|dc.description.abstract||The objective of this thesis was to further the nascent paradigm on team-level voice, specifically voice climate and team voice. First, in Study 1, I examined how and why voice climate emerges in teams. In particular, I proposed that leaders stimulate shared perceptions of voice climate depending on how they previously responded to voice (i.e., voice acceptance or rejection). In turn, I proposed that voice climate enhances teams’ subsequent voice, as mediated by team risk, fear, efficacy, and vitality. I tested these propositions with a between-subjects team experiment, in which I manipulated a confederate leader’s responses to their team’s voice, and assessed its effects on team affect, cognitions, and subsequent voice.
Next, in Study 2, I conducted a multi-wave training experiment to explore whether we can train leaders to successfully encourage their teams to speak up. First, I developed a one-hour training program that focussed on leader openness and responsiveness to voice, based on insights from the voice and leadership training literatures. Next, I randomly divided 65 students into either a 1-hour voice or control condition, and administered the training. Finally, approximately one week later, these students participated in a 1-hour team task, after which their team members rated leaders’ openness and responsiveness to voice, as well as voice climate and team voice.
Finally, in Study 3, I investigated whether, how, and why voice climate ultimately affects team functioning by focussing on the mediating mechanisms that link voice climate to team learning and performance. In particular, I proposed that voice climate enhances team effectiveness through its sequential effect on negative and positive team affect (i.e., fear and vitality), cognitions (i.e., risk and efficacy), and voice (i.e., quantity and quality). I assessed these propositions with multi-sourced field surveys with 59 teams from 8 Canadian companies.||en_US