Speaking up at work is generally considered a very good thing, so employers and managers often strive to support staff in doing so.  Such efforts often focus on overt forms of speaking up, but research from Iowa State University highlights a more subtle form of speaking up that may be just as important.

“What we say within a group, the ideas we suggest, and the way we support others, signals something about who we are to our coworkers. It can attract people to us or repel them,” the researchers explain.

Subtle signs

The researchers identified two different forms of communicating various work-related issues, and these indelibly shape our reputations and the way teams form to tackle issues.  For instance, when people use a “supportive voice”, they have a better chance of being recruited into a team because it increases trust and cooperation.

By contrast, when people use a “challenging voice”, they tend to challenge the status quo more and offer up ideas for improvement.  Such an approach tends to, when used well, focus on the expertise of the person speaking up.  The researchers believe it’s a style that’s often appreciated in dynamic and fast-paced industries.

“Supportive voice is still about speaking up in the workplace, but it’s looking at what’s going well in the group or team. It might defend the status quo by saying there’s value in what the team is already doing,” they explain.

Different styles

The researchers tested the two different communication styles via a number of teams formed of MBA students.  As well as monitoring the output of the teams, each participant was also asked to rate their fellow teammates, especially on their use of the supportive or challenging voice, as well as their reputation, trust, and quality of work.  After originally being directed into teams, the volunteers could then form their own teams towards the end of the study.

The results show that those individuals who scored highly for challenging voice tended to build a strong reputation for good work, but people tended to prefer working with colleagues who scored highly for supportive voice.

“Because challenging voice is the predominant form of speaking up we encourage in classrooms and as managers, we thought it was going to be strong driver of people selecting team members later. But as it turns out, this more supportive voice that helps establish relationships and a sense of trust amongst individuals in the group was more important,” the researchers say.

The authors argue that while having both types of voice could be seen as ideal, in their experiments, it was the supportive voice that was the stronger indicator of team formation.  They believe that their findings could guide managers and their organizations in the more effective use of speaking up by encouraging employees to deploy the supportive voice more frequently.

“There might be times that challenging voice reigns supreme but other situations where supportive voice becomes more critical for a team,” they conclude. “Supportive voicers can keep teams together to make sure the work gets done.”