“Not only hard to make but also hard to take:” Team leaders’ reactions to voice

A review and future agenda for behavioral research on leader–follower interactions at different temporal scopes

“…That is, studies thus far have mostly considered leader and follower behaviors as separate predictors or outcomes (see Table 2). For example, previous work on leader-follower interactions in medical teams has investigated immediate leader reactions in response to followers' voice behavior (Krenz et al, 2019) or studied how leadership training programs to strengthen supervisor support affect followers' organizational commitment, engagement, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions (Odle-Dusseau et al, 2015). Although these results are intriguing, understanding leadership as an interactive process that occurs between leaders and followers requires scholars to move beyond unidirectional approaches and toward bidirectional processes of claiming and granting leadership and followership (cf.…”

Investigating voice in action teams: a critical review

“…Third, another apparent neglect of voice research concerns the recipient. Simply voicing a concern does not always seem to be enough (Burris et al 2013;Krenz et al 2019). To stay with the example of leg surgery, expressing concerns about the surgeon's procedure does not necessarily prevent patient harm.…”

In search of ‘honest opponents' : a narrative study exploring employees’ decisions to speak up

“…Voice behaviors have been a subject of study since the mid-1900s (Cohen, 1958;Festinger, 1950;Read, 1962;Rosen & Tesser, 1970), and the focus of explorations of employees' decision to voice or remain silent have varied from organizational factors, to leader qualities, to psychosocial processes (Adelman, 2012;Knoll & van Dick, 2013;Krenz, Burtscher, & Kolbe, 2019;Liu, Zhu, & Yang, 2010;Milliken, Morrison, & Hewlin, 2003;Premeaux & Bedeian, 2003;Van Dyne, Ang, & Botero, 2003;Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009;Withey & Cooper, 1989). Furthermore, voice phenomena have been studied at the individual (Bienefeld & Grote, 2014;Cohen, 1958;Deniz, Noyan, & Ertosun, 2013;Premeaux & Bedeian, 2003;Read, 1962;Rosen & Tesser, 1970;Vakola & Bouradas, 2005;Van Dyne et al, 2003), team (Bienefeld & Grote, 2014;Edmondson, 1996Edmondson, , 1999Edmondson, , 2019Hu, Erdogan, Jiang, Bauer, & Liu, 2018;Kostopoulos & Bozionelos, 2011;Krenz et al, 2019;Leroy et al, 2012;Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006), and organizational levels (Baer & Frese, 2003;Brinsfield, 2013;Carmeli & Gittel, 2009;Knoll & van Dick, 2013;Morrison & Milliken, 2000).…”

“…In 2000, Morrison and Milliken presented a compelling seminal work on the subject of collective-level silence, arguing that managers' implicitly held beliefs and personal fears ultimately lead to the outcome of organizational silence. This conceptualization helped to broaden the exploration of silence from a follower-centric discussion to one encompassing leaders' behaviors, and has been succeeded by myriad studies examining the impact of employees' interpretations of leaders' behaviors on their decisions regarding whether or not to enact voice behaviors (Adelman, 2012;Krenz et al, 2019;Liu et al, 2010;Milliken et al, 2003;Van Dyne et al, 2003). In addition, employee voice behaviors have been studied in relation to organizational and team learning (Blackman & Sadler-Smith, 2009;Carmeli & Gittel, 2009;Edmondson, 1999;Henrikson & Dayton, 2006;Hirak, Peng, Carmeli, & Schaubroeck, 2012;Jacobs & Coghlan, 2005;Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006), which is unsurprising considering the importance of employees' active participation and contributions in organizational learning.…”

“…In this study, 72.7 percent of employees cited the perception that nothing had been done about similar actions in the past as a rationale for choosing to remain silent; fear of job loss, social fallout, or retaliation were less commonly reported at 55, 45.5, and 36.4 percent, respectively. Krenz et al (2019) examined how employees' presentation of ideas impacted team leaders' decision to implement those ideas and found that delivery mattered: ideas presented respectfully and explicitly were more likely to be implemented than were ideas presented obliquely, despite explicit voice being considered more rude than respectful or oblique voice.…”