508102_Employee Voice Behavior , MORRISON

This article was downloaded by: [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento onlineUC]On: 13 January 2012, At: 09:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

The Academy of ManagementAnnalsPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rama20

Employee Voice Behavior:Integration and Directions forFuture ResearchElizabeth W. Morrison aa 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/terms-and-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 isexpressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up todate. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liablefor any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rama20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2011.574506

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith or arising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

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 themface to face with the decision of whether to speak up (i.e., voice) or remainsilent when they have potentially useful information or ideas. In recentyears, there has been a rapidly growing body of conceptual and empiricalresearch focused on better understanding the motives underlying voice,individual, and situational factors that increase employee voice behavior, andthe implications of voice and silence for employees, work groups, and organ-izations. Yet this literature has notable gaps and unresolved issues, and it isnot entirely clear where future scholarship should be directed. This article,therefore, is an attempt to review and integrate the existing literature onemployee voice and also to provide some direction for future research.

∗Email: [email protected]

The Academy of Management AnnalsVol. 5, No. 1, June 2011, 373–412

ISSN 1941-6520 print/ISSN 1941-6067 online# 2011 Academy of ManagementDOI: 10.1080/19416520.2011.574506http://www.informaworld.com

373

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

Introduction

The extent to which employees communicate upward with suggestions, ideas,information about problems, or issues of concern can have tremendous impli-cations for an organization’s performance and even its survival. To respondappropriately to dynamic business conditions, make good decisions, andcorrect problems before they escalate, top managers need information fromemployees at lower levels in the organization—information that may not other-wise come to their awareness. Likewise, groups need honest input from theirmembers if they are to perform effectively and make good decisions. Yetresearch has shown that employees are often reluctant to speak up, both tothose in positions of authority and to their teammates, when they have poten-tially important information to share (Milliken, Morrison, & Hewlin, 2003;Perlow & Williams, 2003; Pinder & Harlos, 2001). When this occurs, keydecision makers or teams may not have the information that they need tomake appropriate decisions or to correct potentially serious problems.Indeed, many well-known organizational tragedies—for example, the Columbiaspace disaster, the crash of United Airlines flight 173, the demise of Enron, andthe British Petroleum oil-rig explosion—were caused or exacerbated by thefailure of employees to convey information about irregularities to those inpositions of authority.

These are extreme examples. Yet day to day within organizations, employ-ees confront issues that put them face to face with the decision of whether toconvey or withhold potentially useful information. Do I speak up or not aboutthe fact that the sales campaign seems to be failing, that my co-worker is slack-ing off, that my boss is making sexist comments? Do I share or keep to myselfideas for process improvement or opinions about work-related issues thatdiffer from those being expressed by others? Employees continually facechoices of whether to voice or remain silent about important workplaceissues. Moreover, the ways in which they resolve these choices can have signifi-cant implications for organizational and team performance.

Particularly within the last dozen years or so, there has been a rapidlygrowing body of research focused on better understanding the choice, on thepart of employees, of whether to speak up (i.e., voice) when they have poten-tially important information to share. Yet this literature, as is true of manygrowing areas, is somewhat fragmented. There have been varying conceptual-izations of voice, which has created ambiguity about the meaning and scope ofthe construct. In addition, while there has been a growing number of studies onfactors that foster or inhibit voice, there is not yet an overarching theoreticalframework for understanding how these factors relate to one another. Thereare also conflicting perspectives on the outcomes associated with voice. Mostimportantly, there is not a sufficiently clear sense of where future scholarshipshould be directed.

374 † The Academy of Management Annals

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

My goal, therefore, is to review and integrate the existing theory andresearch and also to provide some direction for future scholarship by highlight-ing important questions that still need to be answered. I begin by reviewing thedifferent conceptualizations of employee voice. My intent is to define clearlythe voice construct and clarify how it relates to, yet is conceptually distinctfrom, other constructs that share commonalities with voice. I then provide acomprehensive review of the existing theoretical and empirical research onmotives, antecedents, and outcomes related to employee voice. Followingthis, I focus on what I see as the important unanswered questions in the litera-ture with the hope that this will generate and provide direction to future theorybuilding and research.

The Domain of Employee Voice

Table 1 lists several recent definitions of voice within the organizational litera-ture. While the specific wording may differ, these definitions share severalimportant features. One important commonality is the idea of voice beingan act of verbal expression, where a message is conveyed from a sender to arecipient. Second, voice is defined as discretionary behavior. Individualschoose whether or not to engage in this behavior at any particular momentin time, a choice that is affected by a variety of factors. A third commonalityis the notion of voice being constructive in its intent. The objective is tobring about improvement and positive change, not simply to vent or com-plain.1 As such, voice can be classified within Van Dyne, Cummings, andParks’ (1995) framework as a form of “challenging/promotive” extra-role be-havior. Challenging means that it is focused on changing the status quo, whilepromotive means that it is constructive in intent. Voice can also be viewed as aform of proactive behavior. Proactive behaviors are activities that are self-initiated, 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 proactivebehavior, there may be value in doing so.

Building from the various definitions in the literature, I offer the followingintegrated conceptualization of voice: discretionary communication of ideas,suggestions, concerns, or opinions about work-related issues with the intentto 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 definition encompasses both voice that isdirected to one’s boss or another senior manager, as well as voice directedto members of one’s team. Typically, voice scholars have either not specifiedthe voice target or have focused on just one or the other, either upward voiceor voice to one’s teammates. Yet as I will discuss, the decision of whether to

Employee Voice Behavior † 375

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

voice or not, as well as the antecedents and outcomes of this decision, is likelyto differ in meaningful ways depending on whether the behavior is directed ata supervisor or one’s peers, so there is a need to consider more fully the voicetarget.

Voice is also fairly broad in terms of content. The message being conveyedthrough voice can be about a way to improve (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998), anorganizational or work-related problem (Milliken et al., 2003), a situation ofunfairness or misconduct (Pinder & Harlos, 2001), a strategic issue of impor-tance (Dutton & Ashford, 1993), or an opinion that differs from the views ofothers (Premeaux & Bedeian, 2003). It is not, however, just any form ofspeaking. Rather, it refers to communication of work or organizationallyrelevant input that implies either an opportunity to do something differently

Table 1 Definitions of Voice

Article DefinitionVan Dyne and LePine

(1998)Promotive behavior that emphasizes expression of

constructive challenge intended to improve rather thanmerely criticize. Making innovative suggestions forchange and recommending modifications to standardprocedures even when other disagree. (p. 109)

LePine and Van Dyne(1998)

Non-required behavior that emphasizes expression ofconstructive challenge with the intent to improve ratherthan merely criticize. (p. 854)

Van Dyne, Ang, andBotero (2003)

Intentionally expressing rather than withholding relevantideas, information, and opinions about possible work-related improvements. (p. 1360)

Premeaux and Bedeian(2003)

Openly stating one’s views or opinions about workplacematters, including the actions or ideas of others,suggested or needed changes, and alternative approachesor different lines of reasoning for addressing job-relatedissues. (p. 1538)

Detert and Burris (2007) The discretionary provision of information intended toimprove organizational functioning to someone insidethe organization with the perceived authority to act, eventhough such information may challenge and upset thestatus quo of the organization and its powerholders.(p. 869)Verbal behavior that is improvement oriented anddirected to a specific target who holds power inside theorganization in question. (p. 870)

Tangirala andRamanujam (2008b)

Employees’ expression of challenging but constructiveopinions, concerns, or ideas about work-related issues.(p. 1189)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

or a need to terminate or change a current practice. Implicit in the definitionof voice is the idea that this behavior often entails risk, since offering even aseemingly 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 forseveral decades (see Table 2). In the 1970s and 1980s, there were a numberof studies focused on upward communication, which was conceptualized asany flow of information from a subordinate to a supervisor (e.g., Athanas-siades, 1973; Glauser, 1984; Roberts & O’Reilly, 1974). In their detailed typol-ogy of different forms of prosocial organizational behavior, Brief andMotowidlo (1986) discussed both “suggesting procedural, administrative, ororganizational improvements” and “objecting to improper directives, pro-cedures, or policies.” Both of these fall clearly within the voice domain. Inaddition, there has been considerable theory-building and empirical researchon whistle-blowing (for a recent review, see Miceli, Near, & Dworkin, 2008).There is also a significant 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 aresome important differences between voice and each of these other constructs(e.g., upward communication is broader in content; whistle-blowing includescommunication to parties outside of the organization and is focused morenarrowly on the exposure of illegal or unethical practices; issue selling isfocused on a particular type of upward communication), there are also impor-tant commonalities. As such, these other literatures can help to inform ourunderstanding of voice behavior.

Another body of literature that I draw from is the research on employeesilence. Silence has been defined as the conscious withholding of infor-mation, suggestions, ideas, questions, or concerns about potentially impor-tant work- or organization-related issues from persons who might be ableto take action to address those issues (Brinsfield, Edwards, & Greenberg,2009; Kish-Gephart, Detert, Trevino, & Edmondson, 2009; Milliken et al.,2003; Pinder & Harlos, 2001; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008a). An employeedisplays silence when he or she possesses input that could be valuable toshare but does not do so, typically because of fear, concerns about negativerepercussions, or feelings of futility (Milliken et al., 2003; Tangirala & Rama-nujam, 2008a).2 One of the initial papers on silence within organizations(Morrison & Milliken, 2000) focused on collective-level withholding of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

Table 2 Definitions of Related Constructs

Construct Definition Relationship to VoiceIssue Selling (Ashford

et al., 1998; Dutton &Ashford, 1993; Duttonet al., 2001)

Attempts to call theorganization’s attentionto key trends,developments, andevents that haveimplications fororganizationalperformance.

A subset of voice, focusedspecifically on informationabout organization-levelstrategic issues oropportunities.

Whistle-blowing (Miceli &Near, 1992; Miceli et al.,2008)

The disclosure byorganizational members(former or current) ofillegal, immoral, orillegitimate practicesunder the control of theiremployers, to persons ororganizations that maybe able to effect action.

Broader in that it includesnot just communicationwithin the organization, butalso externally. Narrower inthat it focuses on justinformation aboutinappropriate activities.

Upward communication(Athanassiades, 1973;Glauser, 1984; Roberts &O’Reilly, 1974)

The transference ofinformation from lowerto higher members in anorganizational hierarchy.

Broader, as it includes anycommunication betweensubordinate and supervisor(e.g., task relatedcommunications, requestedinformation).

Voice as a response todissatisfaction (Rusbultet al., 1988; Withey &Cooper, 1989)

Any attempt at all tochange, rather thanescape from, anobjectionable state ofaffairs. Actively andconstructively trying toimprove dissatisfyingconditions.

More narrow in that it focuson just “dissatisfyingconditions” but broader inthat it includes any and allefforts to address the issueof concern (not justspeaking up).

Prosocial organizationalbehavior (Brief &Motowidlo, 1986)

Behavior which isperformed by anorganizational member,directed toward anindividual, group, ororganization with whomhe or she interacts whilecarrying out his/herorganizational role, andperformed with theintention of promoting

Two of the 13 identifiedtypes of prosocialorganizational behaviorreflect voice: suggestingprocedural, administrative,or organizationalimprovements, andobjecting to improperdirectives, procedures, orpolicies.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

information. However, subsequent work on this construct has tended tofocus on the individual-level choice to remain silent rather than voice (Milli-ken et al., 2003; Pinder & Harlos, 2001; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008a).While there has been less research on silence than on voice, this researchsheds light on the factors that predict an employee’s decision of whetheror not to speak up, particularly when the message pertains to potentiallysensitive topics.

In drawing from research on employee silence, it is important to note thatthere has been some debate among scholars about whether silence and voiceshould be viewed as opposite ends of a continuum or as distinct constructs.

Table 2 Definitions of Related Constructs (Continued)

Construct Definition Relationship to Voicethe welfare of the party towhich it is directed.

Voice as conceptualizedwithin the HRM and ILRliteratures (Dundon et al.,2004; Spencer, 1986;Wood & Wall, 2007)

A variety of ways in whichemployees, individuallyand collectively, expressdissatisfaction, try tochange a problematicsituation, or becomeinvolved inorganizational decisionmaking (e.g., grievancefiling, collectivebargaining, suggestionsystems, work councils).

A broad and multi-dimensional constructfocused on formalmechanisms that allow forvoice rather than thebehavior of voice itself.

Voice as a component ofprocedural justice (Bies &Shapiro, 1988; Tyleret al., 1985)

The degree to which adecision procedure givesthose affected by adecision an opportunityto express their viewsabout how the decisionshould be made.

The opportunity to voice, asreflected in decisionprocesses. Does not implythat employees have availedthemselves of thisopportunity by engaging invoice behavior.

Silence (Morrison &Milliken, 2000; Pinder &Harlos, 2001)

Conscious withholding ofinformation, suggestions,ideas, questions, orconcerns aboutpotentially importantwork or organization-related issues, frompersons who might beable to take action toaddress those issues.

The choice to not engage invoice, despite havingpotentially important orvaluable information toshare.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

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 haspotentially important information, such as a suggestion or concern, he orshe 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 oppositedirection.

Other scholars, however, propose that voice and silence should be treated asseparate constructs (Brinsfield et al., 2009; Detert & Edmondson, forthcoming;Kish-Gephart et al., 2009; Van Dyne et al., 2003). One argument that has beenmade is that, unlike voice, which is a deliberate choice, silence can be an auto-matic withdrawal response, a habituated behavior, or a deep state of resigna-tion (Kish-Gephart et al., 2009; Pinder & Harlos, 2001). Yet as noted above,most definitions of silence conceptualize it as withholding and not merelythe 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 ahigh level of voice in general but at the same time withhold certain types ofinformation (Detert & Edmondson, forthcoming). In other words, voice andsilence can co-exist. I would argue, however, that while it is true that employeescan voice about some issues and remain silent about others, this does not implyorthogonal constructs. Rather, it implies the need to recognize that voice andsilence are rarely absolute (i.e., complete voice or complete silence) and thatindividuals may show considerable variance across issues and over time.

Thus I believe that it is most appropriate to view voice and silence as oppo-sites, and that we should work to integrate the two literatures. In a similar vein,Ashford, Sutcliffe, and Christianson (2009) made a strong argument for nothaving separate literatures on voice and silence, and for treating theseconstructs as “different sides of the same coin” (p. 178). I therefore use theterm silence to reflect “failure to voice” (i.e., withholding input that could beshared rather than expressing such input) and conceptualize voice andsilence as existing along a single continuum.

History of the Term Voice

Although there has been a recent resurgence of research on voice behavior, theterm voice is not new to the organizational literature. However, not all of theusages of the term correspond to current conceptualizations, which can createsome confusion.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, there were several studies that attemptedto build from Hirschman’s (1970) model of how customers respond to


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

deteriorating firm performance in order to understand better how employeesrespond to work-related issues. That line of research conceptualized voice asone of four different ways in which employees can respond to personal dissa-tisfaction 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 defined as any efforts to try to improvecurrent conditions, and included a wide range of behaviors: raising issues toone’s supervisor, making attempts to change working conditions, workingharder, asking co-workers for advice about what to do, or contacting anoutside agency to get help in changing working conditions. Given howbroadly the construct was defined and operationalized, researchers were notvery successful in identifying predictors of voice, and as noted above, recentwork has defined voice more specifically. In addition, scholars have movedaway from viewing the primary motive for voice as the removal of personal dis-satisfaction to viewing it as a form of prosocial behavior (i.e., less self-focusedand more other-focused).

There is also a rich literature using the term voice within the industrial laborrelations (ILR) and human resource management (HRM) literatures. Scholarswithin these domains have used the term voice to refer not to employee behav-ior, but to a wide range of formal mechanisms for individual and collectiveemployee input, such as grievance procedures, suggestion systems, ombuds-man services, employee-management meetings, non-management taskforces, 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 organizationaljustice literature, where it similarly reflects the opportunity for input viadecision procedures that allow employees to express their views. Justice scho-lars have shown that decision processes that grant voice increase perceptions offairness and satisfaction with leaders (Bies & Shapiro, 1988; Tyler, Rasinski, &Spodick, 1985). However, they have not considered discretionary voice behav-ior, nor the causes or consequences of this behavior. In sum, as these variousliterature streams define voice in a way that does not closely match currentconceptualizations, 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 notspeak up when they have organizationally relevant information, ideas, orconcerns. As noted, a key assumption within the voice literature is that thebehavior 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 thedesire to help the organization or work unit perform more effectively or to


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

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 voicelack such a motive. In fact, just the opposite is often the case. When employeeschoose to remain silent, the motive to bring about improvement exists, but it isoverpowered by other motives (Milliken et al., 2003). That is, despite havingpotentially important information (a suggestion, information about aproblem, a divergent opinion, etc.), and even though the employee is motivatedto behave prosocially, other motives or considerations cause that employee towithhold 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 isthe desire to benefit the organization or work unit, the literature emphasizesthat voice reflects a deliberate decision process whereby the individual con-siders both positive and negative consequences (Ashford et al., 1998; Detert& Burris, 2007; Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Two key outcome-related con-siderations have been emphasized in particular. The first is the individual’sjudgment about whether speaking up is likely to be effective. This is oftenreferred to as the perceived efficacy of voice. The second is the individual’sjudgment about the risks or potential negative outcomes associated withspeaking up, which is often referred to as the perceived safety of voice. Asillustrated in Figure 1 these two judgments may strengthen or attenuate therelationship between the motive to benefit or help the collective and actualvoice behavior.

Figure 1 Model of Employee Voice.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

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 thisperceived probability will affect the likelihood of voice, is consistent withwell-established theories of motivation that highlight the link between effortand expectancy beliefs (Vroom, 1964). It can be found as well in some of theearliest work on voice. Withey and Cooper (1989) argued that expected efficacyaffects the decision to engage in voice, and perceived efficacy has also been acentral construct in models of whistle-blowing (Miceli & Near, 1992). Inaddition, Ashford et al. (1998) highlighted that willingness to engage inissue selling depends on beliefs about the probability of successfully gettingthe attention of top management. Similarly, research on employee silenceemphasizes the impact of feelings of futility or resignation (Milliken et al.,2003; Pinder & Harlos, 2001), in other words, the sense that speaking upwill 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 iswhether voice is likely to lead to negative personal outcomes, highlighting thatself-protective motives play a central role in the decision of whether or not tovoice. In the issue-selling literature, for example, the actor’s assessment ofimage risk has been argued to figure prominently in the decision of whetherto try to sell an issue to top management (Ashford et al., 1998). That is, indi-viduals are less likely to raise a strategic issue if they believe that doing so willdamage their image in the eyes of important others. Research on silence hasalso emphasized self-protective concerns, and in particular, the idea thatsilence often stems from concerns about negative repercussions (Morrison &Milliken, 2000). Employees may worry that raising an issue, or even voicinga suggestion for improvement, will damage their credibility, cause them tobe labeled as a troublemaker or complainer, or damage their social capital.Employees also sometimes fear tangible career-related costs, such as a negativeperformance evaluation, undesirable job assignments, or even termination(Milliken et al., 2003).

Concerns about whether it is safe to voice play an especially important rolewhen one is considering whether to speak up about a problem, or a situation ofinjustice, 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 nega-tive consequences, deliberately withhold information about injustice fromthose in positions of power, and Van Dyne et al. (2003) discussed a similarbehavior which they called “defensive silence.” Concerns about negative reper-cussions may also play a role when one is considering whether to voice to one’steammates. Voice can upset interpersonal relationships or reflect negatively


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

upon others (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). As a result, an employee may refrainfrom voicing in order to avoid damaging social capital or harming colleagues,such as when one decides to remain silent about a co-worker’s poor perform-ance. Fears and concerns can arise not just when one is considering whether toconvey information about problems, but also when one is considering whetherto offer a suggestion for improvement, as recipients may feel threatened byinformation that challenges their authority, implies that things are notworking optimally, or requires change in behavior or practice (Detert &Burris, 2007; Kish-Gephart et al., 2009; Milliken et al., 2003).

It is difficult to determine empirically the underlying motives for voice orsilence, 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 aninstance where they had remained silent and to indicate the reasons for thisdecision, participants in Milliken et al.’s (2003) study talked of both thebelief that speaking up would not make a difference, and a variety of safety-related concerns, such as not wanting to be viewed negatively by others, notwanting to damage a relationship, avoiding upsetting or embarrassingsomeone else, and fear of retaliation.3 In addition, in their qualitative investi-gation of voice-related beliefs, Detert and Trevino (2010) found frequentexamples of beliefs that voice was unsafe, as well as frequent examples ofbeliefs that voice was futile (i.e., low perceived efficacy).

To summarize, the driving force behind voice is presumed to be the desireto bring about constructive change for the collective. Yet whether or not thatprosocial motive actually translates into voice behavior depends on “an expect-ancy like calculus” (Ashford et al., 1998; Detert & Burris, 2007; Milliken et al.,2003) of anticipated success and relative costs and benefits. Voice will be morelikely as the expected probability of success increases; that is, as the likelihoodthat one’s efforts will be effective in bringing about improvement or fixing aproblem increases. Voice will also be more likely as the expected risk of speak-ing up, in relation to the expected benefits of doing so, decreases. The oppositeis true for silence.

Although this decision process may sound very cognitive, it is important tonote that emotions can also come into play. Concerns about negative repercus-sions can go beyond a mere calculus of risk and can be experienced, at anemotional level, as fear. Fear can be a very powerful emotion, which can insome cases lead to a short-circuiting of deliberative decision making. As aresult, failure to voice may not always be based on a conscious process ofweighing costs and benefits, but in some situations it may reflect moreof 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 fullycognitive, but so might deeply rooted beliefs and schemas that operate belowthe level of conscious, rational decision making. In an interesting discussion


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

of such effects, Detert and Edmondson (forthcoming) argued that peoplesometimes remain silent at work because of socially acquired beliefs aboutwhat makes voice risky in social hierarchies. The specific beliefs that theyuncovered in their research were: (a) one must not bypass the boss; (b) onemust not embarrass the boss in public; (c) bosses identify with and feelownership over the status quo; (d) one needs solid data or complete solutionsbefore it is safe to speak; and (e) speaking up can have negative career conse-quences. Detert and Edmondson argued that beliefs such as these color howone interprets events within the workplace and can lead to employee silenceregardless of the true risk inherent in voicing to one’s current boss. Suchbeliefs also tend to endure even in the face of contradictory evidence (i.e.,even if one’s boss conveys openness to voice).

Finally, it is also important to highlight the conflict and ambivalence thatindividuals often experience when deciding whether to speak up or not.Ambivalence refers to the coexistence of strong conflicting feelings towardthe same object, person, or action, which thus pull the individual in oppositedirections (Piderit, 2000). An employee may regard a particular workplacepractice as highly inefficient, and thus be strongly drawn to speaking upabout this problem and offering suggestions for how the practice could bechanged. Yet at the same time, he could be very concerned about how hisboss and co-workers will react to him challenging the status quo, whichmight pull him in the direction of remaining silent. In the end, the beliefthat 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 animportant role. In many cases, the individual is faced with a balancing act oftrying to be prosocial and constructive on one hand, yet mindful of personalcosts on the other hand. How these conflicting motives play out is the criticaldeterminant of whether one voices or remains silent.

Predictors of Voice

The predominant focus of much of the empirical research on voice has been onidentifying factors that increase or decrease the amount of voice behavior thatan employee engages in, presumably by affecting employees’ beliefs aboutwhether speaking up will be effective and safe, and/or their motivation tocontribute to the organization in constructive ways. This research has ident-ified a wide variety of factors, both contextual and individual, that affectvoice behavior or lack thereof. In this section, I review the findings, startingfirst with contextual factors, and then discussing the impact of individual-level factors. As illustrated in Figure 1, both sets of antecedents operate byaffecting the two outcome-related considerations that precede the decision ofwhether to voice. In reviewing this literature, my goal is not just to summarizethe empirical research, but also to help provide some theoretical integration.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

Contextual Factors

As research on issue selling has highlighted, employees look for cues regardingwhether or not their work context is a favorable one for speaking up, and theyuse these cues to guide their behavior (Dutton, Ashford, O’Neill, Hayes, &Wierba, 1997; Dutton et al., 2002). Therefore, the organizational contextwithin which the individual resides is likely to have an important impact onthe frequency with which he or she voices, and as a result, voice may bemuch more (or less) common in some settings than in others (Morrison &Milliken, 2000).

One contextual factor that has been emphasized in a variety of literaturestreams is the formal organizational structure. Glauser (1984) highlighted thatupward communication is facilitated by not just physical proximity betweenthe actor and the target, but also by structures that are low in bureaucracy andby the presence of formal mechanisms designed to foster upward communi-cation (e.g., grievance procedures, suggestion systems). These arguments areconsistent with the notion that individuals are more likely to voice when theybelieve that it is easier to do so and when they believe that voice is likely to beacted upon, as both of these are more likely in contexts that are non-bureaucraticand where there are structural mechanisms for providing input.

More recent works within the voice literature have not given muchconsideration to the role of formal communication mechanisms, probablydue to the conceptualization of voice as a discretionary extra-role behavioroccurring in a face-to-face context. However, Morrison and Milliken (2000)theorized that lack of formal upward feedback channels is a key factor contri-buting to employee silence. There is also evidence from the whistle-blowing lit-erature that having specific channels for internal reporting increases theincidence of such behavior (Miceli et al., 2008).

Related to the issue of formal structure, a salient theme in the upwardcommunication literature is that voice is stifled by hierarchy. Research hasshown, for example, that individuals are particularly reluctant to convey nega-tive information to individuals in higher status positions (Athanassiades, 1973;Roberts & O’Reilly, 1974). In fact, merely introducing a hierarchical structureinto a group has been shown to impede open communication, particularlycommunication directed toward those in higher positions (Festinger, 1950).Theoretical discussions of employee silence have also emphasized the role ofhierarchical or status differences in causing employees to believe that theirinput will not be taken seriously, that voice will be perceived as inappropriate,or that they will be sanctioned for speaking up (Detert & Edmondson, forth-coming; Morrison & Milliken, 2000; Morrison & Rothman, 2009; Pinder &Harlos, 2001).

Organizational culture may also encourage or discourage voice. In twodifferent interview-based studies, Dutton et al. (1997, 2002) found that


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

employees regarded their work contexts to be favorable for issue selling whenthe organizational culture supported issue selling and when top managementseemed willing to listen, and unfavorable for issue selling when the organiz-ational culture was conservative, exclusive, or unsupportive. Other studieshave similarly pointed to the importance of how employees view the cultureof their organization. Stamper and Van Dyne (2001) found that, whereaspart-time employees displayed relatively little voice regardless of organiz-ational culture, full-time employees, who were more vested in the futuresuccess of their organization, exhibited higher levels of voice when theculture was less bureaucratic.

Studies have pointed to other aspects of organizational context as well. In asurvey study of issue selling, Ashford et al. (1998) hypothesized and found thatperceived organizational support, which reflects perceptions of the extent towhich the organization values employees and cares about their well-being(Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, & Sowa, 1986), related positively tothe perceived probability of issue-selling success and negatively to theperceived risk of engaging in issue selling. Norms favoring issue selling alsoassociated with lower perceived risk.

Insight into the importance of context also comes from the silence litera-ture. Morrison and Milliken’s (2000) main thesis was that sometimes silenceis pervasive within an organization, and reflects widely shared beliefs thatspeaking 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 tostructures and practices that reflect top management’s implicit belief structuresand fears. Specifically, when managers believe that employees tend to be self-interested and ill informed, and when they are fearful of receiving negativefeedback, they will tend to display behaviors (such as not soliciting input)and create structures (such as centralized decision making) that make employ-ees particularly uncomfortable speaking up about certain issues.

Pinder and Harlos (2001) similarly argued that some organizationalcontexts systematically foster an environment of intimidation and fear that“discourages unjustly-treated individuals from breaking their silence toimprove their situations.” In addition, scholars from a variety of disciplineshave argued that organizations are often intolerant of dissent (Argyris, 1977;Ewing, 1977; Redding, 1985). Empirical work, while limited, supports theseideas. In their interview-based study, Milliken et al. (2003) found that thedecision not to speak up when one has a concern is often shaped by perceptionsthat the organizational culture or structure is not supportive of upwardcommunication.

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 tospeak up, and can reduce the social costs of expressing different viewpoints.Studies have shown that work-group members voice more when their group


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

is smaller (Islam & Zyphur, 2005; LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). Voice is morecommon as well in groups that are self-managing rather than traditional(LePine & Van Dyne, 1998), and in groups that adopt egalitarian practicessuch as rotated leadership and peer evaluations (Erez, LePine, & Elms,2002). Each of these factors is likely to make it easier and less intimidatingto voice, while also increasing feelings of voice efficacy. Interestingly, LePineand Van Dyne (1998) found the effects of group-level factors to be strongerfor individuals who were more satisfied with their group and for individualswith low versus high self-esteem, highlighting the interdependence of personaland situational factors.

An important recent development within the voice literature has been theemergence of cross-level theorizing about voice and silence (Morrison et al.,2011; Tangirala and Ramanijam, 2008a). In contrast to prior work, whichwas primarily at the individual level of analysis, these works simultaneouslyconsider both individual and group-level effects. They have also expandedbeyond 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 morevoice behavior when their work group is characterized by shared beliefs that itis safe and worthwhile to convey suggestions, opinions, and concerns (or whatthey referred to as “a favorable voice climate”). These group-level beliefs notonly had an effect independent of individual-level attitudes, but they alsostrengthened the effect of identification on voice. That is, while individualswho highly identified with their group voiced more regardless of group-levelbeliefs, the effect of identification was much stronger in groups with favorablevoice climates. This study is important in highlighting that there can be power-ful collective-level beliefs about voice (Morrison & Milliken, 2000) and thatvoice is partly shaped by these collective beliefs.

To summarize, contextual factors can have an important effect on the easewith which employees are able to voice, and convey powerful informationabout whether voice is acceptable or encouraged within the organization orwork group. Contexts that are more supportive of voice, such as organizationsthat are less bureaucratic or hierarchical, provide cues that employee input canmake a difference and will not result in personal harm. Contexts that are lesssupportive, on the other hand, provide cues suggesting that speaking up islikely futile and potentially even harmful to one’s image or career, thereby dis-couraging voice.

Supervisor Behavior

Perhaps one of the most important sources of cues about whether it is worth-while and safe to voice is the behavior of one’s immediate supervisor. This is


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

true not just because supervisors are often the target of voice, but also becausethey have power over valued outcomes, such as job assignments, pay, and per-formance evaluations. It is not surprising, therefore, that the voice literaturehas emphasized supervisory behavior and that several studies have demon-strated a relationship between voice behavior and either perceptions of one’ssupervisor or perception of the quality of one’s relationship with one’ssupervisor.

For example, early studies on upward communication within organizationsdemonstrated relationships between the frequency and accuracy of upwardcommunication and trust in one’s boss (e.g., Gaines, 1980; Read, 1962;Roberts & O’Reilly, 1974). In his review of this literature, Glauser (1984) alsosuggested that upward information flow is promoted when the supervisor hasupward influence within the organization and values information from employ-ees, both of which should affect judgments about the efficacy and safety of voice.

More recent work has tended to focus on supervisor openness to voice,which reflects perceptions that one’s manager is approachable, listens toemployees, is interested in their input, and gives fair consideration to theirideas and suggestions (Detert & Burris, 2007). In one of the first suchstudies, Saunders, Shepard, Knight, and Roth (1992) found that employeesreport a greater likelihood of voicing when they perceive their supervisor tobe approachable and responsive to employee input. Similarly, Ashford et al.’s(1998) study of issue selling showed that perceived relationship qualitybetween oneself and the target to whom one would have to sell the issueincreased the perceived probability of issue-selling success and reduced theperceived image risk associated with issue selling. These two perceptions, inturn, affected the reported willingness to sell gender equity issues. Researchon whistle-blowing likewise suggests that employees are more likely to speakup about significant issues when they perceive their supervisor to be supportive(Miceli et al., 2008).

Other investigations have also shown relationships between how employeesperceive their supervisors and the frequency of voice. For example, in theirinterview-based study focused on why employees sometimes feel uncomforta-ble speaking up with concerns, Milliken et al. (2003) found that a frequentlyreported reason was either a poor relation with one’s supervisor or the percep-tion that one’s supervisor was unsupportive. Edmondson (2003) found thatwithin cardiac surgery teams where the leader (i.e., surgeon) engaged inmore coaching behavior, team members perceived it to be easier to speakup. Surgeons also encouraged voice by downplaying power differences,which enhanced feelings of psychological safety. In another recent investi-gation, Detert and Burris (2007) demonstrated that perceived manager open-ness fostered voice by creating enhanced feelings of psychological safety.Similarly, Tangirala and Ramanujam (2010) found that managers’ consultationbehavior led employees to feel more influential, which in turn led to more


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

voice. These effects were especially strong when the employee had high job sat-isfaction and when the manager had high perceived status.

Employee voice behavior has been linked to a variety of other leadershipconstructs. For example, Detert and Burris (2007) argued that transformationalleadership fosters voice because transformational leaders create commitmentand responsibility toward collective ends and encourage employees tobecome innovative problem solvers. In support of these ideas, they found apositive relationship between transformational leadership and voice, aneffect that was partially attributable to psychological safety. Liu et al. (2010)proposed and showed that transformational leadership relates to higher identi-fication with one’s supervisor and thus more upward voice, and that it alsorelates to higher identification with the organization, which leads to morevoicing to co-workers. This study is noteworthy in that it is the first to inves-tigate these two different types of voice behavior.

The extent to which employees speak up with suggestions was shown in arecent study to be greater when employees have a positive leader–memberexchange relationship, and less when they work for a supervisor whom theyregard to be abusive (Burris et al., 2008). The authors argued that high-quality relationships with one’s supervisor mitigate withdrawal cognitions,and that this in turn increases the likelihood of employees engaging in discre-tionary effort on behalf of the organization. Recent studies have also shownthat perceptions of ethical leadership enhance employee voice behavior, aswell as group-level voice (Walumbwa, Morrison, & Christensen, 2011;Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009). Presumably, when leaders behave in ahighly ethical manner, they create a trusting environment where employeesfeel that it is safe to engage in constructive voice.

Voice behavior may be influenced by perceptions of not just the behavior ofone’s immediate boss, but also the behavior of “skip-level” leaders (i.e., one’sboss’s boss). When employees at a large high-technology firm were askedabout factors that affected their willingness to speak up, 93% gave examplesof behavior by an immediate boss, yet approximately half also gave examplesof behavior of a skip-level leader, and some also talked of the behavior ofleaders three to five levels removed (Detert & Trevino, 2010).

To summarize, there is considerable evidence that perceptions of one’ssupervisor, or of others in leadership positions, play an important role in affect-ing the frequency of voice behavior. These findings suggest that supervisorsand leaders not only create opportunities for voice by providing formal andinformal voice mechanisms, but also shape the cognitions that drive thedecision of whether or not to voice (Ashford et al., 2009). In other words,the more open and supportive the relationship (as reflected in high trust,approachability, openness, transformational leadership, high leader-memberexchange, etc.), the more positive will be the employee’s perceptions of voiceefficacy and safety, and thus, the more likely he or she will be to speak up.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

Despite this growing body of work on the role of leader behavior, however, westill do not have a clear picture of exactly what it is that leaders do or do not do thatshapes employee perceptions of openness. Some of the openness-fostering beha-viors that have been discussed include involving employees in discussion anddecisions, asking for input, seeking feedback, not responding in a hostilemanner, and taking action to address issues that have been raised (Ashfordet al., 2009; Morrison & Rothman, 2009). There has not, however, been much rig-orous theory building related to these different types of behavior, nor has therebeen much empirical work focused on specific leader behaviors. Such workcould be very useful, particularly if scholars are correct that leaders oftenbehave in ways that stifle 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 conveyingpower (e.g., direct eye gaze, postural expansion, high vocal volume), subjectsin a follower role tend to speak less. These cues, however, may be sent uncon-sciously. Along these same lines, Ashford et al. (2009) argue that constraints ontime and attention can cause leaders to behave inadvertently in ways that signala lack of openness to voice, such as not listening, responding brusquely, and soforth. Morrison and Rothman (2009) add to this by explaining how feelings ofpower can inflate leaders’ views of their own competence and performance,and thus reduce their receptivity to input. They highlight as well that powercan cause leaders to display hostile or dominant behaviors that stifle subordi-nate communication. Researchers have also discussed some of the implicitbeliefs and biases that can undermine leaders’ responsiveness to employeeinput (Ashford et al., 2009; Morrison & Milliken, 2000). These works, andothers, suggest that even leaders who wish to encourage employee voice maynot always do so, and that it may be quite difficult for leaders to demonstratethat they truly are open to employee input.

Employee Attitudes and Dispositions

Although both theory and empirical results suggest that employees are highlyresponsive to contextual cues when deciding whether or not to speak up withconcerns or suggestions, there is also evidence that, regardless of context, someindividuals voice more than others. One reason may be differences in howemployees feel about their organization or work group and in how committedthey are to providing constructive input. Some of the early work on voice as aresponse to dissatisfaction showed positive, albeit weak, effects of job satisfac-tion and organizational commitment on voice (Rusbult et al., 1988; Withey &Cooper, 1989). These findings suggest that, despite a particular source ofdissatisfaction that is motivating voice, individuals who are generally morepositive about their job and organization are more inclined to try to addressthat source of dissatisfaction. More recent studies, using improved measures


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

of voice behavior, have corroborated these findings. Research has shown apositive relationship between satisfaction and voicing to supervisors, and anegative association between psychological detachment from one’s workenvironment and voice behavior (Burris et al., 2008; Detert & Burris, 2007).Studies of voice and silence within work groups have shown that a variety ofindividual attitudes, including satisfaction, professional commitment, work-group identification, felt obligation for constructive change, and perceptionsof fairness, relate positively to voice or negatively to silence (LePine & VanDyne, 1998; Liang, Fahr, & Fahr, forthcoming; Morrison et al., 2011; Tangirala& Ramanujam, 2008a).

In an elaboration on the relationship between voice and general feelings ofefficacy, Tangirala and Ramanujam (2008b) proposed, and found, a U-shapedrelationship between personal control and voice, an effect that was particularlystrong for employees with high levels of identification. The authors theorizedthat voice should be more frequent at high levels of personal controlbecause, when control is high, the individual will have a strong expectancythat voice will be effective. Yet they also theorized that voice should be morefrequent at low levels of control because lack of control creates a dissatisfyingstate that the individual is motivated to try to change. The latter effect is inter-esting in suggesting that, even if efficacy is low, other factors may propel anindividual to speak up in the hope of bringing about change.

In addition to attitudes, dispositional factors are likely to affect voice. In oneof the most comprehensive investigations of dispositional predictors, LePineand Van Dyne (2001) examined the relationship between voice within workgroups and each of the Big Five personality dimensions (Barrick & Mount,1991). Consistent with their predictions, they found voice to be more frequentamong employees who are high on both conscientiousness and extraversion. Inexplaining these findings, they argued that individuals who are more con-scientious are more willing to engage in conversations about how to improvethings, whereas extraverted individuals are more comfortable speaking up.Also consistent with their hypotheses, they found an inverse relationshipbetween voice and both neuroticism and agreeableness. These findings makesense as well. Individuals who are high on the neuroticism dimension will bemore nervous about voicing, and those who are highly agreeable will tend togo 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 confines of agreed-upon paradigms, with innovators,who tend to think extra-paradigmatically. They found that this trait affected voicebehavior, but the nature of the effects depended, in rather complex ways, on thetype of information being voiced, satisfaction, and supervisory style. Self-monitor-ing has also been shown to affect voice behavior. Specifically, Premeaux andBedeian (2003) found that the relationships between voice and a variety of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

dispositional and perceptual factors—locus of control, self-esteem, perceived topmanagement openness, and trust in supervisor—were positive for low self-moni-tors and negative for high self-monitors. In addition, Botero and Van Dyne (2009)found, in both the United States and Columbia, a negative relationship betweenself-reported voice and power distance, which is defined as the extent to whichan individual views it as appropriate for there to be a high level of power inequalitybetween people (Hofstede, 1991).

To summarize, there is accumulating evidence that the frequency of voicedepends on a variety of attitudes and dispositions, such that even within thesame work context, some individuals may display significantly more voicethan others. Largely missing, however, is a coherent theoretical frameworkfor integrating the various empirical findings related to individual-level predic-tors. Instead of more empirical work that will merely add to the list of attitu-dinal or trait-based predictors, there is a need for work that focuses more onconceptual synthesis and integration.

Other Individual-Level Factors

Beyond attitudes and personality, a variety of other individual-level attributeshas also been investigated in relation to employee voice. Yet this is area wheretheory is especially sparse, and perhaps as a result of there not being clearguiding theory, research findings have been inconsistent. For example,studies have suggested that there may be gender differences in voice, but theresults are mixed. An early study on upward communication suggested thatwomen communicate with their supervisors more than men, and that theymay perceive less negative consequences related to upward communication(Young, 1978). Studies of whistle-blowing, on the other hand, have tendednot to show an effect for gender (Miceli et al., 2008), and a few studies onthe voicing of suggestions have found higher rates for men than women(Detert & Burris, 2007; LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). Research suggests as wellthat ethnic minorities might engage in less voice behavior than whites(Detert & Burris, 2007; LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Miceli et al., 2008). Thereasons for these differences, however, remain open to speculation.

A clearer picture emerges for experience and tenure. Because individualstend to be more reluctant to voice if they feel unsure about their ability todo so effectively and safely (due to uncertainty about their communicationskills, their credibility, others’ receptivity, etc.), we might expect newer employ-ees to display less voice than veterans. This is exactly what the data suggest.Voice has been shown to relate positively with organizational tenure (Burriset al., 2008; Detert & Burris, 2007; Miceli et al., 2008; Tangirala & Ramanujam,2008b), and several respondents in Milliken et al.’s (2003) study pointed totheir lack of tenure or experience as a reason for withholding input. Specifi-cally, many respondents reported that, because they were relatively new in


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

their organization, they felt that they lacked the credibility to voice effectivelyor that voicing felt especially risky to their public image.

Veteran employees may also voice more because they feel a greater sense ofinvestment in their organization, and thus a greater motivation to ensure itseffectiveness, while at the same time feeling more secure engaging in behaviorthat entails risk. In support of these ideas, Rusbult et al. (1988) found that voicewas more common among employees who felt they had both a high level ofinvestment in their job, yet also good quality job alternatives. Presumably,the ability to get another job lowers the perceived risk of voicing. There isalso research suggesting that, while individuals with high mobility aspirationsengage in more upward communication, they are more likely to restrict ordistort some types of information (Athanassiades, 1973, 1974; Maier,Hoffman, & Read, 1963; O’Reilly, 1978; Read, 1962; Roberts & O’Reilly,1974). It seems reasonable to theorize that mobility aspirations heightenconcerns about one’s image, and thereby reduce the tendency to raise certaintypes 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 todefine their employment relationship in terms of social rather than economicexchange, and thus be more motivated to engage in discretionary behaviors(Stamper & Van Dyne, 2001). Second, because full-time employees tend tohave higher social status than part-timers, they may have higher efficacyperceptions when it comes to voice behavior. Consistent with these ideas,Tangirala and Ramanujam (2008b) found full-timers to engage in morevoice than part-timers, and Stamper and Van Dyne (2001) found a similareffect as long as the full-time employees wanted to work full-time ratherthan part time.

As we might expect, an individual’s position within the organization alsoexplains voice behavior, as being in a position of greater formal or informalinfluence will mitigate feelings of futility, as well as fear that speaking up willbe punished (Miceli et al., 2008; Morrison & Rothman, 2009). One study, forexample, showed that employees who are more central in the workflow oftheir group experience a greater sense of personal influence, which in turn isassociated with more voice behavior. This effect was particularly strong foremployees with greater work-group identification (Venkataramani & Tangirala,2010). Another investigation found that higher positions in the hierarchy, aswell as greater access to resources, led to stronger felt responsibility forchange, which in turn led to more voice behavior (Fuller, Marler, & Hester,2006). Similarly, a laboratory study of voice within work groups showed thatamong individuals with high social dominance, those who were in positionsof high power voiced their opinions more than those who were in positionsof low power (Islam & Zyphur, 2005). Further underscoring the importanceof status, respondents in Dutton et al.’s (2002) study indicated that they


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

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 whetheremployees feel that they can make a difference by voicing, and whether theybelieve that doing so will not tarnish their image. In support of this idea,Detert and Burris (2007) found that the positive effect of perceived leaderbehavior on voice was stronger for better-performing employees. Specifically,compared with lower performers, higher performers were especially likely tospeak up when their bosses appeared interested in input from employees,but especially unlikely to do so when their bosses appeared unreceptive toinput.

Finally, individuals’ idiosyncratic views of what is expected as part of theirjob (i.e., role perceptions) are likely to affect voice behavior, just as they havebeen shown to affect other types of discretionary activity. In fact, Van Dyne,Kamdar, and Joireman (2008) found that employees who perceived voice tobe part of their job were rated by their supervisors as engaging in morevoice behavior than employees who perceived voice to be extra-role.

Consequences of Voice

A central premise in the literature is that voice has important benefits fororganizations and work groups, while silence can have significant negativeeffects. These arguments draw from diverse research streams. For example,building from the literatures on strategy formulation, group decisionmaking, 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 organiz-ational decision making and better error detection. Other scholars have like-wise emphasized the importance of employees voluntarily contributing ideasand information for organizational learning and improvement, given the unli-kelihood that those at the top will have all of the information they need aboutwork processes and problems (Detert & Burris, 2007; Dutton & Ashford, 1993;Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008b). Emphasis as well has been placed on theimportance of voice within work groups. For example, LePine and VanDyne (1998, p. 853) argued that the very nature of teamwork requires thatgroup members “share ideas, knowledge, and insights so that multiple view-points are considered in making decisions.” In support of these arguments,Edmondson (2003) found that voice facilitates the successful implementationof 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 ofcontrol, which has been shown to increase satisfaction and motivation anddecrease stress (Greenberger & Strasser, 1986; Parker, 1993). Second, voice


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

may lead to more positive attitudes due to the benefits associated with beingable to express one’s views and concerns (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Infact, there is evidence that, in situations where one has experienced mistreat-ment, remaining silent rather than speaking up can have a negative impacton both psychological and physical health (Cortina & Magley, 2003).

These positive effects notwithstanding, voice can also lead to negativeoutcomes for the individual. Speaking up, as several scholars have argued(e.g., Milliken et al., 2003; Pinder & Harlos, 2001), can lead to a damagedpublic image (being seen as a complainer or a troublemaker) or to formal sanc-tions (a lower performance evaluation, a bad job assignment). The most directevidence of this comes from research showing that whistle-blowers very oftensuffer retaliation (Miceli et al., 2008).

Outside of research on whistle-blowing, however, empirical research on theeffects of voice for the individual actor is mixed. Siebert, Kraimer, and Crant(2001) found voice to have a negative relationship with promotions andsalary increases two years later. Conversely, a recent experimental study byWhiting, Podsakoff, and Pierce (2009) suggests that voice may have positiveeffects on how one is viewed by others. Subjects in that study had to rate theperformance of a “paper person” based on written descriptions of 24 criticalincidents. Some of the incidents described high levels of voice; others describedlow levels of voice. Results showed a positive effect of voice on performanceappraisals, above and beyond the effects of task behavior and helping.

Other studies similarly suggest that voice might bring positive outcomes tothe individual. Van Dyne and LePine (1998) looked at the performance impli-cations of both helping behavior and voice. They found that, together, thesetwo forms of discretionary behavior explained variance in performance sixmonths later, above and beyond the effect of in-role job behavior. In addition,Vakola and Bourades (2005) found an inverse relationship between silence andboth job satisfaction and organizational commitment, which they proposed tobe outcomes. Their data, however, were cross-sectional and self-reported, sothe direction of causality cannot be clearly determined.

In an interesting elaboration on the question of whether voice has positiveor negative effects for the actor, Burris, Detert, and Romney (2010) proposedthat the personal outcomes of voice depends on whether employees andmanagers hold the same perceptions of the employee’s voice behavior.Specifically, they hypothesized that positive outcomes will tend to resultwhen an employee and his or her manager agree that the employee is enga-ging in frequent and high-quality voice, while negative outcomes (e.g., lowerperformance ratings, higher involuntary turnover) will tend to result whenemployees over-estimate the volume, variety, and value of their voice behav-ior. Their results support these predictions. Overall, then, the empirical evi-dence suggests that voice often does have positive implications for the actor,implying that the implicit beliefs that many employees hold about the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

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 impor-tant conclusion that emerged from Milliken et al.’s (2003) exploratory study isthe idea that relational and social considerations (i.e., how voicing may affectothers) play an important role in the decision of whether to speak up orremain silent. These considerations play an important role because voice canhave negative implications for other employees. Highlighting a problem canembarrass others or cast them in a negative light, while ideas for change cancreate friction within the work group or create more work for one’s co-workers (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Milliken et al., 2003). On the other hand,voice can bring benefits to others, such as when one speaks up about unfair con-ditions in the workplace and these conditions are then remedied, or when oneoffers a suggestion that makes work processes more efficient. Given these con-flicting possibilities, it would be valuable to theorize more fully about the effectsof voice, both positive and negative, on the actor’s peers, his/her relationshipswith 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 twodozen journal articles on voice and/or silence, as well as a special issue of ajournal (Morrison & Milliken, 2003) and an edited book (Greenberg &Edwards, 2009). It seems clear that this area is generating considerable interestand activity, both conceptual and empirical. Yet while impressive inroads havebeen made in expanding current understanding of employee voice, there is stillquite a lot that we do not know about this phenomenon. In the remainder ofthis article, I will focus on a few key areas that I believe hold particular promisein helping to deepen our knowledge of how and why employees speak up andthe 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 focusmore on the type of message that is being, or that could be, conveyed via voice.As noted, the voice construct encompasses communication of ideas, sugges-tions, challenges, concerns, views, and opinions. These ideas, suggestions, chal-lenges, concerns, views, and opinions can pertain to a wide range of job-relatedand organizational issues, ranging from mundane to quite serious. However,most conceptualizations and operationalizations of voice treat it as a generalumbrella construct rather than specifying the type of information that isbeing conveyed. Focusing at this general level has no doubt been valuable inproviding an understanding of voice as a general type of discretionary behav-ior. At the same time, a great deal may be lost by not considering variations in


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

message type. For example, employees may think very differently about thepotential benefits and risks of speaking up with a novel suggestion versus anissue of concern. Likewise, supervisors and co-workers may respond very dif-ferently to an employee who is expressing a divergent opinion compared to anemployee who is offering a new idea.

It is for these reasons that I believe there is a need for a more nuancedconceptualization of voice behavior. As a starting point, I propose that voicescholars should distinguish between three different types of voice, reflecting fun-damental distinctions in the nature of the voice message. These three types are:suggestion-focused voice, problem-focused voice, and opinion-focused voice. Sug-gestion-focused voice is defined as the communication of suggestions or ideasfor how to improve the work unit or organization. Problem-focused voice, onthe other hand, is defined as an employee’s expression of concern about workpractices, incidents, or behaviors that he or she regards as harmful, or potentiallyharmful, to the organization. Both of these forms of voice challenge the statusquo with the aim of benefiting the organization, yet whereas the former isfocused on realizing new possibilities, the latter is focused on stopping or pre-venting harm. The third type of voice that I am proposing, opinion-focusedvoice, reflects communicating points of view on work-related issues that differfrom those held by others. This type of voice has been discussed both in thecontext 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 Kassing’s(2002) notion of dissent, defined as expression of disagreement or contradictoryopinions about organizational practices and policies.

Working from this more nuanced conceptualization of voice, scholars canbegin to consider how the strength of the various motivating factors for (oragainst) voice may vary across the three types. As one example, self-protectivemotives and concerns may be less prominent for suggestion-focused voice thanfor problem-focused or opinion-focused voice, as the former may be seen asless personally risky. There also could be meaningful differences in some ofthe individual and contextual antecedent factors. For example, we mightexpect that agreeableness will be positively related to the raising of helpful sug-gestions, but negatively related to the raising of problems. A similar differencemight exist for job attitudes, where individuals who are highly satisfied oridentified 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 out-comes of voice play out differently depending on the nature of the message.Supervisors and co-workers may react more negatively to voice when it israising a problem or issue of concern, or when it is conveying a dissentingviewpoint, than when it entails a suggestion or new idea.

As scholars move from theory building to theory testing, recent efforts todevelop more fine-grained measures of voice could be very helpful. For


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

example, Liang et al. (forthcoming) have developed and validated measures ofwhat they call promotive and prohibitive voice, which are similar to what I amcalling suggestion-focused and problem-focused voice. In addition, Lebel,Wheeler-Smith, and Morrison (2011) have recently developed and validateda measure of voice with three subscales, focused on suggestions, problems,and opinions, respectively.

I would also encourage theory-development efforts focused on some of thespecific dimensions along which voice messages can vary. For example,research on reluctance to convey bad news suggests that message valence (posi-tive vs. negative) has an important impact on both willingness to communicateand choices about how to communicate (Lee, 1993; Rosen & Tesser, 1970;Sonenshein, 2006). In addition, models of upward communication andwhistle-blowing both discuss how the actor’s perceptions of informationimportance 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’ perceptionsof these dimensions affect their decision of whether to voice, but also howtargets’ perceptions of these dimensions affect how they react to voice.

Tactics and Targets

By and large, the voice literature has conceptualized voice as a dichotomouschoice (speak up or remain silent) and has not focused very much on employ-ees’ choices about how to voice their views or concerns. Yet there are manydifferent ways to express concerns or share suggestions, and employees whohave decided to speak up must decide how to frame the information, how for-cefully to speak, who the target will be (in situations where there are multiplepotential targets), whether to speak right away or wait, whether to involve otherpeople, and so forth (Dutton, Ashford, O’Neill, & Lawrence, 2001; Piderit &Ashford, 2003). These decisions are likely shaped by a variety of individual,contextual, and message-related variables. For example, employees may tendto voice concerns indirectly rather than directly if they are relatively new orlacking in status, if there is a low level of trust between them and their super-visor, or if the information may be highly threatening to the supervisor. Thespecific 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 abouthow to communicate concerns and suggestions.

A useful starting point for theory building related to voice tactics may be theissue-selling literature. From interview-based descriptions of successful andunsuccessful attempts to sell issues to top management, Dutton et al. (2001)identified a variety of tactics related to how one presents and bundles theissue, whether and how one involves others, and the formality and timing of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

the communication. Based on their findings, the authors proposed that “issueselling moves” rely on relational, normative, and strategic knowledge. In asimilar study, Piderit and Ashford (2003) explored women’s implicit theoriesabout the right way to raise gender equity issues to top management. Respon-dents indicated the importance of framing, involving others, demeanor, andtiming. The interview results also suggested four general clusters of individualsbased on their use of various issue-selling tactics: those who indicated that theywould do whatever it takes to sell the issue to top management; those who indi-cated high likelihood of framing the issue as a moral issue; those who indicatedhigh likelihood of using private settings; and those who indicated low likeli-hood of using any of the tactics.

Recent work on “issue crafting” (Sonenshein, 2006) might also provide afoundation for deepening our understanding of voice tactics. Integratingresearch on issue selling with the literatures on sense-giving and influencetactics, Sonenshein (2006) looked at how individuals intentionally use oflanguage to portray an issue in a way that differs from their own privateviews. This work highlights how employees often use language to frameissues in ways that they think will be seen as more legitimate by others, andthat will thus resonate with their audience. An example might be an employeeconcerned about gender equity who, when voicing about this issue, frames it ineconomic terms (e.g., the value of diversity for performance or the potentialcost of a lawsuit) rather than in terms of principle or morality.

Another study that is relevant to our understanding of voice tactics is Lee’s(1993) investigation of how bad news is communicated in organizational hier-archies. Whereas prior work has emphasized employees’ reluctance to conveybad news (Rosen & Tesser, 1970), Lee found that when employees do conveysuch news, they use a variety of “politeness strategies” to couch the message.Similarly, Kassing (2002) has suggested a variety of strategies that employeesuse when engaging in dissent. In addition, voice researchers may be able todraw from the communications literature, particularly work focused onmessage framing and timing (e.g., Brown & Levinson, 1987). From thesevarious foundations, scholars interested in voice can begin to build theoryabout how individuals choose particular tactics for voicing, and the impli-cations of these choices for the effectiveness and riskiness of voice. Under-standing these effects will provide a much richer understanding of the voicephenomenon 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 lateralvoice, scholars have not distinguished between these at a conceptual level,nor have they considered how the motives, antecedents, and outcomes ofvoice may differ depending on whether the behavior is directed at a supervisoror peers. A noteworthy exception is the paper by Liu et al. (2010), which arguesthat voice is target-sensitive and that the costs and benefits of voice depend on


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

the person to whom one is voicing. There is a need for much more work on notjust 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 differentlywithin her work group. This employee can raise this issue to the supervisorwho 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 willdetermine which of these options is chosen? What are the implications ofthese different options for the likelihood that raising the issue will lead to achange in workload allocation and the likelihood that it will not have negativerepercussions for the actor? These are issues to which the voice literature hasnot yet spoken.

There is also a need for clearer understanding of the similarities and differ-ences between individual voice behavior and group voice behavior. A fewrecent studies (e.g., Frazier & Bowler, 2009; Walumbwa et al., 2011) have dis-cussed and investigated voice at the group level of analysis, where “groupvoice” reflects the extent to which group members, overall, engage in voice be-havior. Conceptualizing voice as a group-level behavior raises a host of poten-tially interesting questions. For example, are there differences between a groupwhere voice is evenly distributed across members (i.e., all members displayingrelatively similar amounts of voice behavior) and a group with high within-group variance (i.e., a few vocal members with the remaining members notvoicing very much)? How similar or different are the contextual variablesthat predict individual voice behavior and group voice? Questions such asthese 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. Whilealmost every paper on voice begins with a discussion of its beneficial impact, Ibelieve it is too simplistic to conclude that voice will always be good for thework unit or organization. Whether voice is good or bad for the collectivemost likely depends on the specific message that is being conveyed and theresponse that is taken. For example, an employee may offer a suggestion forimproving a particular work process, but if he or she is not effective inmaking a case for how that idea is superior to current procedures, change isunlikely to come about, and the voice behavior will have little impact onunit performance. Alternatively, if the idea itself is flawed, adopting the pro-posed change may actually harm unit performance. The group- or organiz-ation-level impact of voice may also become less positive, and may evenbecome negative, as the amount of voice increases beyond a certain level. Inother words, it may be possible for there to be “too much” voice within awork group or organization, such that members become overwhelmed,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

experience difficulty reaching consensus, and devote too much time to consid-ering new ideas and not enough to actual task performance. It is important,therefore, for researchers to consider contingency factors that affect the associ-ation between voice and unit- level outcomes.

It would be valuable as well for there to be more systematic research on theimplications of voice for the individual engaging in this behavior. As discussed,some recent work suggests that engaging in voice has a positive effect on howone is viewed by supervisors and co-workers, similar to other proactive andprosocial behaviors (Whiting et al., 2009). At the same time, research hassuggested a range of personal risks associated with voice, and the possibilityof negative image implications (Milliken et al., 2003). It is not entirely clearwhat accounts for these different scenarios, but a factor that is likely to bevery important in determining whether voice has positive or negative effectson the actor is how the message is perceived by the target. An employeewho voices a new idea that his or her supervisor or peers regard as highly con-structive and feasible is likely to be viewed positively. An employee who speaksup about a subject that is seen as “taboo” for some reason may be seen as awhiner or troublemaker. Likewise, voice that challenges a supervisor’s petidea or initiative, or that casts doubt upon his or her judgment, may haveharmful implications for an employee. In addition, the study by Burris et al.(2010) suggests that voice will be more likely to have negative repercussionsif the supervisor holds a less positive view than the employee of the value orconstructiveness of the voice behavior.

We know relatively little, however, about the factors that shape targets’ per-ceptions of the value or constructiveness of voice, or the factors that may leadthem to feel threatened by it. To begin filling this gap, a useful starting pointmay be to consider targets’ causal attributions for why the actor is voicing.Regardless of what the actual motives for voicing may be, others within thework environment will make assumptions about motive, and these assump-tions will shape how they respond (Van Dyne et al., 2003). If supervisors attri-bute the behavior to cooperative, other-focused motives, they are likely torespond much more favorably than if they attribute it to self-interest. Althoughthere has not been any research on how individuals form attributions for voice,research on attribution formation more generally suggests that these judg-ments may be heavily shaped by preconceptions, attitudes, and mood, eachof which may cause supervisors to make erroneous assumptions about whya subordinate is raising a particular issue.

The implications of voice for the actor are likely to depend on tacticalchoices made by the voicer as well. An individual who is very savvy abouthow to raise a sensitive issue and build support for a new idea will be morelikely to reap rewards rather than punishment for voicing than an individualwho lacks such savvy. There is research showing that people react differentlyto forceful as opposed to more tentative speech styles (Fragale, 2006), and it


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

is quite likely that speech style will affect how others view an employee who isvoicing. 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 actor’s relation-ships with teammates and colleagues. There is a need, however, for furthertheory development and empirical investigation of how voice impacts theactor’s peers and relationships with peers. When, for example, will voicehelp to improve group harmony and when will it create conflict within agroup? Under what conditions will co-workers tend to believe that voice is ben-efiting them and under what conditions will they tend to believe otherwise?When does remaining silent build, and when does it undermine, socialcapital? 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 betterunderstanding of the “climate of silence” construct (Morrison & Milliken,2000), which refers collective-level beliefs about the safety and efficacy ofspeaking up. To date, there is only one published study that has looked atsuch shared beliefs (Morrison et al., 2011). That study expands upon Morrisonand Milliken’s climate of silence notion by considering not just contexts wherethere are widely held beliefs that it is unsafe and futile to voice, but also sharedbeliefs that are supportive of voice. As discussed, the results provide empiricalevidence that collective beliefs about the safety and efficacy of voice developwithin work groups, and that they impact individual voice behavior. Theresults also showed high agreement among work-group members about theefficacy and safety of voice, but also considerable variance across workgroups within the same organizational division. Overall, the study suggeststhat voice climate is an important emergent construct deserving further inves-tigation (e.g., Frazier & Bowler, 2009). I would encourage, in particular, workinvestigating how voice climate develops and how it changes over time.Morrison et al. (2011) proposed that leadership style and leader behaviorplay a role in the development of voice climate, as group leaders can sendstrong signals about the likely consequences of voicing, but these ideas havenot been developed in much detail nor empirically tested. The role of formaland informal rewards in shaping voice climates could be a valuable topic forresearch attention as well.

I would also encourage further theory building and empirical work on therole of affect. Several recent conceptual papers have discussed the role thatemotions 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


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

will elicit various affective states, and that some of these (e.g., anger, guilt) willlead one to report the situation, while others (e.g., fear, shame) will cause oneto remain silent. These authors also highlight the important role of anticipat-ory emotions. Specifically, even if an instance of wrongdoing does not elicit anemotional response, if an employee experiences anxiety when contemplatingthe possibility of raising the issue to his or her boss, this employee islikely to choose silence over voice. In essence, these models bring inemotion yet still portray the decision process as deliberative and judgmentdriven. Emotions do not preclude cognitive processing, but rather motivateit (Baumeister, Vohs, DeWall, & Zhang, 2007; Gundlach, Douglas, &Martinko, 2003).

A very different picture of emotions in relation to voice and silence ispresented in the recent paper by Kish-Gephart et al. (2009). These authorshighlight that fear is a powerful and deeply rooted emotion that can lead toan automatic withdrawal response and, over time, to habituated schema-based behavior, such as never speaking up to one’s boss. Indeed, theysuggest that fear of challenging authorities and higher-status group membersis evolutionary based and reinforced from a very young age. As such, theyargue that silence can results from automatic processes that do not involve con-scious recognition of alternatives or weighing of costs and benefits. This per-spective depicts silence in a way that is quite different from that portrayedby many other works in the literature, and raises critical questions about therelative role of affect and cognition in situations where employees couldspeak up yet instead remain silent. It could be quite illuminating to try toaddress some of these questions empirically and to consider how otheremotions, in addition to fear, affect the voice process.

Methodological Issues

There are important methodological issues for future empirical research totackle as well. Most of the research on voice has assessed this behavior froma single perspective, either the actor him or herself or the supervisor (anotable exception is Burris et al., 2010). Moreover, most of the research hasbeen cross-sectional, which precludes confident conclusions about causality.A step that seems imperative as work in this domain moves forward is forresearchers to collect data at multiple time points and for them to assessvoice from multiple perspectives. The former will not only allow a betterassessment of cause and effect, but it will also permit an examination ofchanges in voice over time, and of how the positive and negative effects ofvoice accrue, so that we can begin to gain a more dynamic picture of thisphenomenon. For example, it is likely that the consequences of voice at onepoint in time affect the likelihood and manner with which an employeespeaks up in the future. It is also possible that the effects of voice tend to


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

become more negative over time as others tire of an individual continuallyraising challenging issues.

Multi-level research on voice also holds particular promise. Recent work(Morrison et al., 2011; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008a) has shown that indi-vidual and group level factors interact with one another, and that a focus onjust one or the other is likely to provide an incomplete, or even inaccurate,understanding of the conditions leading to and inhibiting voice. As such, Iwould strongly encourage researchers to consider how person-level andcontextual predictors work in concert, and to try to tease apart unit-level differ-ences in voice tendencies from individual-level differences.

Finally, there is a need for better measures of voice. By far, the most com-monly used measure is a six-item scale designed by Van Dyne and LePine(1998). While that scale demonstrates good psychometric properties, someof the items are inconsistent with the generally agreed-upon definition ofvoice, which raises concerns about content validity (Organ, Podsakoff, &MacKenzie, 2006). For example, one item refers to keeping well informedabout issues where one’s opinion might be useful to the work group, whichis 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 thataffect the quality of work life in the organization or work group. Goingforward, it would be good to have a measure of voice where all of the itemsare clear exemplars of the construct. In addition, it would be valuable tohave measures that are more fine-grained in terms of the type of messagebeing conveyed (Lebel et al., 2011; Liang et al., forthcoming).

Conclusions

To conclude, there has been an exciting amount of research on voice within theorganizational literature. This work has helped us to understand better howemployees think about the issue of whether or not to speak up with ideas, sug-gestions, or concerns; the types of employees who tend to voice the most; andthe contextual factors that encourage and enable employee voice. It also pro-vides some insight into the potential implications of voice. However, thereare many questions that beg for closer empirical investigation, and severalplaces where theory development can go deeper. It is my hope that thispaper will serve to guide and motivate future research efforts in a way thatwill be fruitful for expanding our understanding of employee voice.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Art Brief, Ethan Burris, Jim Detert, Kelly See, and JimWalsh for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper, andCaitlin Pan for her research assistance.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

Endnotes

1. Van Dyne, Ang, and Botero (2003) suggested a form of voice that they call “defensivevoice,” which is motivated by a desire to protect oneself by making excuses, shiftingfocus, blaming others, or taking credit for accomplishments. They also suggested“acquiescent voice,” which reflects disengagement or resignation (e.g., expressingsupport despite personal doubts). These types of communication behaviors areinconsistent with the more generally agreed-upon notion that voice is about convey-ing suggestions or other information that can be used to bring about improvement.They therefore fall outside the domain of voice as it is being defined here.

2. A few recent works (e.g., Bies, 2009; Van Dyne et al., 2003) have suggested abroader definition of silence, which includes other forms of “non-speaking” (e.g.,keeping quiet in order to gather more information or allow time for reflection,withholding information in order to harm others or manage blame, protectingproprietary information, etc.). However, I believe that placing such behaviorsunder the umbrella of “employee silence” muddies rather than clarifies theconstruct.

3. Silence driven primarily by concerns about not upsetting or embarrassing otherswas termed “prosocial silence” by Van Dyne et al. (2003). Although it is not necess-ary to consider this a unique form of silence, it is useful to keep in mind thatprosocial considerations can foster silence as well as voice.

References

Argyris, C. (1977). Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review, 55,452–471.

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Ashford, S.J., Rothbard, N.P., Piderit, S.K., & Dutton, J.E. (1998). Out on a limb: Therole of context and impression management in selling gender-equity issues.Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 23–57.

Ashford, S.J., Sutcliffe, K.M., & Christianson, M.K. (2009). Speaking up and speakingout: The leadership dynamics of voice in organizations. In J. Greenberg & M.Edwards (Eds.), Voice and silence in organizations (pp. 175–202). Bingley,England: Emerald.

Athanassiades, J.C. (1973). The distortion of upward communication in hierarchicalorganizations. Academy of Management Journal, 16, 207–226.

Athanassiades, J.C. (1974). An investigation of some communication patterns of femalesubordinates in hierarchical organizations. Human Relations, 27, 195–209.

Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M.K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and jobperformance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.

Baumeister, R.F., Vohs, K.D., DeWall, C.N., & Zhang, L. (2007). How emotion shapesbehavior: Feedback, anticipation, and reflection, rather than direct causation.Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 167–203.

Bies, R.J. (2009). Sounds of silence: Identifying new motives. In J. Greenberg & M.Edwards (Eds.), Voice and silence in organizations (pp. 175–202). Bingley,England: Emerald.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

Bies, R.J., & Shapiro, D.L. (1988). Voice and justification: Their influence on proceduralfairness judgements. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 676–685.

Boroff, K.E., & Lewin, D. (1997). Loyalty, voice, and intent to exit a union firm: A conceptualand empirical analysis. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 51, 50–63.

Botero, I.C., & Van Dyne, L. (2009). Employee voice behavior: Interactive effects ofLMX and power distance in the United States and Colombia. ManagementCommunication Quarterly, 23, 84–104.

Brief, A.P., & Motowidlo, S.J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behavior. Academy ofManagement Review, 11, 710–725.

Brinsfield, 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. 175–202). 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 mediat-ing effects of psychological attachment and detachment on voice. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 93, 912–922.

Burris, E.R., Detert, J.R., & Romney, A. (2010). Speaking up versus being heard: Thedimensions of disagreement around and outcomes of employee voice. Workingpaper, University of Texas.

Cortina, L.M., & Magley, V.J. (2003). Raising voice, risking retaliation: Events followinginterpersonal mistreatment in the workplace. Journal of Occupational HealthPsychology, 8, 247–264.

Crant, J.M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26,435–462.

Detert, J.R., & Burris, E.R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the doorreally open? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 869–884.

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

Detert, J.R., & Trevino, L.K. (2010). Speaking up to higher ups: How supervisor andskip-level leaders influence employee voice. Organization Science, 21, 241–270.

Dundon, T., Wilkinson, A., Marchington, M., & Ackers, P. (2004). The meaning andpurpose of employee voice. International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, 15, 1149–1170.

Dutton, J.E., & Ashford, S.J. (1993). Selling issues to top management. Academy ofManagement Review, 18, 397–428.

Dutton, J.E., Ashford, S.J., Lawrence, K.A., & Miner-Rubino, K. (2002). Red light, greenlight: Making sense of the organizational context for issue selling. OrganizationScience, 13, 335–369.

Dutton, J.E., Ashford, S.J., O’Neill, R.M., Hayes, E., & Wierba, E.E. (1997). Reading thewind: How middle managers assess the context for selling issues to top managers.Strategic Management Journal, 18, 407–425.

Dutton, J.E., Ashford, S.J., O’Neill, R.M., & Lawrence, K.A. (2001). Moves that matter:Issue selling and organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 44,716–736.

Edmondson, A.C. (2003). Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaderspromote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of ManagementStudies, 40, 1419–1452.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

Edwards, M.S., Ashkanasy, N.M., & Gardner, J. (2009). Deciding to speak up or remainsilent following observed wrongdoing: The role of discrete emotions and climateof silence. In J. Greenberg & M. Edwards (Eds.), Voice and silence in organizations(pp. 83–110). Bingley, England: Emerald.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organiz-ational support and employee diligence, commitment and innovation. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 75, 51–59.

Enz, C.A., & Schwenk, C.R. (1991). The performance edge: Strategic and value dissen-sus. Employee Responsibility and Rights Journal, 4, 75–85.

Erez, A., LePine, J.A., & Elms, H. (2002). Effects of rotated leadership and peerevaluation on the functioning and effectiveness of self-managed teams: Aquasi-experiment. Personnel Psychology, 55, 929–948.

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, 201–218.Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 217–282.Fragale, A.R. (2006). The power of powerless speech: The effects of speech style and task

interdependence on status conferral. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 101, 243–261.

Frazier, M.L., & Bowler, W. (2009). Voice climate in organization: A group-level exam-ination. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management,Chicago, IL.

Fuller, J., Marler, L., & Hester, K. (2006). Promoting felt responsibility for constructivechange and proactive behavior: Exploring aspects of an elaborated model of workdesign. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 1089–1120.

Gaines, J. (1980). Upward communication in industry: An experiment. HumanRelations, 33, 929–942.

Glauser, M.J. (1984). Upward information flow in organizations: Review and conceptualanalysis. Human Relations, 37, 613–643.

Gordon, W.L. (1988). Range of employee voice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights, 1,283–299.

Grant, A.M., & Ashford, S.J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research inOrganizational Behavior, 28, 3–34.

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 ofpersonal control in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 11, 164–177.

Gundlach, M.J., Douglas, S.C., & Martinko, M.J. (2003). The decision to blow thewhistle: A social information processing framework. Academy of ManagementReview, 28, 107–123.

Hammer, T.H., Landau, J.C., & Stern, R.N. (1981). Absenteeism when workers have avoice: The case of employee ownership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66,561–573.

Harvey, P., Martinko, M.J., & Douglas, S.C. (2009). Causal perceptions and the decisionto speak up or pipe down. In J. Greenberg & M. Edwards (Eds.), Voice and silencein organizations (pp. 63–82). Bingley, England: Emerald.

Hirschman, A.O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organiz-ations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

Hofstede, G. (1991). Culture and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGrawHill.

Islam, G., & Zyphur, M.J. (2005). Power, voice, and hierarchy: Exploring the antece-dents of speaking up in groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, andPractice, 9, 93–103.

Janssen, O., de Vries, T., & Cozijnsen, A.J. (1998). Voicing by adapting and innovatingemployees: An empirical study on how personality and environment interact toaffect voice behavior. Human Relations, 51, 955–967.

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

Kish-Gephart, J.J., Detert, J.R., Trevino, L.K., & Edmondson, A.C. (2009). Silenced byfear: The nature, sources and consequences of fear at work. Research inOrganizational Behavior, 29, 163–193.

Lebel, R.D., Wheeler-Smith, S., & Morrison, E.W. (2011). Employee voice behavior:Development and validation of a new multi-dimensional measure. Paperpresented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, SanAntonio, Texas.

Lee, F. (1993). Being polite and keeping MUM: How bad news is communicated inorganizational hierarchies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 29, 1124–1149.

LePine, J.A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journalof Applied Psychology, 83, 853–868.

LePine, J.A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrastingforms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships withbig five personality characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 86, 326–336.

Liang, J., Fahr, C., & Fahr, L. (forthcoming). A two-wave examination of the psycho-logical 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 identifications, and transformational leadership. LeadershipQuarterly. 21, 189–202.

Locke, C.C., & Anderson, C. (2010). The downside of looking like a leader: Leader’spowerful demeanor stifles 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: Therelative effectiveness of managers who held their subordinate’s positions.Personnel Psychology, 16, 1–11.

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. 225–244). Bingley,England: Emerald.

Milliken, F.J., Morrison, E.W., & Hewlin, P. (2003). An exploratory study of employeesilence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why. Journal ofManagement Studies, 40, 1453–1476.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

Morrison, E.W., & Milliken, F.J. (Eds.). (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier tochange and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of ManagementReview, 25, 706–725.

Morrison, E.W., & Milliken, F.J. (2003). (Eds.). Speaking up, remaining silent: Thedynamics of voice and silence in organizations. Journal of Management Studies,40, 1353–1358.

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. 175–202). Bingley, England: Emerald.

Morrison, E.W., Wheeler-Smith, S., & Kamdar, D. (2011). Speaking up in groups: Across-level study of group voice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96,183–191.

Nemeth, C.J. (1985). Dissent, group process, and creativity. Advances in GroupProcesses, 2, 57–75.

O’Reilly, C.A. (1978). The intentional distortion of information in organizational com-munication: A laboratory and field investigation. Human Relations, 31, 173–193.

Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P.M., & Mackenzie, S.B. (2006). Organizational citizenshipbehavior. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Parker, L.E. (1993). When to fix it and when to leave: Relationships among perceivedcontrol, self-efficacy, dissent, and exit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 949–959.

Parker, S.K., Williams, H.M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proac-tive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 636–652.

Perlow, L., & Williams, S. (2003). Is silence killing your company? Harvard BusinessReview, 81(5), 52–58.

Piderit, S.K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimen-sional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy ofManagement Review, 25, 783–794.

Piderit, S.K., & Ashford, S.J. (2003). Breaking silence: tactical choices women managersmake in speaking up about gender equity issues. Journal of Management Studies,40, 1477–1502.

Pinder, C.C., & Harlos, K.P. (2001). Employee silence: Quiescence and acquiescence asresponses to perceived injustice. Research in Personnel and Human ResourcesManagement, 20, 331–369.

Premeaux, S.F., & Bedeian, A.G. (2003). Breaking the silence: The moderating effects ofself-monitoring in predicting speaking up in the workplace. Journal ofManagement Studies, 40, 1537–1562.

Read, W.H. (1962). Upward communication in industrial hierarchies. HumanRelations, 15, 3–16.

Redding, W.C. (1985). Rocking boats, blowing whistles, and teaching speech communi-cation. Communication Education, 34, 245–258.

Roberts, K.H., & O’Reilly, C.A. (1974). Failures in upward communication inorganizations: Three possible culprits. Academy of Management Journal, 17,205–215.

Rosen, S., & Tesser, A. (1970). On reluctance to communicate undesirable information:The MUM effect. Sociometry, 33, 253–263.

Rusbult, C.E., Farrell, D., Rogers, G., & Mainous, A.G., III. (1988). Impact of exchangevariables on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: An integrative model of responses todeclining job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 599–627.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

Saunders, D.M., Shepard, B.H., Knight, V., & Roth, J. (1992). Employee voice to super-visors. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 5, 241–259.

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? Alongitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. PersonnelPsychology, 54, 845–874.

Sonenshein, S. (2006). Crafting social issues at work. Academy of Management Journal,49, 1158–1172.

Spencer, D.G. (1986). Employee voice and employee retention. Academy ofManagement Journal, 29, 488–502.

Stamper, C., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Work status and organizational citizenship behav-ior: A field study of restaurant employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22,517–536.

Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2008a). Employee silence on critical work issues:The cross level effects of procedural justice climate. Personal Psychology, 61, 37–68.

Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2008b). Exploring nonlinearity in employee voice: Theeffects of personal control and organizational identification. Academy ofManagement Journal, 51, 1189–1203.

Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2010). Ask and you shall hear: Examining the relation-ship between manager consultation and employee voice. Working Paper,University of Maryland.

Tyler, T.R., Rasinski, K., & Spodick, N. (1985). The influence of voice on satisfactionwith leaders: Exploring the meaning of process control. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 48, 72–81.

Vakola, M., & Bourades, D. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of organizationalsilence: An empirical investigation. Employee Relations, 27, 441–458.

Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I.C. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence andemployee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of ManagementStudies, 40, 1359–1392.

Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L.L., & Parks, J.M. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit ofconstruct and definitional clarity. Research in Organizational Behavior, 17,215–285.

Van Dyne, L.V., Kamdar, D., & Joireman, J. (2008). In-role perceptions buffer the nega-tive impact of low LMX on helping and enhance the positive impact of high LMXon voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1195–1207.

Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J.A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behavior: Evidence ofconstruct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108–119.

Venkataramani, V., & Tangirala, S. (2010). When and why do central employees speakup? An examination of mediating and moderating variables. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 95, 582–591.

Vroom, V.H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.Walumbwa, F.O., Morrison, E.W., & Christensen, A. (2011). The effect of ethical leader-

ship on group performance: The mediating role of group conscientiousness andgroup voice. Working paper, University of Arizona.

Walumbwa, F.O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits and employeevoice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychologi-cal safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1275–1286.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

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, 125–139.

Withey, M.J., & Cooper, W.H. (1989). Predicting exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect.Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 521–539.

Wood, S.J., & Wall, T.D. (2007). Work enrichment and employee voice in humanresource management-performance studies. International Journal of HumanResource Management, 18, 1335–1372.

Young, J.W. (1978). The subordinate’s exposure of organizational vulnerability to thesupervisor: Sex and organizational effects. Academy of Management Journal, 21,113–122.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:28

13

Janu

ary

2012

Documents

508102_Employee Voice Behavior , MORRISON