Kim Et Al 2022 Employee Constructive Voice An Integrative Review and A Dyadic Approach

Journal of Management
Vol. 49 No. 1, January 2023 430–473

DOI: 10.1177/01492063221108654
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Employee Constructive Voice: An Integrative

Review and a Dyadic Approach
You Jin Kim
Chak Fu Lam
City University of Hong Kong
Jo (Kyoungjo) Oh
University of Connecticut
Wonbin Sohn
University of Texas at Austin
Constructive voice is a type of communicative act involving both voicers and managers.
However, research on constructive voice has developed in two separate streams, with studies
adopting either a voicer- or a manager-centric perspective, thereby failing to provide a holistic
understanding of constructive voice. This unilateral approach results in missed opportunities for
scholars to understand the dyadic and dynamic nature of constructive voice. To address this lim-
itation, we draw on social exchange theory to introduce a four-phase (felt voice, expressed voice,
managerial responses to voice, and relational voice outcomes) dyadic model of constructive
voice. By conceptualizing constructive voice as a dyadic exchange between voicers and manag-
ers, we detail the ongoing processes in which employees initiate voice and managers subse-
quently endorse and/or implement voicers’ input. We also introduce feedback loops to
highlight the dynamic nature of constructive voice over time and explain the consequences of
repeated constructive-voice exchange processes on relational outcomes. Finally, we review
the literature, summarize gaps and opportunities, and provide directions for future research.
Keywords: constructive voice; managerial endorsement; implementation; relational

mutuality; dyad
Acknowledgment: This work was supported by the City University of Hong Kong (Grant No. 7200673).
Chak Fu Lam, Jo (Kyoungjo) Oh, and Wonbin Sohn contributed equally as second authors to the article.
Corresponding author: You Jin Kim, College of Business, City University of Hong Kong, 83 Tat Chee Avenue,
Kowloon, Hong Kong.
E-mail: youjkim@cityu.edu.hk
430
Kim et al. / Employee Constructive Voice 431
Constructive voice refers to employees’ upward communication of ideas or suggestions

intended to improve the work unit or the organization (Morrison, 2011). Although employees
may engage in a variety of voices within the organization, such as supportive (i.e., supporting
current practices), defensive (i.e., opposing changes to current practices), and destructive (i.e.,
antagonizing current practices with aggression; Liang, Farh, & Farh, 2012; Maynes &
Podsakoff, 2014), we focus on constructive voice given its beneficial effect on organizational
effectiveness (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998) and performance (C. Farh, Oh, Hollenbeck, Yu,
Lee, & King, 2020; Kolbe et al., 2012; Lam & Mayer, 2014; A. Li, Liao, Tangirala, &
Firth, 2017; Mackenzie, Podsakoff, & Podsakoff, 2011). We also focus on constructive
voice expressed to managers rather than peers because managers can implement a voiced
suggestion (Burris, Rockmann, & Kimmons, 2017), acquire resources for enacting improve-
ment (Detert, Burris, Harrison, & Martin, 2013; Dutton, Ashford, O’Neill, & Lawrence,
2001), and advocate for further implementation of employees’ suggestions to top manage-
ment teams (Burris, 2012), which ultimately improves workgroup or organizational effective-
ness (Detert et al., 2013; Hussain, Shu, Tangirala, & Ekkirala, 2019).
Given the benefits of employees’ constructive upward voice, research has been predomi-
nantly voicer-centric (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998), meaning that it has focused on understand-
ing why employees (i.e., voicers) engage in voice. Factors such as individual characteristics
(Crant, Kim, & Wang, 2011), attitudes and perceptions (Frazier & Fainshmidt, 2012), contex-
tual factors (Morrison, Wheeler-Smith, & Kamdar, 2011), and emotions (Harvey, Martinko,
& Douglas, 2009) have all been studied as predictors of voice (Morrison, 2014). More
recently, scholars have begun to recognize the pivotal role played by managers in bringing
change-initiating suggestions to light. Manager-centric research has started to explore how
factors such as the type of voice (Burris, 2012), communication styles (Lam, Lee, & Sui,
2019), and managerial perceptions of the content of the suggestions voiced by employees
(Burris et al., 2017) influence whether managers endorse and/or implement voice.
Despite the burgeoning development of these two streams of research, voicer- and
manager-centric research streams remain largely disconnected, each developing in its own
silo. This lack of integration between voicer-centric and manager-centric research is problem-
atic for two reasons. First, because managers have the power and authority to endorse and
implement employee voice (Detert et al., 2013), research focusing solely on voicers
without considering managerial responses to their constructive voice fails to capture
whether voice achieves its intended purpose of improving workgroup effectiveness.
Likewise, research focusing solely on managerial responses, without considering how
employees feel and react to managerial responses to voice, overlooks opportunities to under-
stand voicers’ subsequent decisions to speak up, a point that has important implications for
explaining voice behavior over time. As such, voice research currently lacks a holistic under-
standing of the voice process as a whole and would benefit from a model that integrates both
voicer- and manager-centric perspectives.
Second, a lack of integration between the two perspectives results in studies focusing on
outcomes related to either the voicer or the manager. For example, voicer-centric research has
mainly focused on voicer-centric outcomes that include voicers’ status (Bain, Kreps, Meikle,
& Tenney, 2021; McClean, Martin, Emich, & Woodruff, 2018), performance evaluation
(Hsiung, Tsai, & Chen, 2013; Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Mishra, 2011), or percep-
tions of agency and communion (Weiss & Morrison, 2019). Manager-centric research, on
432 Journal of Management / January 2023
the other hand, has mainly focused on manager-centric outcomes, such as managerial deple-
tion (Sessions, Nahrgang, Newton, & Chamberlin, 2020), managers’ sense of efficacy to
implement change (Fast, Burris, & Bartel, 2014), and managerial effectiveness (Gyensare,
Arthur, Twumasi, & Agyapong, 2019). The lack of integration between voicer- and manager-
centric research results in missed opportunities to develop insight into dyadic outcomes, such
as relational quality, a critical yet understudied area in the voice literature. We contend that
although the effect of a successful voice exchange (i.e., voicers speak up and managers
respond positively) on relational quality may be small, repeated successful voice exchanges
may build, enrich, and enhance voicer-manager relational quality. In turn, high relational
quality may induce employees to engage in constructive voice automatically while also pos-
itively inducing managers to endorse employee voice automatically over time.
To integrate the voicer- and manager-centric perspectives, we draw on social exchange
theory (Cropanzano, Anthony, Daniels, & Hall, 2017; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005) and
conceptualize voice as an ongoing dyadic exchange between voicers and managers.
According to social exchange theory, an actor initiates a social exchange relationship by
taking initial actions toward a target individual, which in turn encourages the target to
respond by taking actions toward the actor (Cropanzano et al., 2017; Cropanzano &
Mitchell, 2005). Social exchanges continue to occur between two individuals over time as
long as they respond positively to each other (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Gergen,
1969; Gouldner, 1960). Applying a social exchange lens to the voice context, we contend
that employees express constructive voice as a means to initiate and develop a social
exchange relationship with their manager. Managers then endorse and/or implement con-
structive voice as a means to maintain and further develop the social exchange relationship.
As managers respond to constructive voice with endorsement and/or implementation,
employees are likely to respond with subsequent constructive voice behavior to continue
developing their relationship with their manager, which in turn contributes to the develop-
ment of cyclical voice exchanges, or what we refer to as feedback loops. Over time, repeated
successful voice exchanges facilitate the development of relational mutuality—the shared
belief between voicers and managers that the other party trusts, is committed to, and is
respectful of them (Lewis, 1999)—which further induces automatic voice (for employees)
and responses to voice (for managers) over time.
Our integrative review makes two contributions. First, prior review articles tend to be
heavily voicer-centric and mostly focus on predictors and consequences of employee
voice. For example, Morrison (2011, 2014) focused on the predictors and outcomes associ-
ated with diverse conceptualizations of employee voice, and Bashshur and Oc (2015)
reviewed the theoretical frameworks used to explain the outcomes of employee voice
across different levels of the organization (i.e., individual, group, organizational).
Additionally, Klaas, Olson-Buchanan, and Ward (2012) explored how different determinants
discourage or encourage diverse forms of voice, and D. Butler and Whiting (2019) reviewed
how voice behavior influences voicers and their organization. Moving beyond such voicer-
centric reviews, our dyadic model aims to recenter the current research pendulum by integrat-
ing voicer-centric and manager-centric perspectives. In doing so, we provide an integrative
framework that offers a more balanced picture of voice while capturing the full and dyadic
exchange of speaking up and being heard. Importantly, this enables us to explore new
research questions that would have been inconceivable without conceptualizing voice as a
dyadic exchange between employees and managers. For example, our dyadic integration
encourages scholars to investigate the role of dyadic characteristics, such as dyadic fit
(e.g., examining how the dyadic fit influences voice exchanges), thereby allowing researchers
to better understand the dyadic nature of constructive voice (Krasikova & LeBreton, 2012).
Second, extant work has portrayed constructive voice as a one-off, terminal event, with
scholars focusing on the initial experience of either the employee speaking up or the
manager responding to voice. In reality, however, voice exchanges involve long-term bidirec-
tional dynamics that have the potential to result in high-quality relationships (i.e., relational
mutuality) via repeatedly successful voice exchanges between voicers and managers. This is
important because the extant literature has often described voice as an interpersonally risky
behavior for employees and a threat for managers (Burris, 2012; Isaakyan, Sherf,
Tangirala, & Guenter, 2021). As a result, voice has been suggested to trigger negative
responses from managers and hinder the relationship between voicers and managers
(Burris, 2012; Morrison, 2011). Departing from this trend, our dyadic model suggests that
voice behavior, over time, has the potential to build a more positive relationship from the
employee’s and manager’s perspectives. As such, our conceptualization of voice as a
dyadic social exchange process suggests that voicers and managers develop mutually com-
mitted, trusting, and high-quality relationships that may help explain why voicers engage
in voice or why managers endorse voice more automatically over time (Lam, Rees,
Levesque, & Ornstein, 2018).
A Dyadic Model of Constructive Voice Based on Social Exchange Theory

A key tenet of social exchange theory is that individuals engage in repeated exchanges of
various resources to develop high-quality relationships over time (Cropanzano et al., 2017;
Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). The theory holds that an actor starts a social exchange rela-
tionship by taking positive actions toward a target individual, which leads the target to reply
in kind by engaging in positive behaviors (Cropanzano et al., 2017; Cropanzano & Mitchell,
2005). The social exchanges between two parties are not specified, nor are they guaranteed in
advance. Because of such uncertainties, each party involved in the exchange relies on the
principle of reciprocity (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Gouldner, 1960; Meeker, 1971).
As long as each party fulfills their reciprocal obligation, a positive reciprocity—the extent
to which each positive exchange feeds back into the relationship to reinforce it even
further—develops (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Gergen, 1969; Gouldner, 1960). Over
time, repeated social exchanges contribute to the development of positive reciprocity and
high-quality relationships (Cropanzano et al., 2017; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005).
Social exchange theory is particularly appropriate for our dyadic model because construc-
tive voice, similar to social exchange, involves two parties, namely, a voicer and their
manager (Morrison, 2011). Social exchange theory also theorizes the risks involved in
social exchange and how people initially calculate the potential costs and benefits of engaging
in a social exchange within a dyad. This corresponds to the calculative processes that are con-
sidered by employees and managers when deciding to speak up (Morrison, 2014) or respond
to voice (Burris, 2012; Burris et al., 2017), respectively. Last, consistent with our conceptu-
alization of feedback loops and the relational consequences of repeated voice exchanges
between voicers and their managers over time, social exchange theory offers insights
Figure 1
A Dyadic Model of Constructive Voice
concerning the long-term relational effects of repeated social exchanges via positive reciproc-
ity (Cropanzano et al., 2017).
Drawing from social exchange theory, our dyadic model suggests that employees initiate
social exchange relationships with managers via voice while managers respond with endorse-
ment and/or implementation to further develop the social exchange relationship initiated by
voicers. We also suggest that repeated experiences of successful voice exchanges contribute
to a mutually high-quality relationship between voicers and managers via feedback loops
(Cropanzano et al., 2017; Gouldner, 1960). Specifically, our integrative framework explains
constructive voice as a dyadic and cyclical process that occurs via four different phases: (1)
felt voice, (2) expressed voice, (3) managerial responses to voice, and (4) relational voice out-
comes (see Figure 1).
Felt Voice Phase

In the felt voice phase, employees make decisions on whether to initiate a social exchange
relationship with their manager via voice behavior. According to social exchange theory
(Cropanzano et al., 2017; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005), any exchange between two
parties involves risk because one party’s positive behaviors do not guarantee positive reac-
tions from the other during the initial social exchange process. Therefore, one first evaluates
the potential risks and benefits before initiating a social exchange relationship (Lawler, 2001).
This closely resembles the calculative processes that employees engage in when initially
deciding to express constructive voice (Morrison, 2014). For example, on the one hand,
expressing constructive voice can help managers solve issues of malpractice and inefficiency
(Gyensare et al., 2019). This can benefit voicers by helping them establish a more favorable
relationship with managers (Cheng, Lu, Chang, & Johnstone, 2013; Lapierre & Hackett,
2007). Managers may also perceive voicers as competent and helpful (L. Chen, Li, Wu, &
Chen, 2020; Weiss & Morrison, 2019), thereby enhancing voicers’ status within the team
(Chamberlin, Newton, & LePine, 2017; Whiting, Maynes, Podsakoff, & Podsakoff, 2012).
On the other hand, given the challenging nature of constructive voice, managers may perceive
employee voice as a threat to their image (Isaakyan et al., 2021), competence (Fast et al.,
2014), and authority (Burris, 2012). As a result, constructive voice can incur risks for
voicers (Ng, Shao, Koopmann, Wang, Hsu, & Yim, 2022).
Given such potential benefits and risks, our dyadic model suggests that voicers evaluate
both motivators (i.e., driving factors that increase the potential benefit of social exchange
through voice) and inhibitors (i.e., restraining factors that increase the potential risk of
social exchange through voice) when determining whether to initiate social exchange rela-
tionships with their managers via expressing constructive voice. For example, employees
experiencing higher levels of leader–member exchange (LMX) with managers are more
likely to engage in constructive voice because higher levels of LMX lead employees to
believe that their constructive voice will be received positively by their manager and increase
their likelihood of obtaining the benefits associated with expressing constructive voice (Duan,
Lapointe, Xu, & Brooks, 2019). In contrast, negative supervisory behaviors, such as abusive
supervision (Peng, Schaubroeck, Chong, & Li, 2019), not only damage voicers’ relationship
with their manager but can also increase the risks associated with voice and reduce employ-
ees’ motivation to speak up (Peng et al., 2019) as abusive supervisors are not expected to
respond positively to employee voice (C. Farh & Chen, 2014; Rafferty & Restubog,
2011). Ultimately, employees will speak up when they calculate that the perceived motivators
of engaging in the initial voice behavior outweigh the perceived inhibitors.
Expressed Voice Phase

Once employees decide to express constructive voice and initiate a social exchange, the
voice exchange process enters the expressed voice phase. This phase involves employees’
actual engagement in voice behavior. Employees consider various voice tactics for expressing
their suggestions. For example, they consider whether to include solutions that address issues
in their suggestions (Whiting et al., 2012), the degree of politeness in the tone of voice (Krenz,
Burtscher, & Kolbe, 2019; Lam et al., 2019), and whether to speak up in public or private
(Isaakyan et al., 2021).
Importantly, we theorize that employees’ choices of voice tactics will be governed by a
social exchange logic of minimizing potential risks and maximizing potential benefits.
Specifically, when employees engage in constructive voice as a means to initiate a social
exchange relationship with their manager, they are motivated to speak up in ways that max-
imize their chances of getting their manager to endorse and/or implement their ideas while
maintaining a positive relationship with their manager. For example, in their initial expres-
sions of constructive voice, employees are likely to offer solutions to help managers solve
problems (Whiting et al., 2012). As a result, voicers may have a greater chance of getting
their managers to listen to their suggestions. Moreover, providing a solution can reflect
voicers’ sincere intention to help managers solve work-related issues. Similarly, when
voicers use polite and considerate language to speak up with change-oriented suggestions
(Lam et al., 2019), and do so in private rather than in public (Isaakyan et al., 2021), they com-
municate their ideas in ways that minimize the likelihood of managers feeling threatened and
thus establish a more positive exchange relationship with their manager.
Another important tenet of social exchange theory is that people look for social cues that
signal reception or acceptance from the other party during social exchanges (Lawler & Thye,
1999). Building on this, our dyadic model suggests that voicers “read the wind” (Dutton,
Ashford, O’Neill, Hayes, & Wierba, 1997: 419) and gauge their managers’ interest when
speaking up (Landau, 2009). For example, if voicers sense that their managers are interested
in their suggestions, they may persist in their voice effort in the hope of receiving a positive
response from them. In contrast, voicers may refrain from pushing their suggestions further in
order to preserve their social exchange relationship (Dutton et al., 1997) with managers if they
sense a lack of managerial interest.
Managerial Responses to Voice Phase

After employees express constructive voice, the voice exchange process enters the mana-
gerial responses to voice phase, which takes two possible forms: attitude-oriented responses
of managerial endorsement and action-oriented responses of voice implementation. While
extant work has often not distinguished between these two constructs (Burris, 2012), we dif-
ferentiate managerial endorsement—the positive attitudes of recognizing the value or validity
of employees’ suggestions, advocating the suggestions to higher levels of management, and
providing support for further implementation of the suggestions (Burris, 2012; Isaakyan et al.,
2021)—from voice implementation—the actual allocation of resources and the execution of
suggestions (Da Silva & Oldham, 2012; C. Farh et al., 2020). Although managerial endorse-
ment reflects a manager’s positive attitude and a certain level of willingness to implement
employee suggestions (Burris et al., 2017; He, Han, Hu, Liu, Yang, & Chen, 2020), imple-
mentation may be difficult for reasons beyond managerial control, such as organizational
budget or policy constraints. As such, we make this distinction as managerial endorsement
may not always result in voice implementation.
Just as employees evaluate the potential risks and benefits of engaging in constructive
voice behavior to initiate a social exchange relationship, so do managers evaluate the potential
risks and benefits of endorsing and/or implementing constructive voice. For instance,
although implementing employee-suggested changes may benefit the manager by improving
managerial effectiveness (Grant, Parker, & Collins, 2009), it may also signal an acknowledg-
ment of current malpractice and inefficiencies, thereby jeopardizing the manager’s credibility
within the workgroup or the organization (Dutton & Ashford, 1993; Liang et al., 2012;
Menon, Thompson, & Choi, 2006).
Given the potential risks and benefits of endorsing and/or implementing employee con-
structive voice during the initial stage of voice exchange, our dyadic model suggests that man-
agers also consider motivators (i.e., driving factors that motivate social exchange through
endorsement and/or implementation) and inhibitors (i.e., restraining factors that increase
the risk of social exchange through endorsement and/or implementation) of endorsement
and/or implementation. For example, managers are more likely to endorse voice that they per-
ceive to be important for their unit (Burris et al., 2017; E. Xu, Huang, Ouyang, Liu, & Hu,
2020). When constructive voice is perceived to help solve workgroup issues, which is a man-
ager’s core duty, they are likely to perceive that endorsement will be beneficial and rewarding
to them, thereby promoting managerial endorsement and/or implementation. Further, manag-
ers are more likely to endorse suggestions made by a credible source (Lam et al., 2019; X. Li,
Wu, & Ma, 2021). Given that more credible voicers are likely to express more constructive
and high-quality suggestions, the likelihood of benefiting from endorsing and/or
implementing their suggestions is potentially higher. As a result, managers would be more

motivated to endorse and/or implement their constructive voice. In contrast, when managers
perceive that their image will be threatened by voice (Burris, 2012), they are unlikely to
endorse it. For example, voice that is expressed in public rather than in private might threaten
managers’ image (Isaakyan et al., 2021). Managers want to be perceived as capable in front of
others. As a result, endorsing and/or implementing such voice may be too risky to their image,
thereby reducing managerial endorsement and/or implementation. Like voicers, managers
weigh the motivators and inhibitors and will endorse (Burris, 2012; Burris et al., 2017)
and/or implement (Agarwal & Farndale, 2017) employee voice when the perceived motiva-
tors outweigh the perceived inhibitors.
Feedback Loops
Social exchange theory suggests that the relationship between two parties is dynamic over
time (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). That is, social exchange relationships, like
voice exchange, are unlikely to be one-time events and therefore should be conceptualized as
a continuum of actions repeated over time (e.g., Lawler, 2001). Furthermore, as past exchanges
are expected to carry over and influence subsequent exchanges, social exchange theory suggests
that positive reciprocity develops in which the two parties feel mutually rewarded by past social
exchanges (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Accordingly, so long as both parties adhere to the
norm of reciprocity (Cropanzano et al., 2017; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005), voice exchanges
can be viewed as a self-reinforcing cycle of positive exchanges.
Building on how social exchanges develop over time (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005), we
introduce feedback loops to theorize how a series of positive voice exchanges between
employees and managers can create a self-reinforcing cycle over time. Specifically, we
argue that managerial endorsement and/or implementation should create a sense of reciprocity
in which employees’ positive behavior—constructive voice—is reciprocated by their manag-
ers’ positive responses in the form of endorsement and/or implementation. Based on the
notion of positive reciprocity, employees should reciprocate by engaging in constructive
voice again (L. Li, Zheng, & Zhang, 2022). Managerial endorsement and/or implementation
is especially critical for the development of positive reciprocity during initial voice exchanges
because it sets up expectations and creates the momentum necessary to fuel subsequent voice
behavior (Janssen & Gao, 2015). In contrast, a lack of managerial endorsement and/or imple-
mentation of initial voice leads employees to believe that their constructive voice is not recip-
rocated by their manager. As a result, employees are unlikely to reciprocate by speaking up
again, thereby preventing a positive feedback loop from developing (De Vries, Jehn, &
Terwel, 2012; Landau, 2009).
Not all initial voices can be endorsed and/or implemented. Managers may maintain a posi-
tive social exchange relationship with voicers despite non-endorsement and/or non-
implementation. Even in non-endorsement and/or non-implementation situations, managers
who exhibit more positive receptive behaviors to voice, such as paying attention to employees
when they speak up (Urbach & Fay, 2018), giving initial voice serious consideration
(J. Zhang, Akhtar, Zhang, & Rofcanin, 2019), engaging in discussion (Sijbom, Janssen, &
Van Yperen, 2015a, 2015b; Sijbom & Parker, 2020), expressing gratitude (Belkin & Kong,
2018), or showing respect and concern (King, Ryan, & Van Dyne, 2019), are more likely to
preserve the opportunity to develop a positive exchange relationship with the voicer. Such
behaviors signal that managers still value and respect employees’ input, despite their non-
endorsement and/or non-implementation of employee voice, and can motivate voicers to
advance the social exchange process through constructive voice again in the future (King
et al., 2019).
Feedback loops may also develop for managers. When voicers reciprocate initial manage-
rial endorsement and/or implementation with subsequent constructive voice responses, it
creates a positive experience for managers whereby they can expect additional positive out-
comes (i.e., future constructive voice) from the voicers when endorsing and/or implementing
employee constructive voice. Thus, a positive voice exchange can increase a manager’s con-
fidence that voicers will continue to reciprocate with constructive suggestions in the future
(Ferrin, Bligh, & Kohles, 2008). As a result, managers are more likely to endorse and/or
implement subsequent voice than initial voice.
Relational Voice Outcome Phase

The final phase of our dyadic model involves relational outcomes of trust, commitment,
and LMX—important outcomes of social exchange (Colquitt et al., 2013) that are relatively
less explored in the extant voice literature (cf. Welsh, Outlaw, Newton, & Baer, in press).
According to social exchange theory, a series of successful social exchanges would contribute
to positive feedback loops that ultimately enhance the quality of the relationship between two
exchange parties (Colquitt et al., 2013; Cropanzano et al., 2017; Cropanzano & Mitchell,
2005; Molm, 2000, 2003). As Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005: 890) stated, “Relationship
development is not a matter of a single stimulus-response. It is more analogous to climbing
a ladder. As one ascends, the rung for which one was originally reaching becomes a foothold
for one’s next step.” Thus, a successful initial exchange of voice is foundational in enhancing
relationship quality.
Extending this insight to our dyadic model, we posit that repeated successful voice
exchanges (i.e., initial voice to initial endorsement and/or implementation to subsequent
voice to subsequent endorsement and/or implementation, and so forth) result in relational
mutuality—a shared belief that the relational quality between voicer and manager is posi-
tive and symmetric (Korsgaard, Brower, & Lester, 2015). Theorizing how voicer and
manager achieve relational mutuality is important because the relational quality between
two parties may not always converge to mutuality (Brower, Lester, Korsgaard, &
Dineen, 2009; J. Butler, 1983, 1991). For example, while a voicer may perceive their rela-
tionship with their manager to be positive after speaking up, their manager may be offended
by the employee’s voice behavior and come to view their relationship as neutral or even
negative.
Once voicer and manager establish relational mutuality, it can alter the characteristics of
future voice exchanges in the voicer-manager dyad (Erdogan & Liden, 2002; Uhl-Bien,
Graen, & Scandura, 2000). First, the presence of mutually trusting, committed, and favor-
able dyadic relationships indicates a strong sense of positive reciprocity, which can moti-
vate employees to engage in subsequent voice more automatically (Lam et al., 2018;
Lam, Johnson, Song, Wu, Lee, & Chen, in press; Lord, Diefendorff, Schmidt, & Hall,
2010). That is, the presence of a voice opportunity might be sufficient to prompt voicers
to speak up without deeply evaluating the motivators and inhibitors dominant during the
early voice social exchange process. Furthermore, although it may appear dangerous to
those who do not experience relational mutuality with their manager, voicers with higher
levels of relational mutuality should feel more comfortable expressing their voice directly
and in public even if their constructive voice is potentially threatening to their manager.
Similarly, managers embedded in a mutually high-quality relationship with voicers may
develop a more automatic response, whereby they listen to them rather than worrying
about the intentions underlying their constructive voice. This should facilitate endorsement
and/or implementation, further reinforcing the relational quality between voicers and
managers.
Scope of the Review

Next, we present a qualitative review of articles that integrates voicer- and manager-centric
research to support our conceptualization of voice as a dyadic exchange. Our literature review
comprises articles that (a) were published within the past 30 years; (b) examine the anteced-
ents and outcomes of employee and relational voice, and managerial endorsement and/or
implementation as a focal construct; and (c) were published in English.
The following steps were taken to identify relevant articles. First, given the wide range of
potential variables capturing constructive voice behavior (e.g., voice, challenge-oriented
organizational citizenship behavior [OCB], change-oriented OCB, idea promotion, initiative
taking, upward communication, issue selling, etc.), we conducted a manual scan of major
journals that publish research on voice. Second, using terms derived from the articles identi-
fied in the first step, we conducted a broad keyword search in major journal databases (e.g.,
PsycInfo, Business Source Complete, and Education Research Complete). Finally, we exam-
ined the reference lists of articles identified by the first two steps to find further relevant arti-
cles that fit our selection criteria.
After identifying a set of articles that fit the aforementioned criteria, we further refined our
review of constructs that fit the definition of voice behavior, managerial endorsement, and/or
implementation. Our focus on direct, informal communicative processes between voicers and
their managers led us to exclude studies that examine other related constructs, such as whis-
tleblowing (external; Klaas et al., 2012), principled dissent (formal; Klaas et al., 2012), taking
charge (action oriented; Chamberlin et al., 2017), and the voice dimension of procedural
justice (organizational policies or procedures offering perceived opportunities to voice;
Lind, Kanfer, & Earley, 1990). We also excluded studies that investigated voice by coworkers
and managers and upward communication without a clear target (e.g., matters of petitioning
or ombudsman-related procedures). Additionally, we excluded articles that investigate voice
and managerial endorsement and/or implementation at the group level. We also excluded arti-
cles that examine silence—the withholding of work-related ideas and suggestions (Van Dyne,
Ang, & Botero, 2003)—as it has a nomological network distinct from that of voice (Detert &
Edmondson, 2011; Sherf, Parke, & Isaakyan, 2021; Van Dyne et al., 2003). Finally, given our
focus on proximal and situated reactions of managerial endorsement and/or implementation
specific to the voice domain, we excluded articles on general managerial reactions that are not
voice specific. For example, we excluded studies that link employee voice to performance
evaluations, a construct that tends to be distal and representative of general reactions that
spread across various domains and may result from constructive behaviors other than voice
(e.g., helping; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998).
In the following sections, we review past voice research relevant to the paths connecting
the four phases described by our dyadic model. According to our dyadic model, employees
engage in voice behavior to initiate a social exchange relationship with their manager.
Moreover, given that voicers consider the risks and benefits of engaging in voice behavior,
we used a 2 (motivators vs. inhibitors) × 2 (voicers vs. managers) framework (see Table 1)
to categorize the antecedents of constructive voice. We then explored the antecedents of man-
agerial response to voice (i.e., endorsement and/or implementation). Our dyadic model also
suggests that managers consider the potential risks and benefits associated with managerial
endorsement and/or implementation. Accordingly, we applied a social exchange perspective
to identify predictors associated with voicers and managers relevant to managerial responses
to the voice phase. Moreover, we identified voice characteristics as a dimension of anteced-
ents of managerial responses and adopted a 2 (motivators vs. inhibitors) × 3 (voice character-
istics vs. voicers vs. managers) framework to categorize the antecedents of managerial
endorsement and implementation (see Table 2). Finally, our dyadic model shows that feed-
back loops and relational mutuality between voicers and managers develop over time.
Accordingly, we categorized articles on feedback loops and relational outcomes of voice
for voicers and managers (see Tables 3 and 4).
Mapping Past Research Onto A Dyadic Model of Constructive Voice

In the following sections, we review past voice research to identify what we know about
our dyadic model of constructive voice.
Predictors of Employee Voice (Path A in Figure 1)

Voicers. Strong empirical evidence demonstrates how employees evaluate the potential
benefits and risks of expressing constructive voice. For example, employees with certain dis-
positional traits or states are more eager to utilize voice as a means to initiate a social
exchange relationship with their manager. Employees who are more proactive (Crant et al.,
2011; C.-J. Li, Li, Chen, & Crant, 2022; Starzyk & Sonnentag, 2019), extraverted (LePine
& Van Dyne, 2001), or higher on positive affectivity (H. Wang, Wu, Liu, Hao, & Wu,
2019) tend to be more approach oriented (Aryee, Walumbwa, Mondejar, & Chu, 2017)
and prosocial (Grant & Mayer, 2009; Y. Kim, Van Dyne, Kamdar, & Johnson, 2013;
Lebel, 2016). As such, they are likely to view approaching their managers via voice as
more beneficial and thus speak up more at work. Similarly, employees who are high in self-
esteem or efficacy based on their work are more capable of expressing their ideas or sugges-
tions to their managers and thus feel more confident of reaping the benefits associated with
entering a social exchange relationship with their managers via voice, resulting in more
expression of constructive voice (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Premeaux & Bedeian, 2003).
Further, employees who are more satisfied with their job, more embedded in their organi-
zation (Ng & Feldman, 2013; Ng & Lucianetti, 2018; Tan, Loi, Lam, & Zhang, 2019; Zhou
et al., 2021), or more committed at work (Burris, Detert, & Chiaburu, 2008; Lapointe &
Vandenberghe, 2018) are more likely to see the benefits and good chances of success in
Table 1
Predictors of Constructive Voice
Articles Focal Construct Summary
Voicers
Motivators Crant et al. (2011); C.-J. Li et al. Proactive personality Employees who are more proactive in terms
(2022); Starzyk and Sonnentag of their personality speak up more at work.
(2019)
LePine and Van Dyne (2001) Extraversion Employees who are more extraverted in terms
of their personality speak up more at work.
Z. Wang et al. (2019) Positive affect Employees speak up more at work when they
experience positive affect.
Aryee et al. (2017) Approach motivation Employees with greater degrees of approach
motivation speak up more at work.
Grant and Mayer (2009); Y. Kim Prosocial motivation Employees with greater degrees of prosocial
et al. (2013); Lebel (2016) motivation speak up more at work.
LePine and Van Dyne (1998); Self-esteem/self-efficacy Employees with higher levels of self-esteem
Premeaux and Bedeian (2003) or self-efficacy speak up more at work.
Leck and Saunders (1992); Job satisfaction Employees feeling more satisfied with their
LePine and Van Dyne (1998); job speak up more at work.
X. Lin et al. (2020); Memon and
Ghani (2020)
Ng and Feldman (2013); Ng and Job embeddedness Employees who are more embedded in their
Lucianetti (2018); Tan et al. work and have established positive
(2019); Zhou et al. (2021) connections with those with whom they
work (i.e., manager) speak up more at work.
Salman et al. (2021); Schreurs Job security Employees who feel that their job is secure
et al. (2015) (i.e., job security) speak up more at work.
Venkataramani et al. (2016); Workflow centrality When employees occupy a more central
Venkataramani and Tangirala position within their workflow network (i.e.,
(2010) employee workflow centrality), they speak
up more at work.
Fuller et al. (2006); S. Kim et al. Social status Employees who have higher social status tend
(2022); Qian et al. (2020) to speak up more at work.
(continued)
441
442
Table 1 (continued)
Bharanitharan et al. (2019) Feeling trusted Employees who feel more trusted by their
managers speak up more at work.
Frazier and Fainshmidt (2012) Empowerment Employees who are more psychologically
empowered speak up more at work.
Inhibitors Afshan et al. (2021); Guo (2017); Psychological contract breach (PCB) When employees perceive that their contracts
Memon and Ghani (2020); Ng have not been fulfilled (i.e., PCB), they are
et al. (2014); Turnley and less likely to speak up at work.
Feldman (1999)
Burris et al. (2008) Psychological detachment Employees who are uninvolved in tasks,
cognitively unvigilant, and emotionally
disconnected from their work (i.e.,
psychological detachment) are less likely to
speak up at work.
Bergeron and Thompson (2020) Perceived organizational politics When employees perceive their workplace as
highly political (i.e., perceived
organizational politics), they are less likely
to speak up at work.
Tangirala et al. (2013) Achievement orientation Employees with greater achievement
orientation are less likely to speak up at
work.
Managers
Motivators Botero and Van Dyne (2009); Leader–member exchange (LMX) When a manager develops a high-quality
Burris et al. (2008); Hsiung LMX relationship with their employees, the
(2012); Hu et al. (2018); Jada latter are more likely to speak up.
and Mukhopadhyay (2019a,
2019b); Jiang et al. (2018); Liu
et al. (2013); Park and
Nawakitphaitoon (2018); Pei
et al. (2018); Van Dyne et al.
(2008); Z. Wang et al. (2021);
Wijaya (2019)
(continued)
Table 1 (continued)
Davidson et al. (2017); Song et al. Guanxi When a manager develops a greater degree of
(2017); H. Wang et al. (2019); informal, particularistic personal connection
Yan (2018) with their employees (i.e., guanxi), the latter
speak up more at work.
Avey et al. (2012); Bai et al. Ethical leadership When a manager demonstrates normatively
(2019); A. Chen and Hou appropriate conduct through personal
(2016); Cheng et al. (2014); actions and interpersonal relationships and
Hassan (2015); Hu et al. (2018); promotes such conduct (i.e., ethical
Jada and Mukhopadhyay leadership), employees speak up more at
(2019b); D. Lee et al. (2017); work.
Mo and Shi (2018); Ng et al.
(2021); Qi and Ming-Xia
(2014); Raza et al. (2021); Sari
(2019); Walumbwa and
Schaubroeck (2009); D. Wang
et al. (2015); Zhu et al. (2015)
Rafferty and Restubog (2011); Interactional justice behavior of the manager Employees who are treated with respect,
Takeuchi et al. (2012) dignity, and sincerity by their manager (i.e.,
interactional justice perception of the
manager) speak up more at work.
Aryee et al. (2017) Procedural justice behavior of the manager Employees who are treated fairly in the
processes that resolve disputes and allocate
resources (i.e., procedural justice perception
of the manager) tend to speak up more at
work.
S. Chen et al. (2018); Conchie Transformational leadership When a manager inspires and intellectually
(2013); Detert and Burris stimulates employees to challenge the status
(2007); Duan et al. (2017); quo (i.e., transformational leadership),
Duan, Wang, et al. (2022); Jada employees speak up more at work.
and Mukhopadhyay (2019b);
Y. Lee and Chon (2021); C. Li
and Wu (2015); Liu et al.
(2010); Rasheed et al. (2021);
443
(continued)
444
Table 1 (continued)
Schmitt et al. (2016); Svendsen

et al. (2018); Svendsen and
Joensson (2016); Y. Wang et al.
(2018); Z. Wang et al. (2019);
G. Zhang and Inness (2019)
Lapointe and Vandenberghe Servant leadership When a manager leads by striving to meet the
(2018); Liao et al. (2021) needs, interests, and goals of their
employees, the latter speak up more at work.
Tangirala and Ramanujam (2012) Manager consultation behavior When a manager signals that they are willing
to pay attention to and consider employees’
input (i.e., manager consultation behavior),
employees speak up more at work.
Inhibitors C. Farh and Chen (2014); Huang Abusive supervision When a manager is likely to ridicule and
et al. (2019); Peng et al. (2019); express hostility toward their employees
Rafferty and Restubog (2011); (i.e., abusive supervision), employees are
Rani et al. (2021); C.-C. Wang less likely to speak up at work.
et al. (2020); R. Wang and Jiang
(2015)
Y. Li and Sun (2015); T. Wu et al. Authoritarian leadership When a manager demands that employees
(2020); Y. Zhang et al. (2015); obey instructions without questioning (i.e.,
Zheng et al. (2021) authoritarian leadership), employees are less
likely to speak up at work.
Ding et al. (2018); Yao et al. Narcissistic leadership When a manager is motivated by their need
(2019); L. Zhang et al. (2022) for power and admiration (i.e., narcissistic
leadership), employees are less likely to
speak up at work.
Note: Table 1 is not exhaustive and reflects a sample of the review conducted for this article.
initiating a social exchange relationship with their managers, who are likely to respond pos-
itively to their constructive voice. Specifically, their positive work attitudes make them trust
managers (Guzman & Fu, 2022) and believe that their voice exchange with their managers
will also be safe and beneficial and thus speak up more (Leck & Saunders, 1992; LePine
& Van Dyne, 1998; X. Lin, Lam, & Zhang, 2020; Memon & Ghani, 2020). Similarly,
employees who experience higher levels of job security should perceive that their position
within their organization is unlikely to be influenced by an expression of constructive
voice and may also feel valued by their manager. As a result, they are more likely to initiate
a social exchange relationship with their manager through expressing constructive voice
(Salman, Ahmed, & Jahangir, 2021; Schreurs, Guenter, & De Cuyper, 2015).
The position that employees occupy within a network may also influence the extent to
which they are motivated to initiate a social exchange relationship with their manager
through constructive voice. Specifically, employees who occupy a more central position
(Venkataramani & Tangirala, 2010; Venkataramani, Zhou, Wang, Liao, & Shi, 2016) or
enjoy greater status (S. Kim, McClean, Doyle, Podsakoff, Lin, & Woodruff, 2022; Qian,
Li, Song, & Wang, 2020) are likely to receive more attention from their managers
(Bharanitharan, Chen, Bahmannia, & Lowe, 2019; Fuller, Marler, & Hester, 2006; S. Kim
et al., 2022) and be granted more autonomy (Lam & Mayer, 2014; Tangirala &
Ramanujam, 2008) and trust (Bharanitharan et al., 2019) and are more likely to feel empow-
ered by their manager (Frazier & Fainshmidt, 2012). As a result, they are more likely to per-
ceive that initiating a social exchange relationship with their manager through constructive
voice will be positive and beneficial and therefore speak up more (Bharanitharan et al.,
2019; Fuller et al., 2006; S. Kim et al., 2022; Liang et al., 2012; Venkataramani et al., 2016).
Employees may also consider inhibitors that deter constructive voice. For example, psy-
chological contract breach, defined as the extent to which an employee perceives that a
manager has failed to fulfill their obligations at work (Rousseau, 1989, 1995; Turnley,
Bolino, Lester, & Bloodgood, 2003), signals to employees that their manager is unable to
keep his or her promises (Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000; Kahn, 1990; Tett & Meyer,
1993). As a result, voicers may come to believe that they are unlikely to reap the benefits
of voice even if their manager endorses and/or implements it, which increases the perceived
risk of initiating voice. Consequently, employees who experience psychological contract
breach are less likely to engage in constructive voice (Afshan, Serrano-Archimi, &
Lacroux, 2021; Guo, 2017; Memon & Ghani, 2020; Ng, Feldman, & Butts, 2014; Turnley
& Feldman, 1999). Similarly, psychologically detached employees are unlikely to value,
and are unmotivated to initiate, a social exchange relationship with their managers
(Griffeth et al., 2000; Kahn, 1990; Tett & Meyer, 1993), which prevents them from speaking
up (Burris et al., 2008).
Another factor that could inhibit constructive voice is organizational politics, or the pres-
ence of illegitimate, self-serving activities intended to pursue personal interests (Bergeron &
Thompson, 2020). When employees perceive their workplace to be highly political, they may
feel that their manager will exploit their relationship by taking credit for their voice or using
their suggestions for their own personal benefit, thereby increasing the risk of engaging in
voice (Zhou, Liao, Liu, & Liao, 2017). Furthermore, high levels of organizational politics
may also make employees feel uncertain about whether managers would respond positively
to their suggestions (Detert & Edmondson, 2011; Fuller et al., 2006; C. Li, Liang, & Farh,
2020; Zheng, Graham, Farh, & Huang, 2021). This uncertainty further increases the risk of
initiating a social exchange relationship with their manager, thereby inhibiting constructive
voice (Duan et al., 2019).
Finally, certain characteristics of employees may also lead them to believe that engaging in
constructive voice is not a viable way to initiate a social exchange relationship with their
manager. For example, employees with achievement orientation or aspirations of getting
ahead (Costa & McCrae, 1992) tend to focus on behaviors that guarantee career rewards.
Given that constructive voice may potentially embarrass or threaten their manager, employees
with higher levels of achievement orientation are likely to be particularly concerned about
jeopardizing their relationships with managers and opportunities for career advancement
(Tangirala, Kamdar, Venkataramani, & Parke, 2013), resulting in lower levels of constructive
voice.
Managers. Our review suggests that managers play a critical role in motivating employees
to initiate a social exchange relationship through constructive voice. For example, higher
levels of LMX (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) encourage employees to believe that constructive
voice will enjoy positive reactions from their manager and increase the perceived likelihood
of obtaining benefits from expressing constructive ideas, thereby heightening their motivation
to speak up (Botero & Van Dyne, 2009; Burris et al., 2008; Hsiung, 2012; Hu et al., 2018;
Jada & Mukhopadhyay, 2019a, 2019b; Jiang, Le, & Gollan, 2018; Liu, Tangirala, &
Ramanujam, 2013; Park & Nawakitphaitoon, 2018; Pei, Pan, Skitmore, & Feng, 2018;
Van Dyne, Kamdar, & Joireman, 2008; Z. Wang, Shi, & Wang, 2021; Wijaya, 2019).
Similarly, guanxi—an informal personal connection between two individuals unique to
Chinese culture (X. Chen & Chen, 2004)—also emerges as a motivator of constructive
voice. Employees with more positive guanxi are more attached to each other (Shaw &
Mao, 2021) and thus driven to establish social exchange relationships with their managers
via constructive voice (Davidson, Van Dyne, & Lin, 2017; Song, Wu, Hao, Lu, Zhang, &
Liu, 2017; Z. Wang, Xu, Sun, & Liu, 2019; Yan, 2018).
Another managerial behavior type that motivates constructive voice is ethical behavior
(Avey, Wernsing, & Palanski, 2012; Bai, Lin, & Liu, 2019; A. Chen & Hou, 2016; Cheng,
Chang, Kuo, & Cheung, 2014; Hassan, 2015; Hu et al., 2018; Mo & Shi, 2018; Ng, Wang,
Hsu, & Su, 2021; Raza, Liu, Zhang, Gul, Hassan, & Aboud, 2021; Walumbwa &
Schaubroeck, 2009; D. Wang, Gan, Wu, & Wang, 2015; Zhu, He, Treviño, Chao, & Wang,
2015). Ethical managers are likely to treat their employees with respect, fairness, concern,
and integrity (Brown & Treviño, 2006). Employees thus come to believe that their voice
will be considered in a fair manner, which encourages them to initiate a social exchange rela-
tionship with their managers through expressing constructive voice. Consistent with this argu-
ment, studies show that managers who treat their employees with respect and dignity (Rafferty
& Restubog, 2011; Takeuchi, Chen, & Cheung, 2012) and employ fair policies and processes
(Aryee et al., 2017) are more likely to motivate constructive voice.
Some leadership behaviors can also promote the initiation of social exchange via employee
constructive voice. For example, managers who exhibit transformational leadership behaviors
can inspire and intellectually stimulate employees to challenge the status quo. Developmental
and nurturing care from managers signals to employees that their voice will be valued,
thereby increasing the potential benefits of speaking up (S. Chen, Wang, & Lee, 2018;
Conchie, 2013; Detert & Burris, 2007; Duan, Li, Xu, & Wu, 2017; Duan, Wang, Janssen,
& Farh, 2022; Jada & Mukhopadhyay, 2019b; Y. Lee & Chon, 2021; X. Li & Wu, 2015; Liu,
Zhu, & Yang, 2010; Rasheed, Shahzad, & Nadeem, 2021; Schmitt, Den Hartog, & Belschak,
2016; Svendsen & Joensson, 2016; Svendsen, Unterrainer, & Jønsson, 2018; Y. Wang,
Zheng, & Zhu, 2018; Z. Wang et al., 2019; G. Zhang & Inness, 2019). Also, managers exhib-
iting servant leadership are oriented toward meeting the needs, interests, and goals of their
employees while leading the workgroup (Eva, Robin, Sendjaya, van Dierendonck, &
Liden, 2019), even to the point of sacrificing their own interests (Liden, Wayne, Zhao, &
Henderson, 2008). Such managers are generally more attentive to and receptive of employee
suggestions. As a result, employees are more likely to initiate a social exchange relationship
with managers who exhibit servant leadership via constructive voice (Lapointe &
Vandenberghe, 2018; Liao, Liden, Liu, & Wu, 2021).
Managers can also encourage employees to develop a social exchange relationship with
them by engaging in managerial consultation or soliciting suggestions on work issues from
employees (Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2012). Managerial consultation signals to employees
that managers are willing to pay attention and are open to employee input (Ashford, Ong,
& Keeves, 2017; Detert & Burris, 2007), which increases the likelihood of constructive
voice benefiting employees. Moreover, as a type of recognition of, or positive feedback
on, employees’ roles, abilities, and influence at work (Edmondson, 2003; W. Lee, Choi, &
Kang, 2021), managerial consultation can lead employees to expect positive responses
from managers. As a result, managerial consultation can motivate employees to initiate a
social exchange relationship with their manager through voice behavior.
In contrast, some leadership behaviors are likely to increase the risks associated with con-
structive voice and to inhibit employees from initiating a social exchange relationship with
their manager via voice. For example, managers exhibiting high levels of abusive behaviors
increase the risks associated with voice, as abusive managers are likely to ridicule and express
hostility toward employee voice (C. Farh & Chen, 2014; Huang, Su, Lin, & Lu, 2019; Peng
et al., 2019; Rafferty & Restubog, 2011; Rani, Shah, Umrani, Syed, & Afshan, 2021;
C.-C. Wang, Hsieh, & Wang, 2020; R. Wang & Jiang, 2015). Similarly, it is highly risky
to provide change-oriented suggestions to authoritarian leaders who demand that their subor-
dinates follow instructions without questioning (J. Farh & Cheng, 2000), and employees can
expect such managers to respond negatively, inhibiting voice (Y. Li & Sun, 2015; T. Wu, Liu,
Hua, Lo, & Yeh, 2020; Y. Zhang, Huai, & Xie, 2015; Zheng et al., 2021). Finally, managers
exhibiting narcissistic leadership, a leadership style in which they pursue their own interests
via deceptive behaviors and disregard their subordinates’ needs or inputs (Chatterjee &
Hambrick, 2007; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001), can create expectations of being ignored and
even punished for speaking up. This increases the risk of initiating a social exchange relation-
ship with narcissistic managers and inhibits constructive voice behavior (Ding, Li, Quan, &
Wang, 2018; Yao, Zhang, Liu, Zhang, & Luo, 2019; Zheng et al., 2021).
Predictors of Managerial Responses to Voice (Path B in Figure 1)

Voice characteristics. The characteristics of constructive voice—such as its quality,
content, and publicity—greatly influence managerial responses to voice. For instance,
high-quality and novel ideas (Brykman & Raver, 2021) are likely to benefit a manager,
which increases their motivation to develop positive relationships with the voicer by
endorsing and/or implementing their suggestions (Lu, Bartol, Venkataramani, Zheng, & Liu,
2019). The content of voice also matters for voice endorsement and/or implementation. For
example, suggestions that are easy to implement (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991) provide manag-
ers a means for successful change, which in turn increases managers’ perceived benefits of
endorsing and/or implementing constructive voice (Burris et al., 2017). Constructive voice
that contains feasible solutions (Whiting et al., 2012) with concrete ideas (Falchetti,
Cattani, & Ferriani, 2022) also signals to managers that voicers are willing to make an
effort to help them resolve issues or problems in the work unit. As a result, managers may
be more inclined to develop social exchange relationships with helpful voicers by endorsing
and/or implementing their constructive voice (Liao et al., 2021; Whiting et al., 2012). In
support of this idea, research shows that voicing solutions that benefit the work unit is pos-
itively associated with managerial endorsement, as opposed to voicing mere problems, issues,
or concerns without solutions (Lam et al., in press; Liao et al., 2021).
Our review of the literature also suggests several voice characteristics that inhibit positive
managerial responses to voice. For example, when employees make suggestions that chal-
lenge their manager’s ideas or existing practices, the latter may feel their status, power,
and position of authority threatened, which may inhibit managers from endorsing and/or
implementing employee voice (Burris, 2012) and building a positive social exchange rela-
tionship with the voicer. Moreover, when voice is expressed in a public setting (i.e., in
front of an audience), managers can be concerned about being viewed as an incompetent
leader by others (Popelnukha et al., 2022). If managers perceive voice as a threat to their
image, they may shy away from endorsing and/or implementing employee voice
(Isaakyan et al., 2021) and responding positively to voicers’ initiation of a social exchange
relationship.
Voicers. Several voicer-related factors can also motivate managers to endorse and/or
implement constructive voice. First, the extent to which voicers express their suggestions
with interpersonal skill can influence whether managers endorse and/or implement construc-
tive voice. When political skills (Liao et al., 2021) are used to express voice politely (Lam
et al., 2019), implicitly (Ren, Ma, Chen, Wang, & Ju, 2022), or with appropriate emotions
(Grant, 2013), it can show respect and sincerity and signal that the employee’s underlying
motives for speaking up are not to embarrass their manager but to help them. As such, this
leads managers to be more open to listening to and subsequently endorsing and/or implement-
ing constructive voice.
Second, the amount of effort made by voicers appears to be an important signal to man-
agers evaluating whether to build or maintain a positive social exchange relationship with
them through voice endorsement and/or implementation. For example, employees who
reach out to their network (Baer, 2012), proactively follow up on their suggestions with sup-
porting documentation and presentations (Lu et al., 2019), share long-term directions, and
utilize inspirational and persuasive appeals to demonstrate the value of their suggestions
are more likely to see their suggestions endorsed (van Driel, 2021) and implemented (Lu
et al., 2019). As such, when voicers are perceived to be proactive during the voice
process, managers are more likely to benefit from endorsing employee voice, and therefore
their suggestions are more likely to be endorsed and/or implemented by managers.
Finally, managers are more likely to endorse and/or implement voice that is expressed by
employees with higher levels of credibility (Hovland & Weiss, 1951). Voicer credibility is an
important predictor of endorsement and/or implementation because voice from credible

voicers ensures high-quality input (Brykman & Raver, 2021) that is more likely to translate
into positive outcomes for managers and increase the perceived benefits of endorsing and/or
implementing employee voice (McClean, Kim, & Martinez, 2022). In support of our argu-
ment, a multitude of studies show that employee competence or credibility is associated
with higher levels of voice endorsement and/or implementation (Ashford et al., 2017; Lam
et al., 2019; X. Li et al., 2021; Magadley & Birdi, 2012; Whiting et al., 2012).
Voicer-related factors can also inhibit managerial endorsement and/or implementation.
For example, voicers who are more territorial about their suggestions (i.e., feel strong own-
ership) are less likely to collaborate collegially with their manager to develop their sugges-
tions. Managers may find relationships with such voicers to be risky and thus be reluctant
to endorse and/or implement their constructive voice (Huo, Yi, Men, Luo, Li, & Tam,
2017). In addition, voicers who identify more with their profession than with their work
unit tend to speak up offering suggestions that are more aligned with their professional
standards than the interests of their work unit. Given that addressing issues centered on
helping employees’ professions is not a core duty of managers, they are less likely to
endorse and/or implement ideas suggested by voicers with professional identification
(Burris et al., 2017).
Managers. Various managerial factors can motivate managers to build a positive relation-
ship with voicers through endorsement and/or implementation. First, perceived relationship
quality with voicers is critical in motivating positive responses from managers. For
example, managers who have higher levels of LMX with voicers are more likely to perceive
the underlying motives of employees’ change-oriented suggestions to be prosocial and as
intended to benefit managers (Urbach & Fay, 2021). Such perceptions are likely to motivate
managers to respond positively and endorse employee suggestions (Clegg, Unsworth,
Epitropaki, & Parker, 2002; Isaakyan et al., 2021; van Dam, Caniëls, Cools-Tummers, &
Lenaerts, 2021; Yang, Lee, Zheng, & Johnson, 2021). Similarly, managers who have
higher levels of emotional trust in voicers will have more positive affective bonding with
them, which can further motivate managers’ willingness to strengthen their social exchange
relationship with voicers through endorsing and/or implementing constructive voice (Duan,
Zhou, & Yu, 2021).
Individual differences also matter. For instance, managers who exhibit higher levels of
mastery goal orientation, or the desire to develop and gain competence by acquiring new
skills and mastering new situations (Dweck, 1999), can view employee input as an opportu-
nity to improve their own skills and abilities rather than as a threat. Such managers should be
more open to constructive voice and therefore be more willing to endorse and/or implement
employees’ suggestions (Sijbom et al., 2015a, 2015b; Sijbom & Parker, 2020). In addition,
managers who construe power as a responsibility, as opposed to an opportunity for personal
gain, tend to view employee voice as a valuable resource in fulfilling their managerial respon-
sibilities. Such managers are more likely to perceive constructive voice as a means for
employees to help them fulfill their managerial responsibilities and as a result should be
more willing to endorse and/or implement constructive voice (De Wit, Scheepers,
Ellemers, Sassenberg, & Scholl, 2017).
Our literature review also identified several manager-related inhibitors that deter managers
from endorsement and/or implementation. For example, managers with a low sense of
450
Table 2
Predictors of Managerial Responses to Constructive Voice (Endorsement and/or Implementation)
Voice
characteristics
Motivators Lu et al. (2019) Voice novelty Employee input with greater novelty is more likely to be implemented by the manager.
Burris et al. (2017) Voice that requires a low level of Employee input that requires a lower level of resources is more likely to be
resources implemented by the manager.
Falchetti et al. (2022); Voice that provides concrete or Employee input that contains greater degrees of implementation solutions is more likely
Whiting et al. (2012) feasible solutions to be endorsed by the manager.
Inhibitors Burris (2012) Content of voice (challenging The more employee input challenges the status quo, the more it induces threat
nature) perceptions, deterring the manager from endorsing the voiced idea.
Isaakyan et al. (2021) Contextual setting of expressed When employees express challenging ideas in a public setting (i.e., in front of an
voice (public voice) audience), it induces image threat in the manager; in such situations, the manager
harbors doubt and questions about the voicing employee’s intention, deterring them
from endorsing the voiced idea.
Voicers
Motivators Lam et al. (2019) Politeness When employees directly express their input in a polite manner, their manager is more
likely to endorse the idea.
Ren et al. (2022) Implicit voice delivery When employees express their input using more circuitous and implicit language, their
manager is more likely to endorse the idea.
Liao et al. (2021) Political skills When employees express their input with greater political skill, their manager is more
likely to endorse the idea.
Lu et al. (2019) Employee efforts (idea enactment Input from employees who proactively follow up on their suggestions by providing
behaviors) supporting documentation and presentations, conducting pilot tests, and developing
prototypes (i.e., idea enactment behaviors) is more likely to be implemented by their
manager.
van Driel (2021) Shared vision When employees express their voice by emphasizing the shared vision between their
manager and themselves, the manager is more likely to endorse the idea.
Lam et al. (2019); X. Li Employee credibility or Input from employees with greater credibility or competence is more likely to be
et al. (2021); Magadley competence endorsed by their manager.
and Birdi (2012);
(continued)
Table 2 (continued)
McClean et al. (2022);

Whiting et al. (2012)
Inhibitors Huo et al. (2017) Territoriality Input from employees who express ownership of their suggestions is less likely to be
implemented by their managers.
Burris et al. (2017) Professional identification Input from employees with stronger professional identification (as opposed to
workgroup identification) is less likely to be implemented by their managers.
Managers
Motivators Clegg et al. (2002); Leader–member exchange Managers are more likely to implement or endorse input from subordinates with whom
Isaakyan et al. (2021); (LMX) they have developed greater degrees of LMX.
Urbach and Fay (2021);
van Dam et al. (2021);
Yang et al. (2021)
Duan, Zhou, et al. (2021) Emotional trust toward the Managers are more likely to implement input from subordinates in whom they have
employee greater degrees of emotional trust.
Sijbom et al. (2015a, Mastery goal orientation Managers with higher mastery goal orientation are more likely to endorse input from
2015b); Sijbom and their employees.
Parker (2020)
De Wit et al. (2017) Construal of power as Managers who construe power as a responsibility of their position are more likely to
responsibility endorse voice.
Inhibitors Fast et al. (2014) Low managerial self-efficacy Managers who have lower managerial self-efficacy are less likely to implement input
from their employees.
Popelnukha et al. (2022) Threat to competence When managers perceive that their abilities or image as competent are questioned (i.e.,
threat to competence), they are less likely to endorse voice.
J. Li et al. (2019) Low effort in processing voice Managers who spend less cognitive effort in processing inputs from their employees are
less likely to endorse.
Chiaburu et al. (2013) Epistemic motives Managers who have a greater desire to gain predictability and order (i.e., epistemic
motives) are less likely to endorse input from their employees.
Urbach and Fay (2018, Power motives Managers who have a stronger need to obtain superiority with respect to status and
2021) competence (i.e., power motives) are less likely to endorse voice.
451
efficacy—that is, perceived lack of ability to meet the elevated expectations of competence
associated with managerial roles (Cuddy, Glick, & Beninger, 2011; Fiske, Cuddy, Glick,
& Xu, 2002)—are particularly protective of their ego (Burris, 2012). Such managers are
likely to interpret employee voice as a reflection of their lack of self-efficacy (Fast et al.,
2014) and a threat to their competence (Popelnukha et al., 2022) and would be unable to
process employee voice fully (J. Li, Barnes, Yam, Guarana, & Wang, 2019). As managers
with low self-efficacy are likely to view changes to the status quo to be risky, they may be
more reluctant to endorse and/or implement constructive voice (Burris, 2012).
In addition, managers with higher levels of epistemic motives prefer predictability and
ordered, established structures and tend to stick with existing procedures (Jost, Glaser,
Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003; Neuberg & Newsom, 1993). Given that voice involves
challenging the status quo, managers with epistemic motives are likely not to value
employee voice and to view it as an unnecessary risk, thus reducing the chances that
they will endorse and/or implement constructive voice (Chiaburu, Farh, & Van Dyne,
2013). Similarly, managers with high levels of power motives have a strong need to
obtain and maintain superiority with respect to status and competence (McClelland,
1985, 1987). As a result, such managers may feel threatened by constructive voice,
thereby reducing managerial endorsement and/or implementation of employee voice
(Urbach & Fay, 2018, 2021).
Feedback Loops (Path C in Figure 1)

Voicers. Few studies have examined the presence of feedback loops in this context, but it is
generally assumed that positive managerial responses to employee voice provide a foundation
that motivates employees to engage in voice behavior again (i.e., the development of a feed-
back loop; Clegg et al., 2002). When suggestions are endorsed by managers, employees feel
positive (i.e., mood) and more engaged in their work, which motivates subsequent voice (S.
Wu, Kee, Li, & Ni, 2021). Positive managerial responses can also enhance employees’ self-
perceptions of status or capability (C.-J. Li et al., 2022), which motivate subsequent voice
behavior (Janssen & Gao, 2015). These studies suggest that a positive voice exchange expe-
rience with managers is foundational in establishing a self-reinforcing form of reciprocity in
which employees willingly speak up to engage in voice behaviors again in future.
There is initial evidence that employees may still engage in voice despite managers not
endorsing and/or implementing their initial voice. Non-endorsement and/or non-
implementation are inevitable due to different types of constraints, and how managers
express non-endorsement can affect employees’ willingness to initiate a social exchange
process through constructive voice in the future (Ng et al., 2022). For example, managers
who convey respect for and appreciation of voicers by highlighting the strengths of their sug-
gestions and providing detailed explanations of why their suggestions were not endorsed and/
or implemented can motivate subsequent voice (Weiss & Zacher, 2022). This is consistent
with King and colleagues’ (2019) empirical findings that managers’ communication of
respect and concern provides employees a sense of security that encourages them to speak
up again in the future despite their initial suggestions not being endorsed.
Table 3
Feedback Loops
Articles Focal Construct/Process Summary
Voicers S. Wu et al. Managerial endorsement → Higher levels Managerial endorsement is positively

(2021) of positive mood → Higher work related to the employee’s positive mood,
engagement → Higher levels of which is associated with higher degrees of
subsequent voice work engagement, hence higher degrees of
subsequent voice behavior.
Janssen and Managerial endorsement → Higher levels Managerial endorsement is positively
Gao of self-perceived status → Higher levels related to the employee’s self-perceived
(2015) of subsequent voice status, which is associated with higher
degrees of subsequent voice behavior.
Ng et al. Managerial non-endorsement → Lower Managerial non-endorsement is negatively
(2022) levels of creative self-efficacy → Lower related to the employee’s subsequent idea
levels of subsequent idea generation generation via its negative association
with their creative self-efficacy.
King et al. Managerial non-endorsement and a Managerial non-endorsement, when
(2019) sensitive explanation → Higher levels of combined with a sensitive explanation
subsequent voice (i.e., the extent to which the manner of the
message being delivered shows respect
and concern for the recipient), is positively
related to the employee’s voice safety,
which is associated with higher levels of
subsequent voice behavior.
Relational Outcomes of Employee Voice (Path D in Figure 1)

Voicers. Recently, research has begun to show that employee voice may produce positive
relational outcomes, such as higher levels of LMX (Cheng et al., 2013; Lapierre & Hackett,
2007). For example, when employees pitch ideas that improve organizational effectiveness
and functioning (Stamper & Van Dyne, 2001), managers are more likely to allocate resources
and support to them, which may contribute to the development of a more positive relationship
between voicers and managers (Fuller, Barnett, Hester, Relyea, & Frey, 2007; Graen &
Uhl-Bien, 1995). The manager’s attribution of prosocial and impression management
motives can also affect the relationship between employee voice and positive relationships
(Cheng et al., 2013). When managers perceive that the underlying interests of employee
voice behavior are intended to help (i.e., prosocial) rather than to impress, managers are
more likely to offer support and resources to voicers. This in turn is likely to motivate employ-
ees to invest more in developing a high-quality LMX relationship with their managers (Kwon,
Farndale, & Park, 2016).
Other studies have shown that voice behavior enhances voicers’ affective (i.e., emotional
attachment) and normative (i.e., moral obligation) commitment (Farndale, van Ruiten,
Kelliher, & Hope-Hailey, 2011; Rashid, Dastgeer, & Kayani, 2018) as well as trust in their
manager (Rees, Alfes, & Gatenby, 2013). Employees who express constructive voice may
appreciate the opportunity to provide meaningful input that can help their unit be successful.
As a result, employees may sense higher levels of affective and normative commitment to
(Farndale et al., 2011; Rashid et al., 2018), and trust in (Rees et al., 2013), their manager,
factors that are foundational for the development of high-quality relationships.
Managers. Managers may also experience positive relational outcomes from voice
exchanges with employees. For example, they may develop an appreciation for voicers
who speak up with challenging but constructive suggestions, especially when it improves
the effectiveness of their own managerial performance (Gyensare et al., 2019).
Furthermore, such outcomes can foster liking (Whiting et al., 2012), enhance perceptions
of communion (Weiss & Morrison, 2019), and raise levels of trust and relationship quality
with voicers (Liang & Yeh, 2019; A. Xu, Loi, & Cai, 2021).
Table 4
Relational Outcomes of Constructive Voice
Voicers Cheng et al. (2013); Leader-member Employee voice is positively related to the
Lapierre and Hackett exchange (LMX) employee’s perception of LMX with their
(2007) manager when managers have high prosocial
motives and low impression management
motives regarding voice.
Farndale et al. (2011); Commitment Employee voice is positively related to both
Rashid et al. (2018) normative and affective components of
commitment.
Rees et al. (2013) Trust toward the Employee voice is positively related to
manager employees’ trust in their manager.
Managers Whiting et al. (2012) Liking toward the Employee voice is positively related to the degree
employee to which the manager likes the employee.
Weiss and Morrison Communion perception Employee voice is positively related to the
(2019) of the employee manager’s perception of the employee as
other-oriented and trustworthy (i.e., communion
perception of the employee).
Liang and Yeh (2019); LMX Employee voice is positively related to the
A. Xu et al. (2021) managerial perception of LMX with the
employee.
Summary of Prior Research

Our review of employee voice and managerial responses to voice shows how employees
evaluate the potential benefits and risks of initiating a social exchange relationship via con-
structive voice. Factors such as voicers’ proactive personality (Crant et al., 2011), extraver-
sion (LePine & Van Dyne, 2001), LMX (Van Dyne et al., 2008), job satisfaction (X. Lin
et al., 2020), job embeddedness (Ng & Feldman, 2013), justice (Rafferty & Restubog,
2011), ethical leadership (Ng et al., 2021), and transformational leadership (Detert &
Burris, 2007) can motivate employees to initiate a social exchange relationship through
engaging in constructive voice. Alternatively, factors such as achievement orientation
(Tangirala et al., 2013), psychological detachment (Burris et al., 2008), perceived organiza-
tional politics (Bergeron & Thompson, 2020), abusive supervision (C. Farh & Chen, 2014),
and authoritarian leadership (Zheng et al., 2021) can prevent employees from initiating a
social exchange relationship with their manager via constructive voice.
Upon receiving employee constructive voice, managers also influence the development of
social exchange relationships by evaluating the potential benefits and risks associated with
endorsing and/or implementing employee voice. Our review identified motivators, such as
voicing with solutions (Whiting et al., 2012), voice politeness (Lam et al., 2019), voicers’
political skills (Liao et al., 2021), managers’ trust in voicers (Duan, Wang, et al., 2022),
and managers’ mastery goal orientation (Sijbom et al., 2015a, 2015b). We also identified
inhibitors, including voice publicity (Isaakyan et al., 2021), voicers’ territoriality (Huo
et al., 2017), and managers’ lack of self-efficacy (Fast et al., 2014), as factors that influence
managers’ decision to endorse and/or implement employee voice.
When managers respond to initial voice with endorsement and/or implementation, positive
feedback loops are established whereby voicers feel more motivated to speak up with con-
structive suggestions again (Janssen & Gao, 2015; S. Wu et al., 2021). Alternatively, positive
feedback loops can develop and motivate subsequent constructive voice when managers
express respect, appreciation (Weiss & Zacher, 2022), and concern to voicers (King et al.,
2019). As a result of positive feedback loops and successful voice exchanges, voicers can
establish positive relationships with managers characterized by higher levels of LMX
(Cheng et al., 2013; Lapierre & Hackett, 2007), commitment (Rashid et al., 2018), and
trust (Rees et al., 2013). Similarly, voice exchanges lead managers to experience positive rela-
tional outcomes with voicers, such as liking (Whiting et al., 2012), higher levels of commu-
nion (Weiss & Morrison, 2019), and higher levels of relationship quality with voicers (Liang
& Yeh, 2019; A. Xu et al., 2021).
Although prior studies have contributed to expanding our understanding of voice, critical
knowledge gaps remain in the voice literature. First, as we highlight in the introduction, there
is a dearth of studies examining voice from a dyadic perspective, with very few studies that
include both employee voice and managerial responses to voice in the same study. Due to the
lack of a dyadic perspective, investigation of dyadic factors that might influence employee
constructive voice expression and managerial responses to voice has been limited.
Additionally, our review suggests that the temporal aspect of voice is also highly understud-
ied. Despite the call for more longitudinal studies (Bashshur & Oc, 2015), our review shows
that voice is often conceptualized as a single voice exchange, and methodological approaches
involving cross-sectional designs predominate in the current voice literature (for an excep-
tion, see A. Li & Tangirala, 2021). This lack of research on the temporal dynamics of
voice may explain why there are so few studies on the development of feedback loops and
the relational outcomes of voice. As such, very little attention has been paid to the dyadic
and dynamic nature of employee constructive voice.
In response to such limitations, we present our dyadic model that conceptualizes voice as an
ongoing and dyadic exchange relationship between voicers and managers. First, we highlight
the dyadic aspect of voice exchanges by integrating voicer-centric research with studies on
managerial responses to voice, two streams of research that have developed separately and
without integration. Applying a social exchange perspective to voice not only merges these
two streams, but more importantly, it also provides a more holistic view of the voice
process. Specifically, we conceptualize constructive voice as a social exchange process that
considers both (a) the employee’s evaluation of the potential benefits and risks of using
constructive voice to initiate social exchange with their manager and (b) the manager’s evalu-
ation of the potential risks and rewards of endorsing and/or implementing employee suggestions
as a means to build a positive social exchange relationship with the voicer. In doing so, our
dyadic model indicates important future research directions, such as considering dyadic
factors (i.e., dyadic fit) that might influence voice exchanges between voicers and managers.
Second, our model sheds new light on the dynamic nature of constructive voice by intro-
ducing how feedback loops and relational mutuality develop via repeated successful voice
exchanges. Feedback loops are crucial as they link initial exchanges of voice to future
exchanges. When a positive voice exchange occurs in which employees initiate voice and
managers endorse and/or implement it, it creates positive reciprocity that motivates both
employees and managers to engage in voice exchanges again in the future. The development
of positive feedback loops then fosters a mutually trusting, committed, and favorable dyadic
relationship between voicers and managers, which we refer to as relational mutuality. In turn,
relational mutuality can induce employees and managers to engage in automatic and noncal-
culative social exchanges of voice and response over time. Importantly, doing so enables us to
reconcile two seemingly contrasting views on employee voice: one that is deliberative
(Morrison, 2011, 2014) and another that is automatic (Lam et al., 2018, in press). That is,
our conceptualization of constructive voice theorizes how automatic voice can be viewed
as an extension of deliberative voice. As employees are responsible for initiating social
exchange relationships with managers, voicers tend to be more deliberative when deciding
to voice. However, with repeated successful voice exchanges and the development of rela-
tional mutuality, we assert that voicers eventually engage in automatic voice over time.
Directions for Future Research

Our dyadic model integrates voicer-centric and manager-centric research to offer a more
dyadic and dynamic view of voice behavior over time, and in doing so, we identify avenues
for future studies. In this section, we offer conceptual and methodological directions for
future research to further explore the dyadic and dynamic nature of employee constructive voice.
The Dyadic Nature of Constructive Voice

A central premise of our dyadic model is its emphasis on the dyad involved in voice
exchange, namely, the voicer and their manager. As relationships are shaped by dyadic char-
acteristics (Krasikova & LeBreton, 2012; Neyer & Voigt, 2004), exploring how various
dyadic characteristics influence the voice exchange relationship may help better understand
the dyadic nature of constructive voice. One particularly promising characteristic is dyadic
fit (Jansen & Kristof-Brown, 2006). When the dyadic fit between employees and managers
is supplementary (i.e., similarities attract; Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987), the values, orien-
tations, or personalities of voicers are aligned with those of their manager (Guzman & Fu,
2022; Kammeyer-Mueller, Schilpzand, & Rubenstein, 2013; Shaw & Mao, 2021). In such
situations, employees would expect their managers to be more open to their suggestions,
thereby increasing the likelihood of employees initiating a social exchange relationship via
voice behavior (Bao, Han, Liao, Liao, & Deng, 2021). A supplementary fit between
voicers and managers should increase the likelihood of managerial endorsement and/or
implementation as the suggestions raised by employees are likely to be more consistent with
the values and orientations of their manager. A supplementary dyadic fit can therefore facil-
itate positive dyadic voice exchanges by encouraging employee voice and managerial
endorsement and/or implementation. This is consistent with A. Li and Tangirala’s (2021)
demonstration that congruence between employee and manager proactive personality has
positive implications for voice exchanges.
Another dyadic fit relevant to our dyadic model is complementary fit (Muchinsky &
Monahan, 1987) between employees and managers, or the notion that certain employee (or
manager) characteristics offset those of the other party (Cable & Edwards, 2004;
Kristof-Brown, Barrick, & Stevens, 2005). For example, complementary fit in extraversion
may facilitate higher levels of employee voice and managerial endorsement. When managers
are relatively introverted, extraverted employees may a have greater chance of initiating
voice. This is because introverted managers are likely to be less dominant and therefore
more willing to listen to the ideas raised by extroverted employees, who are more talkative,
dominant, and likely to take the initiative to lead the discussion (Sherf, Sinha, Tangirala, &
Awasty, 2018). As a result, extroverted voicers may naturally speak up more to introverted
managers. Once such employees initiate voice, communication in the dyad can be expected
to be smooth and face only minor interruptions (Tost, Gino, & Larrick, 2013), which in turn
can contribute to a more meaningful discussion (e.g., Grant, Gino, & Hofmann, 2011) and
increase the likelihood of managerial endorsement.
Alternatively, when voicers and managers are equally extraverted, both may want control
over the conversation. Additionally, extraverted managers may prefer to work with more
compliant employees (Kiesler, 1983) and may not appreciate extraverted employees speaking
up proactively. Such preferences may deter voicers from speaking up; if employees do speak
up, they can create power struggles between managers and employees as both parties are
inclined to dominate the conversation. As a result, managerial endorsement is more (or
less) likely to occur when a complementary (or supplementary) fit of extraversion between
voicers and managers exists.
Given such opposed predictions, exploring the unique effects of supplementary and com-
plementary dyadic fit may provide important implications worth additional research.
Specifically, we suggest that the effect of supplementary and complementary dyadic fit
may be content specific, meaning that the content of the fit matters. For example, a supple-
mentary dyadic fit of proactive personality may encourage employee voice and managerial
endorsement, as may a complementary dyadic fit of extraversion (Guay, Kim, Oh, &
Vogel, 2019; Hartnell, Kinicki, Lambert, Fugate, & Corner, 2016). Extending this idea,
future scholars may consider various individual attributes (i.e., values, goals, interests, etc.)
as well as personality traits and explore which dyadic fit (supplementary vs. complementary)
matters in driving employee voice and managerial endorsement and/or implementation.
Besides dyadic fit, dyadic interdependence may also influence voice exchanges between
voicers and their managers. As our dyadic model suggests, once dyads achieve relational
mutuality via the experience of successful voice exchanges, voicers become more automatic
in their decision to voice (Lam et al., 2018, in press). Accordingly, one avenue for future
research is to examine how the levels of dyadic interdependence affect the development of
relational mutuality and automatic voice exchanges between voicers and managers. When
they share higher levels of dyadic interdependence, meaning that employees and managers
interact closely for the completion of their tasks (van Vijfeijken, Kleingeld, Tuijl, Algera, &
Thierry, 2002), we expect voicer–manager dyads to value their relationships for instrumental
reasons. That is, when dyadic interdependence is high (vs. low), a preexisting common dyadic
identity and rapport between voicer and manager can allow relational mutuality to be estab-
lished easily and automatic voice to occur quickly after only a few successful voice
exchanges.
Furthermore, while the establishment of relational mutuality can induce voicers and man-
agers to engage in voice exchanges automatically, there are also times when both parties need
to reassess and/or abandon their automatic voice exchanges. As such, we argue that automatic
voice exchanges may be disrupted when dyads encounter major disturbances in their relation-
ships that alter their dyadic interdependence. For example, when a manager moves to another
department, their dyadic reciprocity with a voicer may be disrupted (Methot, Lepak, Shipp, &
Boswell, 2017) as the dyadic interdependence and automatic voice exchanges can no longer
be maintained. As such, exploring the effects of different dyadic characteristics, such as
dyadic interdependence, may help us understand when relational mutuality and automatic
voice exchange are established and/or interrupted and therefore warrants future research.
The Dynamic Nature of Constructive Voice

While scholars have recently started to take an interest in different delivery modes,
researchers have often considered voice modes to be static over time. In reality, however,
voicers may vary their mode of delivery when speaking up. Accordingly, our dyadic
model posits that voicers carefully choose a variety of delivery methods, such as politeness
(Lam et al., 2019) or speaking up in private (Isaakyan et al., 2021), when voicing to initiate
a positive social exchange process with their managers. Future research may extend our con-
ceptual model and explore how managers respond to changes in voice delivery mode. As rela-
tional mutuality develops, voicers may become less concerned about their delivery mode
when communicating with their manager (S. Kim et al., 2022) and, as a result, express
their voice frankly as it becomes more automatic over time. For example, voicers may feel
comfortable speaking up in public or in a more direct manner (Lam et al., 2019) if they
believe that managers will not be offended by their lack of tact (Ferrin et al., 2008). Thus,
our dyadic model predicts that, on the one hand, managers may not be offended by change
in voice delivery mode due to the development of relational mutuality between voicer and
manager. On the other hand, given how managers are hierarchically positioned above the
voicer, they may still expect a certain degree of tact during a voice exchange in order to pre-
serve relational mutuality. In sum, exploration of how employee voice delivery modes influ-
ence managers’ perceptions and the development of social exchange relationships over time
may provide additional insight that further contributes to our proposed conceptual dyadic
model of constructive voice.
Exploring how managerial endorsement and implementation distinctively facilitate the
development of feedback loops over time may also offer insights. Although extant work
often neglects the conceptual difference between endorsement and implementation (Burris,
2012), considering endorsement and implementation as distinct constructs may be an insight-
ful way to investigate voice behavior over time. Specifically, implementation may be more
beneficial and elicit greater reciprocity for voicers than endorsement because it involves
actual changes that are easily recognized by others, whereas endorsement represents attitudi-
nal agreement that may or may not be translated into actual changes. For example, when
speaking up with concerns about heavy workloads and high work pressure, employees
would want their managers to not only agree with their concerns (i.e., endorsement) but
also take action to improve the situation (i.e., implementation). Implementation improves
the status quo and creates feedback loops in which employees engage in subsequent voice
exchanges. Alternatively, when employee suggestions are merely endorsed without imple-
mentation, over time employees may come to think that managers are not taking their
voice seriously. Employees may be reluctant to engage in subsequent voice, a situation in
which the development of a feedback loop will likely be inhibited. As such, we encourage
future research to investigate how managerial endorsement and implementation influence
the reciprocal exchanges of voice via feedback loops.
Exploring factors that counter the expectations of how managerial endorsement and/or
implementation is presumed to facilitate subsequent voice may also offer insight. For
example, when managers delay their endorsement and/or take a long time to implement sug-
gested changes, voicers may interpret the delay negatively, even if their ideas are eventually
endorsed and/or implemented. Moreover, managers may delay their endorsement and/or
implementation until another subordinate expresses a similar suggestion or their own superi-
ors push for change. In such situations, voicers may perceive delay as an indication of distrust.
Voicers may also question managers’ intentions in endorsing and/or implementing their sug-
gestions and therefore be reluctant to engage in subsequent voice in the future. Accordingly,
we encourage scholars to explore situations in which managerial endorsement and/or imple-
mentation does not contribute to the development of positive feedback loops and employees
engaging in future voice.
Extending the Dyadic Model to Organizational Level

Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Molm, Schaefer, & Collett, 2007) posits that a direct
social exchange occurs when party A provides benefits to party B, as a result of which party B
feels an obligation to reciprocate the benefits to party A in future (Blau, 1964; Deckop, Cirka,
& Andersson, 2003; Lyons & Scott, 2012). Drawing on this notion, our dyadic model focuses
on this direct type of exchange relationship between voicers and managers. However,
employees also participate in what Blau (1964: 259) refers to as “indirect chains of
exchange,” whereby party A (i.e., workgroup or organization) provides benefits to party B
(employees), while party B provides benefits to party C (managers) instead of party A. For
example, when work units treat employees positively (e.g., providing control and autonomy
over personal schedules and work duties; Seibert, Silver, & Randolph, 2004), employees may
be more willing to initiate a social exchange relationship with their managers via constructive
voice as managers tend to be perceived as agents for the work unit (Sluss & Ashforth, 2008;
Vandenberghe, Bentein, & Stinglhamber, 2004). As such, indirect chains of voice exchange
may also occur in the workplace.
Exploring the effects of work unit–related factors can be important because it can offer
theoretical explanations for the conditions in which employees are more likely to engage
in constructive voice and managers are more likely to endorse and/or implement voiced
ideas. Accordingly, future scholars could extend the scope of our dyadic model by examining
motivators and inhibitors associated with work units or the organization. Of the various
unit-related factors, top-management openness has received attention from voice scholars
(Premeaux & Bedeian, 2003) and therefore may provide new avenues for research. For
example, top-management openness at the organizational level can have trickle-down
effects (Bass, Waldman, Avolio, & Bebb, 1987; Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes, &
Salvador, 2009), create clear role expectations, and help foster a supportive and open work
environment for employees (Premeaux & Bedeian, 2003). In such open environments, man-
agers may be perceived to be more attuned to and receptive of employee suggestions, thereby
stimulating employee voice (Yuan, Wang, Huang, & Zhu, 2019) and managerial endorsement
(Ashford et al., 2017).
Future scholars can also investigate how top-management openness restrains the influence
of employee openness and manager openness on employee voice and managerial endorse-
ment, respectively (Tett & Burnett, 2003). For example, when top-management openness
is high, employees infer that there are more benefits and less risk in making suggestions
regardless of their own or their manager’s level of openness. When top-management open-
ness is high, managers are also more likely to endorse employee suggestions, even when
they are less open to employee suggestions, to build and maintain good relationships with
top management. Thus, exploring work unit factors, such as top-management openness,
can provide additional insight into how the social exchange of voice unfolds in the workplace.
Methodological Issues
The use of different methodological approaches also requires attention when conceptual-
izing voice as a dyadic and dynamic process. Among the few studies that employ a longitu-
dinal design, the time frames are mostly limited to a certain number of days (Lam et al., in
press; S. Lin & Johnson, 2015) with two measurement points for voice. This time frame
may be insufficient to fully detect the voice exchange process, capture the development of
positive feedback loops, and examine the establishment of relational mutuality over time.
Thus, extending the time frame to examine voice over longer periods (weeks or months;
e.g., A. Li & Tangirala, 2021) with multiple dyadic measurement points may be more appro-
priate to capture the voice exchange process and the development of relational mutuality more
accurately. Additionally, examining relational mutuality requires dyadic data, which involves
obtaining information from both employees and managers. Measuring relational quality from
one party’s (i.e., the employee’s or manager’s) perspective without consideration of that of
the other is problematic as relational qualities between two parties do not necessarily con-
verge equally (Brower et al., 2009; Korsgaard et al., 2015). Therefore, researchers should
consider obtaining appropriate dyadic data and accounting for potentially unequal
convergence.
While quantitative methodologies using survey tools can be insightful, qualitative
approaches, such as open-ended questions or interviews (e.g., Mowbray, Wilkinson, &
Tse, 2022; Satterstrom, Kerrissey, & DiBenigno, 2021), can provide additional rich informa-
tion that traditional survey tools do not capture. Indeed, adopting a mixed-method approach
can be fruitful, providing a more accurate investigation of how voice exchanges evolve over
time. Specifically, dyadic data collected with event-identifying open-ended questions (i.e.,
recording employees’ experiences of speaking up and managers’ responses to specific
voice experiences; Krasikova, Green, & LeBreton, 2013) and traditional survey tools with
both voicers and managers on voice and managerial responses along with relational out-
comes, such as trust, LMX, and commitment, can enhance the precision and richness of
the data collected, thereby allowing a more accurate illustration of voice as an exchange
between voicers and managers. More importantly, adapting such methodological practices
can allow researchers to theorize and test novel research questions (e.g., how many successful
voice exchanges are necessary to establish relational mutuality between voicers and managers
over time) that may have not been possible with previous methodological approaches.
Examining the dyadic and dynamic nature of voice exchanges over time may also require
the usage of sophisticated analytic approaches. For example, latent growth modeling (Methot
et al., 2017; Nahrgang, Morgeson, & Ilies, 2009) allows researchers to model both linear and
curvilinear effects. This is important because if the linear components of a latent growth anal-
ysis help detect positive or negative changes in relational qualities over time (e.g., relational
qualities increase over time; Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006; Nahrgang et al., 2009; Singer &
Willett, 2003), the quadratic components allow researchers to detect the acceleration or decel-
eration of change in relational qualities (e.g., the increase in relational qualities stabilizes over
time). Utilizing latent growth modeling can therefore allow researchers to capture precisely
changes of relational qualities over time.
Scholars may also consider using the actor–partner interdependence model (APIM; Kenny
et al., 2006) in future studies. To elaborate, dyadic data lacks independence because it corre-
lates the perceptions or attitudes of the two dyad members. APIM may be an appropriate sol-
ution to this dyadic non-independence, as it allows intercepts and errors between employee
and manager ratings to correlate (Krasikova & LeBreton, 2012). In addition, APIM separates
actor effects (i.e., the intrapersonal effects of employee characteristics on employee voice or
manager characteristics on managerial responses) from partner effects (i.e., the interpersonal
effects of employee characteristics on managerial responses or manager characteristics on
employee voice; Overbeck, Neale, & Govan, 2010). In sum, researchers can utilize APIM
to appropriately analyze dyadic data and explore specific research questions, such as “Are
employee characteristics more influential than manager characteristics in driving voice,
while manager characteristics are more influential than employee characteristics in driving
managerial responses to voice?” That is, APIM allows employee and manager characteristics
to covary (i.e., it allows intercepts to correlate) while simultaneously allowing employee
voice and managerial responses to covary (i.e., allows errors to correlate). Importantly,
APIM also allows researchers to investigate who (employee vs. manager) is more responsible
for driving voice exchange.
Conclusion
We have offered a summary of the voice literature to present a four-phase dyadic framework
grounded in social exchange theory that conceptualizes constructive voice as a communicative
and ongoing exchange of employee voice and managerial responses to voice over time. By illus-
trating the dyadic and dynamic process of constructive voice, we integrate two perspectives of
voice research (voicer- and manager-centric) that have developed in isolation and provide new
insight into the temporal nature of constructive voice. Our integrative framework extends the
voice literature by showing that voice exchanges can be influenced by dyadic factors (i.e.,
dyadic fit) and by successful voice exchanges that span multiple episodes via feedback loops to
create relational mutuality, which leads constructive voice to evolve from a deliberative to an
automatic mode of decision-making on voice. We hope that our review will spawn new,
more nuanced, and dynamic avenues of research that further our understanding of constructive
voice as an ongoing dyadic exchange between employees and managers.
ORCID iDs
You Jin Kim https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4952-5532
Chak Fu Lam https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6197-3055
Jo (Kyoungjo) Oh https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4804-3910
References
Afshan, G., Serrano-Archimi, C., & Lacroux, A. 2021. Raising voice: Effect of psychological contract breach on
employee voice through organizational cynicism. Human Systems Management, 40: 857‐869.
Agarwal, P., & Farndale, E. 2017. High–performance work systems and creativity implementation: The role of psy-
chological capital and psychological safety. Human Resource Management Journal, 27: 440‐458.
Aryee, S., Walumbwa, F. O., Mondejar, R., & Chu, C. W. L. 2017. Core self-evaluations and employee voice behav-
ior: Test of a dual-motivational pathway. Journal of Management, 43: 946‐966.
Ashford, S. J., Ong, M., & Keeves, G. 2017. The role of issue-selling in effective strategy-making. In S. W. Floyd &
B. Wooldridge (Eds.), Handbook of middle management strategy process research: 77‐108. Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar.
Avey, J. B., Wernsing, T. S., & Palanski, M. E. 2012. Exploring the process of ethical leadership: The mediating role
of employee voice and psychological ownership. Journal of Business Ethics, 107: 21‐34.
Baer, M. 2012. Putting creativity to work: The implementation of creative ideas in organizations. Academy of
Management Journal, 55: 1102‐1119.
Bai, Y., Lin, L., & Liu, J. T. 2019. Leveraging the employee voice: A multi-level social learning perspective of ethical
leadership. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30: 1869‐1901.
Bain, K., Kreps, T. A., Meikle, N. L., & Tenney, E. R. 2021. Amplifying voice in organizations. Academy of
Bao, Y., Han, P., Liao, S., Liao, J., & Deng, C. J. 2021. To speak up or stay silent? How employee–supervisor value
differences affect speaking up behavior in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 96: 102946.
Bashshur, M. R., & Oc, B. 2015. When voice matters: A multilevel review of the impact of voice in organizations.
Journal of Management, 41: 1530‐1554.
Bass, B. M., Waldman, D. A., Avolio, B. J., & Bebb, M. 1987. Transformational leadership and the falling dominoes
effect. Group & Organization Studies, 12: 73‐87.
Belkin, L. Y., & Kong, D. T. 2018. Implications of advice rejection in repeated exchanges: Advisor responses and
advisee gratitude expression as a buffer. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 78: 181‐194.
Bergeron, D. M., & Thompson, P. S. 2020. Speaking up at work: The role of perceived organizational support in
explaining the relationship between perceptions of organizational politics and voice behavior. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 56: 195‐215.
Bharanitharan, K., Chen, Z. X., Bahmannia, S., & Lowe, K. B. 2019. Is leader humility a friend or foe, or both? An
attachment theory lens on leader humility and its contradictory outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 160: 729‐743.
Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Botero, I. C., & Van Dyne, L. 2009. Employee voice behavior: Interactive effects of LMX and power distance in the
United States and Colombia. Management Communication Quarterly, 23: 84‐104.
Brower, H. H., Lester, S. W., Korsgaard, M. A., & Dineen, B. R. 2009. A closer look at trust between managers and
subordinates: Understanding the effects of both trusting and being trusted on subordinate outcomes. Journal of
Management, 35: 327‐347.
Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. 2006. Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. Leadership Quarterly, 17:
595‐616.
Brykman, K. M., & Raver, J. L. 2021. To speak up effectively or often? The effects of voice quality and voice fre-
quency on peers’ and managers’ evaluations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42: 504‐526.
Burris, E. R. 2012. The risks and rewards of speaking up: Managerial responses to employee voice. Academy of
Burris, E. R., Detert, J. R., & Chiaburu, D. S. 2008. Quitting before leaving: The mediating effects of psychological
attachment and detachment on voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 912‐922.
Burris, E. R., Rockmann, K. W., & Kimmons, Y. S. 2017. The value of voice to managers: Employee identification
and the content of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 60: 2099‐2125.
Butler, D. S., & Whiting, S. W. 2019. Perspectives on employee voice: A primer for managers.
Psychologist-Manager Journal, 22: 154‐167.
Butler, J. K. 1983. Reciprocity of trust between professionals and their secretaries. Psychological Reports, 53: 411‐416.
Butler, J. K. 1991. Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: Evolution of a conditions of trust inven-
tory. Journal of Management, 17: 643‐663.
Cable, D. M., & Edwards, J. R. 2004. Complementary and supplementary fit: A theoretical and empirical integration.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 822‐834.
Chamberlin, M., Newton, D. W., & LePine, J. A. 2017. A meta-analysis of voice and its promotive and prohibitive forms:
Identification of key associations, distinctions, and future research questions. Personnel Psychology, 70: 11‐71.
Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. 2007. It’s all about me: Narcissistic chief executive officers and their effects on
company strategy and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52: 351‐386.
Chen, A. S.-Y., & Hou, Y.-H. 2016. The effects of ethical leadership, voice behavior and climates for innovation on
creativity: A moderated mediation examination. Leadership Quarterly, 27: 1‐13.
Chen, L., Li, M., Wu, Y., & Chen, C. 2020. The voicer’s reactions to voice: An examination of employee voice on
perceived organizational status and subsequent innovative behavior in the workplace. Personnel Review, 50:
1073‐1092.
Chen, S. J., Wang, M. J., & Lee, S. H. 2018. Transformational leadership and voice behaviors: The mediating effect
of employee perceived meaningful work. Personnel Review, 47: 694‐708.
Chen, X. P., & Chen, C. C. 2004. On the intricacies of the Chinese guanxi: A process model of guanxi development.
Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 21: 305‐324.
Cheng, J. W., Chang, S. C., Kuo, J. H., & Cheung, Y. H. 2014. Ethical leadership, work engagement, and voice
behavior. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 114: 817‐831.
Cheng, J. W., Lu, K. M., Chang, Y. Y., & Johnstone, S. 2013. Voice behavior and work engagement: The moderating
role of supervisor–attributed motives. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 51: 81‐102.
Chiaburu, D. S., Farh, C., & Van Dyne, L. 2013. Supervisory epistemic, ideological, and existential responses to
voice: A motivated cognition approach. In R. J. Burke & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Voice and whistleblowing in orga-
nizations: 224‐253. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Clegg, C., Unsworth, K., Epitropaki, O., & Parker, G. 2002. Implicating trust in the innovation process. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75: 409‐422.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., & Wesson, M. J. 2013. Justice at
the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 98: 199‐236.
Conchie, S. M. 2013. Transformational leadership, intrinsic motivation, and trust: A moderated-mediated model of
workplace safety. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18: 198‐210.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. 1992. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor
Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Crant, J. M., Kim, T.-Y., & Wang, J. 2011. Dispositional antecedents of demonstration and usefulness of voice
behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26: 285‐297.
Cropanzano, R., Anthony, E. L., Daniels, S. R., & Hall, A. V. 2017. Social exchange theory: A critical review with
theoretical remedies. Academy of Management Annals, 11: 479‐516.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. 2005. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of
Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Beninger, A. 2011. The dynamics of warmth and competence judgments, and their out-
comes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31: 73‐98.
Da Silva, N., & Oldham, G. R. 2012. Adopting employees’ ideas: Moderators of the idea generation–idea implemen-
tation link. Creativity Research Journal, 24: 134‐145.
Davidson, T., Van Dyne, L., & Lin, B. 2017. Too attached to speak up? It depends: How supervisor–subordinate
guanxi and perceived job control influence upward constructive voice. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 143: 39‐53.
Deckop, J. R., Cirka, C. C., & Andersson, L. M. 2003. Doing unto others: The reciprocity of helping behavior in
organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 47: 101‐113.
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. 2007. Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of
Detert, J. R., Burris, E. R., Harrison, D. A., & Martin, S. R. 2013. Voice flows to and around leaders: Understanding
when units are helped or hurt by employee voice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58: 624‐668.
Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. 2011. Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted rules of self-censorship at work.
Academy of Management Journal, 54: 461‐488.
De Vries, G., Jehn, K. A., & Terwel, B. W. 2012. When employees stop talking and start fighting: The detrimental
effects of pseudo voice in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 105: 221‐230.
De Wit, F., Scheepers, D., Ellemers, N., Sassenberg, K., & Scholl, A. 2017. Whether power holders construe their
power as responsibility or opportunity influences their tendency to take advice from others. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 38: 923‐949.
Ding, Z.-H., Li, H.-C., Quan, L., & Wang, H.-Q. 2018. Reluctant to speak? The impact of supervisor narcissism on
employee prohibitive voice. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 46: 1713‐1726.
Duan, J., Lapointe, É, Xu, Y., & Brooks, S. 2019. Why do employees speak up? Examining the roles of LMX, per-
ceived risk and perceived leader power in predicting voice behavior. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 34:
560‐572.
Duan, J., Li, C., Xu, Y., & Wu, C. H. 2017. Transformational leadership and employee voice behavior: A Pygmalion
mechanism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38: 650‐670.
Duan, J., Wang, X. H. F., Janssen, O., & Farh, J. L. 2022. Transformational leadership and voice: When does felt
obligation to the leader matter? Journal of Business and Psychology, 37: 543‐555.
Duan, J., Zhou, A., & Yu, L. 2021. A dual-process model of voice endorsement. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 1‐23.
Dutton, J. E., & Ashford, S. J. 1993. Selling issues to top management. Academy of Management Review, 18:
397‐428.
Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., O’Neill, R. M., Hayes, E., & Wierba, E. E. 1997. Reading the wind: How middle man-
agers assess the context for selling issues to top managers. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 407‐423.
Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., O’Neill, R. M., & Lawrence, K. A. 2001. Moves that matter: Issue selling and organi-
zational change. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 716‐736.
Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. 1991. Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation.
Dweck, C. S. 1999. Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Edmondson, A. C. 2003. Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary
action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40: 1419‐1452.
Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. C. 2002. Social exchanges in the workplace: A review of recent developments and future
research directions in leader-member exchange theory. In L. L. Neider & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership:
65‐114. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., van Dierendonck, D., & Liden, R. C. 2019. Servant leadership: A systematic review
and call for future research. Leadership Quarterly, 30: 111‐132.
Falchetti, D., Cattani, G., & Ferriani, S. 2022. Start with “why,” but only if you have to: The strategic framing of
novel ideas across different audiences. Strategic Management Journal, 43: 130‐159.
Farh, C. I., & Chen, Z. 2014. Beyond the individual victim: Multilevel consequences of abusive supervision in teams.
Farh, C. I. C., Oh, J. K., Hollenbeck, J., Yu, D. A., Lee, S. M., & King, D. D. 2020. Token female voice enactment in
traditionally male-dominated teams: Facilitating conditions and consequences for performance. Academy of
Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. 2000. A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. In J. T. Li,
A. S. Tsui, & E. Weldon (Eds.), Management and organizations in the Chinese context: 84‐127. London:
MacMillan.
Farndale, E., van Ruiten, J., Kelliher, C., & Hope-Hailey, V. 2011. The influence of perceived employee voice on
organizational commitment: An exchange perspective. Human Resource Management, 50: 113‐129.
Fast, N. J., Burris, E. R., & Bartel, C. A. 2014. Managing to stay in the dark: Managerial self-efficacy, ego defen-
siveness, and the aversion to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 57: 1013‐1034.
Ferrin, D. L., Bligh, M. C., & Kohles, J. C. 2008. It takes two to tango: An interdependence analysis of the spiraling of
perceived trustworthiness and cooperation in interpersonal and intergroup. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 107: 161‐178.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Xu, J. 2002. A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and
warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 82: 878‐902.
Frazier, M. L., & Fainshmidt, S. 2012. Voice climate, work outcomes, and the mediating role of psychological
empowerment: A multilevel examination. Group & Organization Management, 37: 691‐715.
Fuller, J. B., Barnett, T., Hester, K., Relyea, C., & Frey, L. 2007. An exploratory examination of voice behavior from
an impression management perspective. Journal of Managerial Issues, 19: 134‐151.
Fuller, J. B., Marler, L. E., & Hester, K. 2006. Promoting felt responsibility for constructive change and proactive
behavior: Exploring aspects of an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27:
1089‐1120.
Gergen, K. J. 1969. The psychology of behavior exchange. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Gouldner, A. W. 1960. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25: 161‐178.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. 1995. Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member
exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years. Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective.
Leadership Quarterly, 6: 219‐247.
Grant, A. M. 2013. Rocking the boat but keeping it steady: The role of emotion regulation in employee voice.
Grant, A. M., Gino, F., & Hofmann, D. A. 2011. Reversing the extraverted leadership advantage: The role of
employee proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 54: 528‐550.
Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. 2009. Good soldiers and good actors: Prosocial and impression management motives
as interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 900‐912.
Grant, A. M., Parker, S., & Collins, C. 2009. Getting credit for proactive behavior: Supervisor reactions depend on
what you value and how you feel. Personnel Psychology, 62: 31‐55.
Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. 2000. A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turn-
over: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26:
463‐488.
Guay, R. P., Kim, Y. J., Oh, I.-S., & Vogel, R. M. 2019. The interaction effects of leader and follower conscientious-
ness on person-supervisor fit perceptions and follower outcomes: A cross-level moderated indirect effects
model. Human Performance, 32: 181‐199.
Guo, Y. 2017. Effect of psychological contract breach on employee voice behavior: Evidence from China. Social
Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 45: 1019‐1028.
Guzman, F. A., & Fu, X. 2022. Leader–subordinate congruence in power distance values and voice behaviour: A
person–supervisor fit approach. Applied Psychology, 71: 271‐295.
Gyensare, M., Arthur, R., Twumasi, E., & Agyapong, J. A. 2019. Leader effectiveness-the missing link in the rela-
tionship between employee voice and engagement. Cogent Business & Management, 6: 1‐20.
Hartnell, C. A., Kinicki, A. J., Lambert, L. S., Fugate, M., & Corner, P. D. 2016. Do similarities or differences
between CEO leadership and organizational culture have a more positive effect on firm performance? A test
of competing predictions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101: 846‐861.
Harvey, P., Martinko, M. J., & Douglas, S. C. 2009. Causal perceptions and the decision to speak up or pipe down. In
J. Greenberg & M. S. Edwards (Eds.), Voice and silence in organizations: 63‐82. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.
Hassan, S. 2015. The importance of ethical leadership and personal control in promoting improvement-centered voice
among government employees. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25: 697‐719.
He, W., Han, Y., Hu, X., Liu, W., Yang, B., & Chen, H. 2020. From idea endorsement to idea implementation: A
multilevel social network approach toward managerial voice implementation. Human Relations, 73: 1563‐1582.
Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. 1951. The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 15: 635‐650.
Hsiung, H.-H. 2012. Authentic leadership and employee voice behavior: A multi-level psychological process.
Journal of Business Ethics, 107: 349‐361.
Hsiung, H. H., Tsai, N. T., & Chen, J. A. 2013. Employee opinion expression behaviors: Their antecedents and influ-
ences on supervisory performance evaluation. Tai Da Guan Li Lun Cong, 23: 133‐164.
Hu, Y., Zhu, L., Zhou, M., Li, J., Maguire, P., Sun, H., & Wang, D. 2018. Exploring the influence of ethical lead-
ership on voice behavior: How leader-member exchange, psychological safety and psychological empowerment
influence employees’ willingness to speak out. Frontiers in Psychology, 9: 1718.
Huang, L. C., Su, C. H., Lin, C. C., & Lu, S. C. 2019. The influence of abusive supervision on employees’ motivation
and extra-role behaviors: The daily-basis investigation. Chinese Management Studies, 13: 514‐530.
Huo, W. W., Yi, H., Men, C., Luo, J., Li, X., & Tam, K. L. 2017. Territoriality, motivational climate, and idea imple-
mentation: We reap what we sow. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 45: 1919‐1932.
Hussain, I., Shu, R., Tangirala, S., & Ekkirala, S. 2019. The voice bystander effect: How information redundancy
inhibits employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 62: 828‐849.
Isaakyan, S., Sherf, E. N., Tangirala, S., & Guenter, H. 2021. Keeping it between us: Managerial endorsement of
public versus private voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106: 1049‐1066.
Jada, U. R., & Mukhopadhyay, S. 2019a. Empowering leadership and LMX as the mediators between leader’s per-
sonality traits and constructive voice behavior. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 27: 74‐93.
Jada, U. R., & Mukhopadhyay, S. 2019b. Understanding the effects of empowering, transformational and ethical
leadership on promotive and prohibitive voice. Personnel Review, 48: 707‐730.
Jansen, K. J., & Kristof-Brown, A. 2006. Toward a multidimensional theory of person-environment fit. Journal of
Managerial Issues, 18: 193‐212.
Janssen, O., & Gao, L. 2015. Supervisory responsiveness and employee self-perceived status and voice behavior.
Jiang, Z., Le, H., & Gollan, P. J. 2018. Cultural intelligence and voice behavior among migrant workers: The medi-
ating role of leader–member exchange. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29: 1082‐1112.
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. 2003. Political conservatism as motivated social cognition.
Psychological Bulletin, 129: 339‐375.
Kahn, W. A. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of
Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., Schilpzand, P., & Rubenstein, A. L. 2013. Dyadic fit and the process of organizational
socialization. In A. L. Kristof Brown & J. Billsberry (Eds.), Organizational fit: Key issues and new directions:
50‐73. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. 2006. Analyzing mixed independent variables: The actor-partner inter-
dependence model. In D. A. Kenny, D. A. Kashy, & W. L. Cook (Eds.), Dyadic data analysis: 144‐184.
New York: Guilford Press.
Kiesler, D. J. 1983. The 1982 interpersonal circle: A taxonomy for complementarity in human transactions.
Psychological Review, 90: 185‐214.
Kim, S., McClean, E. J., Doyle, S. P., Podsakoff, N. P., Lin, E., & Woodruff, T. 2022. The positive and negative
effects of social status on ratings of voice behavior: A test of opposing structural and psychological pathways.
Kim, Y. J., Van Dyne, L., Kamdar, D., & Johnson, R. E. 2013. Why and when do motives matter? An integrative
model of motives, role cognitions, and social support as predictors of OCB. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 121: 231‐245.
King, D. D., Ryan, A. M., & Van Dyne, L. 2019. Voice resilience: Fostering future voice after non-endorsement of
suggestions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 92: 535‐565.
Klaas, B. S., Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & Ward, A. K. 2012. The determinants of alternative forms of workplace voice:
An integrative perspective. Journal of Management, 38: 314‐345.
Kolbe, M., Burtscher, M. J., Wacker, J., Grande, B., Nohynkova, R., Manser, T., Spahn, D. R., & Grote, G. 2012.
Speaking up is related to better team performance in simulated anesthesia inductions: An observational study.
Anesthesia & Analgesia, 115: 1099‐1108.
Korsgaard, M. A., Brower, H. H., & Lester, S. W. 2015. It isn’t always mutual: A critical review of dyadic trust.
Krasikova, D. V., Green, S. G., & LeBreton, J. M. 2013. Destructive leadership: A theoretical review, integration, and
future research agenda. Journal of Management, 39: 1308‐1338.
Krasikova, D. V., & LeBreton, J. M. 2012. Just the two of us: Misalignment of theory and methods in examining
dyadic phenomena. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97: 739‐757.
Krenz, H. L., Burtscher, M. J., & Kolbe, M. 2019. “Not only hard to make but also hard to take”: Team leaders’ reactions
to voice. Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Organisationspsychologie, 50: 3‐13.
Kristof-Brown, A., Barrick, M. R., & Stevens, C. K. 2005. When opposites attract: A multi-sample demonstration of
complementary person–team fit on extraversion. Journal of Personality, 73: 935‐958.
Kwon, B., Farndale, E., & Park, J. G. 2016. Employee voice and work engagement: Macro, meso, and micro-level
drivers of convergence? Human Resource Management Review, 26: 327‐337.
Lam, C. F., Johnson, H. H., Song, J., Wu, W., Lee, C., & Chen, Z. G. in press. More depleted, speak up more? A daily
examination of the benefit and cost of depletion for voice behavior and voice endorsement. Journal of
Organizational Behavior.
Lam, C. F., Lee, C., & Sui, Y. 2019. Say it as it is: Consequences of voice directness, voice politeness, and voicer
credibility on voice endorsement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104: 642‐658.
Lam, C. F., & Mayer, D. M. 2014. When do employees speak up for their customers? A model of voice in a customer
service context. Personnel Psychology, 67: 637‐666.
Lam, C. F., Rees, L., Levesque, L. L., & Ornstein, S. 2018. Shooting from the hip: A habit perspective of voice.
Academy of Management Review, 43: 470‐486.
Landau, J. 2009. When employee voice is met by deaf ears. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 74: 4‐28.
Lapierre, L. M., & Hackett, R. D. 2007. Trait conscientiousness, leader-member exchange, job satisfaction and orga-
nizational citizenship behaviour: A test of an integrative model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Lapointe, É, & Vandenberghe, C. 2018. Examination of the relationships between servant leadership, organizational
commitment, and voice and antisocial behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 148: 99‐115.
Lawler, E. J. 2001. An affect theory of social exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 107: 321‐352.
Lawler, E. J., & Thye, S. R. 1999. Bringing emotions into social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 25:
217‐244.
Lebel, R. D. 2016. Overcoming the fear factor: How perceptions of supervisor openness lead employees to speak up
when fearing external threat. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 135: 10‐21.
Leck, J. D., & Saunders, D. M. 1992. Hirschman’s loyalty: Attitude or behavior? Employee Responsibilities and
Rights Journal, 5: 219‐230.
Lee, D., Choi, Y., Youn, S., & Chun, J. U. 2017. Ethical leadership and employee moral voice: The mediating role of
moral efficacy and the moderating role of leader–follower value congruence. Journal of Business Ethics, 141:
47‐57.
Lee, W. R., Choi, S. B., & Kang, S. W. 2021. How leaders’ positive feedback influences employees’ innovative
behavior: The mediating role of voice behavior and job autonomy. Sustainability, 13: 1901.
Lee, Y., & Chon, M. G. 2021. Transformational leadership and employee communication behaviors: The role of com-
munal and exchange relationship norms. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 42: 61‐82.
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. 1998. Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83:
853‐868.
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. 2001. Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance:
Evidence of differential relationships with big five personality characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of
Lewis, J. D. 1999. Trusted partners: How companies build mutual trust and win together. New York: Free Press.
Li, A. N., Liao, H., Tangirala, S., & Firth, B. M. 2017. The content of the message matters: The differential effects of
promotive and prohibitive team voice on team productivity and safety performance gains. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 102: 1259‐1270.
Li, A. N., & Tangirala, S. 2021. How voice emerges and develops in newly formed supervisor–employee dyads.
Li, C., Liang, J., & Farh, J. L. 2020. Speaking up when water is murky: An uncertainty-based model linking perceived
organizational politics to employee voice. Journal of Management, 46: 443‐469.
Li, C., & Wu, K. 2015. Investigation of motive between transformational leadership and prosocial voice: An empir-
ical study in China. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 9: 115‐130.
Li, C.-J., Li, F., Chen, T., & Crant, J. M. 2022. Proactive personality and promotability: Mediating roles of promotive
and prohibitive voice and moderating roles of organizational politics and leader-member exchange. Journal of
Business Research, 145: 253‐267.
Li, J. J., Barnes, C. M., Yam, K. C., Guarana, C. L., & Wang, L. 2019. Do not like it when you need it the most:
Examining the effect of manager ego depletion on managerial voice endorsement. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 40: 869‐882.
Li, L., Zheng, X., & Zhang, Q. 2022. Does leaders’ adoption of employee voice influence employee work engage-
ment? Personnel Review, 51: 683‐698.
Li, X., Wu, T., & Ma, J. 2021. How leaders are persuaded: An elaboration likelihood model of voice endorsement.
PLOS ONE, 16: e0251850.
Li, Y., & Sun, J.-M. 2015. Traditional Chinese leadership and employee voice behavior: A cross-level examination.
Leadership Quarterly, 26: 172‐189.
Liang, H. L., & Yeh, T. K. 2019. The effects of employee voice on workplace bullying and job satisfaction.
Management Decision, 58: 569‐582.
Liang, J., Farh, C. I., & Farh, J. L. 2012. Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave
examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55: 71‐92.
Liao, C., Liden, R., Liu, Y., & Wu, J. 2021. Blessing or curse: The moderating role of political skill in the relationship
between servant leadership, voice, and voice endorsement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42: 987‐1004.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. 2008. Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional
measure and multi-level assessment. Leadership Quarterly, 19: 161‐177.
Lin, S. H. J., & Johnson, R. E. 2015. A suggestion to improve a day keeps your depletion away: Examining promotive
and prohibitive voice behaviors within a regulatory focus and ego depletion framework. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 100: 1381‐1397.
Lin, X., Lam, L. W., & Zhang, L. L. 2020. The curvilinear relationship between job satisfaction and employee voice:
Speaking up for the organization and the self. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 37: 587‐607.
Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R., & Earley, P. C. 1990. Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumen-
tal concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59: 952‐959.
Liu, W., Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. 2013. The relational antecedents of voice targeted at different leaders.
Liu, W., Zhu, R., & Yang, Y. 2010. I warn you because I like you: Voice behavior, employee identifications, and
transformational leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 21: 189‐202.
Lord, R. G., Diefendorff, J. M., Schmidt, A. M., & Hall, R. J. 2010. Self–regulation at work. Annual Review of
Lu, S., Bartol, K. M., Venkataramani, V., Zheng, X., & Liu, X. 2019. Pitching novel ideas to the boss: The interactive
effects of employees’ idea enactment and influence tactics on creativity assessment and implementation.
Lyons, B. J., & Scott, B. A. 2012. Integrating social exchange and affective explanations for the receipt of help and
harm: A social network approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117: 66‐79.
Mackenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2011. Challenge-oriented organizational citizenship behav-
iors and organizational effectiveness: Do challenge-oriented behaviors really have an impact on the organiza-
tion’s bottom line? Personnel Psychology, 64: 559‐592.
Magadley, W., & Birdi, K. 2012. Two sides of the innovation coin? An empirical investigation of the relative cor-
relates of idea generation and idea implementation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 16: 1‐28.
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. B. 2009. How low does ethical leadership
flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108: 1‐13.
Maynes, T. D., & Podsakoff, P. M. 2014. Speaking more broadly: An examination of the nature, antecedents, and
consequences of an expanded set of employee voice behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99: 87‐112.
McClean, E., Kim, S., & Martinez, T. M. 2022. Which ideas for change are endorsed? How agentic and communal
voice affects endorsement differently for men and women. Academy of Management Journal, 65: 634‐655.
McClean, E. J., Martin, S. R., Emich, K. J., & Woodruff, C. T. 2018. The social consequences of voice: An examination of
voice type and gender on status and subsequent leader emergence. Academy of Management Journal, 61: 1869‐1891.
McClelland, D. C. 1985. How motives, skills, and values determine what people do. American Psychologist, 40:
812‐825.
McClelland, D. C. 1987. Human motivation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Meeker, B. F. 1971. Decisions and exchange. American Sociological Review, 36: 485‐495.
Memon, K. R., & Ghani, B. 2020. The relationship between psychological contract and voice behavior: A social
exchange perspective. Asian Journal of Business Ethics, 9: 257‐274.
Menon, T., Thompson, L., & Choi, H.-S. 2006. Tainted knowledge vs. tempting knowledge: People avoid knowledge
from internal rivals and seek knowledge from external rivals. Management Science, 52: 1129‐1144.
Methot, J. R., Lepak, D., Shipp, A. J., & Boswell, W. R. 2017. Good citizen interrupted: Calibrating a temporal theory
of citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Review, 42: 10‐31.
Mo, S., & Shi, J. 2018. The voice link: A moderated mediation model of how ethical leadership affects individual task
performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 152: 91‐101.
Molm, L. D. 2000. Theories of social exchange and exchange networks. In G. Ritzer & B. Smart (Eds.), The hand-
book of social theory: 260‐272. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Molm, L. D. 2003. Theoretical comparisons of forms of exchange. Sociological Theory, 21(1): 1‐17.
Molm, L. D., Schaefer, D. R., & Collett, J. L. 2007. The value of reciprocity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 70:
199‐217.
Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. 2001. Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-regulatory processing
model. Psychological Inquiry, 12: 177‐196.
Morrison, E. W. 2011. Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. Academy of
Management Annals, 5: 373‐412.
Morrison, E. W. 2014. Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior, 1: 173‐197.
Morrison, E. W., Wheeler-Smith, S. L., & Kamdar, D. 2011. Speaking up in groups: A cross-level study of group
voice climate and voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 183‐191.
Mowbray, P. K., Wilkinson, A., & Tse, H. H. 2022. Strategic or silencing? Line managers’ repurposing of employee
voice mechanisms for high performance. British Journal of Management, 33: 1054‐1070.
Muchinsky, P. M., & Monahan, C. J. 1987. What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus com-
plementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31: 268‐277.
Nahrgang, J. D., Morgeson, F. P., & Ilies, R. 2009. The development of leader–member exchanges: Exploring how
personality and performance influence leader and member relationships over time. Organizational Behavior and
Neuberg, S. L., & Newsom, J. T. 1993. Personal need for structure: Individual differences in the desire for simpler
structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65: 113‐131.
Neyer, F. J., & Voigt, D. 2004. Personality and social network effects on romantic relationships: A dyadic approach.
European Journal of Personality, 18: 279‐299.
Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. 2013. Changes in perceived supervisor embeddedness: Effects on employees’ embedd-
edness, organizational trust, and voice behavior. Personnel Psychology, 66: 645‐685.
Ng, T. W., Feldman, D. C., & Butts, M. M. 2014. Psychological contract breaches and employee voice behaviour:
The moderating effects of changes in social relationships. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Ng, T. W., & Lucianetti, L. 2018. Are embedded employees active or passive? The roles of learning goal orientation
and preferences for wide task boundaries and job mobility in the embeddedness-voice link. Human Resource
Management, 57: 1251‐1269.
Ng, T. W., Shao, Y., Koopmann, J., Wang, M., Hsu, D. Y., & Yim, F. H. 2022. The effects of idea rejection on cre-
ative self-efficacy and idea generation: Intention to remain and perceived innovation importance as moderators.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43: 146‐163.
Ng, T. W., Wang, M., Hsu, D. Y., & Su, C. 2021. Changes in perceptions of ethical leadership: Effects on associative
and dissociative outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106: 92‐121.
Overbeck, J. R., Neale, M. A., & Govan, C. L. 2010. I feel, therefore you act: Intrapersonal and interpersonal effects
of emotion on negotiation as a function of social power. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 112: 126‐139.
Park, J. Y., & Nawakitphaitoon, K. 2018. The cross-cultural study of LMX and individual employee voice: The mod-
erating role of conflict avoidance. Human Resource Management Journal, 28: 14‐30.
Pei, Z., Pan, Y., Skitmore, M., & Feng, T. 2018. Leader–member exchange and prohibitive voice in nonprofit orga-
nizations in China: The moderating roles of superior–subordinate tenure matching. Nonprofit Management and
Leadership, 29: 203‐222.
Peng, A. C., Schaubroeck, M., Chong, S., & Li, Y. 2019. Discrete emotions linking abusive supervision to employee
intention and behavior. Personnel Psychology, 72: 393‐419.
Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Mishra, P. 2011. Effects of organizational citizenship behav-
iors on selection decisions in employment interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 310‐326.
Popelnukha, A., Almeida, S., Obaid, A., Sarwar, N., Atamba, C., Tariq, H., & Weng, Q. D. 2022. Keep your mouth
shut until I feel good: Testing the moderated mediation model of leader’s threat to competence, self-defense
tactics, and voice rejection. Personnel Review, 51: 394‐431.
Premeaux, S. F., & Bedeian, A. G. 2003. Breaking the silence: The moderating effects of self–monitoring in predict-
ing speaking up in the workplace. Journal of Management Studies, 40: 1537‐1562.
Qi, Y., & Ming-Xia, L. 2014. Ethical leadership, organizational identification and employee voice: Examining mod-
erated mediation process in the Chinese insurance industry. Asia Pacific Business Review, 20: 231‐248.
Qian, X., Li, Q., Song, Y., & Wang, J. 2020. Temporary employment and voice behavior: The role of self–efficacy
and political savvy. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 58: 607‐629.
Rafferty, A. E., & Restubog, S. L. D. 2011. The influence of abusive supervisors on followers’ organizational citi-
zenship behaviours: The hidden costs of abusive supervision. British Journal of Management, 22: 270‐285.
Rani, H., Shah, S. M. M., Umrani, W. A., Syed, J., & Afshan, G. 2021. Employee state paranoia: Linking abusive
supervision with employee voice behavior. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 42: 1053‐1070.
Rasheed, M. A., Shahzad, K., & Nadeem, S. 2021. Transformational leadership and employee voice for product and
process innovation in SMEs. Innovation & Management Review, 18: 69‐89.
Rashid, S., Dastgeer, G., & Kayani, T. 2018. A social exchange perspective through the lens of an individual:
Relationship between LMX, voice and organizational commitment in academia. Business & Economic
Review, 10: 41‐64.
Raza, J., Liu, Y., Zhang, J., Gul, H., Hassan, Z., & Aboud, K. 2021. How ethical leadership impacts deviant normative
conduct? The role of trait affect, voice behaviour, and social support. Australian Journal of Psychology, 73: 200‐211.
Rees, C., Alfes, K., & Gatenby, M. 2013. Employee voice and engagement: Connections and consequences.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24: 2780‐2798.
Ren, R., Ma, L., Chen, Z. X. G., Wang, H., & Ju, D. 2022. Implicit voice delivery: Its antecedents, consequences, and
boundary conditions. Management and Organization Review, 18: 43‐72.
Rousseau, D. M. 1989. Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights
Journal, 2: 121‐139.
Rousseau, D. M. 1995. Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Salman, A., Ahmed, I., & Jahangir, S. 2021. Job insecurity and employees’ safety voice behavior–a managerial
dilemma caused by COVID-19. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration.
Sari, U. T. 2019. The effect of ethical leadership on voice behavior: The role of mediators organizational identifica-
tion and moderating self-efficacy for voice. Journal of Leadership in Organizations, 1: 48‐66.
Satterstrom, P., Kerrissey, M., & DiBenigno, J. 2021. The voice cultivation process: How team members can help
upward voice live on to implementation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66: 380‐425.
Schmitt, A., Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. 2016. Transformational leadership and proactive work behaviour:
A moderated mediation model including work engagement and job strain. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 89: 588‐610.
Schreurs, B., Guenter, H., & De Cuyper, N. 2015. Speaking up when feeling job insecure: The moderating role of
punishment and reward sensitivity. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28: 1107‐1128.
Seibert, S. E., Silver, S. R., & Randolph, W. A. 2004. Taking empowerment to the next level: A multiple-level model
of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 332‐349.
Sessions, H., Nahrgang, J. D., Newton, D. W., & Chamberlin, M. 2020. I’m tired of listening: The effects of super-
visor appraisals of group voice on supervisor emotional exhaustion and performance. Journal of Applied
Shaw, K. H., & Mao, J. 2021. Leader–follower congruence in humility and follower voice: The mediating role of
affective attachment. Current Psychology.
Sherf, E. N., Parke, M. R., & Isaakyan, S. 2021. Distinguishing voice and silence at work: Unique relationships with
perceived impact, psychological safety, and burnout. Academy of Management Journal, 64: 114‐148.
Sherf, E. N., Sinha, R., Tangirala, S., & Awasty, N. 2018. Centralization of member voice in teams: Its effects on
expertise utilization and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103: 813‐827.
Sijbom, R. B. L., Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. 2015a. How to get radical creative ideas into a leader’s mind?
Leader’s achievement goals and subordinates’ voice of creative ideas. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 24: 279‐296.
Sijbom, R. B. L., Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. 2015b. Leaders’ receptivity to subordinates’ creative input: The
role of achievement goals and composition of creative input. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Sijbom, R. B. L., & Parker, S. K. 2020. When are leaders receptive to voiced creative ideas? Joint effects of leaders’
achievement goals and personal sense of power. Frontiers in Psychology, 11: 1527.
Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. 2003. Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. 2008. How relational and organizational identification converge: Processes and con-
ditions. Organization Science, 19: 807‐823.
Song, X., Wu, W., Hao, S., Lu, X., Zhang, Y., & Liu, Y. 2017. On-work or off-work relationship? An engagement
model of how and when leader–member exchange and leader–member guanxi promote voice behavior. Chinese
Management Studies, 11: 441‐462.
Stamper, C. L., & Van Dyne, L. 2001. Work status and organizational citizenship behavior: A field study of restaurant
employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22: 517‐536.
Starzyk, A., & Sonnentag, S. 2019. When do low-initiative employees feel responsible for change and speak up to
managers? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 115: 103342.
Svendsen, M., & Joensson, T. S. 2016. Transformational leadership and change related voice behavior. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 37: 357‐368.
Svendsen, M., Unterrainer, C., & Jønsson, T. F. 2018. The effect of transformational leadership and job autonomy on
promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave study. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 25:
171‐183.
Takeuchi, R., Chen, Z., & Cheung, S. Y. 2012. Applying uncertainty management theory to employee voice behav-
ior: An integrative investigation. Personnel Psychology, 65: 283‐323.
Tan, A. J., Loi, R., Lam, L. W., & Zhang, L. L. 2019. Do embedded employees voice more? Personnel Review, 48:
824‐838.
Tangirala, S., Kamdar, D., Venkataramani, V., & Parke, M. R. 2013. Doing right versus getting ahead: The effects of
duty and achievement orientations on employees’ voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98: 1040‐1050.
Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. 2008. Exploring nonlinearity in employee voice: The effects of personal control and
organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 1189‐1203.
Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. 2012. Ask and you shall hear (but not always): Examining the relationship between
manager consultation and employee voice. Personnel Psychology, 65: 251‐282.
Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. 2003. A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of
Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. 1993. Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path
analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46: 259‐293.
Tost, L. P., Gino, F., & Larrick, R. P. 2013. When power makes others speechless: The negative impact of leader
power on team performance. Academy of Management Journal, 56: 1465‐1486.
Turnley, W. H., Bolino, M. C., Lester, S. W., & Bloodgood, J. M. 2003. The impact of psychological contract fulfillment
on the performance of in-role and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 29: 187‐206.
Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. 1999. The impact of psychological contract violations on exit, voice, loyalty, and
neglect. Human Relations, 52: 895‐922.
Uhl-Bien, M., Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. 2000. Implications of leader-member exchange (LMX) for strategic
human resource management systems: Relationships as social capital for competitive advantage. Research in
Personnel and Human Resources Management, 18: 137‐186.
Urbach, T., & Fay, D. 2018. When proactivity produces a power struggle: How supervisors’ power motivation affects
their support for employees’ promotive voice. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27:
280‐295.
Urbach, T., & Fay, D. 2021. Leader member exchange in leaders’ support for voice: Good relationships matter in
situations of power threat. Applied Psychology, 70: 674‐708.
van Dam, K., Caniëls, M. C. J., Cools-Tummers, G. E. R., & Lenaerts, H. 2021. Supervisor idea adoption scale:
Construction, reliability, and initial validity evidence. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 15:
176‐185.
van Driel, M. H. 2021. Persuading managers in a virtual environment: Passion, shared vision, and managerial
endorsement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen, Netherlands.
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. 2003. Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimen-
sional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40: 1359‐1392.
Van Dyne, L., Kamdar, D., & Joireman, J. 2008. In-role perceptions buffer the negative impact of low LMX on
helping and enhance the positive impact of high LMX on voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 1195‐1207.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. 1998. Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive
validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 108‐119.
van Vijfeijken, H., Kleingeld, A., Tuijl, H. V., Algera, J. A., & Thierry, H. 2002. Task complexity and task, goal, and
reward interdependence in group performance management: A prescriptive model. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 11: 363‐383.
Vandenberghe, C., Bentein, K., & Stinglhamber, F. 2004. Affective commitment to the organization, supervisor, and
work group: Antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64: 47‐71.
Venkataramani, V., & Tangirala, S. 2010. When and why do central employees speak up? An examination of medi-
ating and moderating variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95: 582‐591.
Venkataramani, V., Zhou, L., Wang, M., Liao, H., & Shi, J. 2016. Social networks and employee voice: The influence
of team members’ and team leaders’ social network positions on employee voice. Organizational Behavior and
Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. 2009. Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles
of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 1275‐1286.
Wang, C.-C., Hsieh, H.-H., & Wang, Y.-D. 2020. Abusive supervision and employee engagement and satisfaction:
The mediating role of employee silence. Personnel Review, 49: 1845‐1858.
Wang, D., Gan, C., Wu, C., & Wang, D. 2015. Ethical leadership and employee voice: Employee self-efficacy and
self-impact as mediators. Psychological Reports, 116: 751‐767.
Wang, H., Wu, W., Liu, Y., Hao, S., & Wu, S. 2019. In what ways do Chinese employees speak up? An exchange
approach to supervisor–subordinate guanxi and voice behavior. International Journal of Human Resource
Wang, R., & Jiang, J. 2015. How abusive supervisors influence employees’ voice and silence: The effects of inter-
actional justice and organizational attribution. Journal of Social Psychology, 155: 204‐220.
Wang, Y., Zheng, Y., & Zhu, Y. 2018. How transformational leadership influences employee voice behavior: The
roles of psychological capital and organizational identification. Social Behavior and Personality: An
International Journal, 46: 313‐321.
Wang, Z., Shi, L., & Wang, L. 2021. Does leader mindfulness influence voice behavior? Leader–member exchange
as a mediator. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 49(8): 1‐8.
Wang, Z., Xu, S., Sun, Y., & Liu, Y. 2019. Transformational leadership and employee voice: An affective perspec-
tive. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 13: 1‐14.
Weiss, M., & Morrison, E. W. 2019. Speaking up and moving up: How voice can enhance employees’ social status.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40: 5‐19.
Weiss, M., & Zacher, H. 2022. Why and when does voice lead to increased job engagement? The role of perceived
voice appreciation and emotional stability. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 132: 103662.
Welsh, D. T., Outlaw, R., Newton, D. W., & Baer, M. in press. The social aftershocks of voice: An investigation of
employees’ affective and interpersonal reactions after speaking up. Academy of Management Journal.
Whiting, S. W., Maynes, T. D., Podsakoff, N. P., & Podsakoff, P. M. 2012. Effects of message, source, and context on
evaluations of employee voice behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97: 159‐182.
Wijaya, N. H. S. 2019. Proactive personality, LMX, and voice behavior: Employee-supervisor sex (Dis) similarity as
a moderator. Management Communication Quarterly, 33: 86‐100.
Wu, S., Kee, D., Li, D., & Ni, D. 2021. Thanks for your recognition, boss! A study of how and when voice endorse-
ment promotes job performance and voice. Frontiers in Psychology, 12: 706501.
Wu, T. Y., Liu, Y. F., Hua, C. Y., Lo, H. C., & Yeh, Y. J. 2020. Too unsafe to voice? Authoritarian leadership and
employee voice in Chinese organizations. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 58: 527‐554.
Xu, A. J., Loi, R., & Cai, Z. 2021. Not threats, but resources: An investigation of how leaders react to employee con-
structive voice. British Journal of Management.
Xu, E., Huang, X., Ouyang, K., Liu, W., & Hu, S. 2020. Tactics of speaking up: The roles of issue importance, per-
ceived managerial openness, and managers’ positive mood. Human Resource Management, 59: 255‐269.
Yan, P. 2018. Supervisor–subordinate guanxi and employee voice behavior: Trust in supervisor as a mediator. Social
Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 46: 1169‐1178.
Yang, J., Lee, H. W., Zheng, X., & Johnson, R. E. 2021. What does it take for voice opportunity to lead to creative
performance? Supervisor listening as a boundary condition. Journal of Business and Psychology, 36: 1137‐
1150.
Yao, Z., Zhang, X., Liu, Z., Zhang, L., & Luo, J. 2019. Narcissistic leadership and voice behavior: The role of job
stress, traditionality, and trust in leaders. Chinese Management Studies, 14: 543‐563.
Yuan, C., Wang, Y., Huang, W., & Zhu, Y. 2019. Can coaching leadership encourage subordinates to speak up? Dual
perspective of cognition-affection. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 40: 485‐498.
Zhang, G., & Inness, M. 2019. Transformational leadership and employee voice: A model of proactive motivation.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 40: 777‐790.
Zhang, J., Akhtar, M. N., Zhang, Y., & Rofcanin, Y. 2019. High-commitment work systems and employee voice:
A multilevel and serial mediation approach inside the black box. Employee Relations, 41: 811‐827.
Zhang, L., Lou, M., & Guan, H. 2022. How and when perceived leader narcissism impacts employee voice behavior:
A social exchange perspective. Journal of Management & Organization, 28: 77‐98.
Zhang, Y., Huai, M. Y., & Xie, Y. H. 2015. Paternalistic leadership and employee voice in China: A dual process
model. Leadership Quarterly, 26: 25‐36.
Zheng, Y., Graham, L., Farh, J. L., & Huang, X. 2021. The impact of authoritarian leadership on ethical voice: A mod-
erated mediation model of felt uncertainty and leader benevolence. Journal of Business Ethics, 170: 133‐146.
Zhou, X., Liao, J. Q., Liu, Y., & Liao, S. 2017. Leader impression management and employee voice behavior: Trust
and suspicion as mediators. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 45: 1843‐1854.
Zhou, X., Wu, Z., Liang, D., Jia, R., Wang, M., Chen, C., & Lu, G. 2021. Nurses’ voice behaviour: The influence of
humble leadership, affective commitment and job embeddedness in China. Journal of Nursing Management, 29:
1603‐1612.
Zhu, W., He, H., Treviño, L. K., Chao, M. M., & Wang, W. 2015. Ethical leadership and follower voice and perfor-
mance: The role of follower identifications and entity morality beliefs. Leadership Quarterly, 26: 702‐718.

Kim Et Al 2022 Employee Constructive Voice An Integrative Review and A Dyadic Approach

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kim Et Al 2022 Employee Constructive Voice An Integrative Review and A Dyadic Approach

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Management

Vol. 49 No. 1, January 2023 430–473

Employee Constructive Voice: An Integrative

Keywords: constructive voice; managerial endorsement; implementation; relational

Constructive voice refers to employees’ upward communication of ideas or suggestions

A Dyadic Model of Constructive Voice Based on Social Exchange Theory

Felt Voice Phase

Expressed Voice Phase

Managerial Responses to Voice Phase

implementing their suggestions is potentially higher. As a result, managers would be more

Relational Voice Outcome Phase

Scope of the Review

Mapping Past Research Onto A Dyadic Model of Constructive Voice

Predictors of Employee Voice (Path A in Figure 1)

Articles Focal Construct Summary

Schmitt et al. (2016); Svendsen

Predictors of Managerial Responses to Voice (Path B in Figure 1)

important predictor of endorsement and/or implementation because voice from credible

Articles Focal Construct Summary

McClean et al. (2022);

Feedback Loops (Path C in Figure 1)

Articles Focal Construct/Process Summary

Voicers S. Wu et al. Managerial endorsement → Higher levels Managerial endorsement is positively

Relational Outcomes of Employee Voice (Path D in Figure 1)

Articles Focal Construct Summary

Summary of Prior Research

Directions for Future Research

The Dyadic Nature of Constructive Voice

The Dynamic Nature of Constructive Voice

Extending the Dyadic Model to Organizational Level

You might also like