Reject Me Once, Shame on You: How Leaders Prior Responses Shape the Emergence of Voice Climate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this manuscript we examine the process through which voice climate emerges in teams and subsequently affects team voice. Voice climate refers to shared team perceptions concerning whether members feel safe and capable to speak up. Although recent research suggests that voice climate significantly affects individual and team voice, we know little about how voice climate emerges in teams and why voice climate affects team voice. These oversights are problematic because we cannot prescribe strategies to affect voice climate without explicating how teams develop shared voice climate perceptions. Accordingly, we examined voice climate emergence with a team- experiment in which a confederate leader either accepted or rejected his/her team’s voice, following which we measured the effects of voice acceptance/rejection on voice climate, team affect and cognitions (risk, fear, efficacy, vitality), and team voice over three successive tasks. Results suggest that leaders prior responses to voice shape the emergence of voice climate, such that accepting voice enhances voice climate, whereas rejecting voice weakens voice climate. In turn, voice climate significantly affects team voice as mediated by team efficacy and vitality. Overall, we respond to several calls for more investigations into how leadership behaviors affect voice and what motivates teams to speak up.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".