The article written by Detert and Burris (2007) entitled “Leadership Behavior and Employee Voice: Is the Door Really Open?” and published in the Academy of Management Journal explored the relevance and implications of open communication in the work setting. Specifically, the authors examined any potential relationship among the variables which were investigated, such as: (1) two leadership types which were considered change-oriented: transformational leadership and managerial openness; and (2) subordinate improvement-oriented voice . Voice, in the discourse, was explicitly defined as “the discretionary provision of information intended to improve organizational functioning to someone inside an organization with the perceived authority to act, even though such information may challenge and upset the status quo of the organization and its power holders, is critical to organizational well-being yet insufficiently provided by employees, who see the risks of speaking up as outweighing the benefits” . In its simplest meaning, voice was defined as synonymous with verbal communication, which was apparently directed at any stakeholder within an organizational setting and which aimed to improve functioning, operations, and performance, through the perspectives of the employees. The objective of the study was therefore noted to address the research question: “Is leadership behavior related to subordinate voice?” and, “If so, why and for what types of employees?” .
There were other factors explored by the authors as potentially influencing communication patterns in organizational settings. These factors allegedly include the personalities of the subordinates, the attitude of employees regarding perceptions on how the organization functions, and the role that leaders play in encouragement of verbalizing relevant comments or inputs in the work setting. The findings revealed that management openness was significantly contributory to voice or verbal communication patterns. More distinctly, management or leaders should be able to evaluate the personalities and characteristics of subordinates to determine “to whom they speak and why or why not they speak to that specific target” .
The information revealed in the article is consistent with those presented by Barrett (2010) that leadership communication includes understanding and applying theories that assist in teambuilding, as well as in improving the performance of employees through designing the most effective communication pattern in the work setting. One strongly agrees with the findings of the authors that the ability of employees to verbalize and communicate their inputs and comments actually depend not only on management openness, per se; but more so, on the culture of the organization that encourages open communication. There are contemporary organizations that explicitly design policies which empower and encourage employees to speak up, voice their opinions, and be active contributors in the decision-making processes of the organization at various levels. In contrast, if the organizational culture is repressive or restrictive, despite a leader’s manifestation of openness, employees would be apprehensive to speak up. Thus, even if leaders possess innate skills and competencies in communication, their ability to influence their constituents in a positive and beneficial way would depend on the overall culture of open communication, empowerment, and acknowledgment that employees’ contribution to the communication process is more beneficial in the long run.
Overall, one strongly believes that leadership behavior and their competencies for exemplifying effective communication would only be successful in conjunction with a positive culture that harnesses employees’ voice and encourages open communication at all levels of the organizational hierarchy.
References
Barrett, D. (2010). Leadership Communication. McGraw Hill.
Detert, J., & Burris, E. (2007). Leadership Behavior and Employee Voice: Is the Door Really Open? Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50, No. 4, 869–884.
