Managing to Stay in the Dark: Managerial Self-Efficacy, Ego Defensiveness, and the Aversion to Employee Voice

Abstract

Soliciting and incorporating employee voice is essential to organizational performance, yet some managers display a strong aversion to improvement-oriented input from subordinates. To help to explain this maladaptive tendency, we tested the hypothesis that managers with low managerial self-efficacy (that is, low perceived ability to meet the elevated competence expectations associated with managerial roles) seek to minimize voice as a way of compensating for a threatened ego. The results of two studies support this idea. In a field study (Study 1), managers with low managerial self-efficacy were less likely than others to solicit input, leading to lower levels of employee voice. A follow-up experimental study (Study 2) showed that: (a) manipulating low managerial self-efficacy led to voice aversion (that is, decreased voice solicitation, negative evaluations of an employee who spoke up, and reduced implementation of voice); and (b) the observed voice aversion associated with low managerial self-efficacy was driven by ego defensiveness. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings, as well as highlight directions for future research on voice, management, and leadership.

Creating Reciprocal Value Through Operational Transparency

“…For example, companies can achieve more positive outcomes by disclosing information on corporate social responsibility (Burke and Logsdon 1996, Dhaliwal et al 2011, Du et al 2007, privacy practices and policies (Pan andZinkhan 2006, Tsai et al 2010), and executive compensation (Lo 2003). Encouraging employee and consumer voice by allowing the co-creation of products (Franke et al 2013) and seeking constructive feedback (Fast et al 2014) could also help satisfy multiple stakeholders.…”

Why and When Leaders’ Affective States Influence Employee Upward Voice

“…To understand what may promote or discourage employees from speaking up to their leaders, most of the existing voice research has taken a between-individual approach to explore the antecedents of voice (Morrison, 2011). These studies have identified employee characteristics, such as self-esteem and dispositional factors (e.g., LePine & Van Dyne, 2001), and leader characteristics, such as openness to change (e.g., Detert & Burris, 2007;Liu, Zhu, & Yang, 2010) and leadership styles (e.g., Fast, Burris & Bartel, 2014;Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2012;Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009), as important predictors of voice.…”

Public versus Private Voice

“…Moreover, when employees highlight a need for improvement, employees implicitly emphasize issues that managers may have overlooked (Burris, 2012) and thus indirectly raise questions about managers' credibility and competence. Given the challenge inherent in voice, managers do not always welcome voice and may react defensively by punishing employees for speaking up or denigrating their input (e.g., Burris, 2012;Fast et al, 2014;Seibert et al, 2001). As a result, employees often fear that expressing their ideas, opinions, or concerns may cause negative personal repercussions such as receiving low performance evaluations, being viewed as troublemaker, as well as damaging personal relationships at the workplace (Detert & Treviño, 2010;Grant, 2013;.…”

“…Over the past years, there has been growing scholarly interest in exploring factors that affect managers' reactions to voice. Studies have shown that voice frequency (e.g., Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001), the attributes of people involved (the voicing employee and the manager; e.g., Fast, Burris, & Bartel, 2014;Sijbom, Janssen, & Van Yperen, 2015a, 2015b, and the attributes of the voice message (e.g., Burris, 2012) affect managers' reactions to voice.…”

“…First, it contributes to the growing literature on managerial reactions to voice. This literature has mostly focused on how voice frequency, attributes of the people involved, or of the voice message affect managerial reactions to voice (Burris, 2012;Fast et al, 2014;Seibert et al, 2001;Sijbom et al, 2015aSijbom et al, , 2015b. I add to this literature by highlighting how and why the social setting (private vs. public) in which voice is enacted may affect managers' reactions to voice.…”