Silence or voice?: Using facework and communication apprehension to explain employee responses to autonomy and competence face threats posed by negative feedback

This study examined the type of communication responses employees choose after receiving potentially face-threatening negative feedback from their supervisors. The facework framework suggests that the addition of preventative facework to negative feedback messages may reduce threats to autonomy and competence face. Different levels of face threat may lead respondents to choose voice or silence response modes and to be defensively or prosocially motivated following reception of negative feedback. Communication apprehension (CA) is also examined as a factor in employees' choice of voice or silence.;This study provided a test of eight negative feedback messages that differed in level and type of face threat, their predicted effects on perceptions of face threat, and selection of voice or silence responses as a function of both face threat and CA. Voice responses may be more functional than silence responses because they allow employees to share ideas and clarify any misunderstandings about feedback they receive. Hagedoorn, Van Yperen, Van De Vliert, and Buunk (1999) suggested reporting of problems as opposed to silence responses can have two positive outcomes: it may result in an early alert for the organization that procedures or practices may not be working and it may also reduce distress for employees experiencing the problem. A new individual difference variable known as facework strategy preference was also tested for its effect on perceptions of face threat and selection of voice or silence responses.;This study (N = 443) employed a 2 (type of face threat: autonomy, competence) x 4 (level of threat: threat only, threat with tact, threat with approbation, threat with tact and approbation) design with CA as a co-variate to test these ideas. Results indicated that approbation reduced perceptions of both autonomy and competence threat, whereas tact was not effective in reducing the perception of either type of threat. Thus, approbation was the most effective facework message type. As employees felt more threatened (either autonomy or competence) they were less likely to use prosocial voice and more likely to use defensive silence as a response. As a general rule, higher perceived threat was negatively associated with the functional response of prosocial voice; as threat decreased, prosocial voice responses increased. Prosocial voice was also negatively associated with the dysfunctional responses of defensive silence and defensive voice.;The association between defensive voice and autonomy threat was negative and significant for high CAs but nonsignificant for low CAs, as was the correlation between prosocial voice and competence threat. The correlation between defensive silence and competence threat was positive and significant for high CAs and nonsignificant for low CAs. The preference for direct facework was negatively associated with both defensive voice and silence and positively associated with prosocial voice. The preference for indirect facework was positively associated with both defensive voice and silence but not correlated with prosocial voice. Implications of these findings, limitations, and future directions are discussed.