The Social Consequences of Voice: An Examination of Voice Type and Gender on Status and Subsequent Leader Emergence

Abstract

This paper explores the impact of two types of voice and gender on peer-rated social status and subsequent leader emergence. Across two studies-a three-wave field study and an experiment-we find that speaking up promotively, but not prohibitively, is positively and indirectly related to leader emergence via status, and that this relationship is conditional on the gender of the speaker. Specifically, men who spoke up promotively benefited the most in terms of status and leader emergence, not only compared to men who spoke up prohibitively, but also compared to women who spoke up promotively. This research extends our understanding of the outcomes of voice by articulating how it impacts one's place in his or her group's social structure, and ultimately whether he or she is seen as a leader. We also add to our understanding of leader emergence by suggesting that talking a lot or participating at a high level in a group may not be enough to emerge as a leader-it also depends how you do it and who you are. Employee voice is a change-oriented behavior involving the discretionary provision of improvementoriented information intended to better one's group or organization (Detert & Burris, 2007). Scholarly interest and research on the consequences of voice have largely developed along two paths; the first has examined the impact of voice on collective outcomes such as unit-level performance (Detert, Burris,

Challenges and supports for women conservation leaders

“…Prejudice against women leaders thus derives from people's divergent expectations of leaders and women, and manifests in resistance to women's leadership. Working women often receive less approval than men for the same behaviors, and less support, mentorship, respect, and recognition (McClean, Martin, Emich, & Woodruff, 2017); experience sexually harassment (McLaughlin, Uggen, & Blackstone, 2012); and struggle to appear both competent and warm (Eagly, 2007). Gender discrimination manifests in unequal salary, hiring, and promotion processes (Moss-Racusin, Dovidio, Brescoll, Graham, & Handelsman, 2012).…”

Female grant applicants are equally successful when peer reviewers assess the science, but not when they assess the scientist

“…4,[42][43][44] The leadership credentials of women in health research may also be constrained by broader societal tendencies in which women receive negative responses for being ambitious 81 or exerting control as leaders. [82][83][84] Research suggests that women must choose between being seen as a competent leader or being liked, 82,83 which complicates career advancement within academia, where leadership positions often depend on colleagues' endorsements. Societal stereotypes suggest that women are less interested in leadership positions, but to our knowledge there is no evidence that this is true for women in health research.…”

GAME-ON: A Multimodal Dataset for Cohesion and Group Analysis

“…-Leadership: We used a set of 5 items on a 6-point Likert ranging from 1 ("Completely disagree") to 6 ("Completely agree"), following Gerpott et al's study recommendations [100] based on previous work [101], [102]. For the same reasons as in the W&C questionnaire, we decided to use a round-robin rating.…”