4.7 Review

Employee Constructive Voice: An Integrative Review and a Dyadic Approach

Journal

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT
Volume 49, Issue 1, Pages 430-473

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/01492063221108654

Keywords

constructive voice; managerial endorsement; implementation; relational mutuality; dyad

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study introduces a four-phase dyadic model of constructive voice based on social exchange theory, providing a comprehensive understanding of constructive voice. The model describes the dynamic nature of the initiation, response, and ongoing exchange process between employees and managers, and explains the impact of repeated exchanges on relational outcomes.
Constructive voice is a type of communicative act involving both voicers and managers. However, research on constructive voice has developed in two separate streams, with studies adopting either a voicer- or a manager-centric perspective, thereby failing to provide a holistic understanding of constructive voice. This unilateral approach results in missed opportunities for scholars to understand the dyadic and dynamic nature of constructive voice. To address this limitation, we draw on social exchange theory to introduce a four-phase (felt voice, expressed voice, managerial responses to voice, and relational voice outcomes) dyadic model of constructive voice. By conceptualizing constructive voice as a dyadic exchange between voicers and managers, we detail the ongoing processes in which employees initiate voice and managers subsequently endorse and/or implement voicers' input. We also introduce feedback loops to highlight the dynamic nature of constructive voice over time and explain the consequences of repeated constructive-voice exchange processes on relational outcomes. Finally, we review the literature, summarize gaps and opportunities, and provide directions for future research.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available