Speaking Up to Higher-Ups: How Supervisors and Skip-Level Leaders Influence Employee Voice

Abstract

In this qualitative research, we enhance understanding of leader influences on employee voice perceptions by examining which leaders influence these perceptions and why these influences occur. We conducted 89 interviews in a high-tech multinational corporation with employees at multiple levels in two manufacturing and two R&D units that differed significantly on “speak up”-related items on a company-wide employee survey. Systematic analysis of the interview data led us to conclude that a broad spectrum of leaders from supervisors to senior managers influences individual employee voice perceptions in both direct and indirect ways. For example, informants referred to “skip-level leaders,” those leaders two to five levels above themselves, as reasons to view voice as risky or futile nearly as often as they referred to immediate bosses. We present evidence related to “how” and “why” these patterns of influence occur by reviewing the direct and indirect modes of influence identified and by outlining the managerial functions that provide occasions for skip-level leaders to have direct influences on employee voice perceptions. We also point to differences in the specific echelons of leadership that were most influential across the units studied. We propose that multilevel, multileader influences on voice perceptions result naturally from modern workflows, the essential functions performed by skip-level leaders, and deep-seated employee attitudes about authority in hierarchical organizations. We propose further that differences in which levels of skip-level leadership are most critical to employee voice perceptions in different units depend on which leaders have the power to handle strategic contingencies and to resolve key uncertainties within particular work environments. Finally, we delve into the theoretical implications of our findings to offer a set of research propositions that can be tested in future research. Collectively, our findings point to a complex and nuanced picture of multilevel leader influences on employee voice perceptions with important practical implications for management.

The Relationship between Prosocial Voice and the Patient Safety Culture in the Saudi Public Hospitals

“…Prior researchers like Burris et al (2008), Detert and Trevino (2010), Grant andMayer (2009), Tucker et al (2008), and Walumbwa and Schaubroeck (2009) claimed that prosocial voice, a specific type of proactive and upward-directed workplace communication behaviour, are linked with enhanced effectiveness in several industries and may be employed in the healthcare industry.…”

“…Such voice types reflect changes directed towards improvement (Premeaux & Bedeian, 2003), initiatives for proactive expressions of novel solutions to resolve organizational problems (Fuller et al, 2007), a challenging effective notion to improve circumstances at work (Venkataraman & Tangirala, 2010), communication focused on improving job-related safety situations (Tucker et al, 2008), innovation recommendations for improvement (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009), and communication towards a specific target that holds the organizational power (Burris et al, 2008;Detert & Trevino, 2010). A general theme noted among studies of this calibre is the description of voice of an employee speaking up, unique due to the motivation and interaction underlying the communication of notions and feedback provided for improving activities within the organization.…”

“…Prosocial voice related factors are perceived quality of leadership support, style of management, organizational loyalty and the level of employee fair treatment (Burris et al, 2008;Detert & Trevino, 2010;Walumba & Schaumbroeck, 2009). The next sections provide details of the prosocial voice factors that are significant to this study.…”

“…Specifically, Detert and Trevino (2010) carried out a qualitative study to shed an insight into the topic with the help of interviews with 89 high-tech industry employees to obtain their perceptions of the supportive or hindering affects of leaders on prosocial voice. They found that employee perception of supervisory supportiveness is a positive prediction of the tendency to employ prosocial voice.…”

“…Stated differently, employees perceiving that their supervisors are open, empathetic and tolerant are more inclined to use prosocial voice as such supervisors encourage informal interaction with employees working at all levels in terms and urge them to make use of greater levels of prosocial voice. Detert and Trevino (2010) advised future studies to investigate the way in which individual characteristics are related to the hesitancy of the employee to use prosocial voice.…”