No abstract

No abstract

When is a token female's voice incorporated into the actions of a traditionally maledominated team and to what ends? Drawing from the tokenism, gender stereotypes, and minority influence literatures, we advance a model that specifies the conditions that facilitate token female voice enactment and when enacting her voice enhances team performance. Using a sample of active duty military men and women, we employed live observation techniques to study voice enactment in all-male teams versus female token teams (i.e., teams with a token female member) throughout a series of complex and physically demanding tasks. Our findings revealed that a) token female voice enactment was higher when team leaders possessed more favorable beliefs about women's capabilities in the military, and b) token female voice enactment enhanced team performance in more complex tasks but harmed team performance in less complex tasks. Additionally, our supplementary analyses revealed that female token teams were more reflective before engaging in action relative to all-male teams that tended to engage in agentic, "actionfirst" strategies. Theoretical and practical implications for facilitating female voice enactment in traditionally male-dominated contexts are discussed.

No abstract

Dynamic markets and competition highlight the importance of employee initiative for streamlining work processes and anticipating customer needs (Campbell, 2000; Parker, 2000). It is therefore not surprising that proactive personality is often positioned as a critical predictor of job performance

Constructive voice is a type of communicative act involving both voicers and managers. However, research on constructive voice has developed in two separate streams, with studies adopting either a voicer- or a manager-centric perspective, thereby failing to provide a holistic understanding of constructive voice. This unilateral approach results in missed opportunities for scholars to understand the dyadic and dynamic nature of constructive voice. To address this limitation, we draw on social exchange theory to introduce a four-phase (felt voice, expressed voice, managerial responses to voice, and relational voice outcomes) dyadic model of constructive voice. By conceptualizing constructive voice as a dyadic exchange between voicers and managers, we detail the ongoing processes in which employees initiate voice and managers subsequently endorse and/or implement voicers’ input. We also introduce feedback loops to highlight the dynamic nature of constructive voice over time and explain the consequences of repeated constructive-voice exchange processes on relational outcomes. Finally, we review the literature, summarize gaps and opportunities, and provide directions for future research.

No abstract

Scholars have long wrestled with whether hierarchical differentiation is functional or dysfunctional for teams. Building on emerging research that emphasizes the distinction between power (i.e., control over resources) and status (i.e., respect from others), we aim to help reconcile the functional and dysfunctional accounts of hierarchy by examining the effects of power differentiation on team performance, contingent on status differentiation. We theorize that power differentiation is dysfunctional for teams with high status differentiation by increasing knowledge hiding, which undermines team performance. In contrast, we predict that power differentiation is functional for teams with low status differentiation by decreasing knowledge hiding, which improves team performance. In a field study, we found that power differentiation harmed team performance via knowledge hiding in teams with high status differentiation, but power differentiation had no effect on knowledge hiding or performance in teams with low status differentiation. In an experiment, we again found that power differentiation harmed team performance by increasing knowledge hiding in teams with high status differentiation. However, power differentiation improved team performance by decreasing knowledge hiding in teams with status equality. Finally, in a third study, we confirm the role of status differentiation in making team climates more competitive and examine the effect of power-status alignment within teams, finding that misalignment exacerbates the dysfunctional effects of power differentiation in teams with high status differentiation. By examining how power and status hierarchies operate in tandem, this work underscores the need to take a more nuanced approach to studying hierarchy in teams.