Search

Employee voice, the proactive communication of ideas, suggestions, concerns, or opinions with the intent to improve organizational functioning, has the power to significantly improve both team and organizational performance. Despite the well-documented benefits of encouraging employee voice in organizations, there is relatively little research about how to empower employees to speak up in organizations, or the contextual cues and employee behaviors that can create an organizational context conducive to voice expression, a key antecedent of voice. This symposium is designed to advance organizational research by building a deeper understanding of how contextual cues -- manager and employee behaviors and perceptions --shape the voice context. Specifically, we examine how such cues influence the decision to voice or not, as well as reactions to the decision to voice (including voice recognition and endorsement), and related employee outcomes. * Microaggressions Suppress Workplace Voice, but Accountability Can Help * Presenter: Alexandra Noel Figueroa; U. of Utah, David Eccles School of Business * Presenter: Amelia Stillwell; U. of Utah * Presenter: Tamara Calzado Real; U. of Utah * Presenter: Elizabeth R. Tenney; U. of Utah, David Eccles School of Business * Presenter: Barbara Blair; U. of Utah, David Eccles School of Business * How the Changing Nature of Social Hierarchy Impacts Voice * Presenter: Patricia Satterstrom; New York U. * The Role of Leader Dominance-Orientation in Predicting Voice Endorsement * Presenter: Garrett L. Brady; London Business School * Presenter: Niro Sivanathan; London Business School * Recognizing Silence is Golden: The Role of Managerial Power in Silence Detection * Presenter: Yasha Spriha; Robert H. Smith School of Business, U. of Maryland * Presenter: Niranjan Srinivasan Janardhanan; London School of Economics * Presenter: Taeya Howell; Brigham Young U. * Psychological Safety, Workforce Diversity, and Citizenship Behaviors * Presenter: Daniel M Cable; London Business School * Presenter: Zannie Giraud Voss; Southern Methodist U. * Presenter: Glenn Voss; Southern Methodist U. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This empirical study integrates six years of household patronage data with six years of firm-level data to examine how firm, measurement, and customer characteristics moderate the relationship between product investment, product portfolio expansion, marketing communications investment, customer relationship expansion and firm performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research examines whether internal disagreements relating to organizational identity -- authenticity rift -- influence firm performance. An authentic organizational identity represents a true, unique and singular statement of core organizational values and beliefs held by all organizational insiders and communicated to all stakeholders. Rift in the authenticity of organizational identity represents clefts or differences in the core organizational values and beliefs held by organizational insiders. These internal differences signal confusion regarding the organization's core values and lead to divergent goals and strategies. The notion of multiple organizational identities has existed since early explorations by Albert and Whetten (1985), who proposed that dual identity organizations possess both normative and utilitarian orientations, and that organizations may begin with a single identity but acquire multiple identities over the course of time. Thus, firms may have a constellation of values with some values dominating (Gioia, Schultz, and Corley 2000; Voss, Cable, and Voss 2000). As long as the identity of the organization -- however complex the set of core values and beliefs -- is commonly held and understood, it is still singular and congruent. When authenticity rift exists, an organization possesses diverse and competing responses to the questions "Who are we?" and "What are our core values and beliefs?" Rift occurs when multiple identities create confusion throughout the organization as to the firm's identity or when different factions within the organization actively espouse different organizational priorities and values (Albert and Whetten 1985; Golden-Biddle and Rao 1997; Pratt and Foreman 2000). Conceptual arguments support alternative hypotheses for the relationship between authenticity rift and firm performance, including (1) no relationship, (2) a negative relationship, or (3) a positive relationship. To test these alternative hypotheses, we conducted a longitudinal, two-wave empirical study using the U.S. nonprofit professional theatre industry as the context. We operationalized organizational identity using five organizational value dimensions relevant to the nonprofit professional theatre industry (Voss, Cable, and Voss 2000), and we collected measures from two respondents (i.e., the managing director and marketing director) at each theatre. We tested the hypotheses by conducting polynomial regression analyses that modeled firm performance as a function of the main and quadratic effect of each value dimension reported by each respondent and the interaction between the managing director and marketing director value dimension report. We used two distinct measures of firm performance: customer support, measured as the theatre's total earned revenue and overall financial performance, measured as net income. Rift had a negative impact on firm performance for four of the five values. These findings offer evidence that multiple definitions of identity may hinder rather than help the firm. Surprisingly, rift had a positive effect on firm performance for the market value dimension, defined as the organization's commitment to customer satisfaction. Firm performance was lower when both marketing and managing directors reported that market values were either extremely important or not at all important… [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]