Two newly published studies reveal a paradox at the heart of many organisations: leaders are significantly less likely to empower employees who raise concerns, even though those same employees often play a crucial role in identifying problems and proposing innovative solutions. Known as individuals who exhibit “challenging voice,” these employees frequently challenge decisions, question the status quo, and call attention to strategic missteps—behaviours that, paradoxically, tend to reduce their influence within the workplace. Despite mounting evidence that such behaviours can benefit team performance and enhance organisational resilience, many leaders seem to marginalise the very people most capable of driving meaningful improvement.

Bradley Kirkman, co-author of the research and General (Ret.) H. Hugh Shelton Distinguished Professor of Leadership at North Carolina State University’s Poole College of Management, underscores the irony. “We know that empowering employees boosts their performance and lowers turnover,” he explains. “And we also know that employees who use challenging voice are often more creative, take greater responsibility, and share knowledge more frequently—all factors that are good for the bottom line.” Yet, the data from both studies show a consistent pattern: such employees are less likely to be granted influence or autonomy by their superiors. The contradiction raises an uncomfortable question: Why do leaders avoid empowering those who are most engaged and proactive?

To explore this, the researchers examined two types of employee voice: challenging and supportive. A demanding voice includes expressions of dissent, concerns about company direction, or resistance to potentially flawed leadership decisions. In contrast, a supportive voice encompasses praise, encouragement, and affirmations of the status quo. Across both studies—one conducted with MBA professionals and their employees in China, and another involving a diverse sample of working adults in the United States—the results were consistent: those who spoke supportively were more likely to be empowered than those who raised concerns. This suggests a systemic bias favouring employees who offer affirmation over those who provide insight, even when the latter is more valuable strategically.

In the first study, researchers surveyed 143 MBA leaders and 266 of their employees across various industries in China, tracking behavioural patterns over a six-week period. The dyads of leaders and followers completed three rounds of surveys, which enabled the researchers to examine how different types of employee input shaped leadership responses. In the second study, conducted in the United States, over 500 adults were asked to take on the role of a leader evaluating a hypothetical employee. Each participant received one of several randomly assigned employee profiles, varying by voice type (challenging or supportive) and by the degree of helpful behaviour (high or low). These manipulations allowed researchers to test how different combinations of behaviour affected leaders’ willingness to grant empowerment.

What emerged was a clear pattern. Leaders consistently perceived a challenging voice as a threat to their authority, interpreting it as a challenge to their leadership rather than a contribution to organisational health. In contrast, employees who used a supportive tone were perceived as being aligned with the leader’s goals and were more likely to be entrusted with greater influence. This finding held across both cultural contexts, suggesting that the issue is not isolated to one management tradition or geographical region, but is instead a deeply ingrained psychological reaction. Managers, it seems, often equate agreement with loyalty and criticism with disloyalty—even when the latter comes from a place of commitment and conscientiousness.

There was, however, one critical exception. In both studies, leaders were more likely to empower employees who used a challenging voice if those employees also exhibited high levels of helpful behaviour. When employees were seen to take initiative, assist their supervisors, or go above and beyond in supporting team goals, their critical input was no longer viewed as threatening. These individuals were considered team players rather than troublemakers. Notably, this moderating effect did not apply to supportive voice. In other words, being helpful did not enhance the impact of a supportive voice because those employees were already viewed favourably; it only helped rehabilitate the reputation of those who spoke up with concerns.

The key takeaway for leaders is to be more self-aware and deliberate in their responses to employee input. A challenging voice is not necessarily a sign of defiance—it can be a marker of engagement, creativity, and strategic thinking. When leaders ignore or sideline such voices, they risk cultivating an echo chamber where conformity is rewarded and meaningful feedback is suppressed. This not only undermines morale but may also allow serious issues to fester unaddressed. A strong, dynamic organisation depends on the presence of employees who are willing to ask hard questions and point out blind spots—especially when they do so constructively.

For employees, the message is more nuanced. Speaking out remains important, but it may be wise to pair criticism with visible acts of support and commitment. Employees who consistently offer assistance, contribute to their team, and support their leaders in tangible ways are better positioned to voice dissent without suffering repercussions. The research suggests that helpfulness acts as a buffer, signalling to leaders that critique is offered in good faith and with the organisation’s best interests at heart. In this way, employees can strike a delicate balance—demonstrating both allegiance and assertiveness—without compromising their influence or professional standing.

More information: Troy Smith et al, Why do bootlickers get empowered more than boat-rockers? The effects of voice and helping on empowering leadership through threat and goal congruence perceptions, Journal of Applied Psychology. DOI: 10.1037/apl0001303

Journal information: Journal of Applied Psychology Provided by North Carolina State University