Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T00:12:46.472Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Implicit Voice Delivery: Its Antecedents, Consequences, and Boundary Conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2021

Run Ren Open the ORCID record for Run Ren [Opens in a new window] ,
Li Ma ,
(George) Zhen Xiong Chen ,
Hui Wang  and
Dong Ju
Run Ren
Affiliation:
Peking University, China
Li Ma*
Affiliation:
Peking University, China
(George) Zhen Xiong Chen
Affiliation:
Australian National University, Australia
Hui Wang
Affiliation:
Peking University, China
Dong Ju
Affiliation:
Beijing Normal University, China
*
Corresponding author: Dong Ju (dongju@bnu.edu.cn)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although many organizations encourage employees to voice, employees may be reluctant to voice directly because they are afraid that their supervisors will perceive it as challenging their face (i.e., the positive image or social value of an individual). Alternatively, employees could deliver improvements or express concerns to their supervisors using indirect and implicit approaches, which we refer to as ‘implicit voice delivery’. Applying face theory, we examine the antecedents and outcomes as well as two boundary conditions of implicit voice delivery in organizations with two studies. In Study 1, we define the construct and develop a measure of implicit voice delivery. In Study 2, we test our proposed model with supervisor-subordinate dyadic data from a time-lagged survey. Results demonstrate that concern for other people's face drives employees to express their voices implicitly and that this relationship is stronger when supervisors’ concern for their own face is high rather than low. In addition, implicit voice delivery is associated with supervisors’ favorable response in terms of voice endorsement. Furthermore, the effect on voice endorsement is stronger when the supervisor is more able to infer meaning from implicit messages. Theoretical contribution and managerial implications are discussed.

摘要

虽然很多组织都鼓励员工建言，但是员工往往会因为怕伤害领导的面子（即：个体的正面形象或社会价值）不愿意直白建言，而更可能用间接和隐晦的方式向领导提出对工作的担忧或者改进意见。我们称之为为“含蓄式建言”。基于面子理论，我们用两个研究来探寻含蓄式建言的前因、后果及两种边界条件。在第一个研究中，我们定义并开发了含蓄式建言的量表。在第二个研究中，我们用领导-下属配对的时间滞差式问卷法检验了我们的上述基本假设。结果表明，员工对领导面子的顾虑使他们更多地采用含蓄式建言方式，并且这种做法在领导者更在意自己面子的时候得到强化。此外, 领导更愿意采纳含蓄式建言，而且当领导有较好的语义推断能力时，他们采纳含蓄建言的可能性更高。最后，文章讨论了研究结果的理论贡献与实践意义。

Keywords

ability to infer meaningface concernimplicit voice deliveryvoice endorsement面子顾虑含蓄式建言语义推断力建言采纳
Type
Article
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , February 2022 , pp. 43 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The International Association for Chinese Management Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

ACCEPTED BY Senior Editor Wu Liu

The data are available at <https://osf.io/thpz9/>.

References

REFERENCES

Adair, W. L., Buchan, N., & Chen, X. P. 2016. ICEdge scale development and psychometric properties. University of Washington, working paper.Google Scholar
Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Chovil, N., & Mullett, J. 1990. Equivocal communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Berlo, D. K. 1960. The process of communication: An introduction to theory and practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Bolino, M. C., & Grant, A. M. 2016. The bright side of being prosocial at work, and the dark side, too: A review and agenda for research on other-oriented motives, behavior, and impact in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1): 599–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brett, J. M., Olekalns, M., Friedman, R., Goates, N., Anderson, C., & Lisco, C. C. 2007. Sticks and stones: Language, face, and online dispute resolution. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1): 85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brew, F. P., & Cairns, D. R. 2004. Do culture or situational constraints determine choice of direct or indirect styles in intercultural workplace conflicts? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28(5): 331–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brislin, R. W. 1980. Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In Triandis, H. C. & Berry, J. W. (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2): 389–444. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.Google Scholar
Brooks, S. 2017. How does perceived formality shape unheard challenging voices? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(5): 995–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. 2002. Hierarchical linear modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Burris, E. R. 2012. The risks and rewards of speaking up: Managerial responses to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4): 851–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. 2007. Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4): 869–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. 2011. Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted rules of self-censorship at work. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3): 461–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Detert, J. R., & Trevino, L. K. 2010. Speaking up to higher ups: How supervisor and skip-level leaders influence employee voice. Organization Science, 21(1): 241–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ding, D. D. 2006. An indirect style in business communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 20(1): 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., O'Neill, R. M., Hayes, E., & Wierba, E. E. 1997. Reading the wind: How middle managers assess the context for selling issues to top managers. Strategic Management Journal, 18(5): 407–425.3.0.CO;2-J>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiol, C. M., Pratt, M. G., & O'Connor, E. J. 2009. Managing intractable identity conflicts. Academy of Management Review, 34(1): 32–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, M. C., & Goodman, N. D. 2014. Inferring word meanings by assuming that speakers are informative. Cognitive Psychology, 75: 80–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gao, G. 1998. ‘Don't take my word for it’: Understanding Chinese speaking practices. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(2): 163–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. 1955. On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements of social interaction. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 18(3): 213–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Gudykunst, W. B. 2001. Asian American ethnicity and communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Gudykunst, W. B., Ting-Toomey, S., & Chua, E. 1988. Culture and interpersonal communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Hinkin, T. R. 1998. A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1): 104–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. 1998. Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24(5): 623–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holden, R. R., & Jackson, D. N. 1979. Item subtlety and face validity in personality assessment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47(3): 459–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holtgraves, T. 1997. Styles of language use: Individual and cultural variability in conversational indirectness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3): 624–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, P. J., Medina, P. L., & Howard, J. M. 1996. The big five locator: A quick assessment tool for consultants and trainers. In Pferffer, J. W. (Ed.), The 1996 annual : Vol. 1: Training: 119–122. San Diego: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
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(5): 642–658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. 1998. Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6): 853–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, N., Liang, J., & Crant, J. M. 2010. The role of proactive personality in job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior: A relational perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2): 395–404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liang, J., Farh, C. I. C., & Farh, J. 2012. Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1): 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, M. R., & Huberman, A. M. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Milliken, F. J., & Morrison, E. W. 2003. Shades of silence: Emerging themes and future directions for research on silence in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6): 1563–1568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, E. W. 2006. Doing the job well: An investigation of prosocial rule breaking. Journal of Management, 32(1): 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, E. W. 2011. Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1): 373–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mouton, D. G., 2020. Do indirect requests communicate politeness? An experimental study of conventionalized indirect requests in French email communication. Journal of Politeness Research, 16(1): 111–142.Google Scholar
Nunnally, J. C. 1978. Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Park, Y. S., & Kim, B. S. K. 2008. Asian and European American cultural values and communication styles among Asian American and European American college students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14(1): 47–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. 1986. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, (vol. 19): 123–205. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. 2006. Computational tools for probing interaction effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31(4): 437–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salamon, S. D., & Deutsch, Y. 2006. OCB as a handicap: An evolutionary psychological perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(2): 185–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. 2001. What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology, 54(4): 845–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sypher, B. D., & Zorn, T. E. 1988. Individual differences and construct system content in descriptions of liked and disliked co-workers. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 1(1): 37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ting-Toomey, S. 1988. Intercultural conflicts: A face-negotiation theory. In Kim, Y. & Gudykunst, W. (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication: 213–235. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. 1998. Face work competence in intercultural conflict: An updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(2): 187–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. G. 2001. Managing intercultural conflict effectively. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Ting-Toomey, S., Gao, G., Trubisky, P., Yang, Z., Kim, H. S., Lin, S-L., & Nishida, T. 1991. Culture, face maintenance, and styles of handling interpersonal conflict: A study in five cultures. International Journal of Conflict Management, 2(4): 275–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Glinow, M. A., Shapiro, D. L., & Brett, J. M. 2004. Can we talk, and should we? Managing emotional conflict in multicultural teams. Academy of Management Review, 29(4): 578–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, A. K., Ravlin, E. C., Klaas, B. S., Ployhart, R. E., & Buchan, N. R. 2016. When do high-context communicators speak up? Exploring contextual communication orientation and employee voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(10): 1498–1511.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, J. B., Tynan, R., Galinsky, A. D., & Thompson, L. 2004. Face threat sensitivity in negotiation: Roadblock to agreement and joint gain. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 94(2): 102–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Pierce, J. R. 2008. Effects of task performance, helping, voice, and organizational loyalty on performance appraisal ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1): 125–139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wiener, M., & Mehrabian, A. 1968. Language within language: Immediacy, a channel in verbal communication. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts.Google Scholar
Xu, E., Huang, X., Ouyang, K., Liu, W., & Hu, S. 2020. Tactics of speaking up: The roles of issue importance, perceived managerial openness, and managers' positive mood. Human Resource Management, 59(3): 255–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar