How employees' voice helps teams remain resilient in the face of exogenous change.

Teams often confront exogenous events that induce discontinuous change and unsettle existing routines. In the immediate aftermath of such events (the disruption stage), teams experience a dip in their performance and only over time regain their previous performance levels (in the recovery stage). We argue that prohibitive voice that allows teams to manage errors better is instrumental for preventing performance losses in the disruption stage. Whereas, promotive voice that helps teams innovate or improve team processes, can facilitate steeper and more positive performance trajectories in the recovery stage. We also propose that voice is especially functional when teams confront higher change intensity and, thereby, highlight that voice is particularly important when change events cause greater discontinuity in the task environment. We found general support for our theory in a correlational field study involving 172 production teams in which we examined over time trajectories in objective team performance, and a field experiment involving 88 teams in a different production setting, where team members were trained, incentivized, and provided opportunities to engage in voice. We discuss the implications of our findings for literature on voice, team adaptation, and resilience. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

The content of the message matters: The differential effects of promotive and prohibitive team voice on team productivity and safety performance gains.

We propose that it is important to take the content of team voice into account when examining its impact on team processes and outcomes. Drawing on regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997), we argue that promotive team voice and prohibitive team voice help teams achieve distinct collective outcomes-that is, team productivity performance gains and team safety performance gains, respectively. Further, we identify mechanisms through which promotive and prohibitive team voices uniquely influence team outcomes as well as boundary conditions for such influences. In data collected from 88 production teams, we found that promotive team voice had a positive association with team productivity performance gains. By contrast, prohibitive team voice had a positive association with team safety performance gains. The relationship between promotive team voice and team productivity performance gains was mediated by team innovation, and the relationship between prohibitive team voice and team safety performance gains was mediated by team monitoring. In addition, the indirect effect of prohibitive team voice on team safety performance gains via team monitoring was stronger when prior team safety performance was lower. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings. (PsycINFO Database Record

How do leader-member exchange quality and differentiation affect performance in teams? An integrated multilevel dual process model.

Integrating leader-member exchange (LMX) research with role engagement theory (Kahn, 1990) and role system theory (Katz & Kahn, 1978), we propose a multilevel, dual process model to understand the mechanisms through which LMX quality at the individual level and LMX differentiation at the team level simultaneously affect individual and team performance. With regard to LMX differentiation, we introduce a new configural approach focusing on the pattern of LMX differentiation to complement the traditional approach focusing on the degree of LMX differentiation. Results based on multiphase, multisource data from 375 employees of 82 teams revealed that, at the individual level, LMX quality positively contributed to customer-rated employee performance through enhancing employee role engagement. At the team level, LMX differentiation exerted negative influence on teams' financial performance through disrupting team coordination. In particular, teams with the bimodal form of LMX configuration (i.e., teams that split into 2 LMX-based subgroups with comparable size) suffered most in team performance because they experienced greatest difficulty in coordinating members' activities. Furthermore, LMX differentiation strengthened the relationship between LMX quality and role engagement, and team coordination strengthened the relationship between role engagement and employee performance. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.