Why inviting candour is not the same as protecting the people who challenge the status quo
Organisations increasingly tell employees to speak openly. Leaders ask for challenge, town halls invite difficult questions, continuous-improvement teams are encouraged to expose problems rather than sanitise them, and risk functions ask employees to escalate concerns before they become expensive failures. Managers are also increasingly trained to listen without becoming defensive. These are important developments because organisations cannot respond intelligently to problems they cannot see.
But consider what may happen after an employee does exactly what the organisation asked. They challenge an assumption, identify a failing process or explain why an apparently green dashboard may be masking something red underneath. Nobody silences them. Nobody openly punishes them. Their concern may even be accepted and acted upon. Yet months later, different language begins to appear in performance, talent or succession discussions: “not always constructive”, “can be difficult”, “needs to bring people with them”, or “not quite ready for broader leadership responsibility”.
Any one of those judgements may be entirely legitimate. None, by itself, proves retaliation, bias or unfair treatment. The deeper question is whether organisations can distinguish genuine evidence about behaviour and performance from the discomfort that sometimes accompanies difficult information. Psychological safety therefore raises an important but incomplete question. It asks whether people feel able to speak. It does not, by itself, tell us what happens to the speaker afterwards.
This edition examines that second question: what happens to people after they tell the organisation something it does not want to hear?
I use the term Candour Consequence Risk as a RewardEdge practitioner concept to describe the possibility that constructive challenge influences later judgements about an employee without the organisation sufficiently separating the content of the challenge from evidence about that employee’s actual performance, capability or behaviour. It is not an academically validated construct, and it does not imply that people who speak up should be protected from legitimate consequences. Its purpose is narrower: to ask whether organisations can reliably distinguish judging the message from judging the messenger.
RESEARCH AND VALIDATION APPROACH
This edition uses a focused narrative-review approach rather than presenting itself as a systematic review. The evidence base brings together research on psychological safety, constructive employee voice, promotive and prohibitive voice, managerial receptivity, reactions to bearers of negative information, performance evaluation, promotability, turnover and the longitudinal development of voice and silence.
The research does not support a universal claim that speaking up damages careers. The evidence is considerably more conditional. Some forms of voice are associated with favourable performance or promotability outcomes, while other forms — particularly those that challenge existing practices or highlight potential harm — can receive less favourable responses under certain conditions. The content of the message matters, but so do the characteristics of the recipient, the expertise of the speaker, the quality of the leader–employee relationship and the wider organisational context.
The RewardEdge framework developed later in this edition therefore does not attempt to predict whether speaking up will help or harm a particular employee. Its purpose is to help organisations examine whether legitimate challenge can leak into later performance and career judgements without a sufficiently clear evidential basis.
PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY IS ESSENTIAL — BUT IT IS NOT THE WHOLE SYSTEM
Psychological safety provides an essential starting point. Frazier and colleagues synthesised 136 independent samples representing more than 22,000 individuals and nearly 5,000 groups in their meta-analysis of psychological safety. Their work reinforces the importance of psychological safety across a broad range of workplace antecedents and outcomes. [1]
That foundation matters because people who expect humiliation, rejection or interpersonal punishment when they challenge an assumption have rational reasons to remain silent. However, psychological safety should not become a substitute for examining the later systems through which people are assessed. An employee may feel able to raise a concern in March and still wonder in December whether that same episode contributed to being characterised as “difficult” during calibration.
These are related but distinct organisational tests. The first asks whether the employee felt able to take the interpersonal risk of speaking. The second asks whether later performance, talent and career systems were capable of distinguishing legitimate challenge from evidence about behaviour, judgement or leadership readiness. An organisation may therefore perform relatively well on the first test while remaining weak on the second.
NOT ALL EMPLOYEE VOICE IS RECEIVED IN THE SAME WAY
One of the most important findings in the employee-voice literature is that voice is not a single, uniform behaviour. Burris examined managerial responses to supportive and challenging forms of employee voice through one field study and two experimental studies. Managers evaluated employees using more challenging forms of voice less favourably and endorsed their ideas less than employees using more supportive forms of voice, with perceptions relating to loyalty and threat helping to explain those differences. [2]
That result requires careful interpretation. It does not show that every employee who challenges management will be treated unfairly, nor does it imply that challenging voice is automatically valuable. It does show that the form and content of constructive voice can influence how managers respond both to the idea and to the person delivering it.
Chamberlin, Newton and LePine’s meta-analysis adds an important distinction between promotive voice, which focuses on ideas for future improvement, and prohibitive voice, which draws attention to problems, risks or practices that may need to stop. Their analysis found materially different relationships with job performance: promotive voice showed a positive association with performance, while prohibitive voice showed a negative association in the studies synthesised. [3]
The organisational significance is straightforward. It may be easier to appreciate an employee who says, “Here is an opportunity to make this better,” than an employee who says, “This existing practice is creating a risk.” Both statements can be constructively motivated, but only the second directly requires the organisation to reconsider something it is already doing. The real test of candour therefore emerges not only when employees propose improvements, but when they challenge established assumptions, decisions and practices.
THE MESSAGE CAN AFFECT HOW WE SEE THE MESSENGER
Research outside the organisational-voice literature offers an additional caution. John, Blunden and Liu conducted eleven experiments examining reactions to innocent bearers of bad news. Across those studies, recipients could evaluate the messenger of negative information less favourably even when that messenger was not responsible for producing the negative outcome. The researchers explored mechanisms including sense-making and perceived motives. [4]
The organisational application should remain restrained. Delivering bad news in an experiment is not identical to challenging a workplace decision, and the evidence should not be used to claim that employees who expose problems will automatically be disliked. It does, however, support a broader caution: human judgement may not always separate unpleasant information cleanly from the person associated with delivering it.
That possibility becomes especially important when later organisational decisions rely heavily on impression, sponsorship, managerial narrative, behavioural descriptions or subjective assessments of potential. A performance-management policy does not need to contain a formal rule saying “penalise people who bring uncomfortable information”. Where the risk exists, it can enter through interpretation rather than formal policy.
VOICE CAN ALSO STRENGTHEN CAREER OUTCOMES
The counter-evidence is equally important because without it the argument would become overstated. Speaking up is not inherently career-limiting. Research also identifies conditions under which employee voice can contribute positively to career-related evaluations.
Li and colleagues examined promotive voice and supervisor-rated promotability through a three-wave field study involving 281 employees and 59 supervisors. Their findings supported a pathway in which promotive voice could contribute positively to promotability, with stronger effects under higher-quality leader–member exchange relationships. [5] Sibunruang, using 218 matched subordinate–supervisor dyads in a Japanese manufacturing organisation, found employee voice positively related to promotability through supervisor evaluations of task performance, with organisational politics acting as an important boundary condition. [6]
These findings materially strengthen the central argument because they prevent a simplistic conclusion that “speaking up harms careers”. The more defensible conclusion is that the consequences of voice are conditional. If one form of constructive voice can strengthen an employee’s perceived contribution while another can attract a less favourable reaction, the governance task is to understand what is driving that difference.
It may reflect the quality of the employee’s judgement, the way the message was communicated, the strength of the evidence, the expertise of the speaker, the quality of the relationship with the recipient, the recipient’s ability to act or discomfort with the substance of the message itself. Those possibilities should not be treated as interchangeable.
VOICE IS A SOCIAL AND TEMPORAL PROCESS
A particularly useful recent contribution comes from Nieberle and Fladerer’s 2025 review of the consequences of constructive employee voice. Their review considers consequences not only for the employee speaking, but also for co-workers and managers, conceptualising voice as a process that can create affective, cognitive and behavioural responses across multiple organisational actors. [7]
This changes the relevant unit of analysis. Organisations frequently ask whether the employee was allowed to speak. A stronger analysis continues beyond the original event: how was the message interpreted, was the employee viewed differently afterwards, did the manager become more or less receptive, did colleagues respond differently, did the issue later influence performance language, did it affect access to assignments or sponsorship, and did the employee continue to speak?
The temporal dimension is reinforced by Guarin, Townsend, Wilkinson and Edwards’ 2025 systematic review of 256 longitudinal studies across employee voice, involvement, participation and silence. Their work demonstrates why these behaviours are better understood across time rather than solely as isolated workplace events. [10]
The consequence of voice may therefore not be visible in the meeting where the employee speaks. It may emerge gradually through relationships, reputation, opportunity allocation and later evaluative systems.
THE CRITICAL DISTINCTION: CHALLENGING INFORMATION IS NOT THE SAME AS CHALLENGING BEHAVIOUR
This is the distinction organisations need to protect most carefully. Challenging content is not automatically evidence of challenging behaviour. Disagreement is not automatically poor collaboration. Escalation is not automatically lack of ownership. Identifying risk is not automatically negativity, and questioning an assumption is not automatically resistance.
The reverse, however, is equally important. Speaking up does not make an employee automatically correct. A challenge may be poorly evidenced, badly timed or unnecessarily destructive. A person may repeatedly challenge decisions without listening to counter-evidence. Someone may invoke “speaking truth to power” while behaving in ways that genuinely damage collaboration. Candour cannot become immunity from accountability.
The governance requirement is therefore neither to punish the challenger nor to privilege the challenger. It is to separate, as far as the evidence allows, the quality of the challenge from the evaluation of the person. The objective is not to eliminate judgement. It is to make judgement more defensible.
THE CANDOUR CONSEQUENCE RISK
For this edition, I use Candour Consequence Risk as a RewardEdge practitioner concept. It describes the risk that constructive challenge influences later judgements about performance, behaviour, leadership potential, promotability, trust, sponsorship or organisational fit without the organisation sufficiently distinguishing four questions: what was said, how it was said, whether the underlying concern was well supported, and what — if anything — the episode genuinely demonstrates about the employee.
The concept is not an academic construct and should not be treated as a validated diagnostic instrument. Its purpose is to make a potential governance blind spot easier to examine. If leaders can distinguish those four dimensions, uncomfortable information can be considered without automatically becoming an assessment of the person delivering it. If they cannot, the message and messenger can gradually become fused in organisational memory.
THE REWARDEDGE CANDOUR CONSEQUENCE REVIEW
The following seven-part framework is a RewardEdge practitioner synthesis rather than an academic, legal or psychometric standard. Its purpose is to help leaders examine whether legitimate challenge is travelling into later people decisions in a defensible way.
1. Message type
The first question is what kind of voice the employee actually provided. Was the person proposing a future improvement, or identifying a problem, risk or potentially harmful existing practice? The distinction matters because research indicates that promotive and prohibitive forms of voice can receive different responses and show different relationships with performance evaluation. [3][9]
An organisation may therefore believe it welcomes employee voice while primarily welcoming the form that feels optimistic and forward-looking. The harder governance test is whether it can also receive credible information that challenges what it is already doing.
2. Evidence quality
The second question is whether the concern was supported by evidence, expertise or legitimate observation. Not every challenge deserves equal evidential weight, and the employee’s ability to raise a concern should be distinguished from the quality of the concern itself.
A mature organisation should be capable of concluding that an employee was right to raise an issue but wrong in their diagnosis. It should also be able to conclude that the employee communicated imperfectly while identifying something important. Those judgements are different, and collapsing them weakens decision quality.
3. Message–messenger separation
The third question is whether leaders are evaluating the information and the individual through sufficiently separate reasoning. Research on managerial responses to challenging voice and reactions to bearers of negative information provides good reason to ask this deliberately. [2][4]
A manager may sincerely believe they are judging attitude, teamwork or judgement, while part of that reaction could potentially reflect discomfort with the information itself. The purpose is not to eliminate subjective leadership judgement. It is to make the evidence behind that judgement more visible.
4. Evaluation leakage
The fourth question is whether the voice episode later appears in performance or behavioural evaluation and, if it does, what exactly it evidences. Descriptions such as “difficult”, “negative”, “not collaborative enough” or “needs greater executive maturity” may sometimes be completely legitimate.
The governance test is whether reviewers can identify observable behaviour supporting those labels independently of the fact that the employee challenged an important assumption. If the behavioural evidence is weak, the judgement deserves further examination.
5. Career consequence
The fifth question is whether the episode influenced promotion, succession, sponsorship, stretch assignments or access to important decision forums. Career consequences are often less visible than formal performance ratings. An employee may remain technically well rated while gradually receiving less sponsorship for broader responsibility.
The research reviewed here does not establish that this occurs universally after speaking up. The purpose is not to presume retaliation, but to ensure that material career decisions remain traceable to defensible, job-relevant evidence.
6. Recipient capacity
The sixth question is whether the recipient had the willingness, authority, capability and resources to respond constructively. McClean, Burris and Detert examined multisource data across 136 restaurants and found that the unit-level relationship between employee voice and turnover varied with managerial characteristics associated with the ability and willingness to engage in change. Voice was positively related to turnover when those managerial conditions were weak and negatively related when they were strong. [8]
This does not establish that resource-constrained managers personally punish individual employees who speak up. It supports a narrower point: what follows voice can depend materially on the capacity and orientation of the people receiving it.
Zhang, Liang and Li add another relevant finding. In their two-phase study of 353 matched employee–supervisor pairs, leaders were more receptive to promotive than prohibitive voice, while authentic leadership and employee expertise also shaped receptivity. [9] The recipient is therefore part of the voice system rather than a passive endpoint.
7. Pattern visibility
The final question is whether the organisation can identify patterns across time. A single episode is difficult to interpret, but repeated outcomes can be more informative. If employees who repeatedly identify material risks also repeatedly receive weaker behavioural assessments, lose sponsorship or leave, the organisation should investigate the pattern.
It should not automatically conclude that retaliation occurred. Equally, it should not automatically conclude that the employees themselves were the problem. The objective is evidence rather than suspicion.
CANDOUR DOES NOT CREATE IMMUNITY
This boundary condition is critical. Employees who raise legitimate concerns should not become exempt from standards of conduct, collaboration, judgement or performance. Being correct about a risk does not automatically mean the employee handled the situation well, and being willing to challenge leadership does not itself demonstrate leadership capability.
Persistent dissent can be thoughtful, evidence-based and valuable. It can also become repetitive, poorly evidenced, politically motivated or unnecessarily destructive. Organisations therefore need two disciplines at the same time: they must protect legitimate constructive challenge from inappropriate personal consequences while retaining the ability to evaluate how people exercise judgement, communicate, collaborate and perform.
Removing the first discipline risks silence. Removing the second risks confusing candour with entitlement. Neither produces healthy governance.
THE REWARD AND TALENT IMPLICATION
This issue moves beyond culture because people judgements eventually create economic and career consequences. Performance ratings can influence salary increases and incentives. Behavioural assessments can influence bonus outcomes. Talent reviews affect succession. Potential assessments influence development investment. Sponsorship affects access to opportunity, while promotion changes future earnings, organisational authority and career trajectory.
If discomfort with legitimate challenge leaks into any of those decisions, an organisation can unintentionally create an economic consequence for candour. The opposite risk also exists. If organisations mechanically reward employees merely for “speaking up”, they may incentivise the performance of challenge rather than better decision-making.
Reward should therefore not simply pay for voice as a generic behaviour. A stronger performance architecture evaluates the actual contribution of evidence-based challenge, sound judgement, constructive communication, responsible escalation, willingness to listen and the quality of the decision ultimately produced.
The objective is not to reward disagreement. It is to avoid penalising valuable disagreement merely because it is uncomfortable.
WHAT THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS — AND WHAT IT DOES NOT
Taken together, the evidence supports several carefully bounded conclusions. Psychological safety is meaningfully connected with important workplace antecedents and outcomes and provides an important foundation for interpersonal risk-taking. [1] Different forms of employee voice can generate different managerial responses and different relationships with performance evaluation. [2][3] Message content, recipient characteristics, employee expertise and relational context can influence how voice is received. [7][8][9] Voice can also be positively associated with promotability under particular conditions. [5][6] Finally, recent research gives good reason to analyse voice across speakers, recipients and time rather than treating it as a single isolated act. [7][10]
The evidence does not establish that speaking up generally damages careers. It does not prove that negative performance feedback following disagreement is retaliation. It does not establish that prohibitive voice is always more valuable than promotive voice, nor does it establish a universal causal pathway from challenging management to reduced promotion.
It also does not mean that employees who speak up should be protected from legitimate behavioural or performance standards. And it does not validate Candour Consequence Risk or the RewardEdge Candour Consequence Review as academic instruments. Those remain practitioner concepts designed to translate a related body of evidence into a governance question.
WHY CANDOUR IS DIFFICULT TO GOVERN
Several practical barriers make this issue difficult to manage. The first is attribution. Performance and potential assessments legitimately require judgement, making it difficult to distinguish an employee who is genuinely difficult to work with from one who has simply become associated with difficult information.
The second is time. A challenge may occur months before a performance or talent discussion. The underlying evidence may fade while the interpersonal impression remains. The third is distributed decision-making. One manager receives the challenge, another participates in calibration, a senior leader controls sponsorship, a talent committee considers succession and HR facilitates the process. No single participant may see the complete chain.
The fourth barrier is power. The more consequential the challenged decision, the more likely it may involve people who also influence later opportunities. The fifth is measurement. Organisations routinely record performance ratings, promotions and turnover, but they rarely retain enough contextual information around constructive challenge to determine whether later outcomes are related.
The difficulty, therefore, is not simply creating a speak-up policy. It is preserving the evidential integrity of decisions that may occur many months after the original issue was raised.
FROM CANDOUR TO CAREER CONSEQUENCE: THE OPERATING CHAIN
The organisational chain can be expressed simply:
Signal → Reception → Evidence Review → Decision → Messenger Attribution → Performance Judgement → Career Consequence → Future Voice
Most formal speak-up systems concentrate on the early stages. Did the concern reach someone? Was it investigated? Was a decision made? Yet performance management may own the next stage, talent management another, and Reward may eventually translate some of those judgements into financial consequences.
That fragmentation creates the blind spot. HR, Reward and Talent therefore have a legitimate role — not in adjudicating every disagreement — but in ensuring that consequential people decisions remain connected to defensible evidence. Risk and governance functions have a parallel interest because an organisation that repeatedly makes it unattractive to be the bearer of credible bad news may eventually weaken the quality of information reaching decision-makers.
FIVE LEADERSHIP ACTIONS
1. Ask for evidence behind reputational labels
When someone is described as negative, difficult, resistant or insufficiently collaborative, ask what observable behaviour supports that conclusion. The objective is not to assume the label is wrong, but to require it to prove itself.
2. Separate message quality from behaviour quality
An employee can raise an important issue badly, while another can communicate elegantly and still be wrong. Organisations should evaluate the quality of the information and the quality of the behaviour separately rather than allowing one to substitute for the other.
3. Review career judgements where the challenge was material
Not every disagreement requires documentation. However, where an employee raised a significant risk, challenged a major decision or exposed a serious operating problem, later career judgements should be capable of demonstrating a job-relevant evidential basis.
4. Calibrate how prohibitive voice is heard
Leadership teams should examine whether suggestions about future improvement consistently receive warmer responses than warnings about current failure. If they do, the organisation should understand why. It may be more comfortable with optimism than with information that threatens an existing assumption.
5. Test whether people keep speaking
A single successful speak-up event says relatively little about the long-term environment. A stronger signal is whether credible employees continue raising difficult information after observing what happened to themselves and others. The longitudinal evidence gives organisations good reason to examine voice as a process rather than a single event. [10]
THE REWARDEDGE PERSPECTIVE
Organisations frequently ask whether employees feel safe enough to speak. That remains an important question, but I believe there is a second question that deserves equal attention:
Is the organisation disciplined enough not to confuse uncomfortable information with an uncomfortable employee?
The distinction matters because performance and talent systems continue operating long after the original conversation has ended. A leader may genuinely invite challenge. The employee may genuinely feel able to provide it. The concern may genuinely be heard, and the organisation may even genuinely act on it. Yet if the employee later acquires an unexplained reputation for negativity, poor collaboration or limited leadership readiness, another governance question remains.
Is that judgement supported by the employee’s behaviour and performance, or has discomfort with the message become part of the judgement of the messenger?
There is no responsible way to answer that question through assumption. It requires evidence. The answer is not to protect every challenger, and it is not to distrust every manager. The answer is to strengthen the evidential integrity of consequential people decisions.
For me, the governing principle is:
AN ORGANISATION HAS NOT FULLY PROTECTED CANDOUR UNTIL IT CAN SEPARATE THE COST OF THE MESSAGE FROM THE CAREER VALUE OF THE MESSENGER.
INVITING PERSPECTIVES
For this edition, I am deliberately inviting people who have genuinely contributed to our recent discussions rather than adding names simply for reach.
Olaf Boettger — You recently connected psychological safety with seeing the real red rather than “watermelon green”. What should leaders examine after someone has exposed that red to ensure candour does not become reputational risk?
Aleksandra Rodenkrans — We discussed how quieter perspectives can be heard in the room yet disappear before the final decision. Can something similar happen to the person behind the perspective when later performance and career decisions are made?
Imole Ashogbon, MBA, GPHR, CPHR, CCMP, PROSCI — You highlighted how scorecards can recognise what a leader produces while overlooking what the team pays to produce it. Should performance systems also test whether leaders create hidden penalties for people who challenge them?
Carl Mikael Björn — You raised the powerful test of whether evidence can survive separation from the expert who supplied it. Should organisations apply a similar separation test between uncomfortable evidence and their judgement of the person who raised it?
Wojciech Z. Kaleta, 🎓 PhD — Where should governance intervene when legitimate challenge begins influencing subjective assessments of leadership potential, collaboration or organisational fit?
Andrew Nowak — What design features help preserve constructive challenge when the people receiving the challenge also influence promotion, succession and access to future authority?
Sergio D’Amico, CSSBB — In capability-building environments, how do we teach people to expose defects and challenge standards without simultaneously teaching them that doing so can make them harder to promote?
Brian Jackson — You have repeatedly pushed our discussions towards the economics of early intervention and optionality. Should the willingness to stop, challenge or reopen work sometimes be treated as evidence of performance rather than as friction?
Hartmut Hübner, PhD — In AI and continuous-improvement environments, where constraints can change quickly, how important is it that employees can expose the next bottleneck without becoming known simply as the person who continually brings problems?
Alvin Huang — You recently observed that capable people can absorb organisational gaps until their departure exposes the real cost. How should leaders distinguish an employee who repeatedly reveals system weakness from one who is genuinely creating friction?
THE CLOSING QUESTION
If an employee can challenge the organisation without being silenced, but that challenge later weakens their reputation, sponsorship or career prospects without clear job-relevant evidence — how safe was speaking up really?
Subscribe to RewardEdge Daily Insights for practical analysis on Reward, work, organisation design, leadership, AI and the workforce decisions that shape organisational value.
RewardEdge Consulting supports organisations reviewing performance governance, Reward strategy, job architecture, workforce design, decision accountability and the people systems through which organisational consequences are created.
Muhammad Ahsan Mehboob Founder, RewardEdge Consulting Reward & Workforce Transformation | Compensation Strategy | Job Architecture | Workforce Design | Reward Governance
SOURCES AND FURTHER READING
[1] Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A. & Vracheva, V. (2017). Psychological Safety: A Meta-Analytic Review and Extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113–165. DOI: 10.1111/peps.12183.
[2] Burris, E. R. (2012). The Risks and Rewards of Speaking Up: Managerial Responses to Employee Voice. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4). DOI: 10.5465/amj.2010.0562.
[3] Chamberlin, M., Newton, D. W. & LePine, J. A. (2017). A Meta-Analysis of Voice and Its Promotive and Prohibitive Forms: Identification of Key Associations, Distinctions, and Future Research Directions. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 11–71. DOI: 10.1111/peps.12185.
[4] John, L. K., Blunden, H. & Liu, H. (2019). Shooting the Messenger. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(4), 644–666. DOI: 10.1037/xge0000586.
[5] Li, C., Wu, C.-H., Dong, Y., Weisman, H. & Sun, L.-Y. (2023). A Psychological Contract Perspective on How and When Employees’ Promotive Voice Enhances Promotability. Human Resource Management Journal, 33(4), 1018–1034. DOI: 10.1111/1748-8583.12496.
[6] Sibunruang, H. (2023). The Instrumental Role of Employee Voice in Achieving Promotability: Social Influence Perspective. Personnel Review, 52(3), 687–702. DOI: 10.1108/PR-05-2020-0332.
[7] Nieberle, K. W. & Fladerer, M. P. (2025). Voice Echoes: A Critical Review and Future Research Agenda on the Consequences of Employee Voice for Voicers, Their Co-workers, and Managers. Organizational Psychology Review, 15(2), 209–255. DOI: 10.1177/20413866251317929.
[8] McClean, E. J., Burris, E. R. & Detert, J. R. (2013). When Does Voice Lead to Exit? It Depends on Leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 56(2), 525–548. DOI: 10.5465/amj.2011.0041.
[9] Zhang, Z., Liang, Q. & Li, J. (2020). Understanding Managerial Response to Employee Voice: A Social Persuasion Perspective. International Journal of Manpower, 41(3), 273–288. DOI: 10.1108/IJM-05-2018-0156.
[10] Guarin, A. D., Townsend, K., Wilkinson, A. & Edwards, M. R. (2025). Time to Voice? A Review and Agenda for Longitudinal Employee Voice Research. Human Resource Management Review, 35(1), Article 101059. DOI: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2024.101059.
