The Power of Employee Voice: Turning Feedback into Organizational Impact

October 06, 2025

•

5 min read

•

Leaders often say things like, “I have an open-door policy,” “we value your feedback,” or “if you have a suggestion, I’m all ears.” Many also assume, “if something’s wrong, people will say something.”

The truth is more complicated. Sharing ideas, concerns, or suggestions is inherently risky. Employees constantly weigh the potential benefits of speaking up against the possible downsides. Often, the safer choice feels like silence.

The Science of Speaking Up

Why people speak up (or stay silent) has fascinated me for years. In fact, my doctoral research explored employee voice behavior, focusing on what drives individuals to share ideas and concerns with leaders higher in the hierarchy. At the heart of my research were implicit voice theories (IVTs), a concept developed by Amy Edmondson and James Detert. These are internal rules of self-censorship, such as “don’t speak up without solid data” or “don’t embarrass the boss in public.”

One key finding was that the “don’t embarrass the boss in public” IVT was strongly linked to whether employees spoke up, even after controlling for personality, demographics, and perceptions of psychological safety. In other words, fear of embarrassing a leader meaningfully suppressed voice, particularly when feedback challenged the leader’s own solution or policy.

This research taught me that feedback is far more complex than most leaders realize. Employees don’t wander around freely offering up their thoughts. Silence is the default, but silence doesn’t necessarily indicate compliance. People only speak up in prosocial ways if they believe their input will lead to meaningful change and the risks won’t outweigh the benefits.

The Benefits of Employee Voice

In the academic literature, this type of improvement-oriented “speaking up” is referred to as employee voice. “Employee voice is the discretionary communication of ideas, suggestions, concerns, or opinions about work-related issues with the intent to improve organizational or unit functioning.” (Morrison, 2011).

Research overwhelmingly shows the upside of employee voice. Some well-documented benefits include:

Innovation and Problem-Solving: Identifying inefficiencies and sparking improvement.
Better Decision-Making: Multiple perspectives sharpen decisions and reduce risk.
Increased Engagement: Being heard strengthens commitment and alignment.
Enhanced Motivation and Job Satisfaction: Participation boosts morale.
Safer Work Environments: Psychological safety encourages constructive sharing.
Retention: Empowered employees are less likely to leave.
Early Detection of Problems: Candid reporting surfaces issues before escalation.
Reduced Legal/Operational Risk: Preventing small issues from becoming big crises.
Knowledge Sharing: Learning spreads faster when ideas flow openly.
Collective Problem-Solving: Speaking up fosters collaboration.
Trust in Leadership: Leaders who actively listen earn trust and credibility.
A Proactive Culture: Voice builds agility and alignment with goals.

Simply put, voice isn’t just “nice to have.” It has a material impact on performance, culture, and organizational resilience.

The Power of Asking

Some may wonder: can’t AI just solve the feedback challenge by analyzing digital exhaust across emails, chat platforms, and documents? The short answer is no. Passive analysis of digital exhaust generally only includes meta data (not content), and even a passive approach that only analyses meta data can be perceived as a form of corporate surveillance that many employees don’t trust despite the most thoughtfully designed internal comms campaigns. Even if privacy issues weren’t a concern, employees hold countless unshared ideas that never make it into digital records.

The real value comes when employees are directly prompted in structured ways. Surveys and listening channels that ask the right questions uncover constructive, actionable feedback. And how organizations act on that feedback, through both analysis and follow-up, is where the opportunity lies.

Listening platforms built for yesterday’s org charts fall short in today’s networked workplaces. Modern listening must account for how work really gets done. For more on this, see my recent articles on network-based listening, organizational culture and performance, and modern management.

Asking for feedback is not a formality; it’s a habit organizations must build. When leaders actively ask, they signal that employee perspectives are valued, which builds trust and sparks contributions. Employees genuinely want to help improve their workplace, but they’ll only do so if they believe their effort leads to action. Otherwise, feedback becomes an exercise in futility, participation drops, and the organization misses critical insights it needs to succeed.

Embedded Manager 180s

Well-designed employee experience surveys can uncover developmental feedback for managers that they might never otherwise receive from their team. Instead of running separate manager 180 or 360 assessments, embedding targeted questions about each respondent’s manager within the survey offers a creative way to reduce the number of surveys employees are asked to complete. With a clear referent (e.g., “your immediate manager”), the feedback is specific and actionable, making it harder for managers to dismiss results as applying only to a broader group of leaders.

Why Third-Party Partners Matter

This is where external partners add real value. Employees are far more likely to share candid feedback through confidential, third-party channels than through internal systems. Just as ethics and compliance hotlines exist to encourage reporting of violations without fear of retaliation, employee listening platforms provide safe pathways for concerns and ideas that might otherwise go unheard.

At the end of the day, feedback isn’t about collecting opinions. It’s about creating progress. Organizations need systems that don’t just ask questions but also translate insights into meaningful action.

How do you ensure employees feel safe and motivated to speak up in your organization?
Could building stronger relationships be the key to overcoming the impact of implicit voice theories on employees’ willingness to speak up?
Do your employees believe their voices lead to action, or are they relying on hope?

References

Birdi, K., Clegg, C., Patterson, M., Robinson, A., Stride, C. B., Wall, T. D., & Wood, S. J. (2008). The impact of human resource and operational management practices on company productivity: A longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, 61(3), 467–501.

Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869–884.

Detert, J. R., Burris, E. R., & Harrison, D. A. (2010). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1084–1101.

Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.

Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 23–43.

Kim, S. (2002). Participative management and job satisfaction: Lessons for management leadership. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 231–241.

Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., & Dworkin, T. M. (2008). Whistle-blowing in organizations. Routledge.

Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373–412.

Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706–725.

Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1995). Effective whistle-blowing. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 679–708.

Starbuck, C. R. (2016). Managing insidious barriers to upward communication in organizations: An empirical investigation of relationships among implicit voice theories, power distance orientation, self-efficacy, and leader-directed voice (Doctoral dissertation). Regent University.

Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1359–1392.