Implicit Voice Theories: Taken-for-granted Rules of Self-censorship at Work

J. R. Detert; Amy C. Edmondson

Article | Academy of Management Journal | June 2011

Implicit Voice Theories: Taken-for-granted Rules of Self-censorship at Work

Abstract

This article examines, in a series of four studies, the nature and impact of implicit voice theories-largely taken-for-granted beliefs about when and why speaking up at work is risky or inappropriate. In Study 1, qualitative data from 190 interviews conducted in a knowledge-intensive multinational corporation suggest that reluctance to speak up, even with pro-organizational suggestions, is driven by specific implicit theories about speaking up in hierarchies. Study 2 uses open-ended survey responses, with data from 185 working adults, to examine the generalizability of the implicit voice theories identified in Study 1. Studies 3 and 4 develop and test survey measures for five implicit voice theories, using additional samples comprised of more than 300 adults. The analyses establish psychometric properties of the new measures, including showing their discriminant validity from voice-related individual and organizational factors and their incremental predictive validity on workplace silence. Collectively, the results from the four studies indicate the prevalence of implicit voice theories and suggest that they are an important addition to extant explanations of workplace silence. We discuss implications of these results for theory and practice and suggest directions for future research.

Keywords: Spoken Communication; Interpersonal Communication; Employees; Managerial Roles; Organizational Culture; Risk and Uncertainty; Behavior;

Format: Print

28 pages

Find at Harvard Purchase

Citation:

Detert, J. R., and Amy C. Edmondson. "Implicit Voice Theories: Taken-for-granted Rules of Self-censorship at Work." Academy of Management Journal 54, no. 3 (June 2011): 461–488.

Case | HBS Case Collection | September 2019

Teaming Up To Win The Rail Deal At GE (A)

Amy Edmondson, Ranjay Gulati and Rachna Tahilyani

In 2012, Nalin Jain, then head of GE aviation for South Asia, was given the added responsibility for GE’s transportation business in India, including bidding for a $2.5 billion contract to manufacture, service and maintain 1,000 diesel locomotives for state owned Indian Railways (IR). The deal, which would have been “the largest deal on the planet” for the transportation business, had been under discussion for six years, and many within GE had given up hope that it would materialize, but Jain persisted. In February 2015, when IR requested companies to submit a financial bid in six months, Jain quickly built an autonomous team, sequestered from the rest of GE, with people from multiple businesses and functions. His team overcame internal resistance from people at headquarters and stiff competition to help GE win the deal by a narrow margin. Jain was then tasked with executing the deal. As many of his earlier team members had moved on, Jain hired new people and built a new diverse yet integrated team for execution, with members able to put aside their many differences, look beyond their functional silos, and focus on the project deliverables. However, 2017 brought a series of challenges. GE changed India’s organization structure, making India business leaders report only to their respective global business leaders instead of reporting to both their business leaders and the India country leader. Jain’s mandate was expanded to include the entire international operations of GE’s transportation business. And, sub-optimal company performance forced GE to announce cost cuts of $2 billion. In the face of this turmoil, Jain wonders, “Have I created an agile team that can succeed in GE’s matrix environment and deal with the internal challenges? Do the team members have the maturity and motivation required for the project to succeed?”

Keywords: Recruitment; Selection and Staffing; Human Capital; Leadership Style; Leading Change; Organizational Design; Organizational Structure; Industrial Products Industry; Manufacturing Industry; Rail Industry; Transportation Industry; United States; India;

Citation:

Edmondson, Amy, Ranjay Gulati, and Rachna Tahilyani. "Teaming Up To Win The Rail Deal At GE (A)." Harvard Business School Case 420-058, September 2019. View Details

Cite View Details Educators

Today the most promising innovation and business opportunities require collaboration among functions, offices, and organizations. To realize them, companies must break down silos and get people working together across boundaries. But that’s a challenge for many leaders. Employees naturally default to focusing on vertical relationships, and formal restructuring is costly, confusing, and slow. What, then, is the solution? Engaging in four activities that promote horizontal teamwork: (1) developing cultural brokers or employees who excel at connecting across divides; (2) encouraging people to ask questions in an open-ended, unbiased way that genuinely explores others’ thinking; (3) getting people to actively take other points of view; and (4) broadening employees’ vision to include more-distant networks. By supporting these activities, leaders can help employees connect with new pools of expertise and learn from and relate to people who think very differently from them. And when that happens, interface collaboration will become second nature.

Faculty & Research

Implicit Voice Theories: Taken-for-granted Rules of Self-censorship at Work

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author