Honesty Is Not Always the Best Policy: The Role of Self-Esteem Based on Others’ Approval in Qualifying the Relationship Between Leader Transparency and Follower Voice
Ellen Choi, Lieke L. ten Brummelhuis, Hannes Leroy
{"title":"Honesty Is Not Always the Best Policy: The Role of Self-Esteem Based on Others’ Approval in Qualifying the Relationship Between Leader Transparency and Follower Voice","authors":"Ellen Choi, Lieke L. ten Brummelhuis, Hannes Leroy","doi":"10.1177/15480518241231045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article, we integrate social exchange theory with insights from contingent self-esteem to explain why leader transparency (LT) might not always be reciprocated by enhanced follower voice. We theorize that when leaders are transparent, they initiate a social process that offers the exchange of honesty by signaling that the work environment is psychologically safe enough for followers to express their opinions in return. Yet, for individuals whose self-esteem fragilely relies on the approval of others (i.e., self-esteem based on others’ approval), reciprocating transparent communication is more difficult because speaking up exposes their self-worth to the potential for rejection. We test our model at the individual and team level. In Study 1 (individual level), we find that LT is positively related to follower self-rated voice one-month later through enhanced follower psychological safety, but only when follower self-esteem based on others’ approval is low as opposed to high. In Study 2 (team level), we find that team LT is positively related to leader-rated team voice six-months later through team psychological safety; however, only when team level self-esteem based on others’ approval is low, but not high. These results underscore that leader transparency can be reciprocated with enhanced follower voice, but only when followers have secure and stable self-esteem.","PeriodicalId":51455,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518241231045","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In this article, we integrate social exchange theory with insights from contingent self-esteem to explain why leader transparency (LT) might not always be reciprocated by enhanced follower voice. We theorize that when leaders are transparent, they initiate a social process that offers the exchange of honesty by signaling that the work environment is psychologically safe enough for followers to express their opinions in return. Yet, for individuals whose self-esteem fragilely relies on the approval of others (i.e., self-esteem based on others’ approval), reciprocating transparent communication is more difficult because speaking up exposes their self-worth to the potential for rejection. We test our model at the individual and team level. In Study 1 (individual level), we find that LT is positively related to follower self-rated voice one-month later through enhanced follower psychological safety, but only when follower self-esteem based on others’ approval is low as opposed to high. In Study 2 (team level), we find that team LT is positively related to leader-rated team voice six-months later through team psychological safety; however, only when team level self-esteem based on others’ approval is low, but not high. These results underscore that leader transparency can be reciprocated with enhanced follower voice, but only when followers have secure and stable self-esteem.