Employee Voice Behavior, MORRISON

This article was downloaded by: [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UC] On: 13 January 2012, At: 09:28
Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The Academy of Management Annals

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rama20
Employee Voice Behavior: Integration and Directions for Future Research

Elizabeth W. Morrison
a a
New York University, Stern School of Business
Available online: 26 Jul 2011
To cite this article: Elizabeth W. Morrison (2011): Employee Voice Behavior: Integration and Directions for Future Research, The Academy of Management Annals, 5:1, 373-412 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2011.574506
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UC] at 09:28 13 January 2012
The Academy of Management Annals Vol. 5, No. 1, June 2011, 373 412
Employee Voice Behavior:

Integration and Directions for Future Research
ELIZABETH W. MORRISON
New York University, Stern School of Business
Abstract Within organizations, employees continually confront situations that put them face to face with the decision of whether to speak up (i.e., voice) or remain silent when they have potentially useful information or ideas. In recent years, there has been a rapidly growing body of conceptual and empirical research focused on better understanding the motives underlying voice, individual, and situational factors that increase employee voice behavior, and the implications of voice and silence for employees, work groups, and organizations. Yet this literature has notable gaps and unresolved issues, and it is not entirely clear where future scholarship should be directed. This article, therefore, is an attempt to review and integrate the existing literature on employee voice and also to provide some direction for future research.
Email: emorriso@stern.nyu.edu
ISSN 1941-6520 print/ISSN 1941-6067 online # 2011 Academy of Management DOI: 10.1080/19416520.2011.574506 http://www.informaworld.com
373
374
Introduction The extent to which employees communicate upward with suggestions, ideas, information about problems, or issues of concern can have tremendous implications for an organizations performance and even its survival. To respond appropriately to dynamic business conditions, make good decisions, and correct problems before they escalate, top managers need information from employees at lower levels in the organizationinformation that may not otherwise come to their awareness. Likewise, groups need honest input from their members if they are to perform effectively and make good decisions. Yet research has shown that employees are often reluctant to speak up, both to those in positions of authority and to their teammates, when they have potentially important information to share (Milliken, Morrison, & Hewlin, 2003; Perlow & Williams, 2003; Pinder & Harlos, 2001). When this occurs, key decision makers or teams may not have the information that they need to make appropriate decisions or to correct potentially serious problems. Indeed, many well-known organizational tragediesfor example, the Columbia space disaster, the crash of United Airlines ight 173, the demise of Enron, and the British Petroleum oil-rig explosionwere caused or exacerbated by the failure of employees to convey information about irregularities to those in positions of authority. These are extreme examples. Yet day to day within organizations, employees confront issues that put them face to face with the decision of whether to convey or withhold potentially useful information. Do I speak up or not about the fact that the sales campaign seems to be failing, that my co-worker is slacking off, that my boss is making sexist comments? Do I share or keep to myself ideas for process improvement or opinions about work-related issues that differ from those being expressed by others? Employees continually face choices of whether to voice or remain silent about important workplace issues. Moreover, the ways in which they resolve these choices can have signicant implications for organizational and team performance. Particularly within the last dozen years or so, there has been a rapidly growing body of research focused on better understanding the choice, on the part of employees, of whether to speak up (i.e., voice) when they have potentially important information to share. Yet this literature, as is true of many growing areas, is somewhat fragmented. There have been varying conceptualizations of voice, which has created ambiguity about the meaning and scope of the construct. In addition, while there has been a growing number of studies on factors that foster or inhibit voice, there is not yet an overarching theoretical framework for understanding how these factors relate to one another. There are also conicting perspectives on the outcomes associated with voice. Most importantly, there is not a sufciently clear sense of where future scholarship should be directed.
Employee Voice Behavior
375
My goal, therefore, is to review and integrate the existing theory and research and also to provide some direction for future scholarship by highlighting important questions that still need to be answered. I begin by reviewing the different conceptualizations of employee voice. My intent is to dene clearly the voice construct and clarify how it relates to, yet is conceptually distinct from, other constructs that share commonalities with voice. I then provide a comprehensive review of the existing theoretical and empirical research on motives, antecedents, and outcomes related to employee voice. Following this, I focus on what I see as the important unanswered questions in the literature with the hope that this will generate and provide direction to future theory building and research. The Domain of Employee Voice Table 1 lists several recent denitions of voice within the organizational literature. While the specic wording may differ, these denitions share several important features. One important commonality is the idea of voice being an act of verbal expression, where a message is conveyed from a sender to a recipient. Second, voice is dened as discretionary behavior. Individuals choose whether or not to engage in this behavior at any particular moment in time, a choice that is affected by a variety of factors. A third commonality is the notion of voice being constructive in its intent. The objective is to bring about improvement and positive change, not simply to vent or complain.1 As such, voice can be classied within Van Dyne, Cummings, and Parks (1995) framework as a form of challenging/promotive extra-role behavior. Challenging means that it is focused on changing the status quo, while promotive means that it is constructive in intent. Voice can also be viewed as a form of proactive behavior. Proactive behaviors are activities that are selfinitiated, future-oriented, and aimed at improving the situation or oneself (Crant, 2000; Grant & Ashford, 2008; Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006). Although voice scholars have not explicitly drawn from theorizing on proactive behavior, there may be value in doing so. Building from the various denitions in the literature, I offer the following integrated conceptualization of voice: discretionary communication of ideas, suggestions, concerns, or opinions about work-related issues with the intent to improve organizational or unit functioning (Burris, Detert, & Chiaburu, 2008; Detert & Burris, 2007; Detert & Trevino, 2010; LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008b; Van Dyne, Ang, & Botero, 2003; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). This denition encompasses both voice that is directed to ones boss or another senior manager, as well as voice directed to members of ones team. Typically, voice scholars have either not specied the voice target or have focused on just one or the other, either upward voice or voice to ones teammates. Yet as I will discuss, the decision of whether to
376
Table 1 Denitions of Voice Article Van Dyne and LePine (1998) Denition Promotive behavior that emphasizes expression of constructive challenge intended to improve rather than merely criticize. Making innovative suggestions for change and recommending modications to standard procedures even when other disagree. (p. 109) Non-required behavior that emphasizes expression of constructive challenge with the intent to improve rather than merely criticize. (p. 854) Intentionally expressing rather than withholding relevant ideas, information, and opinions about possible workrelated improvements. (p. 1360) Openly stating ones views or opinions about workplace matters, including the actions or ideas of others, suggested or needed changes, and alternative approaches or different lines of reasoning for addressing job-related issues. (p. 1538) The discretionary provision of information intended to improve organizational functioning to someone inside the organization with the perceived authority to act, even though such information may challenge and upset the status quo of the organization and its powerholders. (p. 869) Verbal behavior that is improvement oriented and directed to a specic target who holds power inside the organization in question. (p. 870) Employees expression of challenging but constructive opinions, concerns, or ideas about work-related issues. (p. 1189)
LePine and Van Dyne (1998) Van Dyne, Ang, and Botero (2003) Premeaux and Bedeian (2003)
Detert and Burris (2007)
Tangirala and Ramanujam (2008b)
voice or not, as well as the antecedents and outcomes of this decision, is likely to differ in meaningful ways depending on whether the behavior is directed at a supervisor or ones peers, so there is a need to consider more fully the voice target. Voice is also fairly broad in terms of content. The message being conveyed through voice can be about a way to improve (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998), an organizational or work-related problem (Milliken et al., 2003), a situation of unfairness or misconduct (Pinder & Harlos, 2001), a strategic issue of importance (Dutton & Ashford, 1993), or an opinion that differs from the views of others (Premeaux & Bedeian, 2003). It is not, however, just any form of speaking. Rather, it refers to communication of work or organizationally relevant input that implies either an opportunity to do something differently
377
or a need to terminate or change a current practice. Implicit in the denition of voice is the idea that this behavior often entails risk, since offering even a seemingly constructive suggestion implies a challenge to the status quo (Liu, Zhu, & Yang, 2010). Related Constructs
Concepts similar to voice have appeared in the organizational literature for several decades (see Table 2). In the 1970s and 1980s, there were a number of studies focused on upward communication, which was conceptualized as any ow of information from a subordinate to a supervisor (e.g., Athanassiades, 1973; Glauser, 1984; Roberts & OReilly, 1974). In their detailed typology of different forms of prosocial organizational behavior, Brief and Motowidlo (1986) discussed both suggesting procedural, administrative, or organizational improvements and objecting to improper directives, procedures, or policies. Both of these fall clearly within the voice domain. In addition, there has been considerable theory-building and empirical research on whistle-blowing (for a recent review, see Miceli, Near, & Dworkin, 2008). There is also a signicant body of work on issue selling within organization. Issue selling refers to attempts to call attention to key trends, developments, and events that have implications for organizational performance (Ashford, Rothbard, Piderit, & Dutton, 1998; Dutton & Ashford, 1993; Dutton, Ashford, Lawrence, & Miner-Rubino, 2002). In this article, I draw from each of these literature streams. While there are some important differences between voice and each of these other constructs (e.g., upward communication is broader in content; whistle-blowing includes communication to parties outside of the organization and is focused more narrowly on the exposure of illegal or unethical practices; issue selling is focused on a particular type of upward communication), there are also important commonalities. As such, these other literatures can help to inform our understanding of voice behavior. Another body of literature that I draw from is the research on employee silence. Silence has been dened as the conscious withholding of information, suggestions, ideas, questions, or concerns about potentially important work- or organization-related issues from persons who might be able to take action to address those issues (Brinseld, Edwards, & Greenberg, 2009; Kish-Gephart, Detert, Trevino, & Edmondson, 2009; Milliken et al., 2003; Pinder & Harlos, 2001; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008a). An employee displays silence when he or she possesses input that could be valuable to share but does not do so, typically because of fear, concerns about negative repercussions, or feelings of futility (Milliken et al., 2003; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008a).2 One of the initial papers on silence within organizations (Morrison & Milliken, 2000) focused on collective-level withholding of
378
Table 2 Denitions of Related Constructs Denition Relationship to Voice A subset of voice, focused Attempts to call the specically on information organizations attention about organization-level to key trends, strategic issues or developments, and opportunities. events that have implications for organizational performance. Broader in that it includes Whistle-blowing (Miceli & The disclosure by not just communication organizational members Near, 1992; Miceli et al., within the organization, but (former or current) of 2008) also externally. Narrower in illegal, immoral, or that it focuses on just illegitimate practices under the control of their information about inappropriate activities. employers, to persons or organizations that may be able to effect action. Broader, as it includes any The transference of Upward communication communication between information from lower (Athanassiades, 1973; subordinate and supervisor to higher members in an Glauser, 1984; Roberts & (e.g., task related organizational hierarchy. OReilly, 1974) communications, requested information). More narrow in that it focus Any attempt at all to Voice as a response to on just dissatisfying change, rather than dissatisfaction (Rusbult conditions but broader in escape from, an et al., 1988; Withey & that it includes any and all objectionable state of Cooper, 1989) efforts to address the issue affairs. Actively and of concern (not just constructively trying to speaking up). improve dissatisfying conditions. Two of the 13 identied Behavior which is Prosocial organizational types of prosocial performed by an behavior (Brief & organizational behavior organizational member, Motowidlo, 1986) reect voice: suggesting directed toward an procedural, administrative, individual, group, or or organizational organization with whom improvements, and he or she interacts while objecting to improper carrying out his/her directives, procedures, or organizational role, and policies. performed with the intention of promoting Construct Issue Selling (Ashford et al., 1998; Dutton & Ashford, 1993; Dutton et al., 2001)

Table 2 Denitions of Related Constructs (Continued)
379
Denition Relationship to Voice the welfare of the party to which it is directed. A variety of ways in which A broad and multiVoice as conceptualized dimensional construct within the HRM and ILR employees, individually focused on formal literatures (Dundon et al., and collectively, express mechanisms that allow for dissatisfaction, try to 2004; Spencer, 1986; voice rather than the change a problematic Wood & Wall, 2007) behavior of voice itself. situation, or become involved in organizational decision making (e.g., grievance ling, collective bargaining, suggestion systems, work councils). The opportunity to voice, as The degree to which a Voice as a component of reected in decision procedural justice (Bies & decision procedure gives processes. Does not imply those affected by a Shapiro, 1988; Tyler that employees have availed decision an opportunity et al., 1985) themselves of this to express their views opportunity by engaging in about how the decision voice behavior. should be made. Conscious withholding of The choice to not engage in Silence (Morrison & information, suggestions, voice, despite having Milliken, 2000; Pinder & potentially important or ideas, questions, or Harlos, 2001) valuable information to concerns about share. potentially important work or organizationrelated issues, from persons who might be able to take action to address those issues.
Construct
information. However, subsequent work on this construct has tended to focus on the individual-level choice to remain silent rather than voice (Milliken et al., 2003; Pinder & Harlos, 2001; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008a). While there has been less research on silence than on voice, this research sheds light on the factors that predict an employees decision of whether or not to speak up, particularly when the message pertains to potentially sensitive topics. In drawing from research on employee silence, it is important to note that there has been some debate among scholars about whether silence and voice should be viewed as opposite ends of a continuum or as distinct constructs.
380
Many works that have discussed silence suggest the former (e.g., Frazier & Bowler, 2009; Harvey, Martinko, & Douglas, 2009; Milliken & Lam, 2009; Milliken et al., 2003; Morrison, Wheeler-Smith, & Kamdar, 2011; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008a). That is, they suggest that when an individual has potentially important information, such as a suggestion or concern, he or she can either choose to express it (voice) or choose to withhold it (silence). From this perspective, a high level of one implies a low level of the other, and factors that predict one also predict the other, albeit in the opposite direction. Other scholars, however, propose that voice and silence should be treated as separate constructs (Brinseld et al., 2009; Detert & Edmondson, forthcoming; Kish-Gephart et al., 2009; Van Dyne et al., 2003). One argument that has been made is that, unlike voice, which is a deliberate choice, silence can be an automatic withdrawal response, a habituated behavior, or a deep state of resignation (Kish-Gephart et al., 2009; Pinder & Harlos, 2001). Yet as noted above, most denitions of silence conceptualize it as withholding and not merely the failure to speak (e.g., Harvey et al., 2009; Morrison & Milliken, 2000; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008a), which implies both choice and awareness. Another argument that has been made is that an employee may engage in a high level of voice in general but at the same time withhold certain types of information (Detert & Edmondson, forthcoming). In other words, voice and silence can co-exist. I would argue, however, that while it is true that employees can voice about some issues and remain silent about others, this does not imply orthogonal constructs. Rather, it implies the need to recognize that voice and silence are rarely absolute (i.e., complete voice or complete silence) and that individuals may show considerable variance across issues and over time. Thus I believe that it is most appropriate to view voice and silence as opposites, and that we should work to integrate the two literatures. In a similar vein, Ashford, Sutcliffe, and Christianson (2009) made a strong argument for not having separate literatures on voice and silence, and for treating these constructs as different sides of the same coin (p. 178). I therefore use the term silence to reect failure to voice (i.e., withholding input that could be shared rather than expressing such input) and conceptualize voice and silence as existing along a single continuum. History of the Term Voice Although there has been a recent resurgence of research on voice behavior, the term voice is not new to the organizational literature. However, not all of the usages of the term correspond to current conceptualizations, which can create some confusion. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, there were several studies that attempted to build from Hirschmans (1970) model of how customers respond to
381
deteriorating rm performance in order to understand better how employees respond to work-related issues. That line of research conceptualized voice as one of four different ways in which employees can respond to personal dissatisfaction at work, the others being exit, loyalty, and neglect (Farrell & Rusbult, 1992; Rusbult, Farrell, Rogers, & Mainous, 1988; Withey & Cooper, 1989). Within this framework, voice was dened as any efforts to try to improve current conditions, and included a wide range of behaviors: raising issues to ones supervisor, making attempts to change working conditions, working harder, asking co-workers for advice about what to do, or contacting an outside agency to get help in changing working conditions. Given how broadly the construct was dened and operationalized, researchers were not very successful in identifying predictors of voice, and as noted above, recent work has dened voice more specically. In addition, scholars have moved away from viewing the primary motive for voice as the removal of personal dissatisfaction to viewing it as a form of prosocial behavior (i.e., less self-focused and more other-focused). There is also a rich literature using the term voice within the industrial labor relations (ILR) and human resource management (HRM) literatures. Scholars within these domains have used the term voice to refer not to employee behavior, but to a wide range of formal mechanisms for individual and collective employee input, such as grievance procedures, suggestion systems, ombudsman services, employee-management meetings, non-management task forces, quality circles, work councils, and participative management (Boroff & Lewin, 1997; Dundon, Wilkinson, Marchington, & Ackers, 2004; Gordon, 1988; Hammer, Landau, & Stern, 1981; Spencer, 1986; Wood & Wall, 2007). The term voice has played a central role as well within the organizational justice literature, where it similarly reects the opportunity for input via decision procedures that allow employees to express their views. Justice scholars have shown that decision processes that grant voice increase perceptions of fairness and satisfaction with leaders (Bies & Shapiro, 1988; Tyler, Rasinski, & Spodick, 1985). However, they have not considered discretionary voice behavior, nor the causes or consequences of this behavior. In sum, as these various literature streams dene voice in a way that does not closely match current conceptualizations, I exclude them from this review. Motives For (and Against) Voicing A central issue related to voice is the question of why employees do or do not speak up when they have organizationally relevant information, ideas, or concerns. As noted, a key assumption within the voice literature is that the behavior is intended to be constructive and prosocial (Van Dyne et al., 2003). In other words, it is presumed that the driving motive for voice is the desire to help the organization or work unit perform more effectively or to
382
make a positive difference for the collective (Ashford et al., 2009; Grant & Ashford, 2008). With that said, it should not be assumed that employees who fail to voice lack such a motive. In fact, just the opposite is often the case. When employees choose to remain silent, the motive to bring about improvement exists, but it is overpowered by other motives (Milliken et al., 2003). That is, despite having potentially important information (a suggestion, information about a problem, a divergent opinion, etc.), and even though the employee is motivated to behave prosocially, other motives or considerations cause that employee to withhold the information rather than share it (Morrison & Milliken, 2000; Pinder & Harlos, 2001; Van Dyne et al., 2003). In addition to emphasizing that the primary driving motive behind voice is the desire to benet the organization or work unit, the literature emphasizes that voice reects a deliberate decision process whereby the individual considers both positive and negative consequences (Ashford et al., 1998; Detert & Burris, 2007; Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Two key outcome-related considerations have been emphasized in particular. The rst is the individuals judgment about whether speaking up is likely to be effective. This is often referred to as the perceived efcacy of voice. The second is the individuals judgment about the risks or potential negative outcomes associated with speaking up, which is often referred to as the perceived safety of voice. As illustrated in Figure 1 these two judgments may strengthen or attenuate the relationship between the motive to benet or help the collective and actual voice behavior.
Figure 1
Model of Employee Voice.
383
The idea that employees consider the probability that voice will be effective (i.e., whether the target will listen and take appropriate action), and that this perceived probability will affect the likelihood of voice, is consistent with well-established theories of motivation that highlight the link between effort and expectancy beliefs (Vroom, 1964). It can be found as well in some of the earliest work on voice. Withey and Cooper (1989) argued that expected efcacy affects the decision to engage in voice, and perceived efcacy has also been a central construct in models of whistle-blowing (Miceli & Near, 1992). In addition, Ashford et al. (1998) highlighted that willingness to engage in issue selling depends on beliefs about the probability of successfully getting the attention of top management. Similarly, research on employee silence emphasizes the impact of feelings of futility or resignation (Milliken et al., 2003; Pinder & Harlos, 2001), in other words, the sense that speaking up will not accomplish anything (e.g., why bother? no one will listen, nothing will change). Pinder and Harlos (2001) and Van Dyne et al. (2003) referred to silence rooted in feelings of futility and resignation as acquiescent silence. The other important judgment that has been emphasized in the literature is whether voice is likely to lead to negative personal outcomes, highlighting that self-protective motives play a central role in the decision of whether or not to voice. In the issue-selling literature, for example, the actors assessment of image risk has been argued to gure prominently in the decision of whether to try to sell an issue to top management (Ashford et al., 1998). That is, individuals are less likely to raise a strategic issue if they believe that doing so will damage their image in the eyes of important others. Research on silence has also emphasized self-protective concerns, and in particular, the idea that silence often stems from concerns about negative repercussions (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Employees may worry that raising an issue, or even voicing a suggestion for improvement, will damage their credibility, cause them to be labeled as a troublemaker or complainer, or damage their social capital. Employees also sometimes fear tangible career-related costs, such as a negative performance evaluation, undesirable job assignments, or even termination (Milliken et al., 2003). Concerns about whether it is safe to voice play an especially important role when one is considering whether to speak up about a problem, or a situation of injustice, to a person in a position of authority (Kish-Gephart et al., 2009; Pinder & Harlos, 2001). Indeed, Pinder and Harlos (2001) used the term quiescent silence to refer to situations where employees, due to fear of negative consequences, deliberately withhold information about injustice from those in positions of power, and Van Dyne et al. (2003) discussed a similar behavior which they called defensive silence. Concerns about negative repercussions may also play a role when one is considering whether to voice to ones teammates. Voice can upset interpersonal relationships or reect negatively
384
upon others (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). As a result, an employee may refrain from voicing in order to avoid damaging social capital or harming colleagues, such as when one decides to remain silent about a co-workers poor performance. Fears and concerns can arise not just when one is considering whether to convey information about problems, but also when one is considering whether to offer a suggestion for improvement, as recipients may feel threatened by information that challenges their authority, implies that things are not working optimally, or requires change in behavior or practice (Detert & Burris, 2007; Kish-Gephart et al., 2009; Milliken et al., 2003). It is difcult to determine empirically the underlying motives for voice or silence, as they are not directly observable (Van Dyne et al., 2003). Nonetheless, there is some empirical support for the above ideas. When asked to think of an instance where they had remained silent and to indicate the reasons for this decision, participants in Milliken et al.s (2003) study talked of both the belief that speaking up would not make a difference, and a variety of safetyrelated concerns, such as not wanting to be viewed negatively by others, not wanting to damage a relationship, avoiding upsetting or embarrassing someone else, and fear of retaliation.3 In addition, in their qualitative investigation of voice-related beliefs, Detert and Trevino (2010) found frequent examples of beliefs that voice was unsafe, as well as frequent examples of beliefs that voice was futile (i.e., low perceived efcacy). To summarize, the driving force behind voice is presumed to be the desire to bring about constructive change for the collective. Yet whether or not that prosocial motive actually translates into voice behavior depends on an expectancy like calculus (Ashford et al., 1998; Detert & Burris, 2007; Milliken et al., 2003) of anticipated success and relative costs and benets. Voice will be more likely as the expected probability of success increases; that is, as the likelihood that ones efforts will be effective in bringing about improvement or xing a problem increases. Voice will also be more likely as the expected risk of speaking up, in relation to the expected benets of doing so, decreases. The opposite is true for silence. Although this decision process may sound very cognitive, it is important to note that emotions can also come into play. Concerns about negative repercussions can go beyond a mere calculus of risk and can be experienced, at an emotional level, as fear. Fear can be a very powerful emotion, which can in some cases lead to a short-circuiting of deliberative decision making. As a result, failure to voice may not always be based on a conscious process of weighing costs and benets, but in some situations it may reect more of an automatic fear-based response (Detert & Edmondson, forthcoming; Kish-Gephart et al., 2009; Morrison & Rothman, 2009). Not only might emotions cause the voice decision process to not be fully cognitive, but so might deeply rooted beliefs and schemas that operate below the level of conscious, rational decision making. In an interesting discussion
385
of such effects, Detert and Edmondson (forthcoming) argued that people sometimes remain silent at work because of socially acquired beliefs about what makes voice risky in social hierarchies. The specic beliefs that they uncovered in their research were: (a) one must not bypass the boss; (b) one must not embarrass the boss in public; (c) bosses identify with and feel ownership over the status quo; (d) one needs solid data or complete solutions before it is safe to speak; and (e) speaking up can have negative career consequences. Detert and Edmondson argued that beliefs such as these color how one interprets events within the workplace and can lead to employee silence regardless of the true risk inherent in voicing to ones current boss. Such beliefs also tend to endure even in the face of contradictory evidence (i.e., even if ones boss conveys openness to voice). Finally, it is also important to highlight the conict and ambivalence that individuals often experience when deciding whether to speak up or not. Ambivalence refers to the coexistence of strong conicting feelings toward the same object, person, or action, which thus pull the individual in opposite directions (Piderit, 2000). An employee may regard a particular workplace practice as highly inefcient, and thus be strongly drawn to speaking up about this problem and offering suggestions for how the practice could be changed. Yet at the same time, he could be very concerned about how his boss and co-workers will react to him challenging the status quo, which might pull him in the direction of remaining silent. In the end, the belief that voice will not be well received may win out. This does not mean, however, that the desire to bring about constructive change did not play an important role. In many cases, the individual is faced with a balancing act of trying to be prosocial and constructive on one hand, yet mindful of personal costs on the other hand. How these conicting motives play out is the critical determinant of whether one voices or remains silent. Predictors of Voice The predominant focus of much of the empirical research on voice has been on identifying factors that increase or decrease the amount of voice behavior that an employee engages in, presumably by affecting employees beliefs about whether speaking up will be effective and safe, and/or their motivation to contribute to the organization in constructive ways. This research has identied a wide variety of factors, both contextual and individual, that affect voice behavior or lack thereof. In this section, I review the ndings, starting rst with contextual factors, and then discussing the impact of individuallevel factors. As illustrated in Figure 1, both sets of antecedents operate by affecting the two outcome-related considerations that precede the decision of whether to voice. In reviewing this literature, my goal is not just to summarize the empirical research, but also to help provide some theoretical integration.
386
Contextual Factors As research on issue selling has highlighted, employees look for cues regarding whether or not their work context is a favorable one for speaking up, and they use these cues to guide their behavior (Dutton, Ashford, ONeill, Hayes, & Wierba, 1997; Dutton et al., 2002). Therefore, the organizational context within which the individual resides is likely to have an important impact on the frequency with which he or she voices, and as a result, voice may be much more (or less) common in some settings than in others (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). One contextual factor that has been emphasized in a variety of literature streams is the formal organizational structure. Glauser (1984) highlighted that upward communication is facilitated by not just physical proximity between the actor and the target, but also by structures that are low in bureaucracy and by the presence of formal mechanisms designed to foster upward communication (e.g., grievance procedures, suggestion systems). These arguments are consistent with the notion that individuals are more likely to voice when they believe that it is easier to do so and when they believe that voice is likely to be acted upon, as both of these are more likely in contexts that are non-bureaucratic and where there are structural mechanisms for providing input. More recent works within the voice literature have not given much consideration to the role of formal communication mechanisms, probably due to the conceptualization of voice as a discretionary extra-role behavior occurring in a face-to-face context. However, Morrison and Milliken (2000) theorized that lack of formal upward feedback channels is a key factor contributing to employee silence. There is also evidence from the whistle-blowing literature that having specic channels for internal reporting increases the incidence of such behavior (Miceli et al., 2008). Related to the issue of formal structure, a salient theme in the upward communication literature is that voice is stied by hierarchy. Research has shown, for example, that individuals are particularly reluctant to convey negative information to individuals in higher status positions (Athanassiades, 1973; Roberts & OReilly, 1974). In fact, merely introducing a hierarchical structure into a group has been shown to impede open communication, particularly communication directed toward those in higher positions (Festinger, 1950). Theoretical discussions of employee silence have also emphasized the role of hierarchical or status differences in causing employees to believe that their input will not be taken seriously, that voice will be perceived as inappropriate, or that they will be sanctioned for speaking up (Detert & Edmondson, forthcoming; Morrison & Milliken, 2000; Morrison & Rothman, 2009; Pinder & Harlos, 2001). Organizational culture may also encourage or discourage voice. In two different interview-based studies, Dutton et al. (1997, 2002) found that
387
employees regarded their work contexts to be favorable for issue selling when the organizational culture supported issue selling and when top management seemed willing to listen, and unfavorable for issue selling when the organizational culture was conservative, exclusive, or unsupportive. Other studies have similarly pointed to the importance of how employees view the culture of their organization. Stamper and Van Dyne (2001) found that, whereas part-time employees displayed relatively little voice regardless of organizational culture, full-time employees, who were more vested in the future success of their organization, exhibited higher levels of voice when the culture was less bureaucratic. Studies have pointed to other aspects of organizational context as well. In a survey study of issue selling, Ashford et al. (1998) hypothesized and found that perceived organizational support, which reects perceptions of the extent to which the organization values employees and cares about their well-being (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, & Sowa, 1986), related positively to the perceived probability of issue-selling success and negatively to the perceived risk of engaging in issue selling. Norms favoring issue selling also associated with lower perceived risk. Insight into the importance of context also comes from the silence literature. Morrison and Millikens (2000) main thesis was that sometimes silence is pervasive within an organization, and reects widely shared beliefs that speaking up about certain issues is futile and/or dangerous (what they called a climate of silence). They argued that when this is true, it can be traced to structures and practices that reect top managements implicit belief structures and fears. Specically, when managers believe that employees tend to be selfinterested and ill informed, and when they are fearful of receiving negative feedback, they will tend to display behaviors (such as not soliciting input) and create structures (such as centralized decision making) that make employees particularly uncomfortable speaking up about certain issues. Pinder and Harlos (2001) similarly argued that some organizational contexts systematically foster an environment of intimidation and fear that discourages unjustly-treated individuals from breaking their silence to improve their situations. In addition, scholars from a variety of disciplines have argued that organizations are often intolerant of dissent (Argyris, 1977; Ewing, 1977; Redding, 1985). Empirical work, while limited, supports these ideas. In their interview-based study, Milliken et al. (2003) found that the decision not to speak up when one has a concern is often shaped by perceptions that the organizational culture or structure is not supportive of upward communication. Context affects not just upward voice, but also voice within work groups. How a group is structured, for example, can make it easier for members to speak up, and can reduce the social costs of expressing different viewpoints. Studies have shown that work-group members voice more when their group
388
is smaller (Islam & Zyphur, 2005; LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). Voice is more common as well in groups that are self-managing rather than traditional (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998), and in groups that adopt egalitarian practices such as rotated leadership and peer evaluations (Erez, LePine, & Elms, 2002). Each of these factors is likely to make it easier and less intimidating to voice, while also increasing feelings of voice efcacy. Interestingly, LePine and Van Dyne (1998) found the effects of group-level factors to be stronger for individuals who were more satised with their group and for individuals with low versus high self-esteem, highlighting the interdependence of personal and situational factors. An important recent development within the voice literature has been the emergence of cross-level theorizing about voice and silence (Morrison et al., 2011; Tangirala and Ramanijam, 2008a). In contrast to prior work, which was primarily at the individual level of analysis, these works simultaneously consider both individual and group-level effects. They have also expanded beyond a consideration of objective features of the group (e.g., size, structure) to consider the impact of group-level emergent properties (e.g., shared beliefs, behavioral norms) on voice behavior. For example, Morrison et al. (2011) showed that individuals engage in more voice behavior when their work group is characterized by shared beliefs that it is safe and worthwhile to convey suggestions, opinions, and concerns (or what they referred to as a favorable voice climate). These group-level beliefs not only had an effect independent of individual-level attitudes, but they also strengthened the effect of identication on voice. That is, while individuals who highly identied with their group voiced more regardless of group-level beliefs, the effect of identication was much stronger in groups with favorable voice climates. This study is important in highlighting that there can be powerful collective-level beliefs about voice (Morrison & Milliken, 2000) and that voice is partly shaped by these collective beliefs. To summarize, contextual factors can have an important effect on the ease with which employees are able to voice, and convey powerful information about whether voice is acceptable or encouraged within the organization or work group. Contexts that are more supportive of voice, such as organizations that are less bureaucratic or hierarchical, provide cues that employee input can make a difference and will not result in personal harm. Contexts that are less supportive, on the other hand, provide cues suggesting that speaking up is likely futile and potentially even harmful to ones image or career, thereby discouraging voice. Supervisor Behavior Perhaps one of the most important sources of cues about whether it is worthwhile and safe to voice is the behavior of ones immediate supervisor. This is
389
true not just because supervisors are often the target of voice, but also because they have power over valued outcomes, such as job assignments, pay, and performance evaluations. It is not surprising, therefore, that the voice literature has emphasized supervisory behavior and that several studies have demonstrated a relationship between voice behavior and either perceptions of ones supervisor or perception of the quality of ones relationship with ones supervisor. For example, early studies on upward communication within organizations demonstrated relationships between the frequency and accuracy of upward communication and trust in ones boss (e.g., Gaines, 1980; Read, 1962; Roberts & OReilly, 1974). In his review of this literature, Glauser (1984) also suggested that upward information ow is promoted when the supervisor has upward inuence within the organization and values information from employees, both of which should affect judgments about the efcacy and safety of voice. More recent work has tended to focus on supervisor openness to voice, which reects perceptions that ones manager is approachable, listens to employees, is interested in their input, and gives fair consideration to their ideas and suggestions (Detert & Burris, 2007). In one of the rst such studies, Saunders, Shepard, Knight, and Roth (1992) found that employees report a greater likelihood of voicing when they perceive their supervisor to be approachable and responsive to employee input. Similarly, Ashford et al.s (1998) study of issue selling showed that perceived relationship quality between oneself and the target to whom one would have to sell the issue increased the perceived probability of issue-selling success and reduced the perceived image risk associated with issue selling. These two perceptions, in turn, affected the reported willingness to sell gender equity issues. Research on whistle-blowing likewise suggests that employees are more likely to speak up about signicant issues when they perceive their supervisor to be supportive (Miceli et al., 2008). Other investigations have also shown relationships between how employees perceive their supervisors and the frequency of voice. For example, in their interview-based study focused on why employees sometimes feel uncomfortable speaking up with concerns, Milliken et al. (2003) found that a frequently reported reason was either a poor relation with ones supervisor or the perception that ones supervisor was unsupportive. Edmondson (2003) found that within cardiac surgery teams where the leader (i.e., surgeon) engaged in more coaching behavior, team members perceived it to be easier to speak up. Surgeons also encouraged voice by downplaying power differences, which enhanced feelings of psychological safety. In another recent investigation, Detert and Burris (2007) demonstrated that perceived manager openness fostered voice by creating enhanced feelings of psychological safety. Similarly, Tangirala and Ramanujam (2010) found that managers consultation behavior led employees to feel more inuential, which in turn led to more
390
voice. These effects were especially strong when the employee had high job satisfaction and when the manager had high perceived status. Employee voice behavior has been linked to a variety of other leadership constructs. For example, Detert and Burris (2007) argued that transformational leadership fosters voice because transformational leaders create commitment and responsibility toward collective ends and encourage employees to become innovative problem solvers. In support of these ideas, they found a positive relationship between transformational leadership and voice, an effect that was partially attributable to psychological safety. Liu et al. (2010) proposed and showed that transformational leadership relates to higher identication with ones supervisor and thus more upward voice, and that it also relates to higher identication with the organization, which leads to more voicing to co-workers. This study is noteworthy in that it is the rst to investigate these two different types of voice behavior. The extent to which employees speak up with suggestions was shown in a recent study to be greater when employees have a positive leader member exchange relationship, and less when they work for a supervisor whom they regard to be abusive (Burris et al., 2008). The authors argued that highquality relationships with ones supervisor mitigate withdrawal cognitions, and that this in turn increases the likelihood of employees engaging in discretionary effort on behalf of the organization. Recent studies have also shown that perceptions of ethical leadership enhance employee voice behavior, as well as group-level voice (Walumbwa, Morrison, & Christensen, 2011; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009). Presumably, when leaders behave in a highly ethical manner, they create a trusting environment where employees feel that it is safe to engage in constructive voice. Voice behavior may be inuenced by perceptions of not just the behavior of ones immediate boss, but also the behavior of skip-level leaders (i.e., ones bosss boss). When employees at a large high-technology rm were asked about factors that affected their willingness to speak up, 93% gave examples of behavior by an immediate boss, yet approximately half also gave examples of behavior of a skip-level leader, and some also talked of the behavior of leaders three to ve levels removed (Detert & Trevino, 2010). To summarize, there is considerable evidence that perceptions of ones supervisor, or of others in leadership positions, play an important role in affecting the frequency of voice behavior. These ndings suggest that supervisors and leaders not only create opportunities for voice by providing formal and informal voice mechanisms, but also shape the cognitions that drive the decision of whether or not to voice (Ashford et al., 2009). In other words, the more open and supportive the relationship (as reected in high trust, approachability, openness, transformational leadership, high leader-member exchange, etc.), the more positive will be the employees perceptions of voice efcacy and safety, and thus, the more likely he or she will be to speak up.
391
Despite this growing body of work on the role of leader behavior, however, we still do not have a clear picture of exactly what it is that leaders do or do not do that shapes employee perceptions of openness. Some of the openness-fostering behaviors that have been discussed include involving employees in discussion and decisions, asking for input, seeking feedback, not responding in a hostile manner, and taking action to address issues that have been raised (Ashford et al., 2009; Morrison & Rothman, 2009). There has not, however, been much rigorous theory building related to these different types of behavior, nor has there been much empirical work focused on specic leader behaviors. Such work could be very useful, particularly if scholars are correct that leaders often behave in ways that stie voice without even realizing that they are doing so. For example, a set of laboratory studies by Locke and Anderson (2010) shows that when individuals in a leadership role send subtle cues conveying power (e.g., direct eye gaze, postural expansion, high vocal volume), subjects in a follower role tend to speak less. These cues, however, may be sent unconsciously. Along these same lines, Ashford et al. (2009) argue that constraints on time and attention can cause leaders to behave inadvertently in ways that signal a lack of openness to voice, such as not listening, responding brusquely, and so forth. Morrison and Rothman (2009) add to this by explaining how feelings of power can inate leaders views of their own competence and performance, and thus reduce their receptivity to input. They highlight as well that power can cause leaders to display hostile or dominant behaviors that stie subordinate communication. Researchers have also discussed some of the implicit beliefs and biases that can undermine leaders responsiveness to employee input (Ashford et al., 2009; Morrison & Milliken, 2000). These works, and others, suggest that even leaders who wish to encourage employee voice may not always do so, and that it may be quite difcult for leaders to demonstrate that they truly are open to employee input. Employee Attitudes and Dispositions Although both theory and empirical results suggest that employees are highly responsive to contextual cues when deciding whether or not to speak up with concerns or suggestions, there is also evidence that, regardless of context, some individuals voice more than others. One reason may be differences in how employees feel about their organization or work group and in how committed they are to providing constructive input. Some of the early work on voice as a response to dissatisfaction showed positive, albeit weak, effects of job satisfaction and organizational commitment on voice (Rusbult et al., 1988; Withey & Cooper, 1989). These ndings suggest that, despite a particular source of dissatisfaction that is motivating voice, individuals who are generally more positive about their job and organization are more inclined to try to address that source of dissatisfaction. More recent studies, using improved measures
392
of voice behavior, have corroborated these ndings. Research has shown a positive relationship between satisfaction and voicing to supervisors, and a negative association between psychological detachment from ones work environment and voice behavior (Burris et al., 2008; Detert & Burris, 2007). Studies of voice and silence within work groups have shown that a variety of individual attitudes, including satisfaction, professional commitment, workgroup identication, felt obligation for constructive change, and perceptions of fairness, relate positively to voice or negatively to silence (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Liang, Fahr, & Fahr, forthcoming; Morrison et al., 2011; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008a). In an elaboration on the relationship between voice and general feelings of efcacy, Tangirala and Ramanujam (2008b) proposed, and found, a U-shaped relationship between personal control and voice, an effect that was particularly strong for employees with high levels of identication. The authors theorized that voice should be more frequent at high levels of personal control because, when control is high, the individual will have a strong expectancy that voice will be effective. Yet they also theorized that voice should be more frequent at low levels of control because lack of control creates a dissatisfying state that the individual is motivated to try to change. The latter effect is interesting in suggesting that, even if efcacy is low, other factors may propel an individual to speak up in the hope of bringing about change. In addition to attitudes, dispositional factors are likely to affect voice. In one of the most comprehensive investigations of dispositional predictors, LePine and Van Dyne (2001) examined the relationship between voice within work groups and each of the Big Five personality dimensions (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Consistent with their predictions, they found voice to be more frequent among employees who are high on both conscientiousness and extraversion. In explaining these ndings, they argued that individuals who are more conscientious are more willing to engage in conversations about how to improve things, whereas extraverted individuals are more comfortable speaking up. Also consistent with their hypotheses, they found an inverse relationship between voice and both neuroticism and agreeableness. These ndings make sense as well. Individuals who are high on the neuroticism dimension will be more nervous about voicing, and those who are highly agreeable will tend to go along with the status quo rather than challenging it. In another study of individual differences, Janssen, de Vries, and Cozijnsen (1998) investigated the effect of cognitive style preferences, comparing adaptors, who tend to think within the connes of agreed-upon paradigms, with innovators, who tend to think extra-paradigmatically. They found that this trait affected voice behavior, but the nature of the effects depended, in rather complex ways, on the type of information being voiced, satisfaction, and supervisory style. Self-monitoring has also been shown to affect voice behavior. Specically, Premeaux and Bedeian (2003) found that the relationships between voice and a variety of
393
dispositional and perceptual factorslocus of control, self-esteem, perceived top management openness, and trust in supervisorwere positive for low self-monitors and negative for high self-monitors. In addition, Botero and Van Dyne (2009) found, in both the United States and Columbia, a negative relationship between self-reported voice and power distance, which is dened as the extent to which an individual views it as appropriate for there to be a high level of power inequality between people (Hofstede, 1991). To summarize, there is accumulating evidence that the frequency of voice depends on a variety of attitudes and dispositions, such that even within the same work context, some individuals may display signicantly more voice than others. Largely missing, however, is a coherent theoretical framework for integrating the various empirical ndings related to individual-level predictors. Instead of more empirical work that will merely add to the list of attitudinal or trait-based predictors, there is a need for work that focuses more on conceptual synthesis and integration. Other Individual-Level Factors Beyond attitudes and personality, a variety of other individual-level attributes has also been investigated in relation to employee voice. Yet this is area where theory is especially sparse, and perhaps as a result of there not being clear guiding theory, research ndings have been inconsistent. For example, studies have suggested that there may be gender differences in voice, but the results are mixed. An early study on upward communication suggested that women communicate with their supervisors more than men, and that they may perceive less negative consequences related to upward communication (Young, 1978). Studies of whistle-blowing, on the other hand, have tended not to show an effect for gender (Miceli et al., 2008), and a few studies on the voicing of suggestions have found higher rates for men than women (Detert & Burris, 2007; LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). Research suggests as well that ethnic minorities might engage in less voice behavior than whites (Detert & Burris, 2007; LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Miceli et al., 2008). The reasons for these differences, however, remain open to speculation. A clearer picture emerges for experience and tenure. Because individuals tend to be more reluctant to voice if they feel unsure about their ability to do so effectively and safely (due to uncertainty about their communication skills, their credibility, others receptivity, etc.), we might expect newer employees to display less voice than veterans. This is exactly what the data suggest. Voice has been shown to relate positively with organizational tenure (Burris et al., 2008; Detert & Burris, 2007; Miceli et al., 2008; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008b), and several respondents in Milliken et al.s (2003) study pointed to their lack of tenure or experience as a reason for withholding input. Specically, many respondents reported that, because they were relatively new in
394
their organization, they felt that they lacked the credibility to voice effectively or that voicing felt especially risky to their public image. Veteran employees may also voice more because they feel a greater sense of investment in their organization, and thus a greater motivation to ensure its effectiveness, while at the same time feeling more secure engaging in behavior that entails risk. In support of these ideas, Rusbult et al. (1988) found that voice was more common among employees who felt they had both a high level of investment in their job, yet also good quality job alternatives. Presumably, the ability to get another job lowers the perceived risk of voicing. There is also research suggesting that, while individuals with high mobility aspirations engage in more upward communication, they are more likely to restrict or distort some types of information (Athanassiades, 1973, 1974; Maier, Hoffman, & Read, 1963; OReilly, 1978; Read, 1962; Roberts & OReilly, 1974). It seems reasonable to theorize that mobility aspirations heighten concerns about ones image, and thereby reduce the tendency to raise certain types of issues and concerns. Work status (full time versus part time) may affect voice behavior as well. There are two possible reasons for this. First, full-timers are more likely to dene their employment relationship in terms of social rather than economic exchange, and thus be more motivated to engage in discretionary behaviors (Stamper & Van Dyne, 2001). Second, because full-time employees tend to have higher social status than part-timers, they may have higher efcacy perceptions when it comes to voice behavior. Consistent with these ideas, Tangirala and Ramanujam (2008b) found full-timers to engage in more voice than part-timers, and Stamper and Van Dyne (2001) found a similar effect as long as the full-time employees wanted to work full-time rather than part time. As we might expect, an individuals position within the organization also explains voice behavior, as being in a position of greater formal or informal inuence will mitigate feelings of futility, as well as fear that speaking up will be punished (Miceli et al., 2008; Morrison & Rothman, 2009). One study, for example, showed that employees who are more central in the workow of their group experience a greater sense of personal inuence, which in turn is associated with more voice behavior. This effect was particularly strong for employees with greater work-group identication (Venkataramani & Tangirala, 2010). Another investigation found that higher positions in the hierarchy, as well as greater access to resources, led to stronger felt responsibility for change, which in turn led to more voice behavior (Fuller, Marler, & Hester, 2006). Similarly, a laboratory study of voice within work groups showed that among individuals with high social dominance, those who were in positions of high power voiced their opinions more than those who were in positions of low power (Islam & Zyphur, 2005). Further underscoring the importance of status, respondents in Dutton et al.s (2002) study indicated that they
395
consider both their position in the organization, as well as their reputation, when deciding whether to raise gender-equity issues. Along with status and position, performance history may affect whether employees feel that they can make a difference by voicing, and whether they believe that doing so will not tarnish their image. In support of this idea, Detert and Burris (2007) found that the positive effect of perceived leader behavior on voice was stronger for better-performing employees. Specically, compared with lower performers, higher performers were especially likely to speak up when their bosses appeared interested in input from employees, but especially unlikely to do so when their bosses appeared unreceptive to input. Finally, individuals idiosyncratic views of what is expected as part of their job (i.e., role perceptions) are likely to affect voice behavior, just as they have been shown to affect other types of discretionary activity. In fact, Van Dyne, Kamdar, and Joireman (2008) found that employees who perceived voice to be part of their job were rated by their supervisors as engaging in more voice behavior than employees who perceived voice to be extra-role. Consequences of Voice A central premise in the literature is that voice has important benets for organizations and work groups, while silence can have signicant negative effects. These arguments draw from diverse research streams. For example, building from the literatures on strategy formulation, group decision making, organizational learning, and innovation (Argyris & Schon, 1978; Enz & Schwenk, 1991; Nemeth, 1985; Shaw, 1981), Morrison and Milliken (2000) highlighted the importance of upward voice for more effective organizational decision making and better error detection. Other scholars have likewise emphasized the importance of employees voluntarily contributing ideas and information for organizational learning and improvement, given the unlikelihood that those at the top will have all of the information they need about work processes and problems (Detert & Burris, 2007; Dutton & Ashford, 1993; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008b). Emphasis as well has been placed on the importance of voice within work groups. For example, LePine and Van Dyne (1998, p. 853) argued that the very nature of teamwork requires that group members share ideas, knowledge, and insights so that multiple viewpoints are considered in making decisions. In support of these arguments, Edmondson (2003) found that voice facilitates the successful implementation of new practices within interdisciplinary action teams. Voice is likely to have positive effects on the individual actor as well (as illustrated in Figure 1). First, voice may enhance employees feelings of control, which has been shown to increase satisfaction and motivation and decrease stress (Greenberger & Strasser, 1986; Parker, 1993). Second, voice
396
may lead to more positive attitudes due to the benets associated with being able to express ones views and concerns (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). In fact, there is evidence that, in situations where one has experienced mistreatment, remaining silent rather than speaking up can have a negative impact on both psychological and physical health (Cortina & Magley, 2003). These positive effects notwithstanding, voice can also lead to negative outcomes for the individual. Speaking up, as several scholars have argued (e.g., Milliken et al., 2003; Pinder & Harlos, 2001), can lead to a damaged public image (being seen as a complainer or a troublemaker) or to formal sanctions (a lower performance evaluation, a bad job assignment). The most direct evidence of this comes from research showing that whistle-blowers very often suffer retaliation (Miceli et al., 2008). Outside of research on whistle-blowing, however, empirical research on the effects of voice for the individual actor is mixed. Siebert, Kraimer, and Crant (2001) found voice to have a negative relationship with promotions and salary increases two years later. Conversely, a recent experimental study by Whiting, Podsakoff, and Pierce (2009) suggests that voice may have positive effects on how one is viewed by others. Subjects in that study had to rate the performance of a paper person based on written descriptions of 24 critical incidents. Some of the incidents described high levels of voice; others described low levels of voice. Results showed a positive effect of voice on performance appraisals, above and beyond the effects of task behavior and helping. Other studies similarly suggest that voice might bring positive outcomes to the individual. Van Dyne and LePine (1998) looked at the performance implications of both helping behavior and voice. They found that, together, these two forms of discretionary behavior explained variance in performance six months later, above and beyond the effect of in-role job behavior. In addition, Vakola and Bourades (2005) found an inverse relationship between silence and both job satisfaction and organizational commitment, which they proposed to be outcomes. Their data, however, were cross-sectional and self-reported, so the direction of causality cannot be clearly determined. In an interesting elaboration on the question of whether voice has positive or negative effects for the actor, Burris, Detert, and Romney (2010) proposed that the personal outcomes of voice depends on whether employees and managers hold the same perceptions of the employees voice behavior. Specically, they hypothesized that positive outcomes will tend to result when an employee and his or her manager agree that the employee is engaging in frequent and high-quality voice, while negative outcomes (e.g., lower performance ratings, higher involuntary turnover) will tend to result when employees over-estimate the volume, variety, and value of their voice behavior. Their results support these predictions. Overall, then, the empirical evidence suggests that voice often does have positive implications for the actor, implying that the implicit beliefs that many employees hold about the
397
dangers of voice (Detert & Edmondson, forthcoming; Milliken et al., 2003) may often be unfounded. Voice may impact not just the actor, but also his or her colleagues. An important conclusion that emerged from Milliken et al.s (2003) exploratory study is the idea that relational and social considerations (i.e., how voicing may affect others) play an important role in the decision of whether to speak up or remain silent. These considerations play an important role because voice can have negative implications for other employees. Highlighting a problem can embarrass others or cast them in a negative light, while ideas for change can create friction within the work group or create more work for ones coworkers (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Milliken et al., 2003). On the other hand, voice can bring benets to others, such as when one speaks up about unfair conditions in the workplace and these conditions are then remedied, or when one offers a suggestion that makes work processes more efcient. Given these conicting possibilities, it would be valuable to theorize more fully about the effects of voice, both positive and negative, on the actors peers, his/her relationships with those peers, and the overall level of harmony within the work unit. Directions for Future Research Within just the past decade, the organizational literature has seen close to two dozen journal articles on voice and/or silence, as well as a special issue of a journal (Morrison & Milliken, 2003) and an edited book (Greenberg & Edwards, 2009). It seems clear that this area is generating considerable interest and activity, both conceptual and empirical. Yet while impressive inroads have been made in expanding current understanding of employee voice, there is still quite a lot that we do not know about this phenomenon. In the remainder of this article, I will focus on a few key areas that I believe hold particular promise in helping to deepen our knowledge of how and why employees speak up and the personal and organizational implications of this behavior. Message Type It is my belief that one of the most pressing needs in the voice area is to focus more on the type of message that is being, or that could be, conveyed via voice. As noted, the voice construct encompasses communication of ideas, suggestions, challenges, concerns, views, and opinions. These ideas, suggestions, challenges, concerns, views, and opinions can pertain to a wide range of job-related and organizational issues, ranging from mundane to quite serious. However, most conceptualizations and operationalizations of voice treat it as a general umbrella construct rather than specifying the type of information that is being conveyed. Focusing at this general level has no doubt been valuable in providing an understanding of voice as a general type of discretionary behavior. At the same time, a great deal may be lost by not considering variations in
398
message type. For example, employees may think very differently about the potential benets and risks of speaking up with a novel suggestion versus an issue of concern. Likewise, supervisors and co-workers may respond very differently to an employee who is expressing a divergent opinion compared to an employee who is offering a new idea. It is for these reasons that I believe there is a need for a more nuanced conceptualization of voice behavior. As a starting point, I propose that voice scholars should distinguish between three different types of voice, reecting fundamental distinctions in the nature of the voice message. These three types are: suggestion-focused voice, problem-focused voice, and opinion-focused voice. Suggestion-focused voice is dened as the communication of suggestions or ideas for how to improve the work unit or organization. Problem-focused voice, on the other hand, is dened as an employees expression of concern about work practices, incidents, or behaviors that he or she regards as harmful, or potentially harmful, to the organization. Both of these forms of voice challenge the status quo with the aim of beneting the organization, yet whereas the former is focused on realizing new possibilities, the latter is focused on stopping or preventing harm. The third type of voice that I am proposing, opinion-focused voice, reects communicating points of view on work-related issues that differ from those held by others. This type of voice has been discussed both in the context of work groups (Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008b; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998) and in the context of subordinate supervisor communication (Milliken et al., 2003; Premeaux & Bedeian, 2003). It is similar to Kassings (2002) notion of dissent, dened as expression of disagreement or contradictory opinions about organizational practices and policies. Working from this more nuanced conceptualization of voice, scholars can begin to consider how the strength of the various motivating factors for (or against) voice may vary across the three types. As one example, self-protective motives and concerns may be less prominent for suggestion-focused voice than for problem-focused or opinion-focused voice, as the former may be seen as less personally risky. There also could be meaningful differences in some of the individual and contextual antecedent factors. For example, we might expect that agreeableness will be positively related to the raising of helpful suggestions, but negatively related to the raising of problems. A similar difference might exist for job attitudes, where individuals who are highly satised or identied may be less likely to display voice that conveys dissatisfaction (e.g., problem-focused voice). It could be valuable as well to consider how the outcomes of voice play out differently depending on the nature of the message. Supervisors and co-workers may react more negatively to voice when it is raising a problem or issue of concern, or when it is conveying a dissenting viewpoint, than when it entails a suggestion or new idea. As scholars move from theory building to theory testing, recent efforts to develop more ne-grained measures of voice could be very helpful. For
399
example, Liang et al. (forthcoming) have developed and validated measures of what they call promotive and prohibitive voice, which are similar to what I am calling suggestion-focused and problem-focused voice. In addition, Lebel, Wheeler-Smith, and Morrison (2011) have recently developed and validated a measure of voice with three subscales, focused on suggestions, problems, and opinions, respectively. I would also encourage theory-development efforts focused on some of the specic dimensions along which voice messages can vary. For example, research on reluctance to convey bad news suggests that message valence (positive vs. negative) has an important impact on both willingness to communicate and choices about how to communicate (Lee, 1993; Rosen & Tesser, 1970; Sonenshein, 2006). In addition, models of upward communication and whistle-blowing both discuss how the actors perceptions of information importance and urgency affect the likelihood of speaking up about an issue (Glauser, 1984; Miceli & Near, 1992). Building from these research streams, it would be useful for scholars to consider not just how actors perceptions of these dimensions affect their decision of whether to voice, but also how targets perceptions of these dimensions affect how they react to voice. Tactics and Targets By and large, the voice literature has conceptualized voice as a dichotomous choice (speak up or remain silent) and has not focused very much on employees choices about how to voice their views or concerns. Yet there are many different ways to express concerns or share suggestions, and employees who have decided to speak up must decide how to frame the information, how forcefully to speak, who the target will be (in situations where there are multiple potential targets), whether to speak right away or wait, whether to involve other people, and so forth (Dutton, Ashford, ONeill, & Lawrence, 2001; Piderit & Ashford, 2003). These decisions are likely shaped by a variety of individual, contextual, and message-related variables. For example, employees may tend to voice concerns indirectly rather than directly if they are relatively new or lacking in status, if there is a low level of trust between them and their supervisor, or if the information may be highly threatening to the supervisor. The specic manner in which one voices is also likely to affect how others react, and thus the effectiveness of voice. An important direction for future work, therefore, is to provide better understanding of employees choices about how to communicate concerns and suggestions. A useful starting point for theory building related to voice tactics may be the issue-selling literature. From interview-based descriptions of successful and unsuccessful attempts to sell issues to top management, Dutton et al. (2001) identied a variety of tactics related to how one presents and bundles the issue, whether and how one involves others, and the formality and timing of
400
the communication. Based on their ndings, the authors proposed that issue selling moves rely on relational, normative, and strategic knowledge. In a similar study, Piderit and Ashford (2003) explored womens implicit theories about the right way to raise gender equity issues to top management. Respondents indicated the importance of framing, involving others, demeanor, and timing. The interview results also suggested four general clusters of individuals based on their use of various issue-selling tactics: those who indicated that they would do whatever it takes to sell the issue to top management; those who indicated high likelihood of framing the issue as a moral issue; those who indicated high likelihood of using private settings; and those who indicated low likelihood of using any of the tactics. Recent work on issue crafting (Sonenshein, 2006) might also provide a foundation for deepening our understanding of voice tactics. Integrating research on issue selling with the literatures on sense-giving and inuence tactics, Sonenshein (2006) looked at how individuals intentionally use of language to portray an issue in a way that differs from their own private views. This work highlights how employees often use language to frame issues in ways that they think will be seen as more legitimate by others, and that will thus resonate with their audience. An example might be an employee concerned about gender equity who, when voicing about this issue, frames it in economic terms (e.g., the value of diversity for performance or the potential cost of a lawsuit) rather than in terms of principle or morality. Another study that is relevant to our understanding of voice tactics is Lees (1993) investigation of how bad news is communicated in organizational hierarchies. Whereas prior work has emphasized employees reluctance to convey bad news (Rosen & Tesser, 1970), Lee found that when employees do convey such news, they use a variety of politeness strategies to couch the message. Similarly, Kassing (2002) has suggested a variety of strategies that employees use when engaging in dissent. In addition, voice researchers may be able to draw from the communications literature, particularly work focused on message framing and timing (e.g., Brown & Levinson, 1987). From these various foundations, scholars interested in voice can begin to build theory about how individuals choose particular tactics for voicing, and the implications of these choices for the effectiveness and riskiness of voice. Understanding these effects will provide a much richer understanding of the voice phenomenon and the many different forms that it can take. More theoretical and empirical work is also needed on voice targets. Although the voice literature includes studies of both upward and lateral voice, scholars have not distinguished between these at a conceptual level, nor have they considered how the motives, antecedents, and outcomes of voice may differ depending on whether the behavior is directed at a supervisor or peers. A noteworthy exception is the paper by Liu et al. (2010), which argues that voice is target-sensitive and that the costs and benets of voice depend on
401
the person to whom one is voicing. There is a need for much more work on not just the impact of target characteristics (e.g., supervisor openness) on voice, but on how and why employees choose between different potential targets. Consider an employee who believes that work should be allocated differently within her work group. This employee can raise this issue to the supervisor who manages the group, to the other members of the group as a collective, or separately to one or more individuals within the group. What factors will determine which of these options is chosen? What are the implications of these different options for the likelihood that raising the issue will lead to a change in workload allocation and the likelihood that it will not have negative repercussions for the actor? These are issues to which the voice literature has not yet spoken. There is also a need for clearer understanding of the similarities and differences between individual voice behavior and group voice behavior. A few recent studies (e.g., Frazier & Bowler, 2009; Walumbwa et al., 2011) have discussed and investigated voice at the group level of analysis, where group voice reects the extent to which group members, overall, engage in voice behavior. Conceptualizing voice as a group-level behavior raises a host of potentially interesting questions. For example, are there differences between a group where voice is evenly distributed across members (i.e., all members displaying relatively similar amounts of voice behavior) and a group with high withingroup variance (i.e., a few vocal members with the remaining members not voicing very much)? How similar or different are the contextual variables that predict individual voice behavior and group voice? Questions such as these remain to be answered. A Deeper and Broader Understanding of Outcomes There is also a need for a better understanding of the outcomes of voice. While almost every paper on voice begins with a discussion of its benecial impact, I believe it is too simplistic to conclude that voice will always be good for the work unit or organization. Whether voice is good or bad for the collective most likely depends on the specic message that is being conveyed and the response that is taken. For example, an employee may offer a suggestion for improving a particular work process, but if he or she is not effective in making a case for how that idea is superior to current procedures, change is unlikely to come about, and the voice behavior will have little impact on unit performance. Alternatively, if the idea itself is awed, adopting the proposed change may actually harm unit performance. The group- or organization-level impact of voice may also become less positive, and may even become negative, as the amount of voice increases beyond a certain level. In other words, it may be possible for there to be too much voice within a work group or organization, such that members become overwhelmed,
402
experience difculty reaching consensus, and devote too much time to considering new ideas and not enough to actual task performance. It is important, therefore, for researchers to consider contingency factors that affect the association between voice and unit- level outcomes. It would be valuable as well for there to be more systematic research on the implications of voice for the individual engaging in this behavior. As discussed, some recent work suggests that engaging in voice has a positive effect on how one is viewed by supervisors and co-workers, similar to other proactive and prosocial behaviors (Whiting et al., 2009). At the same time, research has suggested a range of personal risks associated with voice, and the possibility of negative image implications (Milliken et al., 2003). It is not entirely clear what accounts for these different scenarios, but a factor that is likely to be very important in determining whether voice has positive or negative effects on the actor is how the message is perceived by the target. An employee who voices a new idea that his or her supervisor or peers regard as highly constructive and feasible is likely to be viewed positively. An employee who speaks up about a subject that is seen as taboo for some reason may be seen as a whiner or troublemaker. Likewise, voice that challenges a supervisors pet idea or initiative, or that casts doubt upon his or her judgment, may have harmful implications for an employee. In addition, the study by Burris et al. (2010) suggests that voice will be more likely to have negative repercussions if the supervisor holds a less positive view than the employee of the value or constructiveness of the voice behavior. We know relatively little, however, about the factors that shape targets perceptions of the value or constructiveness of voice, or the factors that may lead them to feel threatened by it. To begin lling this gap, a useful starting point may be to consider targets causal attributions for why the actor is voicing. Regardless of what the actual motives for voicing may be, others within the work environment will make assumptions about motive, and these assumptions will shape how they respond (Van Dyne et al., 2003). If supervisors attribute the behavior to cooperative, other-focused motives, they are likely to respond much more favorably than if they attribute it to self-interest. Although there has not been any research on how individuals form attributions for voice, research on attribution formation more generally suggests that these judgments may be heavily shaped by preconceptions, attitudes, and mood, each of which may cause supervisors to make erroneous assumptions about why a subordinate is raising a particular issue. The implications of voice for the actor are likely to depend on tactical choices made by the voicer as well. An individual who is very savvy about how to raise a sensitive issue and build support for a new idea will be more likely to reap rewards rather than punishment for voicing than an individual who lacks such savvy. There is research showing that people react differently to forceful as opposed to more tentative speech styles (Fragale, 2006), and it
403
is quite likely that speech style will affect how others view an employee who is voicing. Yet this is an issue about which we know very little. As discussed, voice can affect not just the collective (work group, unit, organization) and the actor, but also other individuals and the actors relationships with teammates and colleagues. There is a need, however, for further theory development and empirical investigation of how voice impacts the actors peers and relationships with peers. When, for example, will voice help to improve group harmony and when will it create conict within a group? Under what conditions will co-workers tend to believe that voice is beneting them and under what conditions will they tend to believe otherwise? When does remaining silent build, and when does it undermine, social capital? These are just a few of the questions that could be addressed. Climate and Affect Greenberg and Edwards (2009) recently highlighted the need for a better understanding of the climate of silence construct (Morrison & Milliken, 2000), which refers collective-level beliefs about the safety and efcacy of speaking up. To date, there is only one published study that has looked at such shared beliefs (Morrison et al., 2011). That study expands upon Morrison and Millikens climate of silence notion by considering not just contexts where there are widely held beliefs that it is unsafe and futile to voice, but also shared beliefs that are supportive of voice. As discussed, the results provide empirical evidence that collective beliefs about the safety and efcacy of voice develop within work groups, and that they impact individual voice behavior. The results also showed high agreement among work-group members about the efcacy and safety of voice, but also considerable variance across work groups within the same organizational division. Overall, the study suggests that voice climate is an important emergent construct deserving further investigation (e.g., Frazier & Bowler, 2009). I would encourage, in particular, work investigating how voice climate develops and how it changes over time. Morrison et al. (2011) proposed that leadership style and leader behavior play a role in the development of voice climate, as group leaders can send strong signals about the likely consequences of voicing, but these ideas have not been developed in much detail nor empirically tested. The role of formal and informal rewards in shaping voice climates could be a valuable topic for research attention as well. I would also encourage further theory building and empirical work on the role of affect. Several recent conceptual papers have discussed the role that emotions play in motivating or inhibiting voice. Harvey et al. (2009) argue that the observation of wrongdoing can trigger anger and resentment, and this emotional reaction can thereby trigger voice. Similarly, Edwards, Ashkanasy, and Gardner (2009) propose that the observation of wrongdoing
404
will elicit various affective states, and that some of these (e.g., anger, guilt) will lead one to report the situation, while others (e.g., fear, shame) will cause one to remain silent. These authors also highlight the important role of anticipatory emotions. Specically, even if an instance of wrongdoing does not elicit an emotional response, if an employee experiences anxiety when contemplating the possibility of raising the issue to his or her boss, this employee is likely to choose silence over voice. In essence, these models bring in emotion yet still portray the decision process as deliberative and judgment driven. Emotions do not preclude cognitive processing, but rather motivate it (Baumeister, Vohs, DeWall, & Zhang, 2007; Gundlach, Douglas, & Martinko, 2003). A very different picture of emotions in relation to voice and silence is presented in the recent paper by Kish-Gephart et al. (2009). These authors highlight that fear is a powerful and deeply rooted emotion that can lead to an automatic withdrawal response and, over time, to habituated schemabased behavior, such as never speaking up to ones boss. Indeed, they suggest that fear of challenging authorities and higher-status group members is evolutionary based and reinforced from a very young age. As such, they argue that silence can results from automatic processes that do not involve conscious recognition of alternatives or weighing of costs and benets. This perspective depicts silence in a way that is quite different from that portrayed by many other works in the literature, and raises critical questions about the relative role of affect and cognition in situations where employees could speak up yet instead remain silent. It could be quite illuminating to try to address some of these questions empirically and to consider how other emotions, in addition to fear, affect the voice process. Methodological Issues There are important methodological issues for future empirical research to tackle as well. Most of the research on voice has assessed this behavior from a single perspective, either the actor him or herself or the supervisor (a notable exception is Burris et al., 2010). Moreover, most of the research has been cross-sectional, which precludes condent conclusions about causality. A step that seems imperative as work in this domain moves forward is for researchers to collect data at multiple time points and for them to assess voice from multiple perspectives. The former will not only allow a better assessment of cause and effect, but it will also permit an examination of changes in voice over time, and of how the positive and negative effects of voice accrue, so that we can begin to gain a more dynamic picture of this phenomenon. For example, it is likely that the consequences of voice at one point in time affect the likelihood and manner with which an employee speaks up in the future. It is also possible that the effects of voice tend to
405
become more negative over time as others tire of an individual continually raising challenging issues. Multi-level research on voice also holds particular promise. Recent work (Morrison et al., 2011; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008a) has shown that individual and group level factors interact with one another, and that a focus on just one or the other is likely to provide an incomplete, or even inaccurate, understanding of the conditions leading to and inhibiting voice. As such, I would strongly encourage researchers to consider how person-level and contextual predictors work in concert, and to try to tease apart unit-level differences in voice tendencies from individual-level differences. Finally, there is a need for better measures of voice. By far, the most commonly used measure is a six-item scale designed by Van Dyne and LePine (1998). While that scale demonstrates good psychometric properties, some of the items are inconsistent with the generally agreed-upon denition of voice, which raises concerns about content validity (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). For example, one item refers to keeping well informed about issues where ones opinion might be useful to the work group, which is a likely precursor to voice, but not an example of actual voice behavior. The same is true for an item that refers to getting involved in issues that affect the quality of work life in the organization or work group. Going forward, it would be good to have a measure of voice where all of the items are clear exemplars of the construct. In addition, it would be valuable to have measures that are more ne-grained in terms of the type of message being conveyed (Lebel et al., 2011; Liang et al., forthcoming). Conclusions To conclude, there has been an exciting amount of research on voice within the organizational literature. This work has helped us to understand better how employees think about the issue of whether or not to speak up with ideas, suggestions, or concerns; the types of employees who tend to voice the most; and the contextual factors that encourage and enable employee voice. It also provides some insight into the potential implications of voice. However, there are many questions that beg for closer empirical investigation, and several places where theory development can go deeper. It is my hope that this paper will serve to guide and motivate future research efforts in a way that will be fruitful for expanding our understanding of employee voice. Acknowledgments I would like to thank Art Brief, Ethan Burris, Jim Detert, Kelly See, and Jim Walsh for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper, and Caitlin Pan for her research assistance.
406
Endnotes
1. Van Dyne, Ang, and Botero (2003) suggested a form of voice that they call defensive voice, which is motivated by a desire to protect oneself by making excuses, shifting focus, blaming others, or taking credit for accomplishments. They also suggested acquiescent voice, which reects disengagement or resignation (e.g., expressing support despite personal doubts). These types of communication behaviors are inconsistent with the more generally agreed-upon notion that voice is about conveying suggestions or other information that can be used to bring about improvement. They therefore fall outside the domain of voice as it is being dened here. A few recent works (e.g., Bies, 2009; Van Dyne et al., 2003) have suggested a broader denition of silence, which includes other forms of non-speaking (e.g., keeping quiet in order to gather more information or allow time for reection, withholding information in order to harm others or manage blame, protecting proprietary information, etc.). However, I believe that placing such behaviors under the umbrella of employee silence muddies rather than claries the construct. Silence driven primarily by concerns about not upsetting or embarrassing others was termed prosocial silence by Van Dyne et al. (2003). Although it is not necessary to consider this a unique form of silence, it is useful to keep in mind that prosocial considerations can foster silence as well as voice.
2.
3.
References
Argyris, C. (1977). Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review, 55, 452471. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley. 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 issues. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 2357. Ashford, S.J., Sutcliffe, K.M., & Christianson, M.K. (2009). Speaking up and speaking out: The leadership dynamics of voice in organizations. In J. Greenberg & M. Edwards (Eds.), Voice and silence in organizations (pp. 175202). Bingley, England: Emerald. Athanassiades, J.C. (1973). The distortion of upward communication in hierarchical organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 16, 207226. Athanassiades, J.C. (1974). An investigation of some communication patterns of female subordinates in hierarchical organizations. Human Relations, 27, 195209. Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M.K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 126. Baumeister, R.F., Vohs, K.D., DeWall, C.N., & Zhang, L. (2007). How emotion shapes behavior: Feedback, anticipation, and reection, rather than direct causation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 167203. Bies, R.J. (2009). Sounds of silence: Identifying new motives. In J. Greenberg & M. Edwards (Eds.), Voice and silence in organizations (pp. 175202). Bingley, England: Emerald.
407
Bies, R.J., & Shapiro, D.L. (1988). Voice and justication: Their inuence on procedural fairness judgements. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 676685. Boroff, K.E., & Lewin, D. (1997). Loyalty, voice, and intent to exit a union rm: A conceptual and empirical analysis. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 51, 5063. Botero, I.C., & Van Dyne, L. (2009). Employee voice behavior: Interactive effects of LMX and power distance in the United States and Colombia. Management Communication Quarterly, 23, 84104. Brief, A.P., & Motowidlo, S.J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 11, 710725. Brinseld, C.T., Edwards, M.S., & Greenberg, J. (2009). Voice and silence in organizations: Historical review and current conceptualizations. In J. Greenberg & M. Edwards (Eds.), Voice and silence in organizations (pp. 175202). Bingley, England: Emerald. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Burris, E.R., Detert, J.R., & Chiaburu, D.S. (2008). Quitting before leaving: The mediating effects of psychological attachment and detachment on voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 912922. Burris, E.R., Detert, J.R., & Romney, A. (2010). Speaking up versus being heard: The dimensions of disagreement around and outcomes of employee voice. Working paper, University of Texas. Cortina, L.M., & Magley, V.J. (2003). Raising voice, risking retaliation: Events following interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 247264. Crant, J.M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 435462. Detert, J.R., & Burris, E.R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 869884. Detert, J.R., & Edmondson, A.C. (forthcoming). Implicit voice theories: Taken-forgranted rules of self-censorship at work. Academy of Management Journal. Detert, J.R., & Trevino, L.K. (2010). Speaking up to higher ups: How supervisor and skip-level leaders inuence employee voice. Organization Science, 21, 241270. Dundon, T., Wilkinson, A., Marchington, M., & Ackers, P. (2004). The meaning and purpose of employee voice. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15, 11491170. Dutton, J.E., & Ashford, S.J. (1993). Selling issues to top management. Academy of Management Review, 18, 397428. Dutton, J.E., Ashford, S.J., Lawrence, K.A., & Miner-Rubino, K. (2002). Red light, green light: Making sense of the organizational context for issue selling. Organization Science, 13, 335369. 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, 407425. Dutton, J.E., Ashford, S.J., ONeill, R.M., & Lawrence, K.A. (2001). Moves that matter: Issue selling and organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 716736. Edmondson, A.C. (2003). Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 14191452.
408
Edwards, M.S., Ashkanasy, N.M., & Gardner, J. (2009). Deciding to speak up or remain silent following observed wrongdoing: The role of discrete emotions and climate of silence. In J. Greenberg & M. Edwards (Eds.), Voice and silence in organizations (pp. 83110). Bingley, England: Emerald. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 5159. Enz, C.A., & Schwenk, C.R. (1991). The performance edge: Strategic and value dissensus. Employee Responsibility and Rights Journal, 4, 7585. Erez, A., LePine, J.A., & Elms, H. (2002). Effects of rotated leadership and peer evaluation on the functioning and effectiveness of self-managed teams: A quasi-experiment. Personnel Psychology, 55, 929948. Ewing, D.W. (1977). Freedom inside the organization. New York: Dutton. Farrell, D., & Rusbult, C. (1992). Exploring the exit, voice, loyalty and neglect typology. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 5, 201218. Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 217282. 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. Frazier, M.L., & Bowler, W. (2009). Voice climate in organization: A group-level examination. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago, IL. Fuller, J., Marler, L., & Hester, K. (2006). Promoting felt responsibility for constructive change and proactive behavior: Exploring aspects of an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 10891120. Gaines, J. (1980). Upward communication in industry: An experiment. Human Relations, 33, 929942. Glauser, M.J. (1984). Upward information ow in organizations: Review and conceptual analysis. Human Relations, 37, 613643. Gordon, W.L. (1988). Range of employee voice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights, 1, 283299. Grant, A.M., & Ashford, S.J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 334. Greenberg, J., & Edwards, M. (Eds.). (2009). Voice and silence in organizations. Bingley, England: Emerald. Greenberger, D.B., & Strasser, S. (1986). The development and application of a model of personal control in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 11, 164177. Gundlach, M.J., Douglas, S.C., & Martinko, M.J. (2003). The decision to blow the whistle: A social information processing framework. Academy of Management Review, 28, 107123. Hammer, T.H., Landau, J.C., & Stern, R.N. (1981). Absenteeism when workers have a voice: The case of employee ownership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 561573. Harvey, P., Martinko, M.J., & Douglas, S.C. (2009). Causal perceptions and the decision to speak up or pipe down. In J. Greenberg & M. Edwards (Eds.), Voice and silence in organizations (pp. 6382). Bingley, England: Emerald. Hirschman, A.O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in rms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
409
Hofstede, G. (1991). Culture and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw Hill. Islam, G., & Zyphur, M.J. (2005). Power, voice, and hierarchy: Exploring the antecedents of speaking up in groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9, 93103. Janssen, O., de Vries, T., & Cozijnsen, A.J. (1998). Voicing by adapting and innovating employees: An empirical study on how personality and environment interact to affect voice behavior. Human Relations, 51, 955967. Kassing, J.W. (2002). Speaking up: Identifying employees upward dissent strategies. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 187209. Kish-Gephart, J.J., Detert, J.R., Trevino, L.K., & Edmondson, A.C. (2009). Silenced by fear: The nature, sources and consequences of fear at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 163193. Lebel, R.D., Wheeler-Smith, S., & Morrison, E.W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Development and validation of a new multi-dimensional measure. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, San Antonio, Texas. Lee, F. (1993). Being polite and keeping MUM: How bad news is communicated in organizational hierarchies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 29, 11241149. LePine, J.A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 853868. LePine, J.A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with big ve personality characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 326336. Liang, J., Fahr, C., & Fahr, L. (forthcoming). A two-wave examination of the psychological antecedents of voice behavior. Academy of Management Journal. Liu, W., Zhu, R., & Yang, Y. (2010). I warn you because I like you: Voice behavior, employee identications, and transformational leadership. Leadership Quarterly. 21, 189202. Locke, C.C., & Anderson, C. (2010). The downside of looking like a leader: Leaders powerful demeanor sties follower voice in participative decision-making. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Montreal, Quebec. Maier, N., Hoffman, R., & Read, W. (1963). Superior-subordinate communication: The relative effectiveness of managers who held their subordinates positions. Personnel Psychology, 16, 111. Miceli, M.P., & Near, J.P. (1992). Blowing the whistle. New York: Lexington Books. Miceli, M.P., Near, J.P., & Dworkin, T.M. (2008). Whistleblowing in organizations. New York: Routledge. Milliken, F.J., & Lam, N. (2009). Making the decision to speak up or to remain silent: Implications for organizational learning. In J. Greenberg & M. Edwards (Eds.), Voice and silence in organizations (pp. 225244). Bingley, England: Emerald. Milliken, F.J., Morrison, E.W., & Hewlin, P. (2003). An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees dont communicate upward and why. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 14531476.
410
Morrison, E.W., & Milliken, F.J. (Eds.). (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25, 706725. Morrison, E.W., & Milliken, F.J. (2003). (Eds.). Speaking up, remaining silent: The dynamics of voice and silence in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 13531358. Morrison, E.W., & Rothman, N.B. (2009). Silence and the dynamics of power. In J. Greenberg & M. Edwards (Eds.), Voice and silence in organizations (pp. 175202). Bingley, England: Emerald. Morrison, E.W., Wheeler-Smith, S., & Kamdar, D. (2011). Speaking up in groups: A cross-level study of group voice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 183191. Nemeth, C.J. (1985). Dissent, group process, and creativity. Advances in Group Processes, 2, 5775. OReilly, C.A. (1978). The intentional distortion of information in organizational communication: A laboratory and eld investigation. Human Relations, 31, 173193. Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P.M., & Mackenzie, S.B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Parker, L.E. (1993). When to x it and when to leave: Relationships among perceived control, self-efcacy, dissent, and exit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 949959. Parker, S.K., Williams, H.M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 636652. Perlow, L., & Williams, S. (2003). Is silence killing your company? Harvard Business Review, 81(5), 5258. Piderit, S.K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25, 783794. Piderit, S.K., & Ashford, S.J. (2003). Breaking silence: tactical choices women managers make in speaking up about gender equity issues. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 14771502. Pinder, C.C., & Harlos, K.P. (2001). Employee silence: Quiescence and acquiescence as responses to perceived injustice. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 20, 331369. Premeaux, S.F., & Bedeian, A.G. (2003). Breaking the silence: The moderating effects of self-monitoring in predicting speaking up in the workplace. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 15371562. Read, W.H. (1962). Upward communication in industrial hierarchies. Human Relations, 15, 316. Redding, W.C. (1985). Rocking boats, blowing whistles, and teaching speech communication. Communication Education, 34, 245258. Roberts, K.H., & OReilly, C.A. (1974). Failures in upward communication in organizations: Three possible culprits. Academy of Management Journal, 17, 205215. Rosen, S., & Tesser, A. (1970). On reluctance to communicate undesirable information: The MUM effect. Sociometry, 33, 253263. Rusbult, C.E., Farrell, D., Rogers, G., & Mainous, A.G., III. (1988). Impact of exchange variables on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: An integrative model of responses to declining job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 599627.
411
Saunders, D.M., Shepard, B.H., Knight, V., & Roth, J. (1992). Employee voice to supervisors. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 5, 241259. Shaw, M.E. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill. Siebert, 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. Sonenshein, S. (2006). Crafting social issues at work. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 11581172. Spencer, D.G. (1986). Employee voice and employee retention. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 488502. Stamper, C., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Work status and organizational citizenship behavior: A eld study of restaurant employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 517536. Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2008a). Employee silence on critical work issues: The cross level effects of procedural justice climate. Personal Psychology, 61, 3768. Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2008b). Exploring nonlinearity in employee voice: The effects of personal control and organizational identication. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 11891203. Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2010). Ask and you shall hear: Examining the relationship between manager consultation and employee voice. Working Paper, University of Maryland. Tyler, T.R., Rasinski, K., & Spodick, N. (1985). The inuence of voice on satisfaction with leaders: Exploring the meaning of process control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 7281. Vakola, M., & Bourades, D. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of organizational silence: An empirical investigation. Employee Relations, 27, 441458. Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I.C. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 13591392. Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L.L., & Parks, J.M. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and denitional clarity. Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 215285. Van Dyne, L.V., Kamdar, D., & Joireman, J. (2008). In-role perceptions buffer the negative impact of low LMX on helping and enhance the positive impact of high LMX on voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 11951207. Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J.A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behavior: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108119. Venkataramani, V., & Tangirala, S. (2010). When and why do central employees speak up? An examination of mediating and moderating variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 582591. Vroom, V.H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley. Walumbwa, F.O., Morrison, E.W., & Christensen, A. (2011). The effect of ethical leadership on group performance: The mediating role of group conscientiousness and group voice. Working paper, University of Arizona. Walumbwa, F.O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 12751286.
412
Whiting, S.W., Podsakoff, P.M., & Pierce, J.R. (2009). Effects of task performance, helping, voice and organizational loyalty on performance appraisal ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 125139. Withey, M.J., & Cooper, W.H. (1989). Predicting exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 521539. Wood, S.J., & Wall, T.D. (2007). Work enrichment and employee voice in human resource management-performance studies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 13351372. Young, J.W. (1978). The subordinates exposure of organizational vulnerability to the supervisor: Sex and organizational effects. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 113122.

Employee Voice Behavior, MORRISON

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Employee Voice Behavior, MORRISON

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

This article was downloaded by: [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UC] On: 13 January 2012, At: 09:28

The Academy of Management Annals

Employee Voice Behavior: Integration and Directions for Future Research

New York University, Stern School of Business

Available online: 26 Jul 2011

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UC] at 09:28 13 January 2012

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UC] at 09:28 13 January 2012