Mixed Messages: Why managers (do not) endorse employee voice

Abstract

We develop and test a theory of how managerial endorsement is influenced by how employees voice their ideas – whether they engage in promotive voice, prohibitive voice, or a mix of these two types together. Drawing on research on cognitive fluency resulting from consistency in information, we argue and show that managers are less likely to endorse voice that mixes both promotive and prohibitive elements within the same instance of speaking up, compared to voice that is uniformly promotive or prohibitive. Extending these arguments about cognitive fluency, we further show that endorsement is contingent on whether each uniform type is consistent with managerial regulatory focus. Our findings, based on five studies – a survey study of managers from a wide range of organizations, a field study in a hospital, and three experiments – enrich our theoretical understanding of the cognitive paths through which the type(s) of voice, and whether voice mixes these types, shapes which ideas are endorsed for implementation. They also reveal important implications for managers about why they may systematically gravitate toward (and miss out on) certain ideas when they evaluate employee voice, and for employees about the tactical choices they should use in voicing ideas to their managers.