Cited by 100Job Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorLabor Movements and UnionsManagement and Organizational Studies

Keeping it between us: Managerial endorsement of public versus private voice.

Open access
Isaakyan, Sofya, Sherf, Elad N., Tangirala, Subrahmaniam, Guenter, Hannes·2021·Journal of Applied Psychology

Abstract

-the expression of work ideas or concerns, they can spur useful discussions, action planning, and problem solving. However, we make the case that managers, whose support is essential for voice to have a functional impact, are averse to publicly expressed voice and prefer acting on voice that is privately brought up to them in one-on-one settings. Drawing on face management theory (Goffman, 1967), we argue that voice expressed in front of an audience, compared with that expressed one-on-one, is more threatening to the image that managers seek to portray as competent and unerring leaders, and that leads managers to respond more defensively to public voice and endorse it less. This, we propose, is especially true when the relationship quality between manager and employee is weak as public voice from relationally distant employees is perceived as a stronger challenge. Across five studies (correlational and experimental), we find support for our arguments and rule out alternative explanations such as that managers are aversive to public voice because it threatens their ego or that managers feel more accountable to act on publicly provided input. We discuss the implications of our findings for theory and practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/apl0000816

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 61 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Isaakyan, S., Sherf, E. N., Tangirala, S., & Guenter, H.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Isaakyan, Sofya
Venue
Journal of Applied Psychology
Published
2021-07
Volume
106
Issue
7
Pages
1049-1066
ISSN
  • 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1854
OpenAlex
W3044362658
Cited by
100
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 6
FWCI
9.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Journal of Applied Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
American Psychological Association
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Labor Movements and Unions
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
Keywords
employee voice, workplace communication, leader image, one-to-one communication
MeSH terms
Humans, Problem Solving

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review