When Voice Matters

Abstract

The conventional wisdom is that voice leads to desirable outcomes for organizations. However, this is most certainly an oversimplification. Of the over 1,000 studies examining the impact of voice in organizations, the implications of voice vary by the level of the organization (individual, group, organization) as well as the outcome of interest (e.g., group harmony vs. job satisfaction). In this article, we draw from the diverse literatures examining the impact of voice to integrate the theoretical frameworks and empirical results for voice outcomes across organizational levels. To do so, we start with a discussion of the definition and development of voice as a construct, beginning with Hirschman's seminal work on voice/exit/loyalty. We then review the theoretical frameworks within each level that explain the effect of voice on outcomes, highlight the role of mediating or moderating mechanisms, and discuss directions for future research. Finally, we emphasize emerging trends in the study of voice and suggest areas in which the various literatures may benefit from borrowing across fields and levels of interest to produce a more comprehensive, theoretically grounded, and cohesive body of work.

The role of reward omission in empowering leadership and employee outcomes: A moderated mediation model

“…By speaking up, employees could accumulate resources (i.e., social connections and valuable information) for themselves, which are likely to facilitate creativity (Ng & Feldman, 2012). To further explain, it is likely that people who voice their opinions have the initiative needed to participate in further discussion, and they may have more opportunities to connect with people and acquire information (Bashshur & Oc, 2015). Moreover, by voicing constructive suggestions, employees are more likely to be rated as creative by their supervisors (Chen & Hou, 2016).…”

Co‐workers' voice climate and affective commitment towards the team: A test of mediation and moderation

“…Finally, even if our paper refers to voice as conceptualised in the organisational justice literature, it also indirectly provides new insights and a better understanding of the general context of speaking up in groups. As Mowbray et al (, p. 383) stated, “the differences in the conceptualization and definition of employee voice across the disciplines does not provide just reason to exclude and ignore the findings from another discipline, but rather it provides the opportunity to look at employee voice from a different perspective and to incorporate some of the key findings and research from each discipline” (see also Bashshur & Oc, ). In line with this statement, our research stresses out the importance of the accountability of the voice climate as the effect may differ depending on the source (Molina, Moliner, Martínez‐Tur, Cropanzano, & Peiró, ).…”

“…The two voice conceptions are not of the same nature because procedural voice represents the opportunity to express his/her opinion (whatever the use of this opportunity) whereas proactive voice is the actual expression of opinion. This distinction may lead to different conclusions: “Despite the conventional wisdom that voice is healthy for organizations, when teased apart by level (e.g., individual vs. organization) or literature (e.g., justice vs. proactive behavior), the effects of voice are rather mixed” (Bashshur & Oc, , pp. 1–2).…”

The affective relevance of suggestion‐focused and problem‐focused voice: A diary study on voice in meetings

“…A second limitation is that we did not investigate how the other meeting attendees reacted to employees' voice. Affective consequences of voice, however, may well depend on how others receive it (Bashshur & Oc, 2015), in particular, whether others react favourably or not. Negative feedback or lack of recognition is experienced as negative event (Basch & Fisher, 2000).…”

“…Employees' work-related affect varies substantially within persons , and this within-person variability seems to be predictable, at least to some extent, by employees' own behaviour at work (Dalal, Bhave, & Fiset, 2014;Sonnentag, 2015). By considering discrete voice events and their consequences for employees' own state affect, we address calls to consider daily job behaviours as predictors of employees' affective well-being (Bashshur & Oc, 2015;. Moreover, our diary study allows capturing voice events as they naturally occur while ruling out the influence of person-related confounding factors (Bolger, Davis, & Rafaeli, 2003).…”