Despite a growing body of research on employee voice-defined as the discretionary communication of ideas, suggestions, or opinions intended to improve organizational or unit functioning-the effects of shared or collective-level cognitions have received scant attention. There has also been relatively little research on voice within work groups. Our goal in this study was to address these important gaps by focusing on the effects of group-level beliefs about voice (i.e., group voice climate) on individual voice behavior within work groups. We conducted a cross-level investigation of voice behavior within 42 groups of engineers from a large chemical company. Consistent with our hypotheses, group voice climate was highly predictive of voice and explained variance beyond the effects of individual-level identification and satisfaction, and procedural justice climate. Also consistent with predictions, the effect of identification on voice was stronger in groups with favorable voice climates. These findings provide evidence that voice is shaped not just by individual attitudes and perceptions of the work context, as past research has shown, but also by group-level beliefs. The results also highlight the importance of broadening our conceptual models of voice to include shared cognitions and of conducting additional cross-level research on voice.
Historic inequities exacerbated by COVID-19 and spotlighted by social justice movements like Black Lives Matter have reinforced the necessity and urgency for societies and organizations to bring healing into focus. However, few integrated models exist within management and organization scholarship to guide practice. In response, our focus aims to unpack how organizations can become healing spaces. This paper offers a holistic definition of healing as the foundation for a new conceptual model of organizations as healing spaces. Drawing upon literature from clinical psychology, social psychology, and political science, we identify four perspectives that address healing in organizational contexts: (1) restorative justice, (2) posttraumatic growth, (3) relational cultural theory, and (4) dignity. These healing modalities represent prominent views of how healing can be achieved at the individual, dyadic, organizational, and societal levels. Synthesizing and building on these perspectives, we develop a typology that illustrates three ways organizations can function as healing spaces — Emergent, Endeavoring, and Exemplifying — representing a range of opportunities for how organizations can better respond to suffering. These spaces of healing are differentiated across seven dimensions, including source of harm, recipients of healing, facilitators of healing, focus of healing, length and strength of organizational attention, process of healing, and activators or enablers of healing. This research contributes to organizational healing research and to nascent social justice discussions in the management literature by exploring a range of opportunities for how organizations can better respond to suffering and substantively contribute to remedying harm from systematic bias against marginalized groups via healing.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.