Understanding the role of leadership in voice and silence behaviours

IntroductionVoice and silence remain a continuing source of interest and concern to researchers and human resource managers alike. In particular, there is the tricky issue of whether investments in voice mechanisms by... [ view full abstract ]

Introduction

Voice and silence remain a continuing source of interest and concern to researchers and human resource managers alike. In particular, there is the tricky issue of whether investments in voice mechanisms by organisations will lead to employees engaging in the types of voice behaviour that provides valuable insights and feedback to their employers on various facets of work, or whether they choose to remain silent on salient issues. Engagement in one or other type of behaviour can have either positive or deleterious consequences for both individuals and organisations.

Research Aims

This paper considers the role of empowering leadership in enhancing promotive voice and reducing silence behaviour, thus answering the call for more research on the contextual conditions that may influence the use of employer-sponsored voice practices (Knoll and Redman, 2016).  We consider whether employees’ perceptions of the existence of voice mechanisms encourage promotive voice behaviour and reduce acquiescent silence and whether these relationships are moderated by empowering leadership.  Promotive voice has been viewed as 'expressing work-related ideas, information or opinions based on cooperative motives. … this type of voice behaviour is intentional, proactive and other-oriented' (Van Dyne et al., 2003: 1371) and is of benefit to the organisation. Acquiescent silence 'represents those who are fundamentally disengaged' (Van Dyne et al, 2003: 1366) and, apart from the negative consequences of disengagement for the organisation, disengagement can be viewed as problematic for individuals through its association with alienation (Hirschfeld & Feild, 2000).   

The paper begins by considering the literatures on voice mechanisms, empowering leadership promotive voice and acquiescent silence. The methodology and findings are then described. The results suggest that the direct relationship between voice mechanisms and both voice and silence behaviour is moderated by empowering leadership.   

Voice Mechanisms and Employee Voice and Silence Behaviours

Employers may decide – for a variety of reasons - to invest in voice mechanisms such as suggestion schemes and information-sharing initiatives that are positioned outside traditional collective bargaining systems. However, there is some doubt as to the efficacy of such voice mechanisms as research suggests that employees may use these selectively. Thus they engage in promotive voice (Van Dyne et al., 2003) that aims to improve organisational performance, yet are silent on issues that have the potential to disrupt the smooth running of the organsisation (Donaghey et al., 2011). 

Studies have noted the importance of employee voice and communication mechanisms in ensuring that employees feel that they are well informed about what is going on within their organizations and that they are in a position to feed their views upward (Farndale et al., 2011). Voice mechanisms have been associated with positive outcomes because it is believed they provide employees with a sense of direction and control over demands in their work. Conversely, a lack of voice has been associated with psychological health problems because individuals feel that they have limited  control or ability to cope in stressful situations (Karasek & Theorell, 1990). 

Prosocial voice is 'expressing work-related ideas, information or opinions based on cooperative motives … this type of voice behaviour is intentional, proactive and other-oriented' (Van Dyne, 2003: 1371).  It includes ‘informal and discretionary communication by an employee of ideas, suggestions, concerns, information about problems, or opinions about work-related issues to persons who might be able to take appropriate action, with the intent to bring about improvement or change’ (Morrison, 2014: 174).

Employee silence is not just the absence of speech (i.e. where one has nothing to say) as individuals may actively withhold voice (Van Dyne et al., 2003). Thus, while employees can exercise power when silent, if silence is acquiescent they are silenced because they feel a sense of powerlessness. They feel resigned to their situation and do not exert effort to speak up (Van Dyne et al., 2003). Furthermore, it has been argued that when individuals feel they must remain silent about issues of concern, their need for control will be unmet and they will experience powerlessness (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). 

The Contextual Context of Voice and Silence: Empowering Leadership as a Moderator

One contextual factor that may impact on the employee’s decision to either engage in promotive voice or silence is a manager’s decision to either encourage a climate for voice or to shape a climate of silence (Donaghey et al., 2011). Empowering leadership is regarded as a leadership approach or style (Ahearne et al., 2005) whereby empowering leaders display the following four characteristics: they enhance the meaningfulness of work, they encourage participation in decision making, they express confidence in employees’ abilities, and they provide autonomy from unnecessary bureaucratic constraints. We adopt this multidimensional perspective and view empowerment as both a relational and a motivational construct where leaders share power with subordinates. 

Empowering leaders engage in worthwhile acts for the benefit of others and use power in a way which is  consistent with the principles of ethical leadership and integrity (Den Hartog and DeHoogh, 2009). Empowering leadership involves the delegation of authority and responsibility and the sharing of information with employees, which enables their input into decision-making and facilitates wider contributions in the organisation and has been associated with enabling individuals to reach their full potential (Hakimi et al., 2010). Studies have reported positive relationships between empowering leadership and job-related self-efficacy (e.g. Ahearne et al., 2005). 

Methodology

The study was undertaken in a large Government Department and involved an online survey of all employees  (n = 1955). A total of 1017 individuals responded (response rate = 52%) of whom 60% were female. The average age was 46 years (s.d. = 9.00) and the average tenure in the Department was 21 years (s.d. = 10.40

Findings

The results show that there is a positive relationship between the existence of voice mechanisms and promotive voice behaviours and a negative relationship between voice mechanisms and acquiescent silence. Moreover, empowering leadership moderated these relationships for both promotive voice and acquiescent silence behaviours. 

Discussion

The findings extend prior work on voice and silence in its exploration of the boundary condition of empowering leadership and in its attention to acquiescent silence.  

Practical Implications

The findings indicate that investment by employers in voice mechanisms may need to be supported by investment also in the training of managers in the techniques of empowering leadership in order to strengthen employees’ engagement in promotive voice behaviour and to reduce acquiescent silence. 

References

Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J. and Rapp, A. (2005). 'To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance'. Journal of Applied Psychology,  90(5): 945-955

Den Hartog, D. A. and De Hoogh, A. H. (2009). 'Empowering behaviour and leader fairness and integrity: Studying perceptions of ethical leader behaviour from a levels-of-analysis perspective'. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18(2): 199-230. 

Dietz, G., Wilkinson, A. and Redman, T. (2009). ‘Involvement and participation. In A. Wilkinson, N. Bacon, T. Redman and S. Snell (Eds). The Sage Handbook of Human Resource Management, London: Sage, pp. 245-268.

Donaghey, J., Cullinane, N., Dundon, T. and Wilkinson, A. (2011). Reconceptualising employee silence: Problems and prognosis’. Work, Employment and Society, 25: 51-67. 

Farndale, E., Van Ruiten, J., Kelliher, C. and Hope-Hailey, V. (2011).’Influence of perceived employee voice on organiational commitment: An exchange perspective’. Human Resource Management, 50(1): 113-129. 

Hakimin, N. and Van Knippenberg, D. (2010 ). Leader empowering behaviour: The leader's perspective'. British Journal of Management, 21(3): 71-76. 

Hirschfeld, R. and Feild, S. (2000) ‘Work centrality and work alienation: Distinct aspects of a general commitment to work.’ Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(7): 789-800.

Knoll, M and Redman, T. 2015. Does the presence of voice imply the absence of silence? The necessity to consider employees’ affective attachment and job engagement’. Human Resource Management, 55(5): 829-844. 

Morrison, E. (2014). ‘Employee voice and silence’. Annual Review of Organisational Psychology and Organisational Behaviour, 1: 173-197. 

Morrison, E. and Milliken, F. (2000). ‘Organisational Silence: Barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world’. Academy of Management Review, 25(4): 706-725. 

Van Dyne, L., Ang, S. and Botero, I. (2003). ‘Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs’. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6): 1359-1392.