The importance of employee voice for organizational functioning and improvement makes understanding how to mitigate negative voice effects and maintain the voice process vital. This study explored the role explanations can play in assuaging negative effects following voice non-endorsement (lack of attention and resources allocated to the implementation of an idea). The current work is situated within a social exchange framework and uses the norm of reciprocity to demonstrate how reciprocal relationships can be altered yet maintained in the voice process. Explanation adequacy (specificity and sensitivity) is expected to influence voicer perceptions (efficacy and safety) and subsequent voice behavior. In addition, exploratory research examined the influence of locus of explanation attribution, absence of explanation, and monetary benefit exchange on voicer perceptions. To assess these hypotheses and research questions, 324 undergraduate students completed two questionnaires with a 3-5 day time lag between administrations. Analyses indicate voice safety is significantly predicted by explanation sensitivity and mediates the relation between sensitivity and subsequent voice, and voice efficacy and safety significantly predict presence and number of voice behaviors. Exploratory analyses indicate low resilience strengthens the relationship between sensitivity and safety, the absence of a response to voice has significant negative effects on efficacy, and efficacy offers significantly greater prediction of voice, as compared to safety.
Read
