Supervisors’ work-related and nonwork information sharing: Integrating research on information sharing,information seeking,and trust using self-disclosure theory

Although significant scholarly attention has been devoted to understanding subordinates’ information seeking from supervisors, researchers have not paid adequate attention to information sharing by supervisors. Moreover, research on supervisors’ information sharing behavior has focused almost exclusively on work-related information sharing, disregarding supervisors’ sharing of information not related to work (e.g., that related to family). Drawing on self-disclosure theory, we argue that supervisors share both work-related and nonwork information with their subordinates and propose that these two forms of information sharing are conceptually distinct. Furthermore, to unravel the role of supervisors’ nonwork information sharing, we develop an interactive model to test how it may be associated with important employee outcomes. We conducted pilot studies using five samples and, through a sixth study, tested the hypothesized model using a four-wave data collection design. This study makes three major contributions to research and theory. First, it integrates information sharing and information seeking literatures. Second, it underlines the importance of supervisors’ nonwork information sharing in organizations by testing its direct and interactive effects. Third, it contributes to theory by presenting trust as a mechanism that links information disclosure in dyads. Results obtained using structural equation modeling generally supported the proposed model.     

How many voices did you hear? Natural variability disrupts identity perception from unfamiliar voices

Our voices sound different depending on the context (laughing vs. talking to a child vs. giving a speech), making within‐person variability an inherent feature of human voices. When perceiving speaker identities, listeners therefore need to not only ‘tell people apart’ (perceiving exemplars from two different speakers as separate identities) but also ‘tell people together’ (perceiving different exemplars from the same speaker as a single identity). In the current study, we investigated how such natural within‐person variability affects voice identity perception. Using voices from a popular TV show, listeners, who were either familiar or unfamiliar with this show, sorted naturally varying voice clips from two speakers into clusters to represent perceived identities. Across three independent participant samples, unfamiliar listeners perceived more identities than familiar listeners and frequently mistook exemplars from the same speaker to be different identities. These findings point towards a selective failure in ‘telling people together’. Our study highlights within‐person variability as a key feature of voices that has striking effects on (unfamiliar) voice identity perception. Our findings not only open up a new line of enquiry in the field of voice perception but also call for a re‐evaluation of theoretical models to account for natural variability during identity perception.     

Why didn’t you say something? Effects of after-event reviews on voice behaviour and hierarchy beliefs in multi-professional action teams

Team decision-making can go wrong when individuals fear to voice suggestions or concerns to higher status team members. We investigate how after-event reviews (AERs) can be used to promote voice behaviour and hierarchy-attenuating beliefs in multi-professional action teams. We hypothesized that (1) lower status team members will speak up more following an assertiveness-specific AER (ASAER) as compared to a teamwork-generic AER (TGAER) and (2) that an ASAER leads to stronger endorsement of hierarchy-attenuating beliefs than the TGAER. To test these hypotheses, we implemented simulations of medical emergencies with 20 healthcare teams consisting of low (i.e., nurses) and high-status (i.e., physicians) professions. After participating in one of the two AERs, teams managed a simulation in which a higher status confederate engaged in potentially harmful actions. Behavioural coding of the videotaped simulations and assessment of team members’ hierarchy beliefs supported both hypotheses: nurses spoke up more following the ASAER than following the TGAER and both professional groups reported significantly higher levels of hierarchy-attenuating beliefs following the ASAER as compared to the TGAER. We discuss how AERs can affect upward voice and increase awareness for the potential downsides of status hierarchies in multi-professional teams.     

When proactivity produces a power struggle: how supervisors’ power motivation affects their support for employees’ promotive voice

Previous research informs us about facilitators of employees’ promotive voice. Yet little is known about what determines whether a specific idea for constructive change brought up by an employee will be approved or rejected by a supervisor. Drawing on interactionist theories of motivation and personality, we propose that a supervisor will be least likely to support an idea when it threatens the supervisor’s power motive, and when it is perceived to serve the employee’s own striving for power. The prosocial versus egoistic intentions attributed to the idea presenter are proposed to mediate the latter effect. We conducted three scenario-based studies in which supervisors evaluated fictitious ideas voiced by employees that – if implemented – would have power-related consequences for them as a supervisor. Results show that the higher a supervisors’ explicit power motive was, the less likely they were to support a power-threatening idea (Study 1, N = 60). Moreover, idea support was less likely when this idea was proposed by an employee that was described as high (rather than low) on power motivation (Study 2, N = 79); attributed prosocial intentions mediated this effect. Study 3 (N = 260) replicates these results.