This study aims to provide an integrative understanding of the antecedents of voice endorsement from the digital voice context. This paper focuses on the distinctive information displayed on online idea management platforms and employs the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) to examine how peripheral cues (the number of readings, likes, comments, voicer status, and voicer identity) and central cues (voice persuasiveness and voice sidedness) influence voice endorsement. We empirically tested our research model with the archival database of 201 employee voice posts on the online idea management platform from a large Chinese enterprise. The results of archival analysis showed that several factors were significantly related to voice endorsement. Specifically, the number of comments, voicer status, and voice persuasiveness were positively related to voice endorsement. Voicer identity and voice sidedness were negatively related to voice endorsement. However, the number of readings and the number of likes were not significantly related to voice endorsement. Moreover, issue involvement significantly moderated the relationship between the number of comments and voice endorsement, as well as the relationship between voice persuasiveness and voice endorsement, and between voice sidedness and voice endorsement. Theoretical and practical implications for voice endorsement are discussed.
AlhabashS.AlmutairiN.LouC.KimW. (2019). Pathways to virality: Psychological responses preceding likes, shares, comments, and status updates on Facebook. Media Psychology, 22(2), 196–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2017.1416296
2.
Aramendia-MunetaM. E.Olarte-PascualC.Ollo-LópezA. (2021). Key image attributes to elicit likes and comments on Instagram. Journal of Promotion Management, 27(1), 50–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2020.1809594
3.
BainK.KrepsT. A.MeikleN. L.TenneyE. R. (2021). Amplifying voice in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 64(4), 1288–1312. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.0621
4.
BhattacherjeeA.SanfordC. (2006). Influence processes for information technology acceptance: An elaboration likelihood model. MIS Quarterly, 30(4), 805–825. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148755
5.
BrykmanK. M.RaverJ. L. (2023). Persuading managers to enact ideas in organizations: The role of voice message quality, peer endorsement, and peer opposition. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 44(5), 802–817. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2703
6.
BurrisE. R. (2012). The risks and rewards of speaking up: Managerial responses to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 851–875. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0562.
7.
BurrisE. R.MartinsL. L.KimmonsY. (2022). Mixed messages: Why managers (do not) endorse employee voice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 172, 104185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104185
8.
BurrisE. R.RockmannK. W.KimmonsY. S. (2017). The value of voice to managers: Employee identification and the content of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 60(6), 2099–2125. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0320
9.
CheungC. M.LeeM. K.RabhohnH. (2008). The impact of electronic word-of mouth: The adoption of online opinions in online customer communities. Internet Research, 18(3), 229–247. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240810883290
CornelisE.HeuvinckN.MajmundarA. (2020). The ambivalence story: Using refutation to counter the negative effects of ambivalence in two-sided messages. International Journal of Advertising, 39(3), 410–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2019.1624348
12.
DetertJ. R.BurrisE. R.HarrisonD. A.MartinS. R. (2013). Voice flows to and around leaders: Understanding when units are helped or hurt by employee voice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(4), 624–668. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839213510151.
13.
DetertJ. R.EdmondsonA. C. (2011). Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted rules of self-censorship at work. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 461–488. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.61967925
14.
DuanJ.ZhouA. J.YuL. (2022). A dual-process model of voice endorsement. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 33(18), 3765–3787. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2021.1949624
EisendM. (2010). Explaining the joint effect of source credibility and negativity of information in two-sided messages. Psychology & Marketing, 27(11), 1032–1049. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20372
17.
EisendM. (2013). The moderating influence of involvement on two-sided advertising effects. Psychology & Marketing, 30(7), 566–575. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20628
18.
EllmerM.ReichelA. (2021). Mind the channel! An affordance perspective on how digital voice channels encourage or discourage employee voice. Human Resource Management Journal, 31(1), 259–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12297.
19.
FarhC. I.OhJ. K.HollenbeckJ. R.YuA.LeeS. M.KingD. D. (2020). Token female voice enactment in traditionally male-dominated teams: Facilitating conditions and consequences for performance. Academy of Management Journal, 63(3), 832–856. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.0778
20.
FastN. J.BurrisE. R.BartelC. A. (2014). Managing to stay in the dark: Managerial self-efficacy, ego defensiveness, and the aversion to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 57(4), 1013–1034. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0393.
21.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
22.
FulkJ.ManiS. (1986). Distortion of communication in hierarchical relationships. Annals of the International Communication Association, 9(1), 483–510. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1986.11678621
23.
GlasmanL. R.AlbarracínD. (2006). Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: A meta-analysis of the attitude-behavior relation. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 778–822. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.778
24.
HarlosK. P. (2001). When organizational voice systems fail: More on the deaf-ear syndrome and frustration effects. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37(3), 324–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886301373005
25.
HilverdaF.KuttschreuterM.GiebelsE. (2018). The effect of online social proof regarding organic food: Comments and likes on Facebook. Frontiers in Communication, 3, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2018.00030
26.
HongW.YuZ.WuL.PuX. (2020). Influencing factors of the persuasiveness of online reviews considering persuasion methods. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 39, 100912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2019.100912
27.
HowellT. M.HarrisonD. A.BurrisE. R.DetertJ. R. (2015). Who gets credit for input? Demographic and structural status cues in voice recognition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(6), 765–1784. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000025
28.
HuangA. H.ChenK.YenD. C.TranT. P. (2015). A study of factors that contribute to online review helpfulness. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.010
29.
IsaakyanS.SherfE. N.TangiralaS.GuenterH. (2021). Keeping it between us: Managerial endorsement of public versus private voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(7), 1049–1066. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000816.
30.
JensenM. L.AverbeckJ. M.ZhangZ.WrightK. B. (2013). Credibility of anonymous online product reviews: A language expectancy perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 30(1), 293–324. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222300109
31.
KaminsM. A.AssaelH. (1987). Two-sided versus one-sided appeals: A cognitive perspective on argumentation, source derogation, and the effect of disconfirming trial on belief change. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(1), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114396
32.
KhanM.MowbrayP. K.WilkinsonA. (2023). Employee voice on social media—An affordance lens. International Journal of Management Reviews, 25(4), 687–706. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12326.
33.
KimH.KiuraM. (2023). The influences of social status and organizational justice on employee voice: A case of customer care workers. International Journal of Business Communication, 60(3), 802–822. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488420969776
34.
KipnisD.SchmidtS. M.WilkinsonI. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(4), 440. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.65.4.440
35.
LamC. F.JohnsonH. H.SongL. J.WuW.LeeC.ChenZ. (2022). More depleted, speak up more? A daily examination of the benefit and cost of depletion for voice behavior and voice endorsement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43(6), 983–1000. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2620
36.
LamC. F.LeeC.SuiY. (2019). Say it as it is: Consequences of voice directness, voice politeness, and voicer credibility on voice endorsement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104, 642–658. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000358.
37.
LeeH.HerrP. M.KardesF. R.KimC. (1999). Motivated search: Effects of choice accountability, issue involvement, and prior knowledge on information acquisition and use. Journal of Business Research, 45 (1), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(98)00067-8
38.
LeeS. K.KimH.PiercyC. W. (2019). The role of status differentials and homophily in the formation of social support networks of a voluntary organization. Communication Research, 46(2), 208–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650216641501
39.
LeeS. M.FarhC. I. (2019). Dynamic leadership emergence: Differential impact of members’ and peers’ contributions in the idea generation and idea enactment phases of innovation project teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(3), 411–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000384
LiC. R.ZhangE.HanJ. T. (2021). Adoption of online follow-up service by patients: An empirical study based on the elaboration likelihood model. Computers in Human Behavior, 114, 10658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106581
42.
LiJ.BarnesC. M.YamK. C.GuaranaC. L.WangL. (2019). Do not like it when you need it the most: Examining the effect of manager ego depletion on managerial voice endorsement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(8), 869–882. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2370
43.
LiX. B.WuT.MaJ. (2021). How leaders are persuaded: An elaboration likelihood model of voice endorsement. PLoS ONE, 16(5), e0251850. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251850
44.
LiaoC.LidenR. C.LiuY.WuJ. (2021). Blessing or curse: The moderating role of political skill in the relationship between servant leadership, voice, and voice endorsement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(8), 987–1004. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2544
45.
LiuQ.ZhouM.ZhaoX. (2015). Understanding news 2.0: A framework for explaining the number of comments from readers on online news. Information and Management, 52(7), 764–776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2015.01.002
46.
LopesA. I.DensN.De PelsmackerP.De KeyzerF. (2020). Which cues influence the perceived usefulness and credibility of an online review? A conjoint analysis. Online Information Review, 45(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/oir-09-2019-0287
47.
MackiewiczJ. (2010). Assertions of expertise in online product reviews. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 24(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651909346929
48.
McCleanE. J.MartinS. R.EmichK. J.WoodruffC. T. (2018). The social consequences of voice: An examination of voice type and gender on status and subsequent leader emergence. Academy of Management Journal, 61(5), 1869–1891. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0148.
49.
MetzgerM. J.HartsellE. H.FlanaginA. J. (2020). Cognitive dissonance or credibility? A comparison of two theoretical explanations for selective exposure to partisan news. Communication Research, 47, 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215613136
50.
ParkD. H.LeeJ.HanI. (2007). The effect of on-line consumer reviews on consumer purchasing intention: the moderating role of involvement. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 11(4), 125–148. https://doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-4415110405
51.
ParkJ.YiY.KangD. (2019).The effects of one-sided vs. two-sided review valence on electronic word of mouth (e-WOM): The moderating role of sponsorship presence. Asia Marketing Journal, 21(2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.15830/amj.2019.21.2.1
52.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10), 1915–1926. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.10.1915
53.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1984). Source factors and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Consumer Research, 11(1), 668–672.
54.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (Eds.). (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. (pp. 1-24) Springer.
55.
PopelnukhaA.AlmeidaS.ObaidA.SarwarN.AtambaC.TariqH.WengQ. (2022). Keep your mouth shut until I feel good: testing the moderated mediation model of leader’s threat to competence, self-defense tactics, and voice rejection. Personnel Review, 51(1), 394–431. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-09-2019-0508
56.
SchmittA.Den HartogD. N.BelschakF. D. (2022). Understanding the initiative paradox: the interplay of leader neuroticism and follower traits in evaluating the desirability of follower proactivity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 31(2), 186–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2021.1950690
57.
SherfE. N.TangiralaS.VenkataramaniV. (2019). Why managers do not seek voice from employees: The importance of managers’ personal control and long-term orientation. Organization Science, 30(3), 447–466. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2018.1273
58.
SliterM.JexS.WolfordK.McinnerneyJ. (2010). How rude! Emotional labor as a mediator between customer incivility and employee outcomes. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(4), 468–481. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020723
59.
SongQ.WangY.ChenY.BenitezJ.HuJ. (2019). Impact of the usage of social media in the workplace on team and employee performance. Information & Management, 56(8), 103160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.04.003
60.
SoukaM.BilsteinN.DeckerR. (2024). Give me your data and I’ll dress you: A two-sided messaging approach to address privacy concerns surrounding in-store technologies. Journal of Business Research, 172, 114396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114396
61.
VeldeF. V.HuddersL.CaubergheV.ClaereboutE. (2018). Changing farmers’ behavior intention with a hint of wit: The moderating influence of humor on message sidedness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 56, 97–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.12.001
62.
WangT.XuY.LiJ. (2024). Antecedents of voice endorsement: A communication perspective. Chinese Management Studies, 18, 612–627. https://doi.org/10.1108/CMS-07-2022-0241
63.
WhitingS.W.MaynesT. D.PodsakoffN. P.PodsakoffP. M. (2012). Effects of message, source, and context on evaluations of employee voice behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 159–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024871.
64.
WinterS.BrücknerC.KrämerN. C. (2015). They came, they liked, they commented: Social influence on Facebook news channels. Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking, 18(8), 431–436. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2015.0005
65.
XuF.WarkentinM. (2020). Integrating elaboration likelihood model and herd theory in information security message persuasiveness. Computers & Security, 98, 102009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2020.102009
66.
YoonH. J.TinkhamS. F. (2013). Humorous threat persuasion in advertising: The effects of humor, threat intensity, and issue involvement. Journal of Advertising, 42(1), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2012.749082
67.
YouL.HonL.LeeY. H. (2023). How value congruence and issue relevance affect consumer reactions to corporate political advocacy. International Journal of Business Communication. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884231200858
68.
ZebregsS.van den PutteB.NeijensP.de GraafA. (2015). The differential impact of statistical and narrative evidence on beliefs, attitude, and intention: A meta-analysis. Health Communication, 30(3), 282–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2013.842528
69.
ZhangK.ZhaoS. J.CheungC.LeeM. (2014). Examining the influence of online reviews on consumers’ decision-making: A heuristic-systematic model. Decision Support Systems, 67, 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2014.08.005
