We draw on Gouldner's (1960, Am. Sociol. Rev., 25, 161) norm of reciprocity to accomplish three goals: (1) theoretically depict the employee voice process as an exchange relationship that is maintained when both parties provide benefits ‘in kind’ to each other; (2) introduce the notion of voice resilience, defined as subsequent engagement in voice despite adversity in the process (i.e., voice non‐endorsement); and (3) demonstrate the importance of voice safety as a key mechanism that facilitates voice resilience. When employees speak up to their leaders with suggestions for change, this behaviour is positively intended and represents a contribution to the leader and to the mutual relationship because voice is a risky behaviour. When leaders do not implement employee suggestions (non‐endorsement of voice) but reciprocate by providing adequate explanations for non‐endorsement, this should foster employee perceptions of voice safety and make it more likely that employees will speak up with suggestions in the future (subsequent voice). In sum, this mutual exchange of benefits, voice from the employee and adequate explanations for non‐endorsement from the leader, should foster voice resilience. Results across two studies (field and laboratory) demonstrate that sensitivity of explanations for non‐endorsement (not specificity) predicts follower's voice safety and subsequent voice. We discuss the theoretical implications of the more personal nature of sensitive explanations compared to the more descriptive and factual nature of specific explanations and consider the practical benefits of encouraging leaders and organizations to view the voice process as a mutual exchange relationship.

中文翻译：

---

语音弹性：在不认可建议后培养未来的声音

我们利用Gouldner（1960，Am。Sociol。Rev .，25，161 ）的互惠准则来实现三个目标：（1）理论上将员工的声音过程描述为当双方都提供实物利益时所维持的一种交换关系。 ' 对彼此; （2）介绍语音弹性的概念，其定义为尽管过程中遇到了困难（例如，语音不认可），但随后仍参与语音处理；（3）证明了语音安全作为促进语音弹性的关键机制的重要性。当员工向领导说出改变的建议时，这种行为是积极的，并且代表了对领导和相互关系的贡献，因为声音是一种冒险的行为。如果领导者不执行员工建议（不认可语音），而是通过提供适当的解释来回报对方，这应该会增强员工对语音安全性的认知，并使员工将来更有可能提出建议（随后语音）。总之，这种互惠互利，员工的声音以及对领导者不认可的充分解释应可增强声音的应变能力。两项研究（现场和实验室）的结果表明，对非认可（非特异性）解释的敏感性可预测跟随者的语音安全性和随后的语音。与具体解释的更具描述性和事实性相比，我们讨论了敏感的解释具有更多的人性本质的理论含义，并考虑了鼓励领导人和组织将声音过程视为相互交流关系的实际好处。