Journal of Applied Psychology

© 2019 American Psychological Association 2020, Vol. 105, No. 6, 619 – 636
ISSN: 0021-9010 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000455

I’m Tired of Listening: The Effects of Supervisor Appraisals of Group

Voice on Supervisor Emotional Exhaustion and Performance

Hudson Sessions Jennifer D. Nahrgang

University of Oregon Arizona State University

Daniel W. Newton Melissa Chamberlin

University of Iowa Iowa State University
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Employee voice, or speaking up with constructive expressions in the workplace, is beneficial to

organizations as it is often a catalyst for positive change. Despite its benefits, voice may have mixed
implications for supervisors who are frequently the targets of group members’ ideas or concerns. We
draw on the transactional theory of stress to examine the positive and negative effects of group promotive
and prohibitive voice on supervisor emotional exhaustion and performance. Specifically, we theorize and
find that supervisors appraise group promotive voice as fostering their well-being and personal growth
(i.e., challenge appraisal) and, conversely, appraise group prohibitive voice as inhibiting their well-being
and personal growth (i.e., hindrance appraisal). These appraisals, in turn, influence supervisors’ emo-
tional exhaustion and performance. Furthermore, we investigate a supervisor’s personal sense of power
as a boundary condition that influences the effects of group voice on supervisor appraisals of group voice
and subsequent emotional exhaustion and performance. We test our model using a multiwave field
sample design (Study 1) and an in-person experimental design (Study 2). Across these 2 studies, we find
negative indirect effects of group promotive voice on supervisor emotional exhaustion through challenge
appraisals of group voice and positive indirect effects of group prohibitive voice on supervisor emotional
exhaustion through hindrance appraisals of group voice as well as conditional indirect effects of
supervisors’ personal sense of power. Our model offers novel insights into supervisors’ appraisals of
group voice and the implications for their emotional exhaustion and performance.

Keywords: group voice, emotional exhaustion, well-being, challenge and hindrance appraisals

Voice—ideas or problems expressed by employees with the
intention of improving the work environment (Liang, Farh, &
Farh, 2012; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998)— has numerous benefits
for work groups and organizations. Speaking up facilitates infor-
mation sharing that improves group and organizational perfor-
mance through increased learning, high-quality decision-making,
and valuable improvements to working conditions (Detert, Burris,
This article was published Online First October 14, 2019.
X Hudson Sessions, Department of Management, Lundquist College of
Business, University of Oregon; Jennifer D. Nahrgang, Department of Man-
agement and Entrepreneurship, W.P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State
University; Daniel W. Newton, Department of Management and Entrepreneur-
ship, Tippie College of Business, University of Iowa; Melissa Chamberlin,
Department of Management, Ivy College of Business, Iowa State University.
We acknowledge the financial support provided by the Department of
Management and Entrepreneurship at Arizona State University. We also
acknowledge presentations of versions of our work at the 2017 Academy
of Management annual conference in Atlanta, Georgia and at the 2019
INGRoup annual conference in Lisbon, Portugal.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Hudson
Sessions, Department of Management, Lundquist College of Business,
University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403. E-mail: sessions@uoregon.edu
Harrison, & Martin, 2013; Lam & Mayer, 2014; Li, Liao, Tangi-
rala, & Firth, 2017; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Podsakoff, 2011;
Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Despite the organizational benefits of
speaking up, research on the effects of voice to individuals has
shown that speaking up might not always be a positive experience
for voicing employees. Indeed, voicing employees may risk their
reputations by challenging the status quo (Grant, 2013; Morrison
& Milliken, 2000), tire of ongoing efforts to make suggestions
(Bolino, Hsiung, Harvey, & LePine, 2015), and be viewed as
worse performers as a consequence of expressing concerns (Cham-
berlin, Newton, & LePine, 2017).
As suggested by this prior work, scholars generally agree on the
benefits of speaking up for work groups and organizations as well
as the outcomes of speaking up for voicing employees. However,
the effect of voice on supervisors is less clear and worthy of
attention considering that supervisors are typically the targets of
their group’s voice (Detert & Burris, 2007; Hussain, Shu, Tangi-
rala, & Ekkirala, 2019; Liu, Tangirala, & Ramanujam, 2013).
Group voice is a group-level construct that emerges through a
bottom-up process and represents the combined contributions of
group members’ input about work-related issues (Lam & Mayer,
2014). Even though group voice is constructive in nature and
intended to benefit the work environment, supervisors may have

619
 620 SESSIONS, NAHRGANG, NEWTON, AND CHAMBERLIN
mixed reactions to group voice. On the one hand, supervisors may
view group voice as fostering growth through improvement-
oriented ideas, evoking positive emotions around forward-looking
recommendations, and reflecting group member help and support
(e.g., Burris, 2012; Chamberlin, 2017; Lam, Rees, Levesque, &
Ornstein, 2018). Such positive experiences with group voice could
be an uplift for supervisors that reduces their emotional exhaustion
and enhances their performance. On the other hand, supervisors
may perceive group voice as introducing problems that must be
addressed, evoking negative emotions related to things that have
gone poorly, or reflecting complaints or fault-finding (Chamberlin,
2017; Liang et al., 2012). Such negative experiences with group
voice could weigh down supervisors, thereby increasing their
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
emotional exhaustion and diminishing their performance.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
The purpose of this research is to provide a more complete
account of how group voice influences supervisor emotional ex-
haustion and, in turn, performance. Guided by Lazarus and Folk-
man’s (1984) transactional theory of stress, we assert that super-
visors are attuned to the personal significance of group voice in the
appraisal process and experience differential outcomes depending
on how their group speaks up. Specifically, we argue that group
promotive voice— group member expressions of ideas to improve
existing work practices to benefit the group or organization (Li et
al., 2017; Liang et al., 2012)—will be appraised as a challenging
work condition that enhances well-being and personal growth
(LePine, Zhang, Crawford, & Rich, 2016; Webster, Beehr, &
Love, 2011). In contrast, we argue that group prohibitive voice—
group member expressions of problems and concerns about prac-
tices that may harm the group or organization (Li et al., 2017;
Liang et al., 2012)—will be appraised as a hindering work condi-
tion that inhibits well-being and personal growth (LePine et al.,
2016; Webster et al., 2011).
Supervisors’ appraisals of group voice may vary depending on
their perceived ability to influence other organizational actors and
circumstances, a notion captured by a supervisor’s personal sense
of power (Anderson, John, & Keltner, 2012). Supervisors’ per-
sonal sense of power is relevant to the appraisal process given that
a lack of access to resources or influence over circumstances can
be appraised as stressful (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). We assert
that supervisors’ personal sense of power will affect the degree to
which supervisors appraise group promotive voice as challenging
and group prohibitive voice as hindering. In turn, supervisors’
challenge and hindrance appraisals of group promotive and pro-
hibitive voice (respectively) will influence the degree to which
group voice has beneficial or detrimental effects on supervisor
emotional exhaustion. Aligned with prior work, we further assert
that emotional exhaustion will impair supervisor performance
(e.g., Bakker, Demerouti, & Verbeke, 2004). We evaluate our
assertions across two studies. In Study 1, we use a multiwave field
sample of 150 supervisors and 493 employees to test how super-
visors differentially appraise group promotive and prohibitive
voice and the subsequent effects on their emotional exhaustion and
performance. In Study 2, we conduct an in-person experiment to
complement Study 1 by asserting causality through our manipu-
lations, limiting situational confounds that arise in field studies,
and accounting for individual differences through random assign-
ment across conditions.
Our research makes several theoretical contributions. First, we
demonstrate how group voice influences supervisors’ emotional
exhaustion and performance through the appraisal process. We
find that group promotive voice enhances supervisor performance
by reducing supervisor emotional exhaustion whereas group pro-
hibitive voice diminishes supervisor performance by increasing
supervisor emotional exhaustion. Our efforts advance work that
highlights important distinctions between promotive and prohibi-
tive voice for perceptions of a voicing employee’s performance
(e.g., Chamberlin et al., 2017; Liang et al., 2012) by addressing
how these two types of group voice alternatively reduce or amplify
supervisors’ emotional exhaustion and performance. Second, we
advance research that has considered how voice can threaten
supervisors (e.g., Burris, 2012). The transactional theory of stress
provides a novel and useful lens to examine the manner in which
supervisors may appraise group voice as enhancing or diminishing
their personal well-being. Third, we contribute to recent efforts to
advance the transactional theory of stress by expressly considering
challenge and hindrance appraisals as distinct outcomes of work
conditions (LePine et al., 2016; Webster et al., 2011). We consider
the mediating role of challenge and hindrance appraisals between
a prevalent experience for supervisors— group voice—and impor-
tant organizational outcomes. Practically speaking, our work ad-
dresses the benefits and burdens experienced by supervisors as
targets of group voice.
Theoretical Development and Hypotheses
Voice entails group members’ sharing constructive suggestions
or concerns about work-related issues that challenge the status quo
(Liang et al., 2012; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Expressions of
voice represent a relatively discretionary behavior from group
members and thus are voluntary and not accompanied by formal
rewards (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Group voice exists when,
within a group, two or more members voice their ideas or con-
cerns. Indeed, group voice emerges through a bottom-up process in
which various points of view are expressed, ideas or concerns
build on one another, or issues pointed out by one group member
evoke additional expressions from other group members (Li et al.,
2017). Thus, group voice represents the combined contributions of
group members’ constructive suggestions or concerns about work-
related issues (Lam & Mayer, 2014). We focus on this group-level
construct because group voice, like other discretionary behaviors,
are most impactful at the aggregate level (Organ, 1988), and we
examine the effects of group voice on supervisors because they are
typically the targets of their group’s voice (Detert & Burris, 2007;
Hussain et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2013).
To examine the effects of group voice on supervisors, we draw
on the transactional theory of stress, which asserts that as individ-
uals encounter various work conditions—stimuli, such as group
voice, that are external to oneself—they appraise the personal
implications of these conditions (Lazarus, 1966; Lazarus & Folk-
man, 1984). Lazarus and Folkman (1984) theorize that the ap-
praisal process represents the categorization of work conditions
based on the significance for individuals’ personal well-being.
However, not every work experience prompts an appraisal. In-
stead, work conditions trigger appraisals when they introduce the
potential for either growth and gain or loss and harm (Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984). Group voice is likely to trigger supervisors’
appraisal process for two key reasons. First, group voice interrupts
the status quo of a work group with a call for supervisors to
 THE EFFECTS OF GROUP VOICE ON SUPERVISORS
consider new opportunities for growth and innovation or to address
problems and concerns (Liang et al., 2012; Van Dyne & LePine,
1998). Thus, given that group voice expressly relates to group
members “rocking the boat” with input about potential gains or
harm to group functioning (Grant, 2013; Liang et al., 2012),
supervisors should be attuned to the significance of group voice
and appraise group voice accordingly.
Second, group voice may be taken personally in that it reflects
on supervisors themselves. That is, supervisors are sensitive to the
embedded commentary of group voice because it implicitly pro-
vides feedback on a supervisor’s performance or even character
and ability (Fast, Burris, & Bartel, 2014). Whereas supervisors
may interpret voice as a sign of support from group members
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
(Burris, 2012), supervisors can also feel threatened or criticized by
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
group members who challenge the status quo given supervisors’
general “need to avoid embarrassment, threat, and feelings of
vulnerability or incompetence” (Fast et al., 2014; Morrison &
Milliken, 2000, p. 708). According to Lazarus and Folkman
(1984), such personalization of positive or negative commentary
reflects vulnerability (i.e., consideration of personal adequacy in
important matters to the individual) and would prompt an appraisal
of the work condition.
Whether supervisors positively or negatively appraise group
voice may depend on the manner in which group members speak
up. In other words, how group members express themselves to a
supervisor may influence whether a supervisor considers group
voice to promote his or her growth and well-being (i.e., challenge
appraisal) or inhibit his or her growth and well-being (i.e., hin-
drance appraisal; Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling, & Boudreau,
2000; LePine et al., 2016). As we describe in the section that
follows, groups may speak up with promotive voice and/or pro-
hibitive voice. Both types of voice are forms of constructive input
wherein group members intend to improve work functioning
(Maynes & Podsakoff, 2014), but they also differ in several critical
ways (Liang et al., 2012). We assert that these differences influ-
ence supervisors’ appraisals of group voice as challenging or
hindering. That is, the extent to which a supervisor experiences
group promotive voice and group prohibitive voice influences a
supervisor’s challenge appraisal of group voice—an assessment of
potential gain or enhanced well-being from group voice—and
hindrance appraisal of group voice—an evaluation of prospective
threat or harm to well-being from group voice.1 These appraisals,
in turn, affect supervisors’ well-being (e.g., emotional exhaustion
as a negative indicator of well-being; Sonnentag, 2015) and per-
formance (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; LePine et al., 2016).
Supervisor Appraisals of Group Promotive Voice
Group promotive voice refers to ideas and suggestions ex-
pressed by group members about potential opportunities to im-
prove work practices and procedures (Li et al., 2017; Liang et al.,
2012). Speaking up with promotive voice involves sharing ideas
focused on a future ideal state (Liang et al., 2012). Such forward-
thinking expressions signal group members’ investments in long-
term improvements and innovation (Qin, DiRenzo, Xu, & Duan,
2014). Moreover, the forward-looking ideas and suggestions con-
sist of solutions for how the work group can perform more effec-
tively (Chamberlin et al., 2017). Consequently, supervisors may be
apt to interpret group promotive voice as helpful and supportive
621
given that it offers solutions for the betterment of the work group
(Liang et al., 2012; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). In support of this
point, meta-analytic evidence shows that promotive voice posi-
tively predicts supervisor ratings of the voicing employee’s job
performance (Chamberlin et al., 2017), suggesting that supervisors
view solution-oriented promotive voice as a valuable contribution
to the goals and efforts of the group.
Based on supervisors’ positive interpretations of group promo-
tive voice, we expect supervisors to appraise group promotive
voice as fostering their growth and well-being. Specifically, group
promotive voice is likely to encourage expectations of growth as
supervisors receive solution-oriented input for future improve-
ments. Moreover, supervisor perceptions of help and support from
expressions of group promotive voice should be associated with
feeling valued and respected, which has been shown to increase
perceived well-being (e.g., Anderson, Kraus, Galinsky, & Keltner,
2012; Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Singh-Manoux, Adler, & Mar-
mot, 2003). Thus, as supervisors experience group promotive
voice, we argue they will see the potential for growth and im-
proved well-being and appraise group voice as challenging. At the
same time, the sense of a potential opportunity for gain embedded
in group promotive voice is likely to reduce supervisors’ evalua-
tion of group voice as causing potential harm or loss (i.e., hin-
drance appraisals of group voice).
Hypothesis 1: Group promotive voice will be (a) positively
related to supervisor challenge appraisals of group voice and
(b) negatively related to supervisor hindrance appraisals of
group voice.
Supervisor Appraisals of Group Prohibitive Voice
In addition to promotive voice, group members may also engage
in prohibitive voice as they speak up with concerns about work
practices and procedures that are harmful to the group or organi-
zation. In contrast to the future-orientation of group promotive
voice, group prohibitive voice typically focuses on past problems
that should be corrected or halted (Chamberlin et al., 2017).
However, similar to group promotive voice, group prohibitive
voice is still constructive in nature because it is intended by group
members to call attention to problems that could subsequently be
resolved for the benefit of the work group (Liang et al., 2012).
Although group members may intend to resolve problems vis-à-vis
prohibitive voice, Liang, Farh, and Farh (2012) suggest that su-
pervisors may interpret prohibitive voice as motivated by negative
intentions. One reason for this negative interpretation is that group
1
We note that challenge and hindrance appraisals represent two distinct
constructs rather than two ends of a continuum (Lazarus & Folkman,
1984). Our model allows for the notion that supervisors can simultaneously
experience both challenge and hindrance appraisals of group voice, while
proposing that group promotive voice will be positively (negatively) asso-
ciated with challenge (hindrance) appraisals of group voice and group
prohibitive voice will be positively (negatively) associated with hindrance
(challenge) appraisals of group voice. This approach aligns with prior
investigations, which have demonstrated that challenge and hindrance
appraisals tend to be negatively correlated (e.g., LePine et al., 2016;
Webster et al., 2011). Thus, although it is possible that group promotive
voice or group prohibitive voice might positively predict both challenge
and hindrance appraisals of group voice, prior empirical research suggests
that this outcome is unlikely.
 622 SESSIONS, NAHRGANG, NEWTON, AND CHAMBERLIN
prohibitive voice is tainted by the underlying problems that are
expressed, and supervisors may have a strong aversion to seeing
their own inadequacies reflected in such negative feedback (Ar-
gyris, 1990; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Relatedly, receiving group
members’ expressions of concerns can be accompanied by nega-
tive emotions and provoke defensiveness in supervisors regarding
past shortcomings or failures (Detert & Edmondson, 2011; Mor-
rison & Milliken, 2000). Further, given that prohibitive voice may
not be seen as solution oriented, supervisors are unlikely to per-
ceive the same degree of help and support from group prohibitive
voice as they do from group promotive voice. Instead, supervisors
are more likely to perceive group prohibitive voice as bordering on
complaining or fault-finding (Liang et al., 2012). In support of the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
notion that supervisors react negatively to group prohibitive voice,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
meta-analysis has shown that supervisors rate employees who
speak up with prohibitive voice as lower performers (Chamberlin
et al., 2017), suggesting supervisors view prohibitive voice as
detrimental to the goals and efforts of the work group.
Given supervisors’ negative associations with group prohibitive
voice, we expect that they will appraise group prohibitive voice as
discouraging growth and diminishing their well-being. Specifi-
cally, group prohibitive voice should be associated with harm and
setbacks as the group’s prohibitive input will be tinged by the
expressed problems or concerns. Additionally, group prohibitive
voice may stifle perceived well-being as supervisors feel defensive
about the negative personal commentary reflected in group pro-
hibitive voice. This evaluation of setbacks and perceived threat to
their well-being aligns with hindrance appraisals of group voice.
Conversely, this sense of incurred harm to group functioning (e.g.,
Chamberlin et al., 2017) should reduce an evaluation of group
voice as fostering potential gains or enhancing well-being (i.e.,
challenge appraisals of group voice).
Hypothesis 2: Group prohibitive voice will be (a) positively
related to supervisor hindrance appraisals of group voice and
(b) negatively related to supervisor challenge appraisals of
group voice.
Supervisor Personal Sense of Power
The transactional theory of stress suggests that stress results
from work conditions that exceed an individual’s perception of
available personal resources (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). In line
with this emphasis on personal resources, we consider how super-
visors’ appraisals of group voice are affected by their personal
sense of power, a social-relational construct that refers to the
extent to which supervisors perceive influence over circumstances
at work, including the attitudes, behaviors, and outcomes of others
(Anderson et al., 2012; Morrison, 2014; Morrison, See, & Pan,
2015). Applied to group voice, the extent to which supervisors
believe they have personal power, or can access personal resources
to address group voice, is likely to influence how they appraise
group voice as challenging or hindering (Morrison & Rothman,
2009; Morrison et al., 2015; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008).2
A high personal sense of power suggests a self-evaluation of
sufficient personal resources to influence matters at work (Ander-
son et al., 2012) and increased attention on potential rewards
(Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003). Supervisors with a high
personal sense of power should perceive that they can manage
opportunities and address problems expressed by their work
groups. This perceived efficacy leads to increased positive feelings
and receptivity toward group member voice (Fast et al., 2014).
Further, a high personal sense of power increases supervisors’
attention on the potential rewards introduced by group voice,
enhancing supervisors’ sensitivity to opportunities embedded in
group promotive voice and diminishing their sensitivity to threats
couched in group prohibitive voice (e.g., Lin & Johnson, 2015).
Given the effect of perceiving sufficient personal resources to
address group voice and the associated increase of attention on
potential rewards, we expect supervisors with a high personal
sense of power to more favorably appraise group promotive and
prohibitive voice (i.e., stronger challenge appraisals of group pro-
motive voice and weaker hindrance appraisals of group prohibitive
voice).
Conversely, a low personal sense of power is associated with
perceptions of limited personal resources to influence people and
circumstances at work (Anderson et al., 2012) and greater sensi-
tivity to potential threats (Keltner et al., 2003). Supervisors with a
low personal sense of power may perceive that they are incapable
of responding to opportunities and resolving concerns expressed
by group members. This perception of inefficacy leads to ego
defensiveness in response to group voice (Fast et al., 2014), which
is likely associated with negative interpretations of group promo-
tive and prohibitive voice. Moreover, supervisors will likely focus
on the risky elements of voice, compared with the potential ben-
efits, when they experience the heightened attention to threats
associated with a low personal sense of power (Anderson &
Berdahl, 2002; Anderson & Galinsky, 2006; Morrison, 2014).
Thus, we expect supervisors with a low personal sense of power to
have less favorable appraisals of group promotive and prohibitive
voice (i.e., weaker challenge appraisals of group promotive voice
and stronger hindrance appraisals of group prohibitive voice).
Hypothesis 3: A supervisor’s personal sense of power will
moderate the relationship between group promotive voice and
supervisor challenge appraisals of group voice such that the
relationship is stronger (weaker) with a high (low) personal
sense of power.
Hypothesis 4: A supervisor’s personal sense of power will
moderate the relationship between group prohibitive voice and
supervisor hindrance appraisals of group voice such that the
relationship is weaker (stronger) with a high (low) personal
sense of power.
2
A supervisor’s personal sense of power shares conceptual space with
other constructs from the stress literature, such as control or autonomy.
However, as Morrison et al. (2015, p. 551) note, “unlike control at work or
job autonomy, which reflects an employee’s perceived ability to influence
his or her own work behaviors and outcomes . . . sense of power is
inherently a social-relational concept: It reflects influence over other indi-
viduals’ attitudes, behaviors, and outcomes.” We consider a supervisor’s
personal sense of power because it aligns with the transactional theory of
stress, reflects the social nature of group voice, and provides a strong
theoretical framework for addressing supervisors’ orientation toward re-
wards and threats (Anderson et al., 2012; Keltner et al., 2003). Thus, a
supervisor’s personal sense of power is better suited to our examination of
supervisor reactions to group voice.
 THE EFFECTS OF GROUP VOICE ON SUPERVISORS
Supervisor Emotional Exhaustion
A key outcome of Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) theorizing on
stress and appraisals is perceived enhancements or threats to
well-being. Specifically, challenge and hindrance appraisals have
opposing effects on the extent to which individuals feel emotion-
ally overwhelmed by their work (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
Guided by this theorizing and our focus on the potential embedded
costs of group voice for supervisors, we examine supervisor well-
being in terms of emotional exhaustion. Emotional exhaustion is
an impairment of psychological well-being that entails “feelings of
being overextended and depleted of one’s emotional and physical
resources” (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001, p. 399; Sonnentag,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Kuttler, & Fritz, 2010). We focus on emotional exhaustion (rather
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
than the depersonalization or personal accomplishment facets of
burnout) because emotional exhaustion is the facet that tends to
have the strongest relationship with outcome variables and cap-
tures the core meaning of burnout (Cropanzano, Rupp, & Byrne,
2003; Lee & Ashforth, 1993, 1996; Wright & Bonett, 1997).
As a subjective interpretation that work conditions will produce
personal gain, growth, development, and well-being (LePine et al.,
2016), challenge appraisals of group voice are likely to reduce
supervisors’ emotional exhaustion. This reasoning is grounded in
theorizing from Lazarus and Folkman (1984, p. 34), who summa-
rize the well-being outcomes of challenge appraisals compared to
hindrance appraisals as follows:
Challenged persons are likely to have better morale, because to be
challenged means feeling positive about demanding encounters, as
reflected in the pleasurable emotions accompanying challenge. The
quality of functioning is apt to be better in challenge because the
person feels more confident, less emotionally overwhelmed, and more
capable of drawing on available resources than the person who is
inhibited or blocked.
Consistent with their theorizing, challenge appraisals of work
conditions, such as group voice, are likely to result in enhanced
work morale and confidence, positive emotions, and a resistance to
being emotionally overwhelmed. These outcomes further suggest
that challenge appraisals of group voice have an activating and
morale-boosting effect that is antithetical to emotional exhaustion,
given that emotional exhaustion includes a perceived inability of
individuals to achieve high levels of energetic activation and a
sense of helplessness (Quinn, Spreitzer, & Lam, 2012). Therefore,
we expect that challenge appraisals of group voice will be nega-
tively related to emotional exhaustion. To summarize, group pro-
motive voice should positively relate to challenge appraisals of
group voice, which, in turn, reduces supervisor emotional exhaus-
tion. Thus, we expect that group promotive voice will have a
negative indirect relationship with supervisor emotional exhaus-
tion through challenge appraisals of group voice and that this
negative indirect effect will be moderated by a supervisor’s per-
sonal sense of power.
In contrast, hindrance appraisals capture individuals’ subjective
interpretation that work conditions may result in personal loss,
constraints, or harm (LePine et al., 2016); diminished morale and
confidence; negative emotions; and a tendency to be emotionally
overwhelmed by work conditions (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). The
resulting negative perceptions of feeling blocked or inhibited by
group voice should increase the extent to which supervisors feel
623
overextended and helpless. Thus, supervisors will be unlikely to
achieve high levels of energetic activation and confidence (Quinn
et al., 2012). Therefore, we expect that supervisor hindrance ap-
praisals of group voice will increase supervisors’ emotional ex-
haustion. In sum, group prohibitive voice will positively relate to
hindrance appraisals of group voice, which, in turn, increases
supervisors’ emotional exhaustion. Thus, we expect that group
prohibitive voice will have a positive indirect relationship with
supervisor emotional exhaustion through hindrance appraisals of
group voice and that this positive indirect effect will be moderated
by a supervisor’s personal sense of power.
Hypothesis 5: Group promotive voice will (a) have a negative
indirect effect on supervisor emotional exhaustion through
supervisor challenge appraisals of group voice, and (b) this
indirect effect will be moderated in the first stage by a super-
visor’s personal sense of power such that the indirect effect
will be stronger (weaker) when their personal sense of power
is high (low).
Hypothesis 6: Group prohibitive voice will (a) have a positive
indirect effect on supervisor emotional exhaustion through
supervisor hindrance appraisals of group voice, and (b) this
indirect effect will be moderated in the first stage by a super-
visor’s personal sense of power such that the indirect effect
will be weaker (stronger) when their personal sense of power
is high (low).
Supervisor Performance
Thus far, we have argued that the type of group voice and a
supervisor’s personal sense of power will shape supervisors’ chal-
lenge and hindrance appraisals of group voice and that these
appraisals will have differential effects on supervisor emotional
exhaustion. To extend our theorizing, we build on prior work that
has considered behavioral outcomes of the appraisal process (Bo-
swell, Olson-Buchanan, & LePine, 2004; LePine et al., 2016; Ohly
& Fritz, 2010; Webster et al., 2011) to consider how supervisor
emotional exhaustion relates to supervisor performance. Supervi-
sor performance is a particularly relevant outcome to organiza-
tions, as it reflects supervisors’ contributions to day-to-day orga-
nizational operations, requires significant energy (Lanaj, Foulk, &
Erez, 2019), and has a cascading effect that influences employee
performance (Barling & Frone, 2017; Ten Brummelhuis, Haar, &
Roche, 2014).
We expect emotional exhaustion to be negatively related to
supervisor performance given that emotionally exhausted individ-
uals have depleted energy and reduced wherewithal to address
work responsibilities (Bakker et al., 2004; Sonnentag, 2015). Ad-
ditionally, emotionally exhausted individuals have diminished
self-efficacy in solving work-related problems, which can create a
particularly deleterious effect on the performance of supervisors,
who are charged with addressing problems within their work
groups (Bakker, Demerouti, Taris, Schaufeli, & Schreurs, 2003).
Thus, emotionally exhausted supervisors should perform less ef-
fectively due to depleted personal resources and reduced self-
efficacy, and we extend our hypotheses to address the indirect
effects of group promotive and prohibitive voice on supervisor
performance.
 624 SESSIONS, NAHRGANG, NEWTON, AND CHAMBERLIN
Hypothesis 7: Group promotive voice will (a) have a positive
indirect effect on supervisor performance through supervisor
challenge appraisals of group voice and supervisor emotional
exhaustion, and (b) this indirect effect will be moderated in the
first stage by a supervisor’s personal sense of power such that
the indirect effect will be stronger (weaker) when their per-
sonal sense of power is high (low).
Hypothesis 8: Group prohibitive voice will (a) have a negative
indirect effect on supervisor performance through supervisor
hindrance appraisals of group voice and supervisor emotional
exhaustion, and (b) this indirect effect will be moderated in the
first stage by a supervisor’s personal sense of power such that
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
the indirect effect will be weaker (stronger) when their per-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
sonal sense of power is high (low).
Study 1
Method
Sample and procedure. We tested our hypotheses in two
studies.3 We first examined our hypotheses in a sample of 150
supervisors and 493 employees at a large university in the United
States. Our employee sample was 60% female and participants, on
average, were 39-years-old (SD ⫽ 12.42) and had been with the
university for 5 years (SD ⫽ 6.72). Our supervisor sample was
54% female and participants, on average, were 44-years-old (SD ⫽
9.33) and had been with the university for 11 years (SD ⫽ 8.39).
The average supervisor– employee relationship tenure was 2.39
years (SD ⫽ 3.29), and the average work group size was 3.29
employees (SD ⫽ 1.70).
Our sample drew from administrative and support staff from
two colleges and two supporting business units within the univer-
sity. The supervisors in our sample had a large degree of diversity
in their roles in that they were comprised of supervisors from
enrollment management (N ⫽ 50), the university technology office
(N ⫽ 46), the business school (N ⫽ 43), and the honors college
(N ⫽ 11). In our initial conversations with the leadership of these
separate offices, it was clear that supervisors received both ideas
and suggestions (promotive voice) as well as expressions of con-
cern and problems (prohibitive voice), though the specific subject
matter of the voice messages varied by department. The diversity
in the roles of supervisors in our sample increases the generaliz-
ability of our findings, and we account for this variation across
units methodologically through multilevel modeling (Kerlinger &
Lee, 2000).
To reduce common method bias, we separated our variables by
time and source by collecting data from employees and supervisors
in three waves that were each approximately 1 month apart (Doty
& Glick, 1998; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).
We surveyed employees at Time 1, supervisors at Time 2, and both
employees and supervisors at Time 3. We provided incentives to
participants through drawings for gift cards prizes, ranging from
$10 to $50. At Time 1, 616 employees completed measures of
promotive and prohibitive voice. At Time 2, 193 supervisors
completed measures of challenge appraisals and hindrance ap-
praisals of group voice, and supervisors’ personal sense of power.
At Time 3, 170 supervisors completed a measure of emotional
exhaustion (88% response rate), and 464 employees completed a
measure of supervisor performance (75% response rate). Using
full-information maximum likelihood (FIML) path analysis in
Mplus 7.4 (Muthén & Muthén, 2015), we arrived at a final sample
of 150 supervisors and 493 employees. One-way ANOVAs dem-
onstrated that there were no significant differences in terms of age,
gender, organizational tenure, dyadic tenure, or work experience
for the sample of employees at Time 1 compared with Time 3 or
for the sample of supervisors at Time 2 compared with Time 3.
Measures. All measures were rated on a 5-point Likert scale
from 1 ⫽ strongly disagree to 5 ⫽ strongly agree unless otherwise
indicated.
Group promotive and prohibitive voice. Employees rated pro-
motive and prohibitive voice using Liang et al.’s (2012) 10-item
measure and were given the following lead-in instructions: “Items
on this page refer to your experience speaking up to your super-
visor about changes at work.” Example items of promotive voice
are “I proactively voice out constructive suggestions that would
help my work group reach its goal” and “I make constructive
suggestions to improve my group’s operations” (␣ ⫽ .94). Exam-
ple items of prohibitive voice include: “I point out problems when
they appear in the unit” and “I speak up honestly with problems
that might cause serious loss to the work unit” (␣ ⫽ .89).
For both group promotive and prohibitive voice, we used an
additive model derived by averaging lower-level scores (Chan,
1998). In our case, group-level voice is the average of employee
ratings of voice working under a given supervisor, which is con-
sistent with prior research on group voice (Lam & Mayer, 2014).
Our ICCs and mean rwg values were acceptable; promotive voice:
ICC(1) ⫽ .06, p ⫽ .05, ICC(2) ⫽ .22, mean rwg ⫽ .84 (SD ⫽ .24);
prohibitive voice: ICC(1) ⫽ .07, p ⫽ .04, ICC(2) ⫽ .23, mean
rwg ⫽ .82 (SD ⫽ .22; James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984; LeBreton &
Senter, 2008). These results suggest that the aggregation of group
member voice to the group level is appropriate. Given research that
demonstrates that centralization of voice in teams has important
implications for team performance (e.g., Sherf, Sinha, Tangirala,
& Awasty, 2018), we conducted additional analyses to examine
whether the amount of variance in group voice affects supervisor
appraisals of group voice. High variance in group voice suggests a
“squeaky wheel” who speaks up more than others, which could
negatively affect a supervisor’s appraisals of group voice. We
examined whether rwg and within-group standard deviation of
voice moderated the relationships between group voice and ap-
praisals of group voice but found no moderating effects or differ-
ences in our pattern of results when modeled as controls. These
checks support our emphasis on mean levels of group voice rather
than within-group variation.
Challenge and hindrance appraisals of group voice.
Supervisors rated challenge appraisals of group voice and hin-
drance appraisals of group voice using the three-item measures
developed by LePine et al. (2016). The items were adapted to
capture supervisors’ appraisals of constructive voice from their
work groups. The following survey lead-in instructions were pro-
vided: “The items on this page refer to your experience when your
group of employees speak up with ideas and problems to change
3
We received IRB approval from Arizona State University for our two
studies (IRB #00004919, titled “Voice Fatigue”; IRB #00007942, titled
“Understanding Supervisor Reactions to Employee Voice”).
 THE EFFECTS OF GROUP VOICE ON SUPERVISORS 625

things at work.” Sample items of challenge appraisals of group
voice are: “Working to fulfill the demands of listening to employee
ideas improves my personal growth and well-being” and “I feel
that listening to employee ideas promotes my ability to work
toward my personal accomplishment” (␣ ⫽ .79). Sample items of
hindrance appraisals of group voice are: “Working to fulfill the
demands of listening to employee ideas gets in the way of my
personal growth and well-being” and “I feel that listening to
employee ideas hinders my ability to work toward my personal
accomplishment” (␣ ⫽ .91).
Supervisor personal sense of power. Supervisors responded
to the 10-item measure of a personal sense of power from Morri-
son, See, and Pan (2015) on a 5-point scale (1 ⫽ not at all to 5 ⫽
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Supervisor performance. Supervisor performance was mea-
sured with a four-item measure developed by Liden, Wayne, and
Stilwell (1993) and subsequently adapted by Nahrgang, Morgeson,
and Ilies (2009). Employees rated their supervisor’s performance
with items such as: “This team leader performs very well” and
“This team leader is very effective” (␣ ⫽ .97). The ICCs were
acceptable (ICC(1) ⫽ .19, p ⬍ .001, ICC(2) ⫽ .51), and the mean
rwg value was .85 (SD ⫽ .26), which indicates a high level of
uniformity (James et al., 1984; LeBreton & Senter, 2008).
Control variables. We controlled for group size given that an
increased number of employees engaging in voice likely influ-
ences supervisors’ challenge and hindrance appraisals of voice.
Given that supervisors may experience other work conditions

a great deal). The lead-in to the items was: “At work, I am . . .” besides voice, we also controlled for general job demands using
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

The items are “powerful,” “influential,” “in-control,” “dominant,”
“in-charge,” “independent,” “action-oriented,” “weak,” “depen-
dent,” and “powerless” (the last three items were reverse coded;
␣ ⫽ .80).
Supervisor emotional exhaustion. Supervisors rated their emo-
tional exhaustion using the nine-item measure from Maslach and
Jackson (1993; ␣ ⫽ .92). We used the emotional exhaustion facet
from the burnout scale, rather than overall burnout, depersonaliza-
tion, personal accomplishment or cognitive depletion, because
emotional exhaustion captures the essence of burnout and, as such,
tends to have the strongest relationship with outcome variables
(Cropanzano et al., 2003; Lee & Ashforth, 1993, 1996; Wright &
Bonett, 1997).
A helpful reviewer raised the point that our measures of chal-
lenge and hindrance appraisals of group voice use the word “well-
being,” which could be confounded with our measure of emotional
exhaustion. We note that the measures we used for challenge and
hindrance appraisals (LePine et al., 2016) and emotional exhaus-
tion (Maslach & Jackson, 1993) have been previously validated
and published. We conducted a principal components factor anal-
ysis with varimax rotation of the three challenge appraisals of
group voice items, the three hindrance appraisals of group voice
items, and the nine emotional exhaustion items. The factor analysis
revealed three factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 that ex-
plained 70.6% of the variance. The largest cross-loading of the
challenge appraisals of group voice and hindrance appraisals group
voice items on the emotional exhaustion factor was .14. These
findings, when combined with validation efforts conducted by
previous research, give us confidence the measures are not con-
founded.
four items from Karasek’s (1979) measure (␣ ⫽ .77). We exam-
ined the relevance of several other control variables—supervisor
age, gender, race, and tenure with the organization—as research
has shown that demographics may influence stress, emotional
exhaustion, and performance (Bonanno, Galea, Bucciarelli, & Vla-
hov, 2007; Wright & Bonett, 1997). Analyses revealed that none of
these demographic control variables significantly altered our re-
sults. Overall, inclusion of these demographic controls strength-
ened our effects, but our pattern of results was unchanged if these
variables were not modeled. Based on recommendations to ex-
clude controls when they do not change the results of the analysis
(Becker, 2005; Carlson & Wu, 2012), we did not retain any
demographic controls in our final model in order to maximize the
ratio of study participants to parameters (Cohen, 1992).
Analyses and Results
Descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliabilities are shown in
Table 1. We verified the factor structure of our model in a
multilevel confirmatory factor analysis using Mplus 7.4 (Muthén
& Muthén, 2015). The nine-factor measurement model consisted
of group promotive voice, group prohibitive voice, supervisor
personal sense of power, supervisor challenge appraisals of group
voice, supervisor hindrance appraisals of group voice, supervisor
emotional exhaustion, supervisor performance, supervisor job de-
mands, and group size. The model exhibited acceptable fit,
␹2(470) ⫽ 1019.42, p ⬍ .001; CFI ⫽ .93; RMSEA ⫽ .05; SRMR
between ⫽ .11; SRMR within ⫽ .03. All factor loadings were
significant.

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Reliabilities (Study 1)

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Group promotive voice 3.53 .59 (.94)

2. Group prohibitive voice 3.08 .53 .55ⴱⴱ (.89)
3. Challenge appraisals of group voice 4.00 .53 .23ⴱⴱ ⫺.01 (.79)
4. Hindrance appraisals of group voice 1.70 .56 ⫺.17ⴱ .08 ⫺.46ⴱⴱ (.91)
5. Supervisor personal sense of power 3.66 .54 .12ⴱ .02 .15 ⫺.21ⴱⴱ (.80)
6. Supervisor emotional exhaustion 2.36 .82 ⫺.03 .02 ⫺.17ⴱⴱ .14 ⫺.36ⴱⴱ (.92)
7. Supervisor performance 3.91 1.25 .10 .01 ⫺.06 ⫺.04 ⫺.07 ⫺.11ⴱⴱ (.97)
8. Group size 3.29 1.70 .12ⴱ .04 ⫺.03 .00 .01 ⫺.13ⴱⴱ .10ⴱ —
9. Job demands 4.07 .62 ⫺.02 ⫺.08 .16 ⫺.21 ⫺.06 .38ⴱⴱ .00 ⫺.05 (.77)
Note. N ⫽ 150.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
 626 SESSIONS, NAHRGANG, NEWTON, AND CHAMBERLIN
To consider the interactions in our model, we first mean cen-
tered our predictors to remove nonessential multicollinearity be-
tween the variables and their product terms (Cohen, Cohen, West,
& Aiken, 2003; Cortina, Chen, & Dunlap, 2001). To test the
hypothesized indirect effects, we also modeled the direct effects of
group promotive and prohibitive voice on supervisor emotional
exhaustion and supervisor performance (e.g., MacKinnon, Lock-
wood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002). Researchers advocate
testing indirect effects using resampling methods because the
products of path coefficients are not normally distributed (Mac-
Kinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004). Accordingly, we tested
our indirect effects with the Monte Carlo method using the RMe-
diation software package (Tofighi & MacKinnon, 2011). More-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
over, we examined conditional indirect effects by testing for a
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
significant difference between the high and low conditions of a
supervisor’s personal sense of power for group promotive and
prohibitive voice to supervisor emotional exhaustion and perfor-
mance through supervisor challenge and hindrance appraisals of
group voice. Because supervisors in our sample belong to different
colleges and business units within the university, there is the
potential for nonindependence of observations due to systematic
differences (Bliese, 2000). To account for these differences, we ran
a two-level model in which we clustered on supervisors’ organi-
zational unit. This approach derives clustered standard errors,
which provides a more accurate and conservative test of predic-
tions. All other variables were modeled at the within-level. Our
final model presented acceptable fit to the data: ␹2(19) ⫽ 39.13,
p ⫽ .004; CFI ⫽ .90; RMSEA ⫽ .08; SRMR ⫽ .06.
Hypothesis 1a predicted that group promotive voice would be
positively related to supervisor challenge appraisals of group
voice, and Hypothesis 1b predicted that group promotive voice
would be negatively related to supervisor hindrance appraisals of
group voice. As shown in Figure 1, both Hypotheses 1a and 1b
were supported, as group promotive voice was positively related to
supervisor challenge appraisals of group voice (b ⫽ .28, SE ⫽ .06,
Time 2
(Supervisor Reported)
Supervisor
Personal Sense of
Power
Time 1
(Employee Reported) -.07 -.21*
Supervisor
Group .28** Challenge
Promotive Voice Appraisals of
Group Voice
**
-.16
**
.17 -.10**
-.25*
Supervisor
Group Hindrance
Prohibitive Voice .22* Appraisals of
Group Voice
Figure 1. Path model of the differential effects of group promotive and prohibitive voice on supervisor
appraisals of group voice, supervisor emotional exhaustion, and supervisor performance (Study 1). Paths from
group promotive voice and group prohibitive voice to supervisor emotional exhaustion and supervisor perfor-
mance were modeled because they are necessary for testing our indirect and conditional indirect effects. Only
hypothesized relationships are depicted. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01, two-tailed.
p ⬍ .001) and negatively related to hindrance appraisals of group
voice (b ⫽ ⫺.25, SE ⫽ .12, p ⫽ .03). Hypothesis 2a predicted that
group prohibitive voice would be positively related to supervisor
hindrance appraisals of group voice, and Hypothesis 2b predicted
that group prohibitive voice would be negatively related to super-
visor challenge appraisals of group voice. As shown in Figure 1,
group prohibitive voice was positively related to supervisor hin-
drance appraisals of group voice (b ⫽ .22, SE ⫽ .09, p ⫽ .02) and
negatively related to supervisor challenge appraisals of group
voice (b ⫽ ⫺.16, SE ⫽ .04, p ⬍ .001). Thus, Hypotheses 2a and
2b were also supported.
Hypothesis 3 predicted that a supervisor’s personal sense of
power would moderate the relationship between group promotive
voice and challenge appraisals of group voice. We did not find
support for this hypothesis as the interaction term was not signif-
icant (b ⫽ ⫺.07, SE ⫽ .06, p ⫽ .27). Hypothesis 4 predicted that
a supervisor’s personal sense of power would moderate the posi-
tive relationship between group prohibitive voice and hindrance
appraisals of group voice. As shown in Figure 2, the interaction
between group prohibitive voice and a supervisor’s personal sense
of power on hindrance appraisals of voice was significant
(b ⫽ ⫺.21, SE ⫽ .08, p ⫽ .01). We plotted and tested simple
slopes for a high and low group (i.e., plus or minus one standard
deviation) to examine the conditional effects of group prohibitive
voice on hindrance appraisals of group voice (Cohen et al., 2003).
The positive relationship between group prohibitive voice and
supervisor hindrance appraisals of group voice was weaker and not
significant when personal sense of power was high (b ⫽ .11, SE ⫽
.10, p ⫽ .31), but stronger and significant when personal sense of
power was low (b ⫽ .33, SE ⫽ .10, p ⫽ .001), supporting
Hypothesis 4.
Hypothesis 5a predicted that group promotive voice would have
a negative indirect effect on supervisor emotional exhaustion
through supervisor challenge appraisals of group voice, and Hy-
pothesis 5b predicted that this relationship would be moderated by
Time 3
Time 3
-.28**
(Supervisor Reported) (Employee Reported)
Supervisor -.26** Supervisor
Emotional
Performance
Exhaustion
.24**
 THE EFFECTS OF GROUP VOICE ON SUPERVISORS
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Figure 2. Interaction of supervisor personal sense of power and group
prohibitive voice on supervisor hindrance appraisals of group voice
(Study 1).
a supervisor’s personal sense of power. Although the specific link
was not formally hypothesized, we found that challenge appraisals
of group voice had a negative relationship with emotional exhaus-
tion (b ⫽ ⫺.28, SE ⫽ .10, p ⫽ .01). We formally tested our
hypothesized indirect effects with the product of coefficients ap-
proach (MacKinnon et al., 2002) and found support for the nega-
tive indirect effect between group promotive voice and supervisor
emotional exhaustion through supervisor challenge appraisals of
group voice (indirect effect ⫽ ⫺.08; 95% CI [⫺.100, ⫺.032]).
Given that a supervisor’s personal sense of power did not moderate
the relationship between group promotive voice and supervisor
challenge appraisals of group voice, we did not test conditional
indirect effects for this pathway. Thus, Hypothesis 5a was sup-
ported and Hypothesis 5b was not.
Hypothesis 6a predicted that group prohibitive voice would
have a positive indirect effect on supervisor emotional exhaus-
tion through supervisor hindrance appraisals of group voice,
and Hypothesis 6b predicted that this relationship would be
moderated by a supervisor’s personal sense of power. Although
not formally hypothesized, we found that supervisor hindrance
appraisals of group voice had a positive relationship with su-
pervisor emotional exhaustion (b ⫽ .24, SE ⫽ .07, p ⬍ .001).
To test the indirect effects, we again used the product of
coefficients approach and found support for the positive indi-
rect effect between group prohibitive voice and supervisor
emotional exhaustion through supervisor hindrance appraisals
of group voice (indirect effect ⫽ .05; 95% CI [.013, .059]).
Thus, Hypothesis 6a was supported. We also found that the
indirect effect between group prohibitive voice and supervisor
emotional exhaustion voice was weaker and nonsignificant
when personal sense of power was high (indirect effect ⫽ .03;
95% CI [⫺.034, .050]) and stronger and significant when
personal sense of power was low (indirect effect ⫽ .08; 95% CI
[.043, .089]). As an indication of moderated mediation, the
difference in the indirect effects at high and low levels of
personal sense of power was significant (⌬ indirect ef-
fect ⫽ ⫺.05; 95% CI [⫺.101, ⫺.007]). Thus, Hypothesis 6b
was also supported.
627
Hypothesis 7a predicted that group promotive voice would have
a positive serial indirect effect on supervisor performance through
supervisor challenge appraisals of group voice and emotional
exhaustion, and Hypothesis 7b predicted that supervisors’ personal
sense of power would moderate this serial indirect effect. We note
that the model explained 6.6% of variance in supervisor perfor-
mance. Supervisor emotional exhaustion was negatively related to
supervisor performance (b ⫽ ⫺.26, SE ⫽ .07, p ⬍ .001), and the
serial indirect effect from Hypothesis 7a was supported (indirect
effect ⫽ .02; 95% CI [.005, .038]). Given that a supervisor’s
personal sense of power did not moderate the relationship between
group promotive voice and supervisor challenge appraisals of
group voice, we did not test Hypothesis 7b.
Hypothesis 8a predicted that group prohibitive voice would
have a negative serial indirect effect on supervisor performance
through supervisor hindrance appraisals of group voice and
emotional exhaustion, and Hypothesis 8b predicted that super-
visors’ personal sense of power would moderate this serial
indirect effect. The serial indirect effect put forward by Hy-
pothesis 8a was supported (indirect effect ⫽ ⫺.01; 95% CI
[⫺.019, ⫺.002]). Regarding Hypothesis 8b, we found that the
serial indirect effect between group prohibitive voice and su-
pervisor performance voice was weaker and not significant
when personal sense of power was high (indirect effect ⫽ ⫺.01;
95% CI [⫺.015, .005]) and stronger and significant when
personal sense of power was low (indirect effect ⫽ ⫺.02; 95%
CI [⫺.028, ⫺.006]). Importantly, the difference in the indirect
effects at high and low levels of personal sense of power was
significant (⌬ indirect effect ⫽ .01; 95% CI [.007, .025]). Thus,
Hypotheses 8a and 8b were both supported.
We also conducted a supplemental analysis. In addition to
controlling for the effects of group size in our primary analysis, we
examined whether group size influenced the direction or strength
of the relationship between group promotive and prohibitive voice
and supervisor appraisals of group voice. The interaction of group
promotive voice and group size on challenge appraisals of group
voice was significant (b ⫽ ⫺.04, SE ⫽ .01, p ⬍ .001). The plot of
this interaction indicates that group promotive voice had a positive
relationship with challenge appraisals of group voice at high levels
of group size and an even stronger positive relationship at low
levels of group size. The interaction of group prohibitive voice and
group size on hindrance appraisals of group voice was also sig-
nificant (b ⫽ .05, SE ⫽ .02, p ⫽ .001). The plot of this interaction
shows that group prohibitive voice had a positive relationship with
hindrance appraisals of group voice at high levels of group size
and a weaker, but still positive, relationship at low levels of group
size. Although group size moderates these two relationships, we
still found a positive relationship between group promotive voice
and challenge appraisals of group voice in both high and low group
size, which is in line with our theorizing. Further, in accordance
with our theorizing, group prohibitive voice also exhibited a pos-
itive relationship with hindrance appraisals of group voice in
conditions of high and low group size (although the simple slope
for the relationship between group prohibitive voice and hindrance
appraisals of group voice at low group size was positive but only
significant for a one-tailed test). Importantly, with the inclusion of
group size and the associated interaction terms, we found that our
main effects outlined in Hypotheses 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b all remained
significant.
 628 SESSIONS, NAHRGANG, NEWTON, AND CHAMBERLIN
Discussion
In Study 1, we tested our model across a sample of supervisors
with diverse work roles. We found that group promotive voice had
a negative indirect effect on supervisor emotional exhaustion
through challenge appraisals of group voice and had a positive
indirect effect on supervisor performance through challenge ap-
praisals of group voice and emotional exhaustion. We did not,
however, find support for supervisors’ personal sense of power
moderating the relationship between group promotive voice and
supervisor challenge appraisals of group voice. Thus, supervisors
may positively view the experience of receiving group promotive
voice irrespective of their sense of power. Further, we found that
group prohibitive voice had a positive indirect effect on supervisor
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
emotional exhaustion through hindrance appraisals of group voice
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
and a negative indirect effect on supervisor performance through
hindrance appraisals of group voice and emotional exhaustion. We
also found support for the moderating role of a supervisor’s
personal sense of power on the relationship between group pro-
hibitive voice and hindrance appraisals of group voice as well as
the related conditional indirect effects. Thus, supervisors appear to
be more positively appraise problems and concerns in cases of
high power but appraise group prohibitive voice as more hindering
in nature when they feel a diminished sense of power.
Although Study 1 has numerous strengths, certain limitations
exist. For example, we can make limited inferences about causal-
ity, although our integration of existing theory and time separation
of our variables provide some support for causality. Our findings
may also be confounded by situational factors and individual
differences. Given these limitations, we examined the core rela-
tionships in our model in a controlled environment (Study 2).
Using an experimental study design, we manipulated group pro-
motive and prohibitive voice as well as participants’ personal
sense of power in order to provide further support to our Study 1
findings by making a stronger argument for causality, mitigating
situational confounds, and addressing individual differences through
random assignment across conditions.
Study 2
Method
Sample and procedure. Our Study 2 sample was comprised
of 135 undergraduate students, who were offered course credit to
participate in an in-person lab study. Scholars have reasoned that
lab studies “involving undergraduate participants that occur in an
environment that was created for research purposes” can advance
theory by effectively ruling out alternative explanations and em-
ploying random assignment and effective manipulations (Colquitt,
2008, p. 616). In our study, we randomly assigned participants to
one of four conditions: 2 Group Voice Conditions (Group Promo-
tive or Group Prohibitive Voice) ⫻ 2 Power Conditions (High or
Low Power). Participants in our study completed an adapted
“in-basket exercise” (e.g., Desai & Kouchaki, 2017; Gibson, 1999)
in which participants act as a supervisor processing different items
that have accumulated in his or her “in-basket”—in this study, 10
e-mails that had come into the supervisor’s inbox over the week-
end. Participants were an average age of 22-years-old (SD ⫽ 2.63)
and had an average of 1.52 years of work experience (SD ⫽ 2.63).
Forty-nine percent of the sample was female. On average, partic-
ipants spent 34 min (SD ⫽ 8.80) on the exercise.
After welcoming participants, the experimenter informed par-
ticipants that they would complete a scenario that evaluates how
they manage workflow. Participants were randomly assigned to
either a high or low power condition. Personal power was manip-
ulated using the exercise developed by Galinsky, Gruenfeld, and
Magee (2003) wherein participants spent at least 2 min describing
a situation in which they experienced high or low power (e.g.,
Morrison et al., 2015).4 We then presented a scenario to partici-
pants that asked them to assume the role of Jamie Peters, the
supervisor of a sales team of six employees responsible for selling
printers and office supplies. Participants were provided with an
organizational chart that displayed a sales director overseeing their
role and the names of each of their employees. We informed
participants that it was Monday morning, they had just arrived at
work after the weekend, and they were about to check their e-mail.
We provided these details to establish background information
about the scenario in preparation for our voice manipulations.
Following the power manipulation and summary of the scenario,
participants were presented with a series of e-mails from their
inbox and asked to review each one. Participants reviewed 10
messages, beginning with a review of Jamie’s most recent e-mail
to the team. In this e-mail, Jamie sent an update to the team that
their “performance was about the same as the first quarter of 2018”
and “of the five sales teams at the company, [they were] right in
the middle of the pack (third of five).” Participants reviewed this
message first to provide context for the remaining nine e-mails.
This message did not invite group member responses in order to
reflect the discretionary nature of voice (Van Dyne & LePine,
1998).
We randomly assigned participants to one of two group voice
conditions: group promotive voice or group prohibitive voice. In
the group promotive voice condition, participants received five
e-mail messages containing promotive voice, and in the group
prohibitive voice condition, participants received five e-mail mes-
sages containing prohibitive voice (see Table 2). By holding the
message content constant across the two voice conditions, we
sought to focus our manipulation explicitly on the type of voice
(e.g., McClean, Martin, Emich, & Woodruff, 2018). The first
message for both group voice conditions was adapted from Mc-
Clean, Martin, Emich, and Woodruff (2018). The remaining four
messages for the group voice conditions were developed for this
study and interspersed among four additional messages. The four
additional messages were of similar length to the group voice
messages and closely paralleled the structure of the other mes-
sages. Topics of these messages included an invitation to help with
a new-employee orientation, a notice about paving the parking lot,
an announcement about a security training, and a reminder that
4
The instructions for the power manipulation were as follows (Galinsky,
Gruenfeld, & Magee, 2003): “Before you read the scenario, please recall a
particular instance in which [you had power over another individual or
individuals/someone else had power over you]. By power, we mean a
situation in which [you controlled the ability of another person or persons/
someone had control over your ability] to get something [they/you] wanted,
or [were in a position to evaluate those individuals/was in a position to
evaluate you]. Please describe this situation in which you [had power/did
not have power]—what happened, how you felt, etc.”
 THE EFFECTS OF GROUP VOICE ON SUPERVISORS 629

Table 2
Adapted In-Basket Exercise: Group Voice Conditions (Study 2)

Issue Condition Message

Sales team script Group promotive I think that we should come up with a new and improved script in order to give us more flexibility in
voice meeting customer needs going forward. My idea is for a new script that could include much more
leeway around add-on products for our customers so that we can better meet their needs in the
future. I think a new script will help all of us do better (McClean et al., 2018).
Group prohibitive I think that we should get rid of our ineffective script because it has restricted our flexibility in
voice meeting customer needs in the past. My concern is that this script makes it much harder to add
products on for our customers and is harming our ability to meet their needs right now. I think
getting rid of the script will fix the harm done (McClean et al., 2018).
Bonus system Group promotive We should develop a new bonus system to better encourage our team. A new bonus system would
voice better align with our current customers and levels of sales. We would have more incentive to try
for our sales targets because we would be confident we can reach them. As a result, our team
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

would feel better about our work. Looking forward, I think it would help our morale.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Group prohibitive We should get rid of our outdated bonus structure because it’s discouraging our team. Our current
voice bonus system is out of touch with our current customer and levels of sales. We have had no
incentive to keep trying for higher sales targets because we doubt we can reach them. As a result,
our team has felt bad about our work. Looking back, I worry it has hurt our morale.
Customers Group promotive What if we began pursuing sales to bigger companies? Bigger companies tend to spend more on our
voice products than smaller companies. I think selling to bigger companies is an opportunity because it
would mean less work for more benefit to our sales in upcoming quarters. My idea is to pursue
sales to bigger companies to improve our performance.
Group prohibitive What if we stop pursuing sales to smaller companies? Smaller companies tend to spend less on our
voice products than bigger companies. I think selling to smaller companies is a problem because it has
meant more work for little benefit to our sales in prior quarters. My concern is that our pursuit of
sales to smaller companies has hurt our performance.
Suppliers Group promotive An opportunity I see relates to our suppliers. We could shift business to our best suppliers because
voice they do a reliable job of getting products to our customers. Working more with these good
suppliers could make us look good to our customers because they deliver on time. This would
improve the image of our company.
Group prohibitive A problem I see relates to our suppliers. We have relied on some poor suppliers that have done an
voice unreliable job of getting products to our customers. Working with these poor suppliers has made us
look bad to our customers because they deliver late. This has harmed the image of our company.
Work environment Group promotive We could make the shared space where our desks are located quieter, which would help our
voice concentration. We could set aside an office for people to make and take phone calls. This would
also improve privacy in the group, which would also help us to get along better. Working in a
quieter area would help morale and productivity in the group.
Group prohibitive The shared space where our desks are located is too noisy, which has been distracting. People make
voice and take calls in that space, and we all have to listen to them. This has also created privacy
problems, which have led to interpersonal disputes. Having to work in such a noisy area has hurt
morale and productivity in the group.

midyear evaluations were coming up. These messages represent
common issues that a supervisor may face as general challenge and
hindrance demands. At the end of the adapted in-basket exercise,
participants were asked to write a response to their group about
their input.
Measures. After completing the adapted in-basket exercise,
participants responded to several outcome measures. We used the
same measures of challenge appraisals of group voice (␣ ⫽ .79)
and hindrance appraisals of group voice (␣ ⫽ .90) as Study 1
(LePine et al., 2016). These items referred directly to the group’s
comments in the adapted in-basket exercise (e.g., “working to
fulfill the demands of managing employee comments [improves/
gets in the way] of my personal growth and well-being”). We also
used the same nine-item measure of emotional exhaustion as Study
1 (Maslach & Jackson, 1993). However, we asked participants
how they feel “right now” as a lead-in to this measure and removed
wording that referred to the participant’s job to make the items
applicable to the participant’s emotional exhaustion after complet-
ing the adapted in-basket exercise (␣ ⫽ .96). Although participants
composed an e-mail in response to their group’s voice, this part of
the exercise was intended to encourage participants to process the
e-mails from their group rather than as a performance measure,
given that there is not one “best” way to respond.
Analyses and Results
We coded the group voice conditions (1 ⫽ group promotive
voice, 0 ⫽ group prohibitive voice) and personal sense of power
conditions (1 ⫽ high, 0 ⫽ low) for our analyses. We used analysis
of variance (ANOVA) to examine our manipulation checks and the
differences across the manipulated conditions in our experimental
study. We examined our indirect effects and conditional indirect
effects using Hayes’s (2012) PROCESS macro (v2.16.3) in SPSS
(Version 24). This approach utilizes bias-corrected bootstrapped
confidence intervals (5,000 bootstrap samples) to estimate indirect
effects as well as conditional indirect effects, while controlling for
the direct effect of the independent variable on the dependent
variable.
Manipulation checks. We measured the extent to which par-
ticipants, acting in the role of supervisors, experienced a personal
 630 SESSIONS, NAHRGANG, NEWTON, AND CHAMBERLIN
sense of power using the same 10-item measure from Morrison et
al. (2015) used in Study 1. Participants responded to the prompt,
“Right now, I feel . . .” followed by the measure (1 ⫽ not at all to
5 ⫽ a great deal; ␣ ⫽ .89). An ANOVA supported a strong
positive main effect for the power manipulation (F ⫽ 33.86, p ⬍
.001, Mean ⫽ 3.34 vs. 4.06). We also confirmed that the manip-
ulations of the group voice conditions were effective using the
lead-in “Think about your team’s comments to you. My team . . .”
followed by two options: “Expressed opportunities and ideas to
me” and “Expressed problems and concerns to me.” For our group
voice conditions, 126 out of 135 participants correctly responded
to our manipulation check (93.3%), and our results remained the
same whether or not we included 126 or 135 participants. Given
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
the consistency of these results, we retained all 135 participants in
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
our final sample for the sake of maximizing the ratio of study
participants to parameters (Cohen, 1992).
Hypotheses testing. Descriptive statistics and correlations for
our variables are shown in Table 3. Hypothesis 1a predicted that
group promotive voice would be positively related to challenge
appraisals of group voice, and Hypothesis 1b predicted that group
promotive voice would be negatively related to hindrance apprais-
als of group voice. Hypothesis 2a predicted that group prohibitive
voice would be positively related to hindrance appraisals of group
voice, and Hypothesis 2b predicted that group prohibitive voice
would be negatively related to challenge appraisals of group voice.
Figures 3a and 3b show the means for challenge appraisals of
group voice and hindrance appraisals of group voice across the
group voice conditions. Challenge appraisals of group voice were
rated higher in the group promotive voice condition compared with
the group prohibitive voice condition (Mean ⫽ 4.35 vs. 3.70; F ⫽
29.77, p ⬍ .001). Conversely, hindrance appraisals of group voice
were rated lower in the group promotive voice condition compared
to the group prohibitive voice condition (Mean ⫽ 1.68 vs. 2.50;
F ⫽ 33.54, p ⬍ .001). These findings provide support for Hypoth-
eses 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b.
In regards to supervisors’ personal sense of power, we did not
find a significant main effect for personal sense of power on either
challenge appraisals of group voice, F ⫽ 1.06, p ⫽ .31 or hin-
drance appraisals of group voice, F ⫽ 1.99, p ⫽ .16. Hypothesis
3 predicted that a personal sense of power would moderate the
relationship between group promotive voice and challenge ap-
praisals of group voice. Participants in the group promotive voice
condition did not rate challenge appraisals differently in the low
power condition compared to the high power condition (Mean ⫽
4.40 vs. 4.31; F ⫽ 3.29, p ⫽ .07). Thus, Hypothesis 3 was not
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Reliabilities (Study 2)
Variable Mean SD
1. Group voice condition — —
2. Personal sense of power condition — —
3. Challenge appraisals of group voice 4.05 .77
4. Hindrance appraisals of group voice 2.06 .92
5. Emotional exhaustion 2.08 .98
Note. N ⫽ 135 (group promotive/high power ⫽ 37; group promotive/low power ⫽ 35; group prohibitive/high power ⫽ 31; group prohibitive/low power ⫽
32). Group voice conditions coded 1 ⫽ group promotive voice, 0 ⫽ group prohibitive voice; personal sense of power condition coded 1 ⫽ high power,
0 ⫽ low power.
ⴱⴱ
p ⬍ .01.
supported. Hypothesis 4 predicted that a personal sense of power
would moderate the relationship between group prohibitive voice
and hindrance appraisals of group voice. As shown in Figure 3c,
participants in the group prohibitive voice condition rated hin-
drance appraisals in the low power condition significantly higher
than they did in the high power condition (Mean ⫽ 2.74 vs. 2.26;
F ⫽ 3.97, p ⫽ .048). Thus, Hypothesis 4 was supported.
As predicted by Hypothesis 5a, we found a negative indirect
effect between the group promotive voice condition and emotional
exhaustion through challenge appraisals of group voice compared
to the group prohibitive voice condition (indirect effect ⫽ ⫺.25;
95% CI [⫺.458, ⫺.078]). Hypothesis 5b predicted that this indi-
rect effect would be moderated by personal sense of power. We did
not test this conditional indirect effect given the nonsignificant
interaction between the group promotive voice condition and per-
sonal sense of power. Thus, Hypothesis 5a was supported, and
Hypothesis 5b was not supported.
In support of Hypothesis 6a, we found a significant positive
indirect effect between the group prohibitive voice condition and
emotional exhaustion through hindrance appraisals of group voice
compared with the group promotive voice condition (indirect
effect ⫽ .50; 95% CI [.312, .744]). In accordance with Hypothesis
6b, we then tested the indirect effect between the group prohibitive
voice condition and emotional exhaustion through hindrance ap-
praisals of group voice at high and low levels of personal sense of
power. We found the indirect effect to be weaker in the high
personal sense of power condition (indirect effect ⫽ .33; 95% CI
[.111, .571]) and stronger in the low personal sense of power
condition (indirect effect ⫽ .67; 95% CI [.371, 1.035]) compared
with the group promotive voice condition. We found that the
difference between these conditional indirect effects in the high
and low conditions of personal sense of power was also significant
(⌬ indirect effect ⫽ .34; 95% CI [.021, .769]). Thus, Hypotheses
6a and 6b were supported. We note that the model explained
37.8% of variance in emotional exhaustion.
Discussion
In our experimental study, we manipulated group promotive and
prohibitive voice as well as one’s personal sense of power. Con-
sistent with Study 1, we found further support for the positive
effects of group promotive voice on challenge appraisals of group
voice and the positive effects of group prohibitive voice on hin-
drance appraisals of group voice. In addition, we found that a
personal sense of power moderated the relationship between group
1 2 3 4 5
—
.02 —
.43ⴱⴱ .08 (.79)
⫺.45ⴱⴱ ⫺.11 ⫺.48ⴱⴱ (.90)
⫺.34ⴱⴱ ⫺.11 ⫺.39ⴱⴱ .61ⴱⴱ (.96)
 THE EFFECTS OF GROUP VOICE ON SUPERVISORS
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Figure 3. (a) The differential effects of group voice on supervisor chal-
lenge appraisals of group voice (Study 2). (b) The differential effects of
group voice on supervisor hindrance appraisals of group voice (Study 2).
(c) Interaction of group prohibitive voice and supervisor personal sense of
power on supervisor hindrance appraisals of group voice (Study 2).
prohibitive voice and hindrance appraisals of group voice. Fur-
thermore, and again in line with Study 1, we found support for the
negative effects of group promotive voice on emotional exhaustion
and the positive effects of group prohibitive voice on emotional
exhaustion through hindrance appraisals of group voice. Impor-
tantly, the design of Study 2 enabled us to separately examine the
effects of group promotive voice and group prohibitive voice on
appraisals of group voice, given that participants were exposed
solely to one voice type or the other. This approach allows us to
more directly assess whether either group promotive or prohibitive
631
voice could be appraised as both a challenge and a hindrance.
Although theory suggests this is unlikely given the generally
negative relationship between challenge and hindrance appraisals
(see Footnote 1), we see value in separately exploring the effects
of group promotive and prohibitive voice on supervisor appraisals
of group voice. Overall, Study 2 provides further support for our
theorizing and complements the external validity of our field study
(Study 1) by offering high internal validity.
General Discussion
Theoretical Implications
Our work makes several theoretical contributions. First, we
offer more focused consideration of the role of the supervisor in
the group voice process. In this regard, our model represents
“learning more by crossing levels” (Hackman, 2003, p. 905) as we
consider how voice, generally extolled as beneficial for employ-
ees, work groups, and organizations (e.g., Li et al., 2017; Mac-
Kenzie et al., 2011; Morrison, 2014), has mixed effects at the
supervisor level. Specifically, we demonstrate that supervisors are
personally affected by group voice as they appraise it as a work
condition that can potentially promote or hinder their growth and
well-being. This finding is a key point for the voice literature as
supervisors are most often the targets of voice and serve as key
facilitators for the implementation of subordinate voice (Burris,
Detert, & Chiaburu, 2008; Detert & Burris, 2007; Liu et al., 2013;
Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2012). Thus, although blanket recom-
mendations that group members freely speak up to their managers
with suggestions and concerns have value because voice, in the
aggregate, helps make the work group and organization more
effective, such recommendations are also laden with previously
unarticulated costs for supervisors who can become emotionally
exhausted by group voice.
Relatedly, although promotive and prohibitive voice are both
considered constructive forms of voice that are beneficial to the
work group or organization (Liang et al., 2012), our findings
uphold the importance of treating promotive and prohibitive voice
as separate constructs with distinguishable effects. Consistent with
meta-analytic evidence that shows employees receive lower rat-
ings of performance with prohibitive voice compared with promo-
tive voice (Chamberlin et al., 2017), we theorize and find that
supervisors appraise and experience group promotive voice differ-
ently than prohibitive voice. Specifically, just as supervisors can
be energized or exhausted by various responsibilities (Courtright,
Colbert, & Choi, 2014; Sherf, Tangirala, & Venkataramani, 2019),
they can similarly experience an uplift from group promotive voice
or be worn down by group prohibitive voice. These findings have
broader implications for how supervisors receive input. For exam-
ple, we find that supervisors internalize group promotive voice in
a positive manner, which aligns with research on the self-
enhancing effects of positive performance feedback (Jordan &
Audia, 2012). Thus, promotive voice not only boosts work group
and organizational outcomes (e.g., Li et al., 2017; MacKenzie et
al., 2011) but also the voice targets’ well-being and performance.
In contrast, receiving negative feedback about the functioning of
the supervisor’s work group via group prohibitive voice prompts a
hindrance appraisal from supervisors. This parallels findings from
Kluger and DeNisi (1996) about individuals’ having an adverse
 632 SESSIONS, NAHRGANG, NEWTON, AND CHAMBERLIN
reaction to negative performance feedback (cf. Balven, 2018;
Bond & Anderson, 1987; Fisher, 1979) while suggesting negative
feedback need not be expressly directed at the target’s own per-
formance to provoke an unfavorable reaction. In sum, our work
points to the importance of understanding how supervisors inter-
nalize input, such as group promotive and prohibitive voice, to
their benefit or detriment.
In addition to considering how group voice may beneficially or
adversely affect supervisors, we also extend research on how voice
can be viewed as threatening to supervisors (e.g., Burris, 2012).
Specifically, we find that a supervisor’s personal sense of power is
an important boundary condition for appraisals of group prohibi-
tive voice but less so for appraisals of group promotive voice. Our
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
finding that problems expressed to supervisors have a particularly
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
deleterious effect on supervisor emotional exhaustion and perfor-
mance when a supervisor’s personal sense of power is low builds
on work that suggests that a supervisor’s perception of limited
efficacy at work can negatively affect the voice process (Fast et al.,
2014). Indeed, our findings suggest that expressions of perceived
harm from prohibitive voice may be more salient to supervisors
than expressions of opportunities because people are, in general,
more averse to loss (e.g., Tversky & Kahneman, 1992). Thus,
supervisors may be able to accept and address the group’s prob-
lems in cases of high perceived power but more likely to feel
burdened by problems expressed via group prohibitive voice when
their perceived power is lacking.
Finally, our work advances the transactional theory of stress by
addressing how and why group promotive and prohibitive voice
are appraised in distinct ways. Our delineation of different apprais-
als of group promotive and prohibitive voice builds on recent work
that has emphasized a need to distinguish between work experi-
ences themselves and appraisals of those experiences (LePine et
al., 2016; Ohly & Fritz, 2010; Tuckey, Searle, Boyd, Winefield, &
Winefield, 2015; Webster et al., 2011). More specifically, our
research points to the importance of measuring and evaluating
appraisals as opposed to simply measuring demands. We suggest
this effort will help reconcile theorizing from Lazarus and Folk-
man (1984) about the positive implications of challenge appraisals
of work conditions with the negative implications of challenge
demands themselves. Specifically, Lazarus and Folkman (1984)
theorize that challenge appraisals should result in high work mo-
rale and confidence, positive emotions, and a resistance to being
emotionally overwhelmed. As far as we know, we are the first
empirical study to posit a negative relationship between challenge
appraisals and emotional exhaustion. The lack of previous empir-
ical research on this point, and theory that supports the finding,
suggests that future research is needed. More specifically, given
evidence that categories of challenge demands (e.g., pressure to
complete tasks, time urgency, workload) are positively associated
with strain (Podsakoff, LePine, & LePine, 2007), we call on future
research to further examine the relationship between stressors,
strain, coping, and emotional exhaustion. In addition to our and
others’ efforts (LePine et al., 2016; Webster et al., 2011) to
measure and evaluate appraisals of work conditions, examining
individuals’ coping efforts may be a line of inquiry to explain the
disconnect between the positive implications of challenge apprais-
als and the straining effects of challenge demands themselves. For
example, although problem- and emotion-focused efforts exerted
to cope with challenge demands may induce strain (Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984; Sonnentag & Frese, 2003), a challenge appraisal
by itself (i.e., the subjective interpretation of a work condition)
does not require any coping efforts that would trigger strain.
Although more research is needed on how appraisals, demands,
and coping fit together, our work suggests that examining apprais-
als is a worthwhile initiative.
Limitations and Future Research
Despite the strengths of our studies, several limitations exist. As
with all field research, we can make limited inferences about
causality in Study 1. To address this concern, we ground our
predictions in the transactional theory of stress (Lazarus & Folk-
man, 1984), and our findings generally support the theorized
direction of effects. Further, we bolster our findings in a field study
with an experimental study (Study 2), which enables stronger
causal inference by manipulating group voice conditions. Comple-
menting the external validity offered by Study 1 with the internal
validity provide by Study 2 gives us greater confidence in our
findings. Although our findings from Study 1 and Study 2 are
well-aligned, we did not capture the relationship between emo-
tional exhaustion and performance in our experimental study
(Study 2). We note that the negative relationship between emo-
tional exhaustion and performance is well-established by other
research (see Sonnentag, 2015 for a review). Thus, although we
did not consider the negative relationship between emotional ex-
haustion and performance in both studies, we view Study 2 as
replicating the relationships that are most novel and central to our
contribution, specifically the effects of group voice on supervisor
emotional exhaustion through supervisor challenge and hindrance
appraisals of group voice.
Second, in our efforts to manage common method bias in Study
1 by separating our measures across points in time, we note that
this approach introduces limitations with missing data given par-
ticipant attrition (Newman, 2014). To address this concern, we
evaluated selective attrition by considering changes in the compo-
sition of our employee and supervisor samples across points in
time, and found no significant differences in our sample across
time points for a number of demographic variables. We also
evaluated ICCs and rwg’s related to our constructs rated by group
members and found significant ICCs and high rwg’s, suggesting a
high level of group member agreement and supporting aggregation
of group promotive voice, group prohibitive voice, and supervisor
performance (Chan, 1998). Although having more raters (i.e., no
missing data) makes aggregation more reliable, our approach of
aggregating group member ratings appears to have been appropri-
ate and reliable (Bliese, 2000).
Additionally, survey research can be limited by challenges in
construct validity, or the correspondence between the conceptual
definition of variables and their operationalization (Schwab,
1980). For example, our measures of challenge and hindrance
appraisals could potentially be confounded with emotional exhaus-
tion in capturing perceived well-being consequences rather than
the appraisal event. To ensure construct validity, the conceptual
definitions of our variables drew from well-developed theory (i.e.,
Anderson et al., 2012; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Liang et al.,
2012; Maslach & Jackson, 1993). Further, we relied on existing
validated measures to align with established definitions (i.e., LeP-
ine et al., 2016; Liang et al., 2012; Maslach & Jackson, 1993).
 THE EFFECTS OF GROUP VOICE ON SUPERVISORS
Within our own applications of these measures, we found rela-
tively high reliabilities, suggesting that our measures were suffi-
ciently free from error (Schwab, 2005). We also found support for
our factor structure within the results of our exploratory factor
analysis for our measures of supervisor challenge appraisals of
group voice, supervisor hindrance appraisals of group voice, and
supervisor emotional exhaustion. As a means of further supporting
the validity of our focal constructs, the manipulations of group
promotive and prohibitive voice and personal sense of power in
our experimental study represent an alternative operationalization
of our predictors and yielded consistent results with our survey
measures of these constructs.
Finally, future studies that target the distribution of group voice
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
may be insightful (e.g., Sherf et al., 2018), especially its relationship
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
to supervisor appraisals of group voice and group outcomes. Although
we found no significant effects for the distribution of group voice
within our study, a focused investigation may provide more nuanced
findings. The dispersion of voice across work group members could
also be expanded to explore differences in group members’ use of
promotive or prohibitive voice and further examine the effects of
group size. Social networks analysis or latent profile analysis may
provide a clearer picture of how promotive and prohibitive voice can
be optimally distributed within groups, particularly for group perfor-
mance and supervisors’ reactions toward group voice.
Practical Implications
Our research broadly points to practical tradeoffs between ad-
dressing the course corrections that come from employee voice
while mitigating prospective supervisor emotional exhaustion
from attending to group voice. To this end, our examination of
group promotive and prohibitive voice suggests that supervisors
are likely to be less emotionally exhausted and consequently more
effective performers when they are the target of group promotive
voice. As such, organizations can encourage group members to
speak up about issues with opportunity- and solution-oriented
expressions. In particular, our experimental study suggests that
employees and work groups that are able to couch their comments
as promotive in nature may help maintain supervisor well-being
and performance. Speaking up in a promotive manner will not only
benefit supervisors by enhancing their well-being, and perfor-
mance, but, as others have found, improve the performance eval-
uations of voicing employees (Chamberlin et al., 2017).
Our findings also point to the importance of supervisors’ personal
sense of power as a factor that can reduce and perhaps mitigate the
negative effects of group prohibitive voice on supervisor emotional
exhaustion and performance. Thus, organizations can help supervisors
better receive the constructive input of their work groups by increas-
ing supervisors’ personal sense of power. This increase in power can
be achieved by providing access to organizational resources, increas-
ing the value of resources already possessed, and enhancing the
impression of holding valued resources in the eyes of others (Ander-
son & Brion, 2014). In order to reduce the negative effects of group
prohibitive voice on supervisor emotional exhaustion and perfor-
mance, organizations can also foster increased personal connections
among multiple supervisors as helping supervisors to become better
connected to influential others will also improve the flow of sugges-
tions and problems to others in the organization (Detert et al., 2013)
and therefore may reduce supervisors’ burdens. Overall, organiza-
633
tional leaders should be cognizant of the tension between the benefits
gained by encouraging group voice and the potentially draining con-
sequences for supervisors as the targets of group members’ ideas and
concerns.
References
Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. (2002). The experience of power: Exam-
ining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1362–1377. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1362
Anderson, C., & Brion, S. (2014). Perspectives on power in organizations.
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behav-
ior, 1, 67–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091259
Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 511–536. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/ejsp.324
Anderson, C., John, O. P., & Keltner, D. (2012). The personal sense of
power. Journal of Personality, 80, 313–344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j
.1467-6494.2011.00734.x
Anderson, C., Kraus, M. W., Galinsky, A. D., & Keltner, D. (2012). The
local-ladder effect: Social status and subjective well-being. Psychological
Science, 23, 764 –771. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797611434537
Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming organizational defenses. Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., Taris, T. W., Schaufeli, W. B., & Schreurs,
P. J. (2003). A multigroup analysis of the job demands-resources model
in four home care organizations. International Journal of Stress Man-
agement, 10, 16 –38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.10.1.16
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Verbeke, W. (2004). Using the job
demands-resources model to predict burnout and performance. Hu-
man Resource Management, 43, 83–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
hrm.20004
Balven, R. M. (2018). When people at work go astray, what to say and how
to say it: A typology and test of the effect of moral feedback on unethical
behavior (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Arizona State University,
Tempe, AZ.
Barling, J., & Frone, M. R. (2017). If only my leader would just do
something! Passive leadership undermines employee well-being through
role stressors and psychological resource depletion. Stress and Health,
33, 211–222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smi.2697
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for
interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 117, 497–529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117
.3.497
Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of
variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recom-
mendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 274 –289. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1177/1094428105278021
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and
reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein
& S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods
in organizations (pp. 349 –381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bolino, M. C., Hsiung, H. H., Harvey, J., & LePine, J. A. (2015). “Well,
I’m tired of tryin’!” Organizational citizenship behavior and citizenship
fatigue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 56 –74. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0037583
Bonanno, G. A., Galea, S., Bucciarelli, A., & Vlahov, D. (2007). What
predicts psychological resilience after disaster? The role of demograph-
ics, resources, and life stress. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-
chology, 75, 671– 682. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.75.5.671
Bond, C. F., & Anderson, E. L. (1987). The reluctance to transmit bad news:
Private discomfort or public display?. Journal of Experimental Social Psy-
chology, 23, 176 –187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(87)90030-8
 634 SESSIONS, NAHRGANG, NEWTON, AND CHAMBERLIN
Boswell, W. R., Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & LePine, M. A. (2004). Relations
between stress and work outcomes: The role of felt challenge, job
control, and psychological strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64,
165–181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00049-6
Burris, E. R. (2012). The risks and rewards of speaking up: Managerial
responses to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 55,
851– 875. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0562
Burris, E. R., Detert, J. R., & Chiaburu, D. S. (2008). Quitting before
leaving: The mediating effects of psychological attachment and detach-
ment on voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 912–922. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.912
Carlson, K. D., & Wu, J. (2012). The illusion of statistical control: Control
variable practice in management research. Organizational Research
Methods, 15, 413– 435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428111428817
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
(2000). An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among
U.S. managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 65–74. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.65
Chamberlin, M. (2017). Exploring supervisor responses to employees
who share bad news: Why and under what conditions are messengers
shot? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Arizona State University,
Tempe, AZ.
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 Psy-
chology, 70, 11–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/peps.12185
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content
domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition mod-
els. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234 –246. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple
regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Colquitt, J. A. (2008). Publishing laboratory research in AMJ: A question
of when, not if. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 616 – 620. http://
dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2008.33664717
Cortina, J. M., Chen, G., & Dunlap, W. P. (2001). Testing interaction effects
in LISREL: Examination and illustration of available procedures. Organi-
zational Research Methods, 4, 324 –360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
109442810144002
Courtright, S. H., Colbert, A. E., & Choi, D. (2014). Fired up or burned
out? How developmental challenge differentially impacts leader behav-
ior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 681– 696. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/a0035790
Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., & Byrne, Z. S. (2003). The relationship of
emotional exhaustion to work attitudes, job performance, and organiza-
tional citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 160 –
169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.160
Desai, S. D., & Kouchaki, M. (2017). Moral symbols: A necklace of garlic
against unethical requests. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 7–28.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0008
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee
voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50,
869 – 884. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.26279183
Detert, J. R., Burris, E. R., Harrison, D. A., & Martin, S. R. (2013). Voice
flows to and around leaders: Understanding when units are helped or
hurt by employee voice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58, 624 –
668. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0001839213510151
Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. (2011). Implicit voice theories: Taken-
for-granted rules of self-censorship at work. Academy of Management
Journal, 54, 461– 488. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.61967925
Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1998). Common methods bias: Does common
methods variance really bias results? Organizational Research Methods,
1, 374 – 406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109442819814002
Fast, N. J., Burris, E. R., & Bartel, C. A. (2014). Managing to stay in the
dark: Managerial self-efficacy, ego defensiveness, and the aversion to
employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 1013–1034.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0393
Fisher, C. D. (1979). Transmission of positive and negative feedback to
subordinates: A laboratory investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology,
64, 533–540. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.64.5.533
Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). From power to
action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 453– 466.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.453
Gibson, C. B. (1999). Do they do what they believe they can? Group
efficacy and group effectiveness across tasks and cultures. Academy of
Management Journal, 42, 138 –152.
Grant, A. M. (2013). Rocking the boat but keeping it steady: The role of
emotion regulation in employee voice. Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 56, 1703–1723. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0035
Hackman, J. R. (2003). Learning more from crossing levels: Evidence from
airplanes, hospitals, and orchestras. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
24, 905–922. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.226
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for ob-
served variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process model-
ing. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf
Hussain, I., Shu, R., Tangirala, S., & Ekkirala, S. (2019). The voice
bystander effect: How information redundancy inhibits employee voice.
Academy of Management Journal, 62, 828 – 849. http://dx.doi.org/10
.5465/amj.2017.0245
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group
interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 69, 85–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85
Jordan, A. H., & Audia, P. G. (2012). Self-enhancement and learning from
performance feedback. Academy of Management Review, 37, 211–231.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0108
Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental
strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly,
24, 285–308. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392498
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach,
and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265–284. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265
Kerlinger, F., & Lee, H. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research (4th
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions
on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary
feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254 –284.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
Lam, C. F., & Mayer, D. M. (2014). When do employees speak up for their
customers? A model of voice in a customer service context. Personnel
Psychology, 67, 637– 666.
Lam, C. F., Rees, L., Levesque, L. L., & Ornstein, S. (2018). Shooting
from the hip: A habit perspective of voice. Academy of Management
Review, 43, 470 – 486. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2015.0366
Lanaj, K., Foulk, T. A., & Erez, A. (2019). Energizing leaders via self-
reflection: A within-person field experiment. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 104, 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000350
Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New
York, NY: Springer.
LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about
interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research
Methods, 11, 815– 852. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428106296642
 THE EFFECTS OF GROUP VOICE ON SUPERVISORS
Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1993). A further examination of managerial
burnout: Toward an integrated model. Journal of Organizational Behav-
ior, 14, 3–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.4030140103
Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the
correlates of the three dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, 123–133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.2.123
LePine, M. A., Zhang, Y., Crawford, E. R., & Rich, B. L. (2016). Turning
their pain to gain: Charismatic leader influence on follower stress
appraisal and job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 59,
1036 –1059. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0778
Li, A. N., Liao, H., Tangirala, S., & Firth, B. M. (2017). The content of the
message matters: The differential effects of promotive and prohibitive team
voice on team productivity and safety performance gains. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 102, 1259 –1270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000215
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Liang, J., Farh, C. I., & Farh, J. L. (2012). Psychological antecedents of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of
Management Journal, 55, 71–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0176
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal-study on the
early development of leader member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 78, 662– 674. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.662
Lin, S. H. J., & Johnson, R. E. (2015). A suggestion to improve a day keeps
your depletion away: Examining promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors
within a regulatory focus and ego depletion framework. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 100, 1381–1397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000018
Liu, W., Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2013). The relational anteced-
ents of voice targeted at different leaders. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 98, 841– 851. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032913
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Challenge-
oriented organizational citizenship behaviors and organizational effec-
tiveness: Do challenge-oriented behaviors really have an impact on the
organization’s bottom line? Personnel Psychology, 64, 559 –592. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01219.x
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., &
Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other
intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83
Mackinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence
limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling
methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99 –128. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1993). Maslach Burnout Inventory. Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual
Review of Psychology, 52, 397– 422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev
.psych.52.1.397
Maynes, T. D., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2014). Speaking more broadly: An
examination of the nature, antecedents, and consequences of an ex-
panded set of employee voice behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology,
99, 87–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0034284
McClean, E., Martin, S. R., Emich, K. J., & Woodruff, T. (2018). The
social consequences of voice: An examination of voice type and gender
on status and subsequent leader emergence. Academy of Management
Journal, 61, 1869 –1891. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0148
Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of
Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 173–197.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091328
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier
to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 25, 706 –725. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.3707697
Morrison, E. W., & Rothman, N. B. (2009). Silence and the dynamics of
power. In J. Greenberg & M. Edwards (Eds.), Voice and silence in
organizations (pp. 175–202). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Morrison, E. W., See, K. E., & Pan, C. (2015). An approach-inhibition
model of employee silence: The joint effects of personal sense of power
635
and target openness. Personnel Psychology, 68, 547–580. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1111/peps.12087
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2015). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: Author.
Nahrgang, J. D., Morgeson, F. P., & Ilies, R. (2009). The development of
leader–member exchanges: Exploring how personality and performance
influence leader and member relationships over time. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 256 –266. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.09.002
Newman, D. A. (2014). Missing data: Five practical guidelines. Organi-
zational Research Methods, 17, 372– 411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1094428114548590
Ohly, S., & Fritz, C. (2010). Work characteristics, challenge appraisal,
creativity, and proactive behavior: A multi-level study. Journal of Or-
ganizational Behavior, 31, 543–565. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.633
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good
soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Podsakoff, N. P., LePine, J. A., & LePine, M. A. (2007). Differential
challenge stressor-hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes,
turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 438 – 454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.92.2.438
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003).
Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the
literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88, 879 –903. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Qin, X., DiRenzo, M. S., Xu, M., & Duan, Y. (2014). When do emotionally
exhausted employees speak up? Exploring the potential curvilinear
relationship between emotional exhaustion and voice. Journal of Orga-
nizational Behavior, 35, 1018 –1041. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.1948
Quinn, R. W., Spreitzer, G. M., & Lam, C. F. (2012). Building a sustain-
able model of human energy in organizations: Exploring the critical role
of resources. The Academy of Management Annals, 6, 337–396. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2012.676762
Schwab, D. P. (1980). Construct validity in organizational behavior. In
B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational
behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 3– 43). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Schwab, D. P. (2005). Research methods for organizational studies (2nd
ed.). London, UK: Routledge.
Sherf, E. N., Sinha, R., Tangirala, S., & Awasty, N. (2018). Centralization
of member voice in teams: Its effects on expertise utilization and team
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103, 813– 827. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000305
Sherf, E. N., Tangirala, S., & Venkataramani, V. (2019). Why managers do
not seek voice from employees: The importance of managers’ personal
control and long-term orientation. Organization Science, 30, 447– 466.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2018.1273
Singh-Manoux, A., Adler, N. E., & Marmot, M. G. (2003). Subjective
social status: Its determinants and its association with measures of
ill-health in the Whitehall II study. Social Science & Medicine, 56,
1321–1333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00131-4
Sonnentag, S. (2015). Dynamics of well-being. Annual Review of Orga-
nizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 261–293. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111347
Sonnentag, S., & Frese, M. (2003). Stress in organizations. In W. C. Borman,
D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of
psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp.
453– 491). New York, NY: Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/04712
64385.wei1218
Sonnentag, S., Kuttler, I., & Fritz, C. (2010). Job stressors, emotional
exhaustion, and need for recovery: A multi-source study on the benefits
of psychological detachment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 355–
365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.06.005
 636 SESSIONS, NAHRGANG, NEWTON, AND CHAMBERLIN
Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2008). Exploring nonlinearity in em-
ployee voice: The effects of personal control and organizational identi-
fication. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 1189 –1203. http://dx.doi
.org/10.5465/amj.2008.35732719
Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2012). Ask and you shall hear (but not
always): Examining the relationship between manager consultation and
employee voice. Personnel Psychology, 65, 251–282. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01248.x
Ten Brummelhuis, L. L., Haar, J. M., & Roche, M. (2014). Does family life
help to be a better leader? A closer look at crossover processes from
leaders to followers. Personnel Psychology, 67, 917–949. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1111/peps.12057
Tofighi, D., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2011). RMediation: An R package for
mediation analysis confidence intervals. Behavior Research Methods,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
43, 692–700. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0076-x
Tuckey, M. R., Searle, B. J., Boyd, C. M., Winefield, A. H., & Winefield,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
H. R. (2015). Hindrances are not threats: Advancing the multidimen-
sionality of work stress. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20,
131–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038280
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory:
Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncer-
tainty, 5, 297–323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00122574
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role
behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of
Management Journal, 41, 108 –119.
Webster, J. R., Beehr, T. A., & Love, K. (2011). Extending the challenge-
hindrance model of occupational stress: The role of appraisal. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 79, 505–516. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011
.02.001
Wright, T. A., & Bonett, D. G. (1997). The contribution of burnout to work
performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 491– 499.
Received January 25, 2019
Revision received August 29, 2019
Accepted September 8, 2019 䡲