To Speak Up or Not to, That Is the Question: How a Norm Violator’s Status Affects an Observer’s Voice

Abstract

Individuals often witness their peers’ norm violating behaviors, yet frequently they decide to remain silent for the observed violation despite its potential negative impact on achieving organizational goals. I argue that the social status of a peer violating norms influences the observer’s choice between speaking up (i.e., voice) and remaining silent (i.e., silence) about the peer’s norm violation. Drawing from social exchange theory, I predict that a peer’s social status is positively related to interpersonal trust in the peer such that individuals are more likely to trust peers who have higher social status. Additionally, I propose that interpersonal trust is expected to decrease the likelihood that an observed norm violation of these peers is voiced. A field study and an experiment were conducted to test my research model. In a multi-wave field survey from 139 West Point cadets who observed 312 norm violations in 73 squads, I find support for my prediction that a norm violator’s social status is indirectly related to an observer’s voice via their interpersonal trust in the norm-violating peer. The experiment I conducted using responses from 189 Prolific workers does not replicate the negative relationship between observer interpersonal trust and their voice. However, the findings from it indicate that interpersonal trust affects the amount of anger-signaling language used in the voice content and observers’ attributions of an other-oriented motive to the norm violator. My dissertation research extends the understanding of the relationship between status and voice especially at the event (i.e., episodic) level, and provides implications on why and how observed norm violations are overlooked rather than communicated to the person in authority (e.g., leader).