
6
8

(
0
.
4
1
)
0
.
7
8

(
0
.
4
0
)
0
.
7
1

(
0
.
4
2
)
1
.
1
0
*
*
*
(
0
.
3
0
)
1
.
0
7
*
*
*
(
0
.
2
9
)
0
.
3
1
(
0
.
2
3
)
0
.
3
1
(
0
.
2
3
)

2
r
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
l
o
g
-
l
i
k
e
l
i
h
o
o
d
1
,
2
8
2
.
1
0
1
,
2
6
5
.
2
7
1
,
2
7
7
.
9
6
6
1
2
.
2
1
6
0
1
.
8
9
6
1
8
.
9
5
4
8
7
.
9
2
4
9
6
.
4
1
5
4
3
.
6
1
5
5
1
.
9
7

2
r
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
l
o
g
-
l
i
k
e
l
i
h
o
o
d
1
6
.
8
3
*
*
*
4
.
1
4
1
0
.
3
2
*
*
*

6
.
7
4

8
.
4
9

8
.
3
6
a
n

1
5
0
.
U
n
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
i
z
e
d
c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
,
w
i
t
h
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
e
r
r
o
r
s
i
n
p
a
r
e
n
t
h
e
s
e
s
.
b
0

m
a
l
e
,

f
e
m
a
l
e
.

c
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
o
f
t
h
e
r
a
n
d
o
m
v
a
r
i
a
n
c
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
l
e
a
d
e
r
s
.

.
1
0
*
p

.
0
5
*
*
p

.
0
1
*
*
*
p

.
0
0
1
challenging voice was associated with worse per-
formance ratings, but engaging in more versus
less supportive voice was associated with better
performance ratings. To directly test whether
those engaging in challenging voice were rated as
worse performers compared to those engaging in
supportive voice (as opposed to the comparison
with engaging in lower levels of each type of
voice), I ran an additional model in which I con-
strained the coefficients of each type of voice to
equal one another. If this model produces equal
or better fit, then one could conclude that the
effects are similar and thus would not support my
hypothesis. However, this model produced sig-
nificantly poorer fit (2 residual log-likelihood
1,318.25,
2
[1] 36.15, p .001), thus indi-
cating that challenging and supportive voice have
significantly different effects. Collectively, these
results support Hypothesis 1.
The results also showed that challenging voice
had a significantly negative effect on the level of
endorsement (t[140] 4.12, p .001, see model
4). There were no significant effects for supportive
voice (t[140] .23, n.s.). The constrained model in
which the coefficients of each type of voice were
equal to one another produced a significantly
poorer fit (2 residual log-likelihood 503.11,

2
[1] 9.14, p .001), indicating that challenging
and supportive voice have significantly different
effects. These results support Hypothesis 2.
Loyalty, threat, and mediation. As is shown in
model 7, I found a significant and negative effect
for the challenging form of voice on perceptions of
loyalty (t[140] 4.07, p .001). However, the
effect of supportive voice (t[140] 1.01, n.s.)
was not significant. The constrained model pro-
duced a significantly poorer fit (2 residual log-
likelihood 503.11,
2
[1] 15.19, p .001), sug-
gesting that challenging and supportive voice have
significantly different effects. This pattern of find-
ings supports Hypothesis 3.
The results from a multilevel analysis also
showed that as individuals engaged in more chal-
lenging voice more frequently, they were rated as
more threatening by their leaders (t[140] 6.00,
p .001; see model 9). Additionally, managers
rated those engaging in supportive voice more fre-
quently as less threatening (t[140] 2.03,
p .05). The constrained model also showed a
significantly poorer fit (2 residual log-likeli-
hood 503.11,
2
[1] 15.19, p .001), suggesting
that challenging and supportive voice had signifi-
cantly different effect on ratings of threat. These
results support Hypothesis 4.
I then tested whether managerial perceptions of
loyalty and threat mediated the relationship be-
tween the level of the challenging voice and per-
formance ratings. In model 2, the results show that
managerial perceptions of loyalty were signifi-
cantly related to performance (t[138] 2.39,
p .05), but managerial perceptions of threat
were not (t[138] 1.93, n.s.). Further, the effects
of the challenging voice were reduced and no lon-
ger significant when the mediators were included
(t[138] 1.42, n.s., vs. t[140] 3.54, p .001).
The mean for the bootstrap estimate of the total
indirect effect from the challenging form of voice to
performance was 40.23 with a standard error of
19.79 (z 2.03, p .05) and confidence intervals
of 97.11 to 0.94, suggesting a significant indirect
effect. I found that loyalty played a significant me-
diating role (a
1
b
1
32.52, s.e. 12.86, z 2.53,
p .05) but that threat (a
2
b
2
7.71, s.e. 18.15,
z 0.37, n.s.) did not have a significant media-
tional influence on performance. This provides
support for Hypotheses 5a and 5c but not for 6a
or 6c.
In model 5, the results show that the managerial
perceptions of threat were significantly related to
the level of managerial endorsement (t[138]
3.48, p .001), but perceptions of loyalty
were not related (t[138] 1.00, n.s.). The effects of
challenging voice were also reduced and no longer
significant when including the mediators
(t[138] 1.79, n.s., vs. t[140] 4.12, p .001).
The mean for the bootstrap estimate of the total
indirect effect from the challenging form of voice to
endorsement was 4.47, with a standard error of
1.87 (z 2.39, p .05). The confidence interval
(8.68, 1.36) excludes zero, which is evidence of a
significant indirect effect, and therefore mediation.
More specifically, the mediation analysis shows
that loyalty (a
1
b
1
0.77, s.e. 0.69, z 1.12, n.s.)
was not statistically significant, yet threat was
found to have a mediational influence between
challenging voice and endorsement (a
2
b
2
3.70,
s.e. 1.73, z 2.14, p .05). These results
indicate that threat explains the relationship be-
tween challenging forms of voice and the extent to
which leaders lend their endorsement whereas per-
ceptions of loyalty do not mediate this relationship,
supporting Hypotheses 6b and 6d but not 5b or 5d.
Robustness checkExpert status. In models 3,
6, 8 and 10, I entered the interactions between
challenging voice and expert status. If significant,
these interactions would suggest that the negative
effect of engaging in challenging voice is different
for experts versus nonexperts. However, I did not
find significant interactions when predicting per-
formance (t[138] 1.22, n.s.), endorsement
(t[138] 0.74, n.s.), loyalty (t[138] 0.15, n.s.),
or threat (t([138] 0.71, n.s.). Although expert
2012 867 Burris
status was significantly and positively related to
performance (t[140] 3.83, p .001), the level of
endorsement (t[140] 1.99, p .05) and threat
(t[140] 2.31, p .05), suggesting that experts
were rated more favorably than nonexperts were
overall, these results suggest that the effects of en-
gaging in challenging voice were similar for experts
and nonexperts alike.
Discussion
Despite the fact that those engaging in more chal-
lenging voice had information that could objec-
tively increase the decision quality of the group to
which they belonged, I found that engaging in this
form of voice more frequently was associated with
lower endorsement and lower performance ratings.
In contrast, engaging in supportive voice more fre-
quently generated higher evaluations of promot-
ability. Managerial perceptions of loyalty again me-
diated only the relationship between the type of
voice and performance. In contrast, managerial per-
ceptions of threat mediated only the relationship
between the type of voice and endorsement. These
results are consistent with those of Studies 1 and 2
in showing that message characteristics, such as the
degree to which voice is fundamentally more chal-
lenging or more supportive in nature, can affect
managerial responses.
I also examined the robustness of my findings by
including a manipulation for the expert status of in-
dividuals who engage in challenging forms of voice.
There are two conclusions to drawfromthese results.
First, the results consistently showed that experts
are not immune from the effects of engaging in chal-
lenging forms of voice more frequently, as none of the
predicted interactions were significant. That is, the
effect of engaging in challenging voice is negative
even for experts when compared to other experts not
engaging in challenging voice. Second, whereas I
found that experts who engaged in challenging voice
were rated less favorably than other experts (those not
engaging in challenging voice), I still found that ex-
perts were rated favorably when compared to nonex-
perts. Taken together, these results suggest that the
effects of expert status may depend on with whom
comparison is made. Expert status buffers the nega-
tive effects of engaging in more challenging forms of
voice for experts who are compared to other experts
who speak up in challenging ways less frequently.
Yet expert status does afford some benefit for experts
compared to nonexperts who speak up in challeng-
ing ways.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Previous research on employee voice has focused
on employee perceptions of how risky it is to speak
up to managers (Ashford et al., 2009; Detert & Bur-
ris, 2007). Yet far fewer studies have examined how
managers actually respond to voice. The present
study suggests that not all forms of prosocial, up-
ward voice are the same. Instead, in one field study
and two experimental studies, I found that mana-
gerial responses to subordinates speaking up de-
pend on the type of voice exhibited (see Table 8 for
a summary of results). These findings offer mean-
ingful theoretical contributions to the literatures on
voice, social persuasion, and employee proactivity.
Theoretical Implications
The primary contribution of this work lies in
providing an explanation for why voice sometimes
leads to positive outcomes and other times leads to
negative outcomes. Although some studies have
examined managerial reactions and have reported
positive outcomes associated with prosocial forms
TABLE 8
Summary of Support for the Hypotheses across All Three Studies
Hypothesis
Number Hypothesized Relationship
Support in
Study 1
Support in
Study 2
Support in
Study 3
1 Type of voice Performance Yes Yes Yes
2 Type of voiceEndorsement Yes Yes
3 Type of voiceLoyalty Yes Yes
4 Type of voiceThreat Yes Yes
5a LoyaltyPerformance Yes Yes
5b LoyaltyEndorsement Yes No
5c Type of voiceLoyaltyPerformance Yes Yes
5d Type of voiceLoyaltyEndorsement Yes No
6a ThreatPerformance No No
6b ThreatEndorsement Yes Yes
6c Type of voiceThreatPerformance No No
6d Type of voiceThreatEndorsement Yes Yes
868 August Academy of Management Journal
of voice (e.g., Whiting et al., 2008), others have had
mixed results (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998), and still
others have shown negative effects (Seibert et al.,
2001). My research addresses these inconsistencies
by showing that managerial reactions depend on
the characteristics of the message giventhat is,
the type of voice: speaking up in challenging ways
elicits unfavorable reactions from managers, and in
contrast, engaging in supportive voice does not
generate negative outcomes.
My results address recent calls made in the voice
literature for a more specific definition of the con-
tent of voice (Edwards & Greenberg, 2009; Morri-
son, 2011). The primary impetus researchers have
shown has been to identify the factors that would
lead employees to engage in one type of voice ver-
sus another (Liang, Farh, & Farh, 2012; Van Dyne,
Ang, & Botero, 2003), yet little research has exam-
ined the managerial responses to different types of
voice behaviors. My findings show that managerial
evaluations of employees differ depending on the
extent to which voice fundamentally challenges the
status quo. Given that the most recent research in
the area of voice incorporates a high degree of chal-
lenge to the status quo in its definitions (Detert &
Burris, 2007; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998), my re-
search suggests that scholars should also align the
degree of challenge assessed in their measurement
of voice to this conceptualization by only using
items that specifically capture the challenging na-
ture of voice (Detert & Burris, 2007; Organ et
al., 2006).
These findings also take a step forward in inte-
grating social psychological theories of persuasion
such as the elaboration likelihood model and or-
ganizational theories of voice. The primary out-
come associated with research on persuasion is the
extent to which a recipient is influenced by a
source, and a hallmark of theories of persuasion is
that message characteristics can affect this influ-
ence process (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). My findings
shed light not only on the efficacy of the influence
attempts but also on how those who initiate those
attempts are evaluated (Levine, 1989). Addition-
ally, whereas voice researchers have considered
performance evaluations as an outcome, much less
attention has been devoted to whether employees
engaging in voice are able to win managerial en-
dorsement for the suggestions made. By showing
that the type of voice affects both how influential
the ideas are in generating managerial endorsement
and how managers evaluate employees who speak
up, my research integrates two large bodies of re-
search discussing similar dynamics and shows that
managerial reactions to these influence attempts
depend on the degree to which they are challenging
the status quo and those in charge of upholding it.
These findings extend scholarly understanding
of the psychological processes underlying manage-
rial responses to voice. In particular, findings show
that loyalty consistently mediates the relationship
between the type of voice displayed and overall
employee performance, and threat mediates the re-
lationship between voice and the levels of endorse-
ment given by managers. This pattern highlights
the possibility that managers consider employees
motivations to benefit their organization when de-
ciding whom to reward, and in contrast, that they
take into account how the suggested changes per-
sonally affect them when deciding what ideas to
endorse. That is, for one given issue, a manager
might not endorse an idea because of its personal
impact, but she or he might still reward the em-
ployee for contributing it. Such findings may help
shed light on seemingly contradictory findings that
voice may fail to produce material changes in an
organizations functioning yet individuals may still
rewarded for engaging in it (Morrison, 2011; Whit-
ing et al., 2008).
My research extends the broader literature on
employee proactivity in organizations. Many stud-
ies have mentioned the double-edged sword of pro-
activity, noting that employees are sometimes re-
warded for improvement-oriented activitiesbut
not always (Frese & Fay, 2001; Grant & Ashford,
2008; Parker, Bindle, & Strauss, 2010; Parker &
Collins, 2010). My studies provide new evidence
that managers may be more receptive to forms of
voice that are less proactive. That is, voice that is
supportive by being more incremental and less
change-oriented elicits more favorable reactions
from managers. This idea stands in direct contrast
with the notion that more proactive forms of voice
tend to be most valuable for organizational change
effectiveness (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Further,
little empirical research has identified the mecha-
nisms underlying why certain proactive behaviors
lead to positive versus negative outcomes. My find-
ings suggest that the psychological mechanisms of
loyalty and threat drive managerial reactions to
voice in different ways: loyalty reflects broad
prosocial values that intend to benefit an organiza-
tion and influences overall performance evalua-
tions, whereas the extent to which the ideas voiced
threaten managers personal standing in the organ-
ization influence managerial endorsement.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
Despite several desirable features (e.g., three
methodologies, different operationalizations of
2012 869 Burris
constructs), the present research has limitations
leading to unanswered questions, thus providing
the opportunity for future research. Although this
study characterized challenging voice as voice pos-
ing a significant challenge to the status quo and
those who are charged with upholding it, I was
unable to tease apart the effects of explicitly chal-
lenging organizational practices from the effects of
challenging the desired choices of a manager. In
Studies 2 and 3, the operationalizations of chal-
lenging voice included challenging ones manager
as well. Additionally, managers may view those
who engage in supportive voice as being ingratia-
tory (Bolino, 1999). Although the first study allevi-
ates this concern by measuring the general fre-
quency of challenging voice rather than a specific
instance tied to one issue, it still calls into question
whether a subordinates engaging in challenging
voice when his/her manager also desires changes to
the status quo (or does not have a personal interest
in upholding the status quo) would yield similar
results.
Challenging and supportive voice, like any other
communication, can be expressed along multiple
dimensions, including content, style, and tone
(Ashcraft, Kuhn, & Cooren, 2009; Jablin & Putnam,
2000; Norton, 1978). Although my study has fo-
cused on the idea that challenging and supportive
voice differ in their content, the style and tone of
these types of voice may also influence managerial
responses. For instance, style of communication
that is, the specific language an individual uses and
the way he/she verbally or nonverbally communi-
cates (Norton, 1978)which manifests in either
powerful speech and displays of assertiveness or
more reserved, less powerful styles of speech to
communicate changes (Fragale, 2006), might
change how receptive managers are to employee
suggestions. Additionally, the tones of challenging
and supportive voice may differ and lead to differ-
ent managerial reactions. More hostile, callous,
tactless, and cold tones, and those expressing anger
or other dominant emotions (Ambady et al., 2002;
Tiedens, 2001) may lead to more hostile outcomes
for employees than tones indicative of supportive
voice that are warmer, more communal and tenta-
tive (Ridgeway, 1987). Future research should con-
tinue to explore the specific characteristics of chal-
lenging and supportive voice in terms of content
and also in terms of how the style and tone may
change the relationship between the content of
voice and managerial reactions.
Another area of exploration should be the utility
of what employees suggest. In the present set of
studies, the content of what employees contributed
was assumed to be (Studies 1 and 2) or known to be
(Study 3) beneficial to their larger group or organ-
ization. It could be that nonprofessional environ-
ments may not require a large amount of debating
of ideas and engaging in voice. Moreover, it
may not be expected, especially in the restaurant
industry, which is characterized by low education,
pay, and job tenure (Kacmar, Andrews, Van Rooy,
Steilberg, & Cerrone, 2006). In other professional
environments, more challenging forms of voice
may not only be encouraged but required to pro-
duce and improve knowledge-intensive products.
Further, although the outcomes I examined were
subjective managerial evaluations, challenging
voice could result in improvements to objective
outcomes even if those who express it upset man-
agers who must engage in change. Future research
should continue to explore possible differences in
how organizational context influences the subjec-
tive versus objective outcomes of employees speak-
ing up.
In addition to exploring the content of voice,
future research should also explore how people
voice (Morrison, 2011). For instance, managers may
respond differently to employees who speak up
directly to them versus speaking out to colleagues
(Lui, Zhu, & Yang, 2010). Accounting for the differ-
ences in power between a speaker and receiver may
uncover different dynamics. Additionally, manage-
rial responses may differ depending on whether an
issue is bundled with other issues, whether the
issue is presented by one or multiple employees,
the type of evidence used to substantiate the sug-
gestions made, and the formality with which the
suggestions are voiced (Dutton & Ashford, 1993).
The timing of voice (whether the suggestions leave
time for changes to be made) may also affect man-
agerial reactions. These various aspects speak to
the continued need to explore not only managerial
reactions to the content of each type of voice (e.g.,
content, style, tone) but also managerial reactions
to how voice is enacted.
Lastly, the present research has focused on dif-
ferent characteristics of the message of what is
voiced, as suggested by the elaboration likelihood
model of social persuasion. Yet this theory also
states that characteristics related to the source of
voice (an employee) and its recipient (a manager),
may also affect the efficacy of an influence attempt
(Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). I found preliminary evi-
dence that experts who engage in challenging voice
and nonexperts who do so meet with similar reac-
tions. Yet more systematic evidence is needed. Ad-
ditionally, managers characteristics, including
personality traits such as extraversion or openness
(Ashford et al., 1998), values (e.g., power distance,
individualism/collectivism), quality of the rela-
870 August Academy of Management Journal
tionship with the employee who is engaging in
voice (Burris, Rodgers, Mannix, Hendron, & Old-
royd, 2009), and structural position (e.g., power,
status, expertise) may predispose them to react
more or less favorably to more challenging forms of
voice. Further research will enable a deeper under-
standing of the interplay between these various
source and recipient characteristics and how they
collectively affect managerial reactions to voice.
Practical Implications
The conventional wisdom is that encouraging
employee participation should increase innovation
and change effectiveness. Yet rewarding employees
for speaking up does not account for how managers
respond when suggestions are made. As Morrison
and Milliken noted, Managers at all levels may
exhibit the day-to-day practices that impede up-
ward communication (negative responses to em-
ployee input, lack of feedback seeking) (2000:
714). It is quite understandable how climates of
silence develop when managers inclinations are to
react negatively to those who engage in challenging
voice, even experts. Although organizations could
provide training to employees in how to avoid ex-
aggerating the threat of suggestions made (e.g.,
avoid speaking up publicly, which could embarrass
managers), perhaps a more powerful way to disarm
negative managerial reactions is to train managers
to respond to challenging voice as an opportunity
(or at least to respond less negatively). Further,
rewarding not only employees who provide an ini-
tial suggestion, but also managers who act upon
those suggestions, may encourage the creative be-
haviors found to influence innovation (Nem-
eth, 1997).
REFERENCES
Ambady, N., LaPlante, D., Nguyen, T., Rosenthal, R.,
Chaumeton, N., & Levinson, W. 2002. Surgeons tone
of voice: A clue to malpractice history. Surgery, 132:
59.
Argote, L., & Ingram, P. 2000. Knowledge transfer: A
basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
82: 150169.
Argyris, C., & Schn, D. A. 1978. Organizational learn-
ing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ashcraft, K. L., Kuhn, T. R., & Cooren, F. 2009. Consti-
tutional amendments: Materializing organizational
communication. In J. P. Walsh & A. P. Brief (Eds.),
Academy of Management annals, vol. 3: 164. Es-
sex, U.K.: Routledge.
Ashford, S. J, & Dutton, J. 1993. Selling issues to top
management. Academy of Management Review,
18: 397498.
Ashford, S. J., Rothbard, N. P., Piderit, S. K., & Dutton,
J. E. 1998. Out on a limb: The role of context and
impression management in selling gender-equity is-
sues. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 2357.
Ashford, S. J., Sutcliffe, K., & Christianson, M. 2009.
Speaking up and speaking out: The leadership dy-
namics of voice in organizations. In J. Greenberg &
M. S. Edwards (Eds.), Voice and silence in organi-
zations: 175202. Bingley, U.K.: Emerald Group.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator-medi-
ator variable distinction in social psychological re-
search: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical consid-
erations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51: 11731182.
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. 1993. The proactive com-
ponent of organizational behavior: A measure and
correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14:
103118.
Bendersky, C., & Hays, N. 2012. Status conflict in groups.
Organization Science, 23: 323340.
Berkowitz, L., & Donnerstein, E. 1982. External validity is
more than skin deep: Some answers to criticisms of
laboratory experiments. American Psychologist, 37:
245257.
Bolino, M. C. 1999. Citizenship and impression manage-
ment: Good soldiers or good actors? Academy of
Management Journal, 24: 8298.
Brinol, P., & Petty, R. E. 2009. Source factors in persua-
sion: A self-validation approach. European Review
of Social Psychology, 20: 4996.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. 1993. Alternative ways of
assessing model fit. In K. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.),
Testing structural equation models: 136162. New-
bury Park, CA: Sage.
Bunderson, J. S. 2003. Recognizing and utilizing exper-
tise in work groups: A status characteristics perspec-
tive. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 557
591.
Burris, E. R., Detert, J. R., & Chiaburu, D. S. 2008. Quitting
before leaving: The mediating effects of psychologi-
cal attachment and detachment on voice. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93: 912922.
Burris, E. R., Rodgers, M. S., Mannix, E. A., Hendron,
M. G., & Oldroyd, J. B. 2009. Playing favorites: The
influence of leaders inner circle on group processes
and performance. Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy Bulletin, 35: 12441257.
Chatman, J. A., & Flynn, F. J. 2005. Full-cycle micro-or-
ganizational behavior research. Organization Sci-
ence, 16: 434447.
2012 871 Burris
De Dreu, C. K., Nijstad, B. A., & van Knippenberg, D.
2008. Motivated information processing in group
judgment and decision making. Personality and So-
cial Psychology Review, 12: 2249.
De Dreu, C. K., & Weingart, L. R. 2003. Task versus
relationship conflict, team performance, and team
member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88: 741749.
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. 2007. Leadership behavior
and employee voice: Is the door really open? Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 50: 869884.
Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. 2011. Implicit voice
theories: Taken-for-granted rules of self-censorship
at work. Academy of Management Journal, 54:
461488.
Detert, J. R., & Trevino, L. K. 2010. Speaking up to higher-
ups: How supervisors and skip-level leaders influ-
ence employee voice. Organization Science, 21:
249270.
Dooley, R. S., & Fryxell, G. E. 1999. Attaining decision
quality and commitment from dissent: The moderat-
ing effects of loyalty and competence in strategic
decision making-teams. Academy of Management
Journal, 42: 389402.
Dutton, J. E., & Ashford, S. J. 1993. Selling issues to top
management. Academy of Management Review,
18: 397428.
Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., ONeill, R. M., Hayes, E., &
Wierba, E. E. 1997. Reading the wind: How middle
managers assess the context for selling issues to top
managers. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 407
423.
Edwards, M. S., & Greenberg, J. 2009. Sounding off on
voice and silence. In J. Greenberg & M. S. Edwards
(Eds.), Voice and silence in organizations: 275292.
Bingley, U.K.: Emerald.
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. R., MacCallum, R. C., &
Straha, E. J. 1999. Evaluation of the use of explor-
atory factor analysis in psychological research. Psy-
chological Methods, 4: 272299.
Fenton-OCreevy, M. 1998. Employee involvement and
the middle manager: Evidence from a survey of or-
ganizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
19: 6784.
Fragale, A. R. 2006. The power of powerless speech: The
effects of speech style and task interdependence
on status conferral. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 101: 243261.
Frese, M., & Fay, D. 2001. Personal initiative: An active
performance concept for work in the 21st century. In
B. M. Staw & R. Sutton (Eds.), Research in organi-
zational behavior, vol. 23: 133187. Greenwich, CT:
JAI.
Graham, J. W. 1986. Principled organizational dissent: A
theoretical essay. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings
(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 8:
152. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. 2008. The dynamics of
proactivity at work. In B. M. Staw & A. Brief (Eds.),
Research in organizational behavior, vol. 28: 334.
Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Grant, A. M., Gino, F., & Hofmann, D. A. 2011. Reversing
the extraverted leadership advantage: The role of
employee proactivity. Academy of Management
Journal, 54: 528550.
Grant, A. M., Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. 2009. Getting
credit for proactive behavior: Supervisor reactions
depend on what you value and how you feel. Per-
sonnel Psychology, 62: 3155.
Hambrick, D. C., Geletkanycz, M. A., & Fredrickson, J. W.
1993. Top executive commitment to the status quo:
Some tests of its determinants. Strategic Manage-
ment Journal, 14: 401418.
Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. 2006. How
important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic compari-
sons for integrative behavioral outcomes and time
sequences. Academy of Management Journal, 49:
305326.
Heilman, M. E. 2001. Description and prescription: How
gender stereotypes prevent womens ascent up the
organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57:
657674.
Hirschman, A. O. 1970. Exit, voice, and loyalty: Re-
sponses to decline in firms, organizations, and
states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hovland, C. I., Harvey, O. J., & Sherif, M. 1957. Assimi-
lation and contrast effects in reactions to communi-
cation and attitude change. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 55: 244252.
Jablin, F. M., & Putnam, L. L. 2000. The new handbook
of organizational communication: Advances in
theory, research and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Janis, I. L. 1982. Victims of groupthink (2nd ed.). Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Judd, C. M., Kenny, D. A., & McClelland, G. H. 2001.
Estimating and testing mediation and moderation in
within-subject designs. Psychological Methods, 6:
115134.
Kacmar, K., Andrews, M., Van Rooy, D., Steilberg, R., &
Cerrone, S. 2006. Sure everyone can be replaced ...
but at what cost? Turnover as a predictor of unit-
level performance. Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 49: 133144.
Kluger, A. N., & Denisi, A. 1996. The effects of feedback
interventions on performance: A historical review, a
meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback interven-
tion theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119: 254284.
872 August Academy of Management Journal
Kumar, K., & Beyerlein, M. 1991. Construction and vali-
dation of an instrument for measuring ingratiatory
behaviors in organizational settings. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 76: 619627.
Lam, S., Chen, X., & Schaubroeck, J. 2002. Participative
decision making and employee performance in dif-
ferent cultures: The moderating effects of allocen-
trism-idiocentrism and efficacy. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 45: 905914.
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. 1998. Predicting voice
behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 83: 853868.
Levine, J. M. 1989. Reaction to opinion deviance in small
groups. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group
influence: 187232. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Liang, J., Farh, C., & Farh, J. 2012. Psychological anteced-
ents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave
examination. Academy of Management Journal,
55: 7192.
Lui, W., Zhu, R., & Yang, Y. 2010. I warn you because I
like you: Voice behavior, employee identifications,
and transformational leadership. Leadership Quar-
terly, 21: 189202.
Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. 1999. The effect of the per-
formance appraisal system on trust for management:
A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 84: 123136.
Menon, T., Thompson, L., & Choi, H. S. 2006. Tainted
knowledge vs. tempting knowledge: People avoid
knowledge from internal rivals and seek knowledge
from external rivals. Management Science, 52:
11291144.
Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. 2003. An
exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that
employees dont communicate upward and why.
Journal of Management Studies, 40: 14531476.
Morrison, E. W. 2011. Employee voice behavior: Integra-
tion and directions for future research. In J. P. Walsh
& A. P. Brief (Eds.), Academy of Management an-
nals, vol. 5: 373412. Essex, U.K.: Routledge.
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. 2000. Organizational
silence: A barrier to change and development in a
pluralistic world. Academy of Management Re-
view, 25: 706725.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. 1979. The
measurements of organizational commitment. Jour-
nal of Vocational Behavior, 14: 224247.
Nemeth, C. J. 1997. Managing innovation: When less is
more. California Management Review, 40(1): 59
74.
Norton, R. W. 1978. Foundation of the communication
style construct. Human Communication Research,
4: 99112.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. 2006.
Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature,
antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Parker, S. K., Bindl, U., & Strauss, K. 2010. Making things
happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of
Management, 3: 827856.
Pekel, K. 1998. The need for improvement: Integrity, ethics
and the CIA. Studies in Intelligence, 41(5): 8594.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. 1986. The elaboration
likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology,
vol. 19: 123205. New York: Academic Press.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. 2008. Asymptotic and
resampling strategies for assessing and comparing
indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav-
ior Research Methods, 40: 879891.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. 2002. Hierarchical
linear models: Applications and data analysis
methods (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Ridgeway, C. L. 1987. Nonverbal behavior, dominance,
and the basis of status in task groups. American
Sociological Review, 52: 683694.
Schriesheim, C. A., Cogliser, C. C., Scandura, T. A.,
Lankau, M. J., & Powers, K. J. 1999. An empirical
comparison of approaches for quantitatively assess-
ing the content adequacy of paper-and-pencil mea-
surement instruments. Organizational Research
Methods, 2: 140156.
Schweitzer, M. 1994. Disentangling status quo and omis-
sion effects: An experimental analysis. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
58: 457476.
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. 2001. What do
proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking
proactive personality and career success. Personnel
Psychology, 54: 845874.
Shore, L., Barksdale, K., & Shore, T. 1995. Managerial
perceptions of employee commitment to the organi-
zation. Academy of Management Journal, 38:
15931615.
Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. 1981.
Threat-rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A
multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 26: 501524.
Stewart, D. D., & Stasser, G. 1995. Expert role assignment
and information sampling during collective recall
and decision making. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 69: 619628.
Tiedens, L. Z. 2001. Anger and advancement versus
sadness and subjugation: The effects of negative
emotion expressions on social status conferral.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80:
8694.
2012 873 Burris
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. 2003. Conceptual-
izing employee silence and employee voice as mul-
tidimensional constructs. Journal of Management
Studies, 40: 13591392.
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean Parks, J. 1995.
Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and def-
initional clarity. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw
(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol.
17: 215285. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. 1998. Helping and voice
extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and pre-
dictive validity. Academy of Management Journal,
41: 108119.
Westphal, J. D., & Stern, I. 2007. Flattery will get you
everywhere (especially if you are a male Caucasian):
How ingratiation, boardroom behavior, and demo-
graphic minority status affect additional board ap-
pointments at U.S. companies. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 50: 267288.
Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Pierce, J. R. 2008.
Effects of task performance, helping, voice, and or-
ganizational loyalty on performance appraisal rat-
ings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 125139.
Withey, M. J., & Cooper, W. H. 1989. Predicting exit,
voice, loyalty, and neglect. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 34: 521539.
Zhou, J., & George, J. M. 2001. When job dissatisfaction
leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of
voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 682
696.
APPENDIX A
Construct Validation of Supportive Voice Scale
As previously noted by voice and extra-role behavior
scholars (e.g., Organ et al., 2006), the scale most often
used to measure voice contains items that do not ex-
plicitly include challenging the status quo or even
speaking up in any fashion. Although I have argued
and used these items to represent supportive voice,
some of the items do not describe actions that involve
explicit upward communication (e.g., keeping well-
informed about issues). I therefore collected data in
two separate studies to provide additional construct
validation evidence for the measure of supportive
voice I used in Study 1 and to provide a more face valid
measure of supportive voice for future research. After
developing an initial pool of ten items based on the
definition of supportive voice, I conducted a compre-
hensive expert rating investigation (Schriesheim, Cog-
liser, Scandura, Lankau, & Powers, 1999) to ensure the
content adequacy and to distinguish it from challeng-
ing voice. I asked 15 faculty and doctoral students in
organizational behavior to provide the content ratings.
I used the challenging voice items from Van Dyne and
LePine (1998), as I did in Study 1, and also included
items from Detert and Burris (2007) along with two
filler items. I provided the raters with definitions of
challenging and supportive voice and asked them to
rate on a 7-point scale (1 highly unlikely and 7
highly likely) how well the items represented each
construct (they were not told which items were part of
which scale). I selected four items that were rated as
the most likely to represent supportive voice while
also providing breadth of the construct domain (i.e.,
not selecting redundant items that would oversample a
specific portion of the construct domain). Wording for
these items and content adequacy scores can be found
in Table A1.
I included the four-item measure of supportive voice
along with the three-item supportive voice measure
from Van Dyne and LePine (1998) that I used in Study
1 and the four item measure of challenging voice taken
from Detert and Burris (2007) on a survey administered
to a sample of 60 students from a large public univer-
sity, asking them to consider their most recent work
supervisor and work experience. To test the discrimi-
nant validity of supportive voice, I also included a
four-item measure of ingratiation adapted from Kumar
and Beyerlein (1991) and Westphal and Stern (2007), a
four-item measure of participative decision-making
adapted from Lam, Chen, and Schaubroeck (2002), and
a four-item measure of helping adapted from Van Dyne
and LePine (1998). I first conducted an exploratory
factor analysis (principal axis factoring) with an
oblique rotation (direct oblimin) on the two supportive
voice measures and the challenging voice measure.
Evaluation of the eigenvalues and scree plot suggested
that two primary factors accounting for 82.3% of the
variance. All items from the two supportive voice mea-
sures loaded on a single factor and the challenging
voice items loaded on the second factor. I then con-
ducted a confirmatory factor analysis on all measures.
The results indicated that a five factor solution, where
the two supportive voice measures loaded onto one
factor, fit the data well (CFI .92, RMSEA .08). By
comparison, fitting a six-factor model that included
separating the two measures of supportive voice into
two different constructs did not produce a superior fit
(CFI .92, RMSEA .09,
2
10.92, df 5,
p .10). These results suggest that the three-item
measure of supportive voice taken from Van Dyne and
LePine (1998) converges with a more face valid mea-
sure of supportive voice. The factor loadings for all
seven items can also be found in Table A1.
In terms of discriminant validity, ingratiation (r .21,
n.s.), participative decision making (r .13, n.s.), and
helping (r .21, n.s.) were uncorrelated with the com-
bined seven-item measure of supportive voice. Support-
ive voice was positively correlated with challenging
voice (r .29, p .05). Taken together, these results
provide a more face valid four-item measure of support-
ive voice, demonstrate discriminant validity from related
constructs, and show that the measure used in Study 1,
taken from the voice measure used by Van Dyne and
LePine (1998), converges with this more face valid
measure.
874 August Academy of Management Journal
TABLE A1
Content Adequacy Scores and CFA Item Loadings for Supportive Voice
Item
Content Adequacy
CFA Loadings
b
Supportive Voice
Mean (s.d.)
a
Challenging Voice
Mean (s.d.)
I stand up for the organization when others criticize it. 6.43 (0.73) 2.00 (1.41) .86
I speak up to support the way things currently are in
the organization.
6.86 (0.13) 1.21 (0.18) .88
I speak up in favor of existing policies or procedures in
the organization.
6.79 (0.34) 1.29 (0.37) .89
I voice approval of current policies and procedures. 6.86 (0.13) 1.43 (0.42) .93
I speak up and encourage others to get involved in
issues that affect this organization.
c
.83
I keep well-informed about issues where my opinion
would be useful.
c
.87
I get involved in issues that affect the quality
of work-life.
c
.85
a
Items rated 1, highly unlikely, to 7, highly likely, in terms of how well they represented supportive voice and challenging voice.
b
Standardized, p .001.
c
From Van Dyne and LePine (1998).
Ethan R. Burris (ethan.burris@mccombs.utexas.edu) is
an associate professor of management at the McCombs
School of Business at the University of Texas at Austin.
He received his Ph.D. from Cornell University. His cur-
rent research focuses on understanding the antecedents
and consequences of employees speaking up or staying
silent in organizations; leadership behaviors, processes,
and outcomes; and the effective management of conflict
generated by multiple perspectives.
2012 875 Burris