An invitation to speak is tested by what follows

The voice research

Detert and Burris examined leadership behavior and employee voice. Their research directs attention to the conditions under which people raise concerns or suggestions. It does not establish that an executive's self-rating of openness captures the experience of employees, or that a questionnaire can guarantee a culture where speaking up is safe.

A proposal that challenges a favored plan

Imagine a fictional executive who asks for candid input on a restructuring proposal. A manager identifies a dependency that could disrupt customers. The executive thanks them but continues using the original plan without explaining whether the concern was considered. The manager is left uncertain about whether speaking had any effect. The executive may remember the invitation; the manager may remember the absence of a response.

A useful review distinguishes acknowledgement, examination, decision, and feedback. The executive does not have to accept every proposal. They can explain why the concern changes the plan, why it does not, or what additional information is needed. The key observation is whether the person can understand what happened to the input and whether their continued participation is respected. The process should also offer channels for concerns that are difficult to raise in a group.

Executive Practices as an inquiry tool

Machiavelli Executive Practices can prompt reflection on how voice is supported through stated conduct and decision processes. It should not provide a badge of openness or infer that silence means agreement. A favorable score may reflect intention, selective experience, or a particular team. The report should ask for a concern that changed a decision and another that was rejected with a clear explanation. Both examples are informative.

A study that follows the concern

An original study could examine a series of voluntarily documented suggestions from initial expression to final response. Researchers should collect accounts from more than one role while protecting confidentiality and avoiding disclosure that could expose the speaker. They could assess clarity of response, timeliness, and whether access to work changed afterward. The questionnaire's relationship to those observations would remain an empirical question. Report research should also test whether leaders use the profile to invite disconfirming evidence. A useful instrument helps the executive inspect the pathway; it does not allow them to declare the pathway effective on the strength of their own answers.

Continue the reading

Talent stewardship and the conditions for speaking up →

Executive self-report, context, and competing explanations →