We develop and test a holistic model of how team members' swift judgments about a prospective team member impact their selection decisions and how accurate those judgments are in predicting the prospective member's performance. Applying the social psychology literature on person perception to the organizational literature on team member selection, we argue that team members' perceptions of the prospective member's competence primarily shape their predictions about the prospective member's task-related performance in the team, whereas perceptions of warmth primarily shape predictions about the prospective member's interpersonal contextual performance in the team. We further propose that, although team members rely on both performance predictions when choosing a prospective member, predicted task-related performance receives more weight than predicted interpersonal contextual performance, and that the importance of predicted interpersonal contextual performance is elevated when team task interdependence is high. Importantly, we theorize that the predictions about task-related performance show good accuracy, whereas the predictions about interpersonal contextual performance do not, which makes the reliance on the latter erroneous. Across two studies utilizing prospective members' actual task-related and interpersonal contextual performance (objective and peer-rated), as well as team members' predictions about such performances, we found support for our predictions. Our research resolves several outstanding puzzles in the literature on person perception, integrates it into organizational research, and offers novel and actionable insights for selecting prospective team members.

People emerge as leaders both because they claim leadership and because others grant them leadership (DeRue & Ashford, 2010). Although this line of research has been transformative, an established measure and empirical investigation of this process is currently lacking. To illustrate, past work operationalized leadership claiming and granting through other constructs, such as participation and influence. The current symposium seeks to present emerging research examining the empirical process of leadership claiming and granting at various levels of analyses (i.e., dyadic, individual, and team). Willingness to Claim the Lead and to Grant the Lead – A New Scale, Its Antecedents and Outcomes Presenter: Steffen R. Giessner; Erasmus U. Rotterdam Presenter: Bjorn Atterstam; - Presenter: Sofya Isaakyan; Erasmus U. Rotterdam Presenter: Gabriele Jacobs; Erasmus U. Rotterdam Configurations of Leadership Identity Claiming and Granting: Development of a Dyadic-Level Measure Presenter: Manuel J. Vaulont; Hong Kong U. of Science and Technology Presenter: Jennifer Nahrgang; U. of Iowa Leader Obstructive Proactivity: When Leadership Claiming Fails Presenter: Joohyung Kim; Arizona State U. Presenter: Soohyun Yoon; Arizona State U. Presenter: Jeffery LePine; Arizona State U. Presenter: Wu Wei; Wuhan U. Presenter: Danni Wang; Rutgers Business School Implicit Theories about Leadership and Team Leadership Claiming and Granting Presenter: Yi Huang; Nanyang Technological U. Presenter: Krishna Savani; Department of Management and Marketing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic U.

Scholars continue to debate whether voice and silence are opposites or distinct constructs. This ambiguity has prevented meaningful theoretical advancements about employees' voice and silence at work. We draw on the behavioral activation and behavioral inhibition systems perspective to provide a conceptual framework for the independence of voice and silence and explicate how two key antecedents-perceived impact and psychological safety-more strongly relate to voice and silence, respectively. We further differentiate voice and silence by identifying their distinct effects on employee burnout. In Study 1, a meta-analysis, we demonstrate that voice and silence are independent (M-rho = 2.15) and that perceived impact (psychological safety) relates more strongly to voice (silence) than to silence (voice). We also find that silence has a significantly stronger association with burnout compared to voice. In Study 2, we constructively replicate these findings in an interval-contingent panel study across six months. Taken together, this article helps shift the conversation of whether voice and silence are distinct constructs to how they differ and why such differences matter.

The benefits of voice for both individuals and organizations have been widely studied. However, research on the relational context of voice has focused on leader and follower interactions while other relationships and their influence on voice have received limited attention. And yet, we know that other relational contexts, such as the team environment, peer relationships, and family members, also likely play an influential role on whether or not voice is expressed, heard, and implemented. To build understanding about these overlooked relational contexts of voice, we have organized this symposium, which considers five papers that offer new perspectives about how the relational context of voice influences voice and its outcomes. In doing so, we hope this symposium illuminates new perspectives about employee voice and its outcomes.

When employees use public settings such as team meetings to engage in voice-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).

Leaders offer the game-changing competitive advantage for organizations via providing multiple positive flow-on effects that improve performance and organizational culture (Day & Dragoni, 2015; Sal...

This presenter symposium brings together several papers that examine what happens after employees engage in voice behaviors, detailing the actions and reactions of employees and managers to voice events. These presentations address: the distinction between voice and silence and what happens when employees feel they must remain silent; how having someone speak up on your behalf increases manager perceptions of prosocial motivation and value of voice; manager perceptions of voice legitimacy based on the speaker’s gender, the content, and the method of delivery; how managers engage in voice justice and thereby shape employee reactions to voice (non)endorsement; and how managers interpret changes in voice over time. The symposium contributes to the voice literature by highlighting the role that attributions of employee voice have in determining manager reactions to voice and the role that such reactions play in driving future employee voice behaviors. Voice and Silence at Work: Unique Relationships with Psychological Safety, Impact, and Burnout Presenter: Elad Netanel Sherf; Kenan-Flagler Business School, U. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Presenter: Michael Parke; London Business School Presenter: Sofya Isaakyan; Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus U. Don’t Shoot the Messenger: Manager Reactions to Voice from Advocates Presenter: Taeya Howell; Brigham Young U. Presenter: Ethan Burris; The U. of Texas at Austin Voice Legitimacy: How Ideas for Change Become Legitimate Issues Presenter: Elizabeth McClean; U. of Arizona Presenter: Sijun Kim; U. of Arizona Presenter: Tomas M. Martinez; U. of Arizona Voice Justice: The Importance of Fair Process when Endorsing Voice (or Not) Presenter: Stephen Lee; U. of Washington, Seattle Presenter: Crystal I Chien Farh; U. of Washington Presenter: Szu-Han Lin; U. of Massachusetts, Amherst Presenter: Stephanie Myunghee Lee; Baylor U. The Benefits of Speaking Up More Versus Less Over Time: Consequences of Voice Trajectories Presenter: Chak Fu Lam; City U. of Hong Kong Presenter: Laura L. Rees; Queen's U. Presenter: Qiying Du; City U. of Hong Kong

Employee voice, or the upward expression of work-related ideas, suggestions, or concerns is crucial for effective organizational functioning. However, because voice challenges the status quo, for which managers often feel responsible, voice is often associated with lack of loyalty, while employee silence is seen as a manifestation of loyalty. We challenge this perspective by proposing that employees may display loyalty by voicing privately (i.e., when no one else is present besides the manager) versus publicly (i.e., when other people are present besides the manager). We argue that employees’ implicit public voice theories (i.e., taken-for-granted beliefs that public voice is inappropriate) explain when employees are more likely to voice in private. Yet, we also argue that private voice is less effective, in comparison to public voice, in engendering managerial attention, and, as a result, employees who voice in private are less likely to initiate change. Utilizing multisource data from 110 manager-employee dyads, we find that employees’ implicit public voice theories are associated with less public voice, and, consequently, negatively with employees’ initiation of change. We further show that this indirect effect is mitigated by the work-group self-promotion climate–a shared belief that displaying behaviors signaling to others one’s competence is appreciated.