Exploring the duality of voice habit: Testing and extending theory and measurement

Scholars increasingly recognize the existence of voice habit, wherein employees speak up automatically without considering relevant situational factors, being able to control their impulse to voice, and exerting effort in deciding whether to voice. However, a lack of theory testing and an absence of a psychometrically valid measure have called into question its theoretical usefulness as well as its construct validity. Moreover, contrary to Lam et al.’s (2018) theorizing on the interpersonal costs and intrapersonal benefits of voice habit, research on the reticence bias suggests the opposite: Habitual voicers may gain interpersonal benefits by experiencing higher supervisor liking, but they may also suffer intrapersonal costs by experiencing voice regret. Integrating these divergent insights with theorizing on voice habit, we predict that voice habit may elicit supervisor liking when supervisors perceive habitual voicers as having higher prosocial motives or behavioral integrity, even though habitual voicers may experience regret in work units with a weaker voice climate. Results from a multiwave, multisource field study with 435 employees and 135 supervisors using a 12-item validated scale of voice habit support our hypotheses. Our work provides a direct test and extension of the recently proposed theorizing on voice habit and introduces a psychometrically valid measure for future research use. Our findings also empirically support the dual nature of voice habit, highlighting both its potential functional interpersonal outcomes in relation to supervisors and its potential dysfunctional intrapersonal outcomes for habitual voicers.