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

Abstract

PurposeAlthough voice endorsement is essential for individuals, teams and organizational performance, leaders who consider followers' voice to be threatening are reluctant to implement followers' ideas. The authors, taking note of this phenomenon, investigate why leaders who feel a threat from followers' voice exhibit voice rejection at the workplace and when this detrimental tendency can be diminished. Thus, based on the self-defense tendency as per self-affirmation theory, the authors argue that those leaders who experience threat triggered by followers' voice, justify voice rejection through the self-defense tactics: message derogation and source derogation. In addition, the authors also propose that a leader's positive (negative) affect experienced before voice exposure may decrease (increase) self-defense and voice rejection.Design/methodology/approachTo test the authors’ moderated mediation model, they conducted two independent vignette studies (N = 269; N = 208). The purpose of the first vignette study was to test the simple mediation (i.e. the direct and indirect effects), whereas the second study aimed to test the moderated mediation model.FindingsIn Study 1, the authors found that the leader's perceived threat to competence provoked by followers' voice was positively related to voice rejection, and the relationship was partially mediated by message derogation and source derogation. In line with this, in Study 2, the authors tested the moderated mediation model and replicated the findings of Study 1. They found that the effects of leader's perceived threat to competence on voice rejection through self-defense tactics are weaker (stronger) at the high (low) values of a leader's positive affect. In contrast, the effects of a leader's perceived threat to competence on voice rejection through self-defense tactics are stronger (weaker) at the high (low) values of a leader's negative affect.Originality/valueThis study suggests that leaders who experience a threat to competence instigated by employee voice are more likely to think that ideas proposed by employees are non-constructive and employees who suggest those ideas are not credible, and these appraisals have a direct influence on voice rejection. However, if leaders are in a good mood vs. bad mood, they will be less likely to think negatively about employees and their ideas even when they experience psychological threats. The findings highlight several avenues for future researchers to extend the literature on employee voice management and leadership coaching by providing theoretical and managerial implications.

More depleted, speak up more? A daily examination of the benefit and cost of depletion for voice behavior and voice endorsement

“…Our work also highlights the way in which employee daily depletion can exert a negative effect on managerial responses to voice. There is a burgeoning body of literature concerning elements that predict voice endorsement (Burris, 2012; Lam et al, 2019; Li et al, 2019), which include voice types (Burris, 2012; McClean et al, in press), voice content (Burris et al, 2017), employee characteristics (Johnson & Johnson, 2017; Lam et al, 2019; Liao et al, 2021), and managerial characteristics (Li et al, 2019; Popelnukha et al, 2021). We build on this line of research by showing that employee depletion and trait self‐control may interact to influence the extent to which managers endorse employee voice through reduced daily voice impulse control.…”

“…There is a burgeoning body of literature concerning elements that predict voice endorsement (Burris, 2012;Lam et al, 2019;Li et al, 2019), which include voice types (Burris, 2012;McClean et al, in press), voice content (Burris et al, 2017), employee characteristics (Johnson & Johnson, 2017;Lam et al, 2019;Liao et al, 2021), and managerial characteristics (Li et al, 2019;Popelnukha et al, 2021).…”

Employee Constructive Voice: An Integrative Review and a Dyadic Approach

“…For example, when employees make suggestions that challenge their manager's ideas or existing practices, the latter may feel their status, power, and position of authority threatened, which may inhibit managers from endorsing and/or implementing employee voice (Burris, 2012) and building a positive social exchange relationship with the voicer. Moreover, when voice is expressed in a public setting (i.e., in front of an audience), managers can be concerned about being viewed as an incompetent leader by others (Popelnukha et al, 2022). If managers perceive voice as a threat to their image, they may shy away from endorsing and/or implementing employee voice (Isaakyan et al, 2021) and responding positively to voicers' initiation of a social exchange relationship.…”

“…efficacy-that is, perceived lack of ability to meet the elevated expectations of competence associated with managerial roles (Cuddy, Glick, & Beninger, 2011;Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002)-are particularly protective of their ego (Burris, 2012). Such managers are likely to interpret employee voice as a reflection of their lack of self-efficacy (Fast et al, 2014) and a threat to their competence (Popelnukha et al, 2022) and would be unable to process employee voice fully (J. Li, Barnes, Yam, Guarana, & Wang, 2019).…”

Power decline and the change of self-esteem: The moderating effect of self-defense

“…The manifestation of individual defense mechanisms is also a form of personality ( Huang et al, 2018 ). Individuals with high self-defense are more sensitive to threatening events to the self-esteem ( Popelnukha et al, 2022 ). With power as an important factor affecting self-esteem, individuals with high self-defense would become more responsive to power altering events.…”