Why do employees voice ideas for constructive changes in their organization and then fail to pursue those changes? To answer this question, we examined how individuals’ voice experiences with managers influence their initiative in pursuing constructive changes. Viewing the voicer–manager dyad as the basic unit of analysis, we propose that (in)congruence between manager-rated and employee self-rated voice behavior provides individuals with important cues about whether they receive respect for their voiced ideas. This sequentially influences whether employees prefer to pursue constructive changes after speaking up. Using time-lagged survey data collected from 191 employee–manager dyads, we tested our hypotheses using a multilevel polynomial regression framework. The findings show that the experience of voice congruence increases an individual’s perceived respect for voice from the manager, which, in turn, leads to greater effort in implementing constructive changes. This relationship is stronger for individuals who believe that they cannot speak up to the manager without clear solutions and careful preparation (i.e. voice quality belief). The theoretical and practical implications of this study are also discussed.
AnandSVidyarthiPRLidenRC, et al. (2010) Good citizens in poor-quality relationships: Idiosyncratic deals as a substitute for relationship quality. Academy of Management Journal53(5): 970–988.
2.
AugoustinosMTileagăC (2012) Twenty-five years of discursive psychology. British Journal of Social Psychology51(3): 405–412.
3.
BaerM (2012) Putting creativity to work: The implementation of creative ideas in organizations. Academy of Management Journal55(5): 1102–1119.
4.
BaerMBrownG (2012) Blind in one eye: How psychological ownership of ideas affects the types of suggestions people adopt. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes118(1): 60–71.
5.
BaerMDFrankELMattaFK, et al. (2021) Undertrusted, overtrusted, or just right? The fairness of (in)congruence between trust wanted and trust received. Academy of Management Journal64(1): 180–206.
6.
BelschakFDDen HartogDN (2010) Pro-self, pro-social, and pro-organizational foci of proactive behaviour: Differential antecedents and consequences. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology83(2): 475–498.
7.
BladerSLTylerTR (2009) Testing and extending the group engagement model: Linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extra-role behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology94(2): 445–464.
8.
BladerSLYuS (2017) Are status and respect different or two sides of the same coin?Academy of Management Annals11(2): 800–824.
9.
BolinoMValceaSHarveyJ (2010) Employee, manage thyself: The potentially negative implications of expecting employees to behave proactively. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology83(2): 325–345.
10.
BrislinRW (1980) Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In: TriandisHCBerryJW (eds) Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol. 2. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 389–444.
11.
BurrisER (2012) The risks and rewards of speaking up: Managerial responses to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal55(4): 851–875.
12.
BurrisERDetertJRRomneyAC (2013) Speaking up vs. being heard: The disagreement around and outcomes of employee voice. Organization Science24(1): 22–38.
13.
BurrisERRockmannKWKimmonsYS (2017) The value of voice to managers: Employee identification and the content of voice. Academy of Management Journal60(6): 2099–2125.
14.
CarlsonENVazireSFurrRM (2011) Meta-insight: Do people really know how others see them?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology101(4): 831–846.
15.
ChamberlinMNewtonDWLePineJA (2017) A meta-analysis of voice and its promotive and prohibitive forms: Identification of key associations, distinctions, and future research directions. Personnel Psychology70(1): 11–71.
16.
ChiaburuDSFarhCVan DyneL (2013) Supervisory epistemic, ideological, and existential responses to voice: A motivated cognition approach. In: BurkeCSCooperCL (eds) Voice and Whistleblowing in Organizations: Overcoming Fear, Fostering Courage and Unleashing Candor. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 224–253.
17.
CiniteIDuxburyLE (2018) Measuring the behavioral properties of commitment and resistance to organizational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science54(2): 113–139.
18.
ColquittJA (2001) On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology86(3): 386–400.
19.
ColquittJAZipayKP (2015) Justice, fairness, and employee reactions. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior2(1): 75–99.
20.
De CremerDVan KnippenbergBVan KnippenbergD, et al. (2005) Rewarding leadership and fair procedures as determinants of self-esteem. Journal of Applied Psychology90(1): 3–12.
21.
DetertJRBurrisER (2007) Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open?Academy of Management Journal50(4): 869–884.
22.
DetertJREdmondsonAC (2011) Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted rules of self-censorship at work. Academy of Management Journal54(3): 461–488.
23.
De VriesGJehnKATerwelBW (2012) When employees stop talking and start fighting: The detrimental effects of pseudo voice in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics105(2): 221–230.
24.
EdmondsonAC (2018) The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
25.
EdwardsJR (1994) The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: Critique and a proposed alternative. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process58(1): 51–100.
26.
EdwardsJRCableDMWilliamsonIO, et al. (2006) The phenomenology of fit: Linking the person and environment to the subjective experience of person–environment fit. Journal of Applied Psychology91(4): 802–827.
27.
EisenbergerRStinglhamberFVandenbergheC, et al. (2002) Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology87(3): 565–573.
28.
FayDSonnentagS (2010) A look back to move ahead: New directions for research on proactive performance and other discretionary work behaviours. Applied Psychology: An International Review59(1): 1–20.
29.
FerrisGRLidenRCMunyonTP, et al. (2009) Relationships at work: Toward a multidimensional conceptualization of dyadic work relationships. Journal of Management35(6): 1379–1403.
30.
FullerJBHesterKBarnettT, et al. (2009) Extending the group engagement model: An examination of the interactive effects of prestige, respect, and employee role identity. Journal of Managerial Issues21(1): 119–139.
31.
GarnerJT (2013) Dissenters, managers, and coworkers: The process of co-constructing organizational dissent and dissent effectiveness. Management Communication Quarterly27(3): 373–395.
32.
GrahamKAMawritzMBDustSB, et al. (2019) Too many cooks in the kitchen: The effects of dominance incompatibility on relationship conflict and subsequent abusive supervision. The Leadership Quarterly30(3): 351–364.
33.
GrantAMAshfordSJ (2008) The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior28: 3–34.
34.
GriffinMANealAParkerSK (2007) A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal50(2): 327–347.
35.
HendersonDJLidenRCGlibkowskiBC, et al. (2009) LMX differentiation: A multilevel review and examination of its antecedents and outcomes. Leadership Quarterly20(4): 517–534.
36.
HofstedeG (1980) Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply abroad?Organizational Dynamics9(1): 42–63.
37.
HowellTMHarrisonDABurrisER, et al. (2015) Who gets credit for input? Demographic and structural status cues in voice recognition. Journal of Applied Psychology100(6): 1765–1784.
38.
HuJLidenRC (2013) Relative leader–member exchange within team contexts: How and when social comparison impacts individual effectiveness. Personnel Psychology66(1): 127–172.
39.
HuLTBentlerPM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal6(1): 1–55.
40.
HuXKaplanSWeiF, et al. (2014) Do employees know how their supervisors view them? A study examining metaperceptions of job performance. Human Performance27(5): 435–457.
41.
HuoYJBinningKRMolinaLE (2010) Testing an integrative model of respect: Implications for social engagement and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin36(2): 200–212.
42.
JanssenOGaoL (2015) Supervisory responsiveness and employee self-perceived status and voice behavior. Journal of Management41(7): 1854–1872.
43.
JiangXChenCCShiK (2013) Favor in exchange for trust? The role of subordinates’ attribution of supervisory favors. Asia Pacific Journal of Management30(2): 513–536.
44.
JonesDASkarlickiDP (2013) How perceptions of fairness can change: A dynamic model of organizational justice. Organizational Psychology Review3(2): 138–160.
45.
KenrickDTFunderDC (1988) Profiting from controversy: Lessons from the person–situation debate. American Psychologist43(1): 23–34.
46.
KingDDRyanAMVan DyneL (2019) Voice resilience: Fostering future voice after non-endorsement of suggestions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology92(3): 535–565.
47.
Kish-GephartJJDetertJRTreviñoLK, et al. (2009) Silenced by fear: The nature, sources, and consequences of fear at work. Research in Organizational Behavior29(3): 163–193.
48.
KrasikovaDVLeBretonJM (2012) Just the two of us: Misalignment of theory and methods in examining dyadic phenomena. Journal of Applied Psychology97(4): 739–757.
49.
LambertLSEdwardsJRCableDM (2003) Breach and fulfillment of the psychological contract: A comparison of traditional and expanded views. Personnel Psychology56(4): 895–934.
50.
LePineJAVan DyneL (1998) Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology83(6): 853–868.
51.
LevinsonH (1965) Reciprocation: The relationship between man and organization. Administrative Science Quarterly9(4): 370–390.
52.
LiANTangiralaS (2021) How voice emerges and develops in newly formed supervisor–employee dyads. Academy of Management Journal64(2): 614–642.
53.
LiangJFarhCIFarhJL (2012) Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal55(1): 71–92.
54.
LidenRCAnandSVidyarthiP (2016) Dyadic relationships. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior3(1): 139–166.
55.
LiuHDustSBXuM, et al. (2021) Leader–follower risk orientation incongruence, intellectual stimulation, and creativity: A configurational approach. Personnel Psychology74(1): 143–173.
56.
LiuWTangiralaSLeeC, et al. (2019) New directions for exploring the consequences of proactive behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior40(1): 1–4.
57.
LuSBartolKMVenkataramaniV, et al. (2019) Pitching novel ideas to the boss: The interactive effects of employees’ idea enactment and influence tactics on creativity assessment and implementation. Academy of Management Journal62(2): 579–606.
58.
MattaFKScottBAKoopmanJ, et al. (2015) Does seeing “eye to eye” affect work engagement and organizational citizenship behavior? A role theory perspective on LMX agreement. Academy of Management Journal58(6): 1686–1708.
59.
MorrisonEW (2011) Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals5(1): 373–412.
60.
MorrisonEW (2014) Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior1(1): 173–197.
61.
MorrisonEWMillikenFJ (2000) Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review25(4): 706–725.
62.
MorrisonEWPhelpsCC (1999) Taking charge at work: Extra-role efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal42(4): 403–419.
NgTWHsuDYParkerSK (2021) Received respect and constructive voice: The roles of proactive motivation and perspective taking. Journal of Management47(2): 399–429.
65.
OutlawRColquittJABaerMD, et al. (2019) How fair versus how long: An integrative theory-based examination of procedural justice and procedural timeliness. Personnel Psychology72(3): 1–31.
66.
ParkerSKBindlUK (2016) Proactivity at work: A big picture perspective on a construct that matters. In: ParkerSKBindlUK (eds) Proactivity at Work: Making Things Happen in Organisations. London: Routledge, 1–20.
67.
ParkerSKCollinsCG (2010) Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Management36(3): 633–662.
68.
ParkerSKBindlUKStraussK (2010) Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management36(4): 827–856.
69.
PierceJLGardnerDGCummingsLL, et al. (1989) Organization-based self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal32(3): 622–648.
70.
PreacherKJSeligJP (2012) Advantages of Monte Carlo confidence intervals for indirect effects. Communication Methods and Measures6(2): 77–98.
71.
RankJPaceVLFreseM (2004) Three avenues for future research on creativity, innovation, and initiative. Applied Psychology: An International Review53(4): 518–528.
72.
RogersKMAshforthBE (2017) Respect in organizations: Feeling valued as “we” and “me”. Journal of Management43(4): 1578–1608.
73.
SessionsHNahrgangJDNewtonDW, et al. (2020) I’m tired of listening: The effects of supervisor appraisals of group voice on supervisor emotional exhaustion and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology105(6): 619–636.
74.
SinHPNahrgangJDMorgesonFP (2009) Understanding why they don’t see eye to eye: An examination of leader–member exchange (LMX) agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology94(4): 1048–1057.
75.
SlempGRKernMLPatrickKJ, et al. (2018) Leader autonomy support in the workplace: A meta-analytic review. Motivation and Emotion42(5): 706–724.
76.
SmithHJTylerTRHuoYJ, et al. (1998) The self-relevant implications of the group-value model: Group membership, self-worth, and treatment quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology34(5): 470–493.
77.
SpreitzerGMCameronLGarrettL (2017) Alternative work arrangements: Two images of the new world of work. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior4(1): 473–499.
78.
StraussKParkerSK (2014) Effective and sustained proactivity in the workplace: A self-determination theory perspective. In: GagnéM (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Work Engagement, Motivation, and Self-Determination Theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 50–71.
79.
SunJLidenRCOuyangL (2019) Are servant leaders appreciated? An investigation of how relational attributions influence employee feelings of gratitude and prosocial behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior40(5): 528–540.
80.
TylerTRBladerSL (2003) The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review7(4): 349–361.
81.
Van Den BosKLindEA (2002) Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. In: MarkZ (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 34. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1–60.
82.
Van DyneLLePineJA (1998) Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal41(1): 108–119.
83.
Van GilsSVan QuaquebekeNBorkowskiJ, et al. (2018) Respectful leadership: Reducing performance challenges posed by leader role incongruence and gender dissimilarity. Human Relations71(12): 1590–1610.
84.
Van KleefGADe DreuCKWMansteadASR (2010) An interpersonal approach to emotion in social decision making: The emotions as social information model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology42: 45–96.
85.
Van QuaquebekeNFelpsW (2018) Respectful inquiry: A motivational account of leading through asking questions and listening. Academy of Management Review43(1): 5–27.
86.
VidyarthiPRLidenRCAnandS, et al. (2010) Where do I stand? Examining the effects of leader–member exchange social comparison on employee work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology95(5): 849–861.
87.
VogelRMRodellJBLynchJW (2016) Engaged and productive misfits: How job crafting and leisure activity mitigate the negative effects of value incongruence. Academy of Management Journal59(5): 1561–1584.
88.
Wåhlin-JacobsenCD (2020) Open or closed? A social interaction perspective on line managers’ reactions to employee voice. Management Communication Quarterly34(1): 32–57.
89.
WardAKRavlinECKlaasBS, et al. (2016) When do high-context communicators speak up? Exploring contextual communication orientation and employee voice. Journal of Applied Psychology101(10): 1498–1511.
90.
ZalesnyMDFordJK (1990) Extending the social information processing perspective: New links to attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes47(2): 205–246.
91.
ZoharDPolachekT (2014) Discourse-based intervention for modifying supervisory communication as leverage for safety climate and performance improvement: A randomized field study. Journal of Applied Psychology99(1): 113–124.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
