Employee voice is conceptualized as the discretionary verbal communication of ideas, suggestions, or opinions with the intent to improve organizational and unit functioning
(Morrison, Wheeler-Smith, & Kamdar, 2010). A number of scholars have argued that voice can aid in the early detection of problems and opportunities (Nemeth, 1997), facilitate successful team learning (Edmondson, 1999), and lead to better organizational decision making (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Van Dyne and LePine (1998, p. 109) defined voice as
“promotive behavior that emphasizes expression of constructive challenge intended to improve rather than merely criticize.” In a review and analysis of the employee voice
literature, Van Dyne et al. (2003) proposed that employee voice included both the speaking up for suggestions as well as concerns. In keeping with Van Dyne et al.’s (2003) seminal
conceptualizations of voice, Liang et al. (2012) extended this approach by specifying a more complete set of employee voice that comprised both promotive and prohibitive voice. The former has been defined as employees’ expression of novel ideas, information, and
suggestions for improving the overall functioning of the work unit or organization (Liang et al., 2012). The latter has been conceptualized as employees’ expression of concern about work practices, incidents, or employee behavior that is harmful to the work unit or organization (Liang et al., 2012). In line with this body of research, this study follows Liang et al.’s (2012) taxonomy and definition of voice.
According to Organ, Podsakoff, and MacKenzie (2006), employee voice is an
important aspect of extra-role behavior (i.e., those positive and discretionary behaviors that are not required by the organization but that are necessary to facilitate effective organizational functioning). However, unlike other forms of extra-role behaviors, voice involves inherently challenging and upsetting the organizational or unit status quo and power holders; as a result, may carry some potential benefits and risks to the actor (Detert & Burris, 2007). Because of the potential benefits and risks associated with voice, employees may see the potential costs as outweighing the perceived benefits before speaking up. As Liang et al. (2012) argued, voice is an intentional “planned” behavior occurring in an interpersonal context. Importantly, leader behavior is a significant predictor of this voice calculus (Detert & Burris, 2007;
Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009). Therefore, I predict a positive relationship between authentic leadership and employee voice that includes both promotive and prohibitive voice.
Consistent with previous works on authentic leadership (e.g, Avolio et al., 2004;
Gardner et al., 2005), I draw on social learning theory (Bandura, 1977, 1986) to clarify the relationship between authentic leadership and employee voice. Social learning theory
suggests that when there are credible and attractive role models in the workplace, employees will pay attention to and strive to emulate their behaviors. In addition to direct observation, employees are also influenced by their supervisors through vicarious experience. That is, employees may learn what is expected of them and how to behave appropriately by observing others (Bandura, 1977, 1986). Therefore, within the context of authenticity, if team leaders consistently exhibit behaviors based on their internalized values, members would likely
emulate such behaviors through direct or vicarious experiences (Gardner et al., 2005). As such, the process of social learning reflects a significant mechanism through which authentic
leaders can develop and influence their followers. I thus argue that when leaders speak their true ideas and concerns, behave in an authentic manner, and communicate the importance of voice, members will more likely to mimic authentic leaders’ behaviors, and thereby speaking
up. For example, authentic leaders speak their thoughts in an open and transparent manner and create a fair and open work environment, and this is conducive to members being more willing to engage in voice. Likewise, authentic leaders objectively consider and analyze all relevant information before making decisions, and this action may encourage their followers to share their thoughts and opinions. In keeping with this logic, Hsiung (2011) studied 404 salespersons from a large real estate agent in Taiwan and found that authentic leadership was positively related to employee voice.
Moreover, the link between authentic leadership and employee voice is also consistent with social-information processing literature, which specifies how individuals are influenced by the cognitions and attitudes of others in their social environment (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Employees who work in the same environment will be exposed to similar cues from that environment. These cues may provide unit members with information to interpret events, to develop appropriate behaviors. Given leaders’ position in the power hierarchy within work unit, supervisors are often viewed as one important sources of information for effective work unit members’ behaviors (Walumbwa et al., 2011). As discussed earlier, because voice
involves potential benefits and risks, leadership behavior as a contextual variable might be an important source of this voice calculus. Employees thus turn to their supervisors to “read the wind” (Dutton, Ashford, O’Neill, Hayes, & Wierba, 1997) and determine how favorable it is for them to initiate this important discretionary action. When authentic leaders exhibit a pattern of consistency between their values, beliefs, and actions and express their true thoughts and feelings, members will tend to behave in a fairly homogenous manner in terms of speaking up their ideas and concerns by observing cues from their supervisors. Based on these theoretical arguments, it is reasonable to argue that authentic leadership would promote employee voice (i.e, promotive and prohibitive voice). Accordingly, I propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2. Authentic leadership is positively related to follower voice.