Cited by 440Job Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorLabor Movements and UnionsLeadership and Management in Organizations

Managing to Stay in the Dark: Managerial Self-Efficacy, Ego Defensiveness, and the Aversion to Employee Voice

Fast, Nathanael J., Burris, Ethan R., Bartel, Caroline A.·2014·Academy of Management Journal

Abstract

Soliciting and incorporating employee voice is essential to organizational performance, yet some managers display a strong aversion to improvement-oriented input from subordinates. To help to explain this maladaptive tendency, we tested the hypothesis that managers with low managerial self-efficacy (that is, low perceived ability to meet the elevated competence expectations associated with managerial roles) seek to minimize voice as a way of compensating for a threatened ego. The results of two studies support this idea. In a field study (Study 1), managers with low managerial self-efficacy were less likely than others to solicit input, leading to lower levels of employee voice. A follow-up experimental study (Study 2) showed that: (a) manipulating low managerial self-efficacy led to voice aversion (that is, decreased voice solicitation, negative evaluations of an employee who spoke up, and reduced implementation of voice); and (b) the observed voice aversion associated with low managerial self-efficacy was driven by ego defensiveness. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings, as well as highlight directions for future research on voice, management, and leadership.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5465/amj.2012.0393

Cites

104 of 104 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Prohibitive voice is more likely to be interpreted as personal criticism or blame, often provoking defensiveness or discomfort in recipients, particularly when it challenges the status quo or implicates leaders' decisions.

    “Because of its critical and risk-oriented nature, prohibitive voice is more likely to be interpreted as personal criticism or blame, often provoking defensiveness or discomfort in recipients—particularly when it challenges the status quo or implicates leaders’ decisions9–12.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fast, N. J., Burris, E. R., & Bartel, C. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Venue
Academy of Management Journal
Published
2014-08
Volume
57
Issue
4
Pages
1013-1034
ISSN
  • 0001-4273 (ISSN-L)
  • 1948-0989
OpenAlex
W2103492954
Cited by
440
References
104
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 58 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 53 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 5
FWCI
22.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Academy of Management Journal (publishedVersion)
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 › Strategy and Management › Leadership and Management in Organizations
Keywords
employee voice, manager-employee relations, leadership, organizational performance, competence expectations

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