Organizational Social Capital: Ties Between HRD,Employee Voice,and CEOs

Abstract

Growing employee voice increases the likelihood that employees will engage in discretionary efforts to share potentially useful information, express opinions, or concerns about work-related issues to their supervisors and other leaders in the organization. We develop a conceptual model and a series of propositions to examine and analyze the underlying mechanisms that enhance employee voice. Specifically, we identify linkages and connections between human resource development (HRD) practices, organizational social capital (OSC), and the role of CEOs as facilitating environmental or situational mechanisms that have implications on voice behavior. HRD can play a key role in helping employees foster social capital, leading to employee voice in the organization. When CEOs extend their existing internal social networks, and engage in conversations with workers, this dialogue serves as a visible artifact and reverberates across the organization. Our propositions move beyond framing employee-related voice outcomes as a result of either HRD practices or CEO influence. Rather, we postulate an outcome of their interdependent interactions. Implications for HRD research and practice are discussed.

Keywords

employee voice organizational social capital CEOs

The ignition conspiracy at General Motors (Norris, 2014), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) wait time manipulation (Weisman & Steinhauer, 2018), and the emissions scandal from Volkswagen (McLean, 2017) are prominent examples where leaders’ decision-making abilities could have benefited from increased interactions and connection with their workforce. It appeared in each of the aforementioned examples that perhaps employees were unwilling to speak up or were silenced in their organizations. A workforce that is disconnected with top leadership can have devastating implications for the organization, and affect the decision-making skills and performance of the CEO (Chen, Treviño, & Hambrick, 2009; Young & Post, 1993). While it is unlikely that any senior leader will admit he or she is “out of touch” with the reality on the ground, daily news reports suggest that there are a number of CEOs who are not only out of touch but also out of tune with what is happening in the trenches (Tahmincioglu, 2011).

Like water, information does not easily flow upward. Even if CEOs employ the practice of management by walking around (Peters & Waterman, 1982), they are unlikely to see or hear from employees about process problems, equipment failures, or supervisor misconduct, or to learn more individual details about their employees’ lives (Milliken, Morrison, & Hewlin, 2003). More often than not, workers may be either afraid to tell the CEO the truth or they assume it will not make a difference (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). If, and when, information is communicated to the CEO, it is often distorted or filtered (Porter, Lorsch, & Nohria, 2004). We suggest that this is problematic, as not only is the upward flow of information important, but also accurate and timely feedback is necessary for organizational success.

Over the last decade, the study of employee voice has experienced a surge in the academic community (Cumberland, Shuck, Immekus, & Alagaraja, 2018), shifting from traditional mind-sets about a top-down hierarchy, toward increasing acknowledgment of a collective responsibility in making decisions that positively impact the organization at all levels of employees (Wilkinson, Donaghey, Dundon, & Freeman, 2014). Employees at all levels of an organization are important in building voice momentum. Building from Nakamura and Yorks’s (2011) argument that human resource development (HRD) professionals can facilitate social capital construction among executives, it seems plausible that a CEO could serve as a critical channel of impact, influencing and reinforcing positive characteristics of organizational social capital (OSC) and ultimately strengthening the implementation of HRD practices. Unfortunately, there is limited knowledge and understanding about how a CEO could serve as such a critical channel or how this reinforcement might happen in practice.

The purpose of our work was to develop an understanding of the intersection between social capital, HRD practices, OSC, and the influence of CEOs’ social capital. In light of our sharpened focus, it was important to explore other theoretical groundings, such as human capital (Ployhart & Moliterno, 2011; Unger, Rauch, Frese, & Rosenbusch, 2011) and relational capital (Inkpen & Tsang, 2005; Kale, Singh, & Perlmutter, 2000) theories and their potential impact. However, it remained incumbent upon us to place boundaries around the scope of our work, and thus these were ultimately not included. Instead, we opted to be judicious in what was included in our review to avoid over complicating any model that might emerge and to ensure that we provided clarity in an already complex area of research and practice.

In what follows, we first offer an overview and definition of employee voice, as it is the main focus of the article. We present a general introduction to social capital, and present OSC literature, drawing not only from HRD but also from other related disciplines such as management and human resources management (HRM) that have relevance to our purpose and focus. We then identified HRD practices as described in the HRD literature and discuss how they relate to training and organizational development (OD) to strengthen OSC on multiple dimensions. We argue that this HRD–OSC linkage influences employee voice. Finally, we offer conceptual thinking for how the CEO’s social capital serves to moderate that relationship.

Employee Voice: Overview and Definition

Employee voice has been defined as follows:

The discretional or formal expression of ideas, opinions, suggestions, or alternative approaches directed to a specific target inside or outside of the organization with the intent to change an objectionable state of affairs and to improve the current functions of the organization, group or individual. (Bashshur & Oc, 2015, p. 1531)

This area of research builds on a number of individual-level attributes, as well as identifies organizational contexts that serve as antecedents to voice behaviors. For example, structural issues in the organization, such as layers of bureaucracy, can hinder the upward flow of information (Glauser, 1984) and, therefore, stifle employee voice. The organizational contexts linked to voice include psychological safety (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009), size of work group, and worker self-management (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). Studies have also explored specific leadership variables as antecedents to voice, such as leader trust (Gao, Janssen, & Shi, 2011), leader openness (Detert & Burris, 2007), ethical leadership (Chan, 2013; Chin, 2013; Liu et al., 2015), and the leader-member exchange (LMX) relationship (Botero & Van Dyne, 2009). While previous scholarship has documented the influence of individual-level attributes and organizational contexts, scholars are still investigating how social relationships in the workplace influence employee voice (Venkataramani, Zhou, Wang, Liao, & Shi, 2016). More specifically, there is a need for greater understanding of the CEO’s role in facilitating vertical levels of employee communication (Kahn & Heaphy, 2014) that will foster open communication where critical upward feedback is welcomed (Adelman, 2012). As it has been established in the literature that HRD has a critical role in creating and strengthening social interactions among group members inside the organization (Buller & McEvoy, 2012; Ellinger, Ellinger, Bachrach, Wang, & Elmadag Bas, 2011; Lengnick-Hall & Lengnick-Hall, 2003; Nakamura & Yorks, 2011), we turn our attention to the concept of social capital.

Social Capital

Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) suggest that social capital is “the sum of the actual and potential resources embedded within, available through, and derived from the network of relationships possessed by an individual or social unit” (p. 243). Put simply, social networks are the relationships between the actors while social capital can best be understood as the resources embedded within those social networks (Cohen & Prusak, 2001). We frame our discussion and build a working model using social capital theory from the works of management and HRD scholars such as Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998), Cohen and Prusak (2001), Ellinger et al., (2013), Storberg (2002), and Nakamura and Yorks (2011).

There is broad acceptance in the scholarly community that the social relationships inside organizations can be value creators (Ellinger et al., 2013; Storberg, 2002). Linked with social network theory (Maak, 2007; Maurer & Ebers, 2006), social capital offers a useful lens to view and explain employee voice. As a construct, social capital and its outcomes can be studied at the individual, group, organization, interorganizational, community, region, and national levels (Maurer & Ebers, 2006). Our model begins by investigating social capital at the organizational level and offers perspective on how OSC and specific HRD practices develop different dimensions of OSC, creating a linkage between these constructs.

OSC

Organizational researchers Leana and Van Buren (1999) offer a macro-level perspective of social capital, seeking to understand how processes and practices of groups and individuals attempt to create benefits for the firm. These scholars define OSC as the social relations that occur within an organization from employees’ levels of collective goal orientation and shared trust. Furthermore, they argue that an individual’s social capital provides a public benefit directly to the firm, and only indirectly to himself or herself. Studies have found that OSC affects buyer–supplier relationships (Krause, Handfield, & Tyler, 2007), organizational learning (Reagans & McEvily, 2003), managerial performance (Moran, 2005), intellectual capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998), the firm’s strategic complexity (Houghton, Smith, & Hood, 2009), innovation (Landry, Amara, & Lamari, 2002), and entrepreneurial behavior (Shirazi, Mohamadi, Jahangiri, & Zahed, 2013).

Much of the literature at the organization level has tended to parse social capital into two categories: external OSC and internal OSC. Hitt and Ireland (2002) define internal OSC as “relationships between strategic leaders and those whom they lead as well as relationships across all of an organization’s work units” (p. 5). These scholars offer that external OSC is comprised of “relationships between strategic leaders and those outside the organization with whom they interact to further the firm’s interests” (p. 6). Studies have found both internal and external OSC to be important predictors of firm performance (Leana & Pil, 2006). Our interest in developing a conceptual model operates from the perspectives of (a) viewing employees as key stakeholders, and (b) considering the relational influence CEOs have in establishing social network ties internally within the organization. Therefore, our focus will remain on internal aspects of OSC.

Dimensions of OSC

We build on Nahapiet and Ghoshal’s (1998) model, which identifies structural, relational, and the cognitive as the three dimensions of social capital. The structural dimension describes connections between the actors and encompasses the “who you know” network ties that can provide access to resources, as well as the structural configuration of the network itself, which describes vertical or lateral transmission of information. The relational dimension describes how well the actors know one another through their history of interactions that has fostered a level of trust. Finally, the cognitive dimension of social capital refers to the resources that provide shared interpretations among the actors that may include language, norms, or narratives. Our model also extends Nakamura and Yorks’s (2011) reflective practices framework, which suggests intentional HRD practices that involve promoting relations, structures, and reflections, and generate OSC.

HRD Practices

We propose a framework to better understand the underlying motives that contribute or enhance employee voice behaviors. We are unaware of another paper in the HRD literature that attempts to bring together macro-level organizational influences (social capital, HRD practices, CEO role, and influence) on this increasingly important micro-level behavior of the individual employee. Given our focus on building an overarching framework to underscore the role of HRD practices in general and their contributions in linking OSC and employee voice, we included select and relevant HRM/HRD literature on human resource practices (e.g., commitment based and networking building) in general to ensure that our foundation for developing the model was situated in the extant voice literature (Chuang, Chen, & Chuang, 2013; Collins & Clark, 2003).

Within the organization, HRD is concerned with training, development, and unleashing the potential of every employee in the organization (Swanson & Holton, 2009). HRD also has a critical role in creating and strengthening social capital inside the organization (Buller & McEvoy, 2012; Ellinger et al., 2011; Lengnick-Hall & Lengnick-Hall, 2003; Nakamura & Yorks, 2011). A positive work climate is strengthened and reinforced through social interactions among group members and enhances employee engagement (Shuck, Twyford, Reio, & Shuck, 2014). Thus, recognizing employees as important stakeholders whose creativity, ingenuity, and problem-solving capabilities impact firm performance (Gollan, Poutsma, & Veersma, 2006; Wood & Wall, 2007) defines the focus of HRD practices in organizations.

Scholars advance studies that parse specific HRD practices into categories. Commitment-based HRD practices, for example, focus on building employee exchanges that are relationship based (Collins & Smith, 2006). Specific network-building HRD practices were investigated by Collins and Clark (2003) in high technology firms. These scholars found the relationship between specific types of HRD practices and firm performance was mediated by the top managers’ social networks. Furthermore, they argue that it is important to identify sets of HRD practices that facilitate specific skills such as developing networks to elicit desired behaviors. In an attempt to develop a way to measure HR practices that build OSC, Chuang et al. (2013) identify a set of specific HRD practices—including job rotation, communities of practice, new-hires shadowing different organizational team members, mentoring programs, leadership, and team trainings—that when leveraged together as a system of HRD practices foster network-building among employees. Based on the synthesis of the literature, it is clear that HRD processes (training and development, career development, and organization development) must align with organizations’ overall strategies and contextual factors (e.g., OSC) in the “systematic and planned design” (Werner & DeSimone, 2011) of well-aligned HRD practices. Furthermore, when HRD practices are internally aligned, they can trigger and facilitate productivity and satisfaction (McLean & McLean, 2001) in the workplace. We define HRD practices as those activities, programs, and initiatives that are systematically aimed at facilitating training and development, career development, and organization development processes and internally well aligned with the organizations’ overall strategies. In addition, our definition also includes several key planned activities that facilitate “interactivities during social capital construction” (Nakamura & Yorks, 2011, p. 224) such as learning and performance processes (Swanson & Holton, 2009) that occur collectively as people interact and dialog effectively by sharing ideas and opinions.

Role of CEOs

Recent research suggests a far more complex picture of what organizations can and must do to create lasting HRD value. According to HRD scholars, the strategic advocacy for HRD must come from the CEO (Alagaraja & Egan, 2013; Alagaraja, Egan, & Woodman, 2017; Cumberland & Alagaraja, 2016). Furthermore, CEOs have perhaps the more important role of integrating HRD with the business strategy as a part of OD efforts and also positioning HRD contributions as critical for driving the business. Thus, even though HRD research emphasizes its role in organization development, we contend that emphasizing the influence of CEOs and top management in establishing network ties with employees affects the extent and perceived value of HRD contributions in the workplace. Furthermore, when CEOs are not proactive about involving and leveraging HRD practices, they can hinder employee morale and HRD from achieving a stronger position of competitive advantage.

The HRD–OSC Conceptual Framework

We present a conceptual working model to analyze the potential linkages and connections between HRD and OSC (see Figure 1). In the sections that follow, we review how HRD practices influence the three dimensions of OSC and develop a set of propositions designed to be tested.

Figure 1.

Conceptualizing HRD and OSC linkages.

Specific HRD practices support different facets of OSC (structural, relational, and cognitive). This model builds on Nakamura and Yorks’s (2011) argument that HRD professionals can drive OSC construction through HRD practices such as training programs, workshops, social activities, and reengineering environmental space. Our model identifies how different HRD practices facilitate different OSC dimensions. Linking the three dimensions of OSC (structural, cognitive, and relational) and HRD practices has produced three useful insights. First, HRD literature has rarely considered the underlying dimensions of OSC, and how these dimensions are intertwined with broader HRD practices. Second, we build on the categories of HRD practices provided by earlier scholars (e.g., Chuang et al., 2013; Collins & Clark, 2003), which begin to make connections to OSC. Third, we argue that there is novelty in developing a theoretical approach that attends to structural, cognitive, and relational aspects of HRD practices that also influences OSC. Given the attention that the three OSC pillars have received in prior research, we propose to link each one of these OSC dimensions to HRD in the following sections.

HRD–Structural OSC Linkages

The structural dimension of social capital has received the most attention in the OSC literature (Leana & Pil, 2006). Structural social capital (a) describes the web of connections operating inside the organization, (b) focuses on the patterns of the connections between employees, (c) describes the usefulness of these connections, and (d) describes the frequency with which information is shared across these connections (Chuang et al., 2013; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). A company that is focused on building social capital will emphasize HRD practices that facilitate employee interactions and build interpersonal relationships (Lengnick-Hall & Lengnick-Hall, 2003; Prusak & Cohen, 2001). We suggest that HRD–Structural OSC linkages create opportunities for employees to build networks where they can frequently interact with others vertically and horizontally. For instance, on-site health facilities, child care, and cafeterias encourage socializing (Prusak & Cohen, 2001), as well as job rotations (Quatro, Waldman, & Galvin, 2007); work teams and team trainings (Bartol & Zhang, 2007; Collins & Smith, 2006; Lengnick-Hall & Lengnick-Hall, 2003; Morris, Snell, & Lepak, 2005; Nakamura & Yorks, 2011) all serve to create environments for building employee connections. Investment in office spaces such as game rooms, libraries, and kitchens can also allow employees to discover mutual interests and promote knowledge sharing (Nakamura & Yorks, 2011; Prusak & Cohen, 2001). Other HRD scholars recommend structured onboarding programs to increase the employees’ circle of contacts (Jackson, Chuang, Harden, & Jiang, 2006; Kase, Paauwe, & Zupan, 2009; Morris et al., 2005). Finally, teams provide avenues for employees to build relationships through the frequency and intensity of interactions of the team members (Morris et al., 2005).

HRD–Relational OSC Linkages

More recent HRD contributions have increasingly adopted a perspective that suggests the value of building affective relationships among employees (Chuang et al., 2013). The aspects of the HRD–Relational OSC linkage emphasize and underscore employees’ need for affiliation (Kong, Huang, Liu, & Zhao, 2016), to derive a personal sense of power (Morrison, See, & Pan, 2015) and to build self-esteem (Landau, 2009). HRD practices such as formal and informal mentorship opportunities can likely shape and nurture relationships and encourage the building of trust and the mutual exchange of information (Lengnick-Hall & Lengnick-Hall, 2003). In addition, HRD systems such as training help employees gain not just technical skills to do their jobs, but interpersonal or soft skills to build and sustain social networks inside the organization (Collins & Smith, 2006). A key ingredient for bonding between individuals occurs by forging opportunities for trusting relationships to occur. HRD practices can enhance the development of communities of practice, regular interdepartmental meetings, displays of employee personal statements around the workplace, regular informal social gatherings (Lengnick-Hall & Lengnick-Hall, 2003), judicious coaching (Ellinger et al., 2011), and senior leader walk-arounds (Rotteau, Shojania, & Webster, 2014). Thus, the relational OSC dimension highlights the importance of HRD practices and policies in organizations.

HRD–Cognitive OSC Linkages

The cognitive OSC dimension, which focuses on norms, values, goals, and shared language (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998), has received far less attention in comparison with the structural and relational pillars of OSC. HRD practices such as “mixers” whereby various employee groups within an organization gather for team activities or goal-focused initiatives can facilitate cognitive social capital by recognizing important organizational values and norms that operate in the company, and contribute to a dynamic sense and meaning-making process to create a shared vision and mission (Lengnick-Hall & Lengnick-Hall, 2003). In addition, increasing opportunities for employee development such as offering training outside the individual’s specialty area not only increases interpersonal knowledge but also builds new and additional networks with others (Kase et al., 2009). As such, social relationships encourage cooperation and mutual accountability (Sparrowe, Liden, Wayne, & Kraimer, 2001). Orientation programs provide the opportunity to communicate the culture and values of the firm to new-hires (Collins & Smith, 2006; Lengnick-Hall & Lengnick-Hall, 2003) and help build cognitive social capital. De Clercq, Bouckenooghe, Raja, and Matsyborska (2014) found in their study that common goals shared between employees and leaders, along with the presence of informal social interactions across hierarchical levels, promote higher levels of worker engagement. Furthermore, a combination of these practices assists in explaining both change and continuity in the way cultural norms, values, and beliefs are then communicated to new employees.

The cognitive dimension of social capital, therefore, not only provides the possibility of shared resources and information, but as such it enhances the employees’ understanding of their role and the importance of their individual contributions. These beliefs influence the extent to which employees feel safe enough to speak up, with no fear of reprisals. Thus, HRD–Cognitive OSC linkage can facilitate acts of speaking up in the organization that suggest responsible behavior.

While limited in number, empirical work does show that HRD practices develop and sustain OSC (Kang, Morris, & Snell, 2007; Leana & Van Buren, 1999; Li, Yahya, & Yean, 2016). We offer a more nuanced view that suggests HRD practices create all three (structural–relational–cognitive) dimensions of OSC, operating primarily through the interface of individual employee experiences with HRD practices, policies, and programs. Therefore, the strength of HRD–OSC linkages facilitates an organizational environment that is conducive for increasing interactions between employees and co-workers, developing stronger social relationships, which can result in better performance of the organization and creation of collective knowledge, dialogue, and reflection (Nakamura & Yorks, 2011). Drawing on the literature, we propose the following working propositions for HRD:

Proposition 1: HRD practices will influence the development of Structural OSC.

Proposition 2: HRD practices will influence the development of Relational OSC.

Proposition 3: HRD practices will influence the development of Cognitive OSC.

The HRD–OSC Linkage to Employee Voice

The HRD Structural–OSC linkage suggests that employees have multiple networks to draw upon and exchange information with, giving employees more connections that they can speak to, or with, about concerns or ideas. The aspects of the HRD–Relational OSC linkage can encourage voice behaviors that facilitate employees’ need for affiliation (Kong et al., 2016) enabling employees to derive a personal sense of power (Morrison et al., 2015) and self-esteem (Landau, 2009). Finally, scholars have also noted the importance of cognitive aspects of the HRD–OSC linkage for influencing employee voice (Landau, 2009; Milliken et al., 2003). Hence, we argue that the three HRD–OSC linkages will influence employee voice (see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

HRD–OSC linkages to employee voice.

Our model proposes that the HRD–OSC linkages are likely to create strong organizational cultures where employees are cognitively invested in voicing their honest opinions, concerns, or ideas about work-related issues to someone in a higher position, engaged in meaning making, and carrying out their roles and responsibilities over and above their call of duty. This leads to our next proposition.

Proposition 4: The HRD–OSC linkage is positively related to employee voice.

The Moderating Effects of the CEO’s Social Capital

Pincus, Rayfield, and DeBonis (1991) suggest that employees want a closer relationship with top management and the CEO. How CEOs maintain their relationships with employees can foster social capital. CEOs add a unique value to the existing social network in their organizations (Men, 2015). For example, CEOs who not only know many employees (structural OSC), but also have stronger connections with these employees (relational OSC), develop strong social networks that can promote employee voice. Therefore, we argue that when CEOs act in ways that produce and/or maintain positive HRD–OSC linkages, they can create additional opportunities to promote employee voice behaviors. Specifically, we propose that the CEO’s social capital will moderate the impact of HRD–OSC linkage on employee voice (see Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Effects of CEOs’ social capital on employee voice.

CEOs’ social networks vary greatly, and this has a direct impact on their field of vision (Finkelstein, Hambrick, & Cannella, 2009). Among the barriers to CEOs expanding their internal networks deeper into the organization are distance, power, and access (Reichard, Serrano, & Wefald, 2013). The advent of internal communication systems and social media, however, has elevated the CEO’s ability to have both formal and informal dialogue with employees throughout the organization. Assuming CEOs can connect with employees, the CEO can act as a catalyst for voice, setting the stage for two-way communication to occur (Men, 2015). Furthermore, through their actions or inactions, the CEO can influence employees’ perceptions, attitudes, and performance (Park & Berger, 2004).

Much of the literature on leadership and voice has been focused on the immediate supervisor–employee dyad. While the concept of a CEO having vertical interactions with a diverse group of employees may be popular in the mainstream press, it is a topic rarely examined in research (Peng et al., 2016). Scholars debate how much influence the CEO has on employees on the frontlines, particularly as the size of the organization grows (Peng et al., 2016).

Chen et al. (2009) argue that CEOs become enmeshed in “elitist associations,” whereby they engage extensively with other elite organizational members, thereby limiting interactions with rank and file employees. These scholars suggest that when CEOs shy away from interactions with a broader spectrum of employees across different social strata, they limit their access to potentially useful and critical information, will be slower to adapt to issues or trends, and incur higher costs that result from employee dissatisfaction.

Few studies have investigated how CEOs’ behavior may be related to motivation of individual employees across the organization (Men, 2015; Peng et al., 2016). One related study on CEO networks (McDonald & Westphal, 2003) found that CEOs from firms performing suboptimally were more likely to seek advice from firms and friends within their social strata, leading to further declines in performance. Leaders need to develop a broader range of social networks to identify the necessary strategic changes (McDonald & Westphal, 2003).

A review of the available literature on CEO–employee interactions suggests that CEOs’ strategic contributions are determined by the internal relationships they cultivate in the firm. Collins and Clark (2003), for example, found in high tech firms that the CEO’s social networks served to mediate how HRD practices (incentive compensation, performance assessment, and training) impacted firm performance. Men (2015) found that CEOs’ communication style and quality were antecedents to employee–organization relationships. Similarly, Ou et al. (2014) found that self-aware CEOs who are open to feedback cultivate shared perceptions across hierarchical levels that have a positive affect on attitudes and behavior of employees at lower levels in the organization. Men found that responsive CEOs (as opposed to assertive CEOs) had a stronger positive effect on employee relational outcomes. Responsive CEOs were willing to listen to what employees had to say and were sensitive to their needs as opposed to assertive CEOs.

The indirect influence of CEOs on front line employees has recently gained attention. For example, Peng, et al. (2016) found that when CEOs engaged in intellectual stimulation with lower level employees in small and mid-sized companies, employees had higher perceptions of work meaningfulness. These scholars concluded that CEOs’ behaviors, evidenced through communications and role modeling, influenced employees’ perceptions of their own work. In a study of what CEOs learned by working on the frontlines, Cumberland and Alagaraja (2016) found CEOs’ vertical interactions with employees facilitated rich interpersonal exchanges and led to workplace changes that affected employees’ lives. Finally, most directly connected to our conceptualization of voice is Adelman’s (2012) case study involving CEOs at four award-winning health care organizations. Collectively, these scholars found that employees who had regular face-to-face interactions with their CEOs felt more comfortable sharing negative, and even adverse, information. Because the CEOs occupy a strategic position in the firm, they potentially have access to a greater number of networks. Consequently, we draw from the social capital literature to propose a positive relationship between the CEOs’ social capital and employee voice. This leads to our next and final proposition.

Proposition 5: CEOs’ social capital moderates the relationship between the HRD–OSC linkage and employee voice.

Discussion

The significant contribution of our work is a conceptual model that examines how HRD practices underscore three distinct OSC facets (cognitive, structural, and relational), making HRD–OSC connections to employee voice explicit. This model extends previous work by Nakamura and Yorks (2011) and suggests that CEOs’ social capital will moderate the impact of HRD–OSC linkage on employee voice. The propositions specified throughout our work contribute to the HRD literature by enhancing our understanding of how CEO–employee interactions contribute to employee voice. This complements the extant literature focused on HRD practices as a mechanism to facilitate and encourage employee interactions (Ellinger et al., 2011; Lengnick-Hall & Lengnick-Hall, 2003).

Despite the various organizationally related benefits of employee voice, researchers have not yet examined the alignment between HRD and CEO leadership in affecting employee voice outcomes using the theoretical grounding of social capital. In the proposed model, we extend the theory and research on employee voice and establish the beneficial effects of aligning HRD–OSC linkages and CEO–employee interactions by integrating both lines of research. At a micro level, three distinct facets of OSC can be facilitated by specific HRD practices that encourage employees to utilize their voice. Each one of these HRD–OSC facets suggests a novel means of looking at the coordinating mechanisms that strengthen employee voice. For instance, resource and information access and availability has been shown to enhance employees’ beliefs toward speaking up (HRD–Cognitive OSC). HRD practices that facilitate formal networks where employees’ interactions with one another are enhanced (Prusak & Cohen, 2001) demonstrate evidence of HRD–Structural OSC. As a result, we should expect to see a decisive shift where employee voice can tend to be more vocal, responsive, and participatory. Finally, when HRD practices promote informal relationship building for enhancing trust and mutual support (Chuang et al., 2013), they offer evidence of HRD–Relational OSC. This OSC facet identifies ways in which employees establish social networks both inside and outside the organization. Informal interactions can enhance the ways in which employees express their voice.

In addition to providing a more nuanced view of how HRD–OSC linkages impact employee voice behavior, our conceptual model contributes to the ongoing stream of research literature on how CEOs may counteract the increasing pressures of working in silos. Prior CEO literature seems to have emphasized the influence of board members and outside constituents such as investors. As a result, this literature has overlooked the indirect influence CEOs have on employees. As indicated, CEOs may use highly visible actions and interpersonal tactics to influence the extent to which employees have degrees of freedom to utilize their voice and receive social support for doing so. Thus, changes in the way CEOs interact with employees could help employees retain agency in the way they carry out every day work responsibilities.

Our propositions move beyond framing employee-related voice outcomes as a result of either HRD practices or CEO/leadership influence. Rather, we postulate an outcome of their interdependent interactions. The formal dependence through HRD suggests that employee voice can be strengthened by the content and nature of the HRD–OSC linkage. We also propose that CEOs’ internal social networks create social capital that moderates the relationship between HRD–OSC and employee voice. Finally, this article contributes to HRD by offering a potential explanation and suggestion for linking HRD and CEO practices that account for the ways in which employees feel independent to express themselves and feel supported simultaneously in both formal and informal ways.

Theoretical Implications and Future Research Opportunities

Throughout this work, we have complemented the existing literature around HRD, social capital theory, and employee voice and we have theorized about the role of a CEO’s internal social capital in promoting voice behavior. We address the call by Akdere and Roberts (2008) for HRD scholars to examine the impact of social capital from an HRD perspective. The importance of CEOs’ social networks are well established in the literature (Adelman, 2012; Balkundi & Kilduff, 2006; Men, 2015), and our work extends these findings, suggesting that HRD, as well as the CEO, must perceive network relations that connect to people. Furthermore, CEOs and HRD professionals must actively manage these relations (Balkundi & Kilduff, 2006).

Whereas employee voice has been in the forefront of scholarly interest over the last few years (Bashshur & Oc, 2015; Liang, Farh, & Farh, 2012; Mowbray, Wilkinson, & Tse, 2014), much of this research has concerned the role of the immediate supervisor, a severely limiting boundary. This theoretical work has extended thinking about employee voice by presenting a model that examines how the CEO, an indirect leader, can affect employee voice through social capital, which is a novel approach in light of existing perspectives. Throughout this article, we posit that when CEOs can engage in conversations and dialogue with employees, they build greater knowledge. We also advance the notion that these connections become visible artifacts to other members of the organization and indicate a receptive CEO who inquires and listens—an important message for employees to see and normalize should our conceptual model hold true. While the CEO may not interact with everyone, nor should they be expected to, the ability to have vertical connections reverberates across the organization (Schaubroeck et al., 2012). CEOs’ social networks should reinforce the perception that it is acceptable—and desirable—to share information across the organization. It would be prudent then for well-designed research to test such postulation. If the logic present throughout our propositions is accurate, over time employees may be more likely to share accurate and timely information in a vertical fashion (Balkundi & Kilduff, 2006; Men, 2015). This top-down embedding process can be supplemented by HRD practices that allow for the cultivation of social capital throughout the organization.

Finally, in alignment with Ancona, Malone, Orlikowski, and Senge (2007), we speculate that leadership from the executive level is more about cultivating relationships and connections than it is about command and control. To that end, it would be useful to explore this position explicitly through next steps in the research. Work by Avolio and Yammarino (2013) has suggested that our knowledge and understanding of leadership at a distance is still uninformed and immature. The implication for theory building and research is that leaders at all levels—even those placed indirectly from the employee—can influence effectiveness and performance. More, Adelman (2012) suggested that CEOs absolutely play an important role in developing the structural, relational, and cognitive facets of OSC in a workplace that fosters normative behavior around employee voice. Her work indicated that CEOs who were approachable and regularly present were more likely to foster higher levels of upward communication. Within the context of this work, research might fruitfully explore the role of CEO social capital, employee social capital, and OSC in conjunction with high quality HRD practices as a means for promoting employee voice. Such research might examine, for instance, leader characteristics as noted by Adelman (2012) and their impact on perceptions of CEO social capital and what the moderating effect of these characteristics play in shaping voice promoting behaviors.

Practical Implications for Integrating Employee Voice

This model examines situational and individual factors that can increase employee voice behaviors. Our examples of General Motors and other organizations highlight the implications for organizations when employees are silenced or feel afraid to speak up. We offer several important considerations for practice, including implications for HRD and the CEO. HRD professionals have the ability to affect structural, relational, and cognitive facets of social capital (Hitt & Ireland, 2002; Kase et al., 2009). For example, HRD professionals can help nurture social capital through new hire orientations where senior leaders participate in sharing their stories of entering the organization, new hire buddy programs, job rotations, and communities of practice that facilitate exchange of information (Kang et al., 2007; Lengnick-Hall & Lengnick-Hall, 2003). Design of the work environment such as cafeterias and open space areas also enhance employees’ experience of work (Lengnick-Hall & Lengnick-Hall, 2003; Prusak & Cohen, 2001). The ubiquitous reliance on technology and social media reinforce employee exchanges (Berman & Korsten, 2014; Jackson et al., 2006) and help breakdown traditional work silos. We must also consider the role of HRD in employee relations and labor management because unions and labor-organized communities shape company policies and governmental regulations. Practical strategies for HRD to work with unions and work councils include inviting constituents to panel discussions or virtual forums (Yuan, Rose, & Archer, 1998). HRD professionals should not only encourage and help facilitate these types of consolidated voices but also integrate the CEOs into these meetings with intentionality.

It is not uncommon for employees to believe that their CEO is unaware of and insensitive to their concerns, which feeds mistrust and erects walls of silence (Pincus & DeBonis, 1994). CEOs who initiate discussions and dialogue and are open to receiving critical feedback from employees (Men, 2015) are likely to encourage employees to communicate not only frequently but also more openly and honestly (Adelman, 2012; Ashford, Sutcliffe, & Christianson, 2009). However, even when CEOs believe in the value of feedback, they may not know how to facilitate open channels of communication with workers. Therefore, it is incumbent on HRD professionals to help CEOs foster internal networks (Cumberland & Alagaraja, 2016) not only with senior leaders but with other employees who work on the frontlines of the organization and who typically have limited to no access to senior leadership.

We acknowledge that traditional CEO networks offer “protection” to CEOs and senior leaders. Extending CEO interactions outside established networks may expose their vulnerability in the event they are not able to address/redress employees’ concerns or reconcile many competing points of view. Thus, these interactions can be viewed as creating additional demands on their time, energy, and focus. We offer specific ways CEOs can engage with employees through nontraditional networks: for instance, unpublicized but regular management by walking around (Pincus & DeBonis, 1994), taking on a non-CEO role for a day at a branch or distant company location (Birkinshaw, 2013; Cumberland & Alagaraja, 2016), social media (Berman & Korsten, 2014; Men, 2015), informal team talks or “listening programs” (IBM, 2015), face-to-face communication with senior leaders (Men, 2015), and upward appraisal systems where employees rate the CEO and senior leaders (Tourish & Robson, 2006). HRD initiatives that focus on getting the CEO out of their office and interacting with employees, having the CEO listen, and helping the CEO distill critical feedback and information can offer immense help. As one CEO commented, “what we say isn’t as important as what’s changed based on what we have heard” (Pincus & DeBonis, 1994, p. 204).

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Denise M. Cumberland is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Leadership, Evaluation and Organizational Development at the University of Louisville. Her research interests include governance, entrepreneurship, and leadership. She serves on the Board of Governors for the Institute of Certified Franchise Executives and consults on topics such as change, conflict management, communication strategies, innovation, and teamwork. Dr. Cumberland received her PhD from the University of Louisville.

Meera Alagaraja is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Leadership, Evaluation and Organizational Development at the University of Louisville. Her research agenda focuses on three distinct streams – strategic human resources, wellbeing in the workplace, and workforce development. Her research publications in Human Resource Development Quarterly (HRDQ) and Human Resource Development International (HRDI) focus on strategic human resources were recognized and awarded the Richard A Swanson award in Research Excellence and the Monica M Lee award in Research Excellence. Dr. Alagaraja received her PhD from Texas A&M University.

Brad Shuck is associate professor and program director of both the Health Professions Education and Human Resources and Organizational Development programs in the School of Medicine and College of Education and Human Development at the University of Louisville. His primary areas of research include the application, meaning, and measurement of employee engagement, emerging areas of positive psychology, and leader development. Shuck is a Commonwealth Scholar and a member of the Honorable Order of Kentucky Colonels.

Sharon A. Kerrick is dean of the Rubel School of Business at Bellarmine University. Her research interests center around entrepreneurship, innovation, and current developments in business. Prior to her academic career she owned several businesses most notably a technology firm for 20 years that employed over 300 full-time talent in a five state region.

References

Adelman

(2012). Promoting employee voice and upward communication in healthcare: The CEO’s influence. Journal of Healthcare Management, 57, 133-147.

Akdere

Roberts

P. B.

(2008). Economics of social capital: Implications for organizational performance. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10, 802-816. doi:10.1177/1523422308325007

Alagaraja

Egan

(2013). The strategic value of HRD in lean strategy implementation. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 24(1), 1-27. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21155

Alagaraja

Egan

T. M.

Woodman

R. W.

(2017). Towards an understanding of HRD-lean strategy linkages: A multi-case study of four U.S. based firms. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 28, 553-592. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21292

Ancona

Malone

T. W.

Orlikowski

W. J.

Senge

P. M.

(2007). In praise of the incomplete leader. Harvard Business Review, 85, 92-100.

Ashford

S. J.

Sutcliffe

K. M.

Christianson

M. K.

(2009). Speaking up and speaking out: The leadership dynamics of voice in organizations. Voice and Silence in Organizations, 40, 175-202.

Avolio

B. J.

Yammarino

F. J.

(2013). Introduction to, and overview of, transformational and charismatic leadership. In Avolio

B. J.

Yammarino

F. J.

(Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (pp. xvii–xxiii). London, England: Emerald Group.

Balkundi

Kilduff

(2006). The ties that lead: A social network approach to leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 419-439. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.01.001

Bartol

K. M.

Zhang

(2007). Networks and leadership development: Building linkages for capacity acquisition and capital accrual. Human Resource Management Review, 17, 388-401. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.08.004

10.

Bashshur

M. R.

(2015). When voice matters: A multilevel review of the impact of voice in organizations. Journal of Management, 41, 1530-1554. doi:10.1177/0149206314558302

11.

Berman

Korsten

(2014). Leading in the connected era. Strategy & Leadership, 42, 37-46. doi:10.1108/sl-10-2013-0078

12.

Birkinshaw

(2013). The ultimate eye test. Business Strategy Review, 24(3), 50-55. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8616.2013.00972.x

13.

Botero

I. C.

Van Dyne

(2009). Employee voice behavior. Management Communication Quarterly, 23, 84-104. doi:10.1177/0893318909335415

14.

Buller

P. F.

McEvoy

G. M.

(2012). Strategy, human resource management and performance: Sharpening line of sight. Human Resource Management Review, 22, 43-56. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2011.11.002

15.

Chan

S. C.

(2013). Paternalistic leadership and employee voice: Does information sharing matter? Human Relations, 67, 667-693. doi:10.1177/0018726713503022

16.

Chen

Treviño

L. K.

Hambrick

D. C.

(2009). CEO elitist association: Toward a new understanding of an executive behavioral pattern. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 316-328. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.003

17.

Chin

(2013). How ethical leadership encourages employee voice behavior in China: The mediating role of organizational harmony. International Business Research, 6(10), 15-24. doi:10.5539/ibr.v6n10p15

18.

Chuang

C. H.

Chen

Chuang

C. W.

(2013). Human resource management practices and organizational social capital: The role of industrial characteristics. Journal of Business Research, 66, 678-687. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.04.002

19.

Cohen

Prusak

(2001). In good company: How social capital makes organizations work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

20.

Collins

C. J.

Clark

K. D.

(2003). Strategic human resource practices, top management team social networks, and firm performance: The role of human resource practices in creating organizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 740-751. doi:10.2307/30040665

21.

Collins

C. J.

Smith

K. G.

(2006). Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of human resource practices in the performance of high technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 544-560. doi:10.5465/amj.2006.21794671

22.

Cumberland

D. M.

Alagaraja

(2016). No place like the frontline: A qualitative study on what participant CEOs learned from Undercover Boss. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 27, 271-296. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21252

23.

Cumberland

D. M.

Shuck

Immekus

Alagaraja

(2018). An emergent understanding of influences on managers’ voices in SMEs. Leadership & Organization Developmental Journal, 39, 234-247. doi:10.1108/LODJ-09-2016

24.

De Clercq

Bouckenooghe

Raja

Matsyborska

. (2014). Servant leadership and work engagement: The contingency effects of leader–follower social capital. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25, 183-212. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21185

25.

Detert

J. R.

Burris

E. R.

(2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 869-884. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.26279183

26.

Ellinger

A. D.

Ellinger

A. E.

Bachrach

D. G.

Wang

Y. L.

Elmadag Bas

A. B.

(2011). Organizational investments in social capital, managerial coaching, and employee work-related performance. Management Learning, 42, 67-85. doi:10.1177/1350507610384329

27.

Ellinger

A. E.

Musgrove

C. C. F.

Ellinger

A. D.

Bachrach

D. G.

Bas

A. B. E.

Wang

(2013). Influences of organizational investments in social capital on service employee commitment and performance. Journal of Business Research, 66(8), 1124 -1133.

28.

Finkelstein

Hambrick

D. C.

Cannella

A. A.

(2009). Strategic leadership: Theory and research on executives, top management teams, and boards. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

29.

Gao

Janssen

Shi

(2011). Leader trust and employee voice: The moderating role of empowering leader behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 787-798. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.05.015

30.

Glauser

M. M.

(1984). Upward information flow-in organizations: Review and conceptual analysis. Human Relations, 37, 613-643. doi:10.1177/001872678403700804

31.

Gollan

P. J.

Poutsma

Veersma

(2006). Editor’s introduction: New roads in organizational participation? Industrial Relations, 45, 499-512. doi:10.1111/j.1468-232X.2006.00441.x

32.

Hitt

M. A.

Ireland

R. D.

(2002). The essence of strategic leadership: Managing human and social capital. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9, 3-14. doi:10.1177/107179190200900101

33.

Houghton

S. M.

Smith

A. D.

Hood

J. N.

(2009). The influence of social capital on strategic choice: An examination of the effects of external and internal network relationships on strategic complexity. Journal of Business Research, 62, 1255-1261. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.01.002

34.

IBM. (2015). Amplifying employee voice. Retrieved from https://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/gbs/thoughtleadership/employeevoice/

35.

Inkpen

A. C.

Tsang

E. W.

(2005). Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Review, 30, 146-165. doi:10.2307/20159100

36.

Jablin

F. M.

(1979). Superior-subordinate communication: The state of the art. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 1201-1222. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.6.1201

37.

Jackson

S. E.

Chuang

C. H.

Harden

E. E.

Jiang

(2006). Toward developing human resource management systems for knowledge-intensive teamwork. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 25(6), 27-70. doi:10.1016/s0742-7301(06)25002-3

38.

Kahn

W. A.

Heaphy

E. D.

(2014). Relational contexts of personal engagement at work. In Truss

Alfes

Delbridge

Shantz

Soane

(Eds.), Employee engagement in theory and practice (pp. 96-110). New York, NY: Routledge.

39.

Kale

Singh

Perlmutter

(2000). Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: Building relational capital. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 217-237.

40.

Kang

S. C.

Morris

S. S.

Snell

S. A.

(2007). Relational archetypes, organizational learning, and value creation: Extending the human resource architecture. Academy of Management Review, 32, 236-256. doi:10.5465/amr.2007.23464060

41.

Kase

Paauwe

Zupan

(2009). HR practices, interpersonal relations, and intrafirm knowledge transfer in knowledge-intensive firms: A social network perspective. Human Resource Management, 48, 615-639. doi:10.1002/hrm.20301

42.

Kong

Huang

Liu

Zhao

(2017). Why voice behavior? An integrative model of the need for affiliation, the quality of leader-member exchange, and group cohesion in predicting voice behavior. Group & Organization Management, 42, 792-818. doi:10.1177/1059601116642084

43.

Krause

D. R.

Handfield

R. B.

Tyler

B. B.

(2007). The relationships between supplier development, commitment, social capital accumulation and performance improvement. Science Direct, 25, 528-545. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2006.05.007

44.

Landau

(2009). To speak or not to speak: Predictors of voice propensity. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 13, 35-54. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2440466

45.

Landry

Amara

Lamari

(2002). Does social capital determine innovation? To what extent? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 69, 681-701.

46.

Leana

C. R.

Pil

(2006). Social capital and organizational performance: Evidence from urban public schools. Organization Science, 17, 353-366. doi:10.1287/orsc

47.

Leana

C. R.

Van Buren

H. J.

(1999). Organizational social capital and employment practices. Academy of Management Review, 24, 538-555. doi:10.2307/259141

48.

Lengnick-Hall

M. L.

Lengnick-Hall

C. A.

(2003). HR’s role in building relationship networks. The Academy of Management Executive, 17(4), 53-63. doi:10.5465/ame.2003.11851841

49.

LePine

J. A.

Van Dyne

(1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 853-868. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.6.853

50.

C. P.

Yahya

K. K.

Yean

T. F.

(2016). Organizational social capital and commitment-based HR practices as the determining factors of organizational performance. International Journal of Business and Management, 11(6), 129-144. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v11n6p129

51.

Liang

Farh

C. I. C.

Farh

J. L.

(2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive Voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 71-92. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0176

52.

Liu

Tangirala

Lam

Chen

Jia

R. T.

Huang

(2015). How and when peers’ positive mood influences employees’ voice. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 976-989. doi:10.1037/a0038066

53.

Lopez-Cabrales

Pérez-Luño

Cabrera

R. V.

(2009). Knowledge as a mediator between HRM practices and innovative activity. Human Resource Management, 48, 485-503. doi:10.1002/hrm.20295

54.

Maak

(2007). Responsible leadership, stakeholder engagement, and the emergence of social capital. Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 329-343. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9510-5

55.

Maurer

Ebers

(2006). Dynamics of social capital and their performance implications: Lessons from biotechnology start-ups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 262-292. doi:10.2189/asqu.51.2.262

56.

McDonald

M. L.

Westphal

J. D.

(2003). Getting by with the advice of their friends: CEO’s advice networks and firms’ strategic responses to poor performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 1-32. doi:10.2307/3556617

57.

McLean

(2017, June 5). Driven off course: How Volkswagen got on the road to scandal. The New York Times. Available from https://www.nytimes.com

58.

McLean

G. N.

McLean

(2001). If we can’t define HRD in one country, how can we define it in an international context? Human Resource Development International, 4, 313-326.

59.

Men

L. R.

(2015). The internal communication role of the chief executive officer: Communication channels, style, and effectiveness. Public Relations Review, 41, 461-471. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.06.021

60.

Milliken

F. J.

Morrison

E. W.

Hewlin

(2003). An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1453-1476. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00387

61.

Moran

(2005). Structural vs relational embeddedness: Social capital and managerial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 1129-1151. doi:10.1002/smj.486

62.

Moreland

R. L.

Myaskovsky

(2000). Exploring the performance benefits of group training: Transactive memory or improved communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81, 117-133. doi:10.1006/obhd.2000.2891

63.

Morris

S. S.

Snell

S. A.

Lepak

D. P.

(2005). Reinventing human resources: Challenges and new directions. In Burke

Cooper

(Eds.), Reinventing human resources: Challenges and new directions (pp. 57-80). New York, NY: Routledge.

64.

Morrison

E. W.

Milliken

F. J.

(2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25, 706-725.

65.

Morrison

E. W.

See

K. E.

Pan

(2015). An approach-inhibition model of employee silence: The joint effects of personal sense of power and target openness. Personnel Psychology, 68, 547-580. doi:10.1111/peps.12087

66.

Mowbray

P. K.

Wilkinson

Tse

H. H. M.

(2014). An integrative review of employee voice: Identifying a common conceptualization and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17, 1-19. doi:10.1111/ijmr.12045

67.

Nahapiet

Ghoshal

(1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 242-266. doi:10.1016/b978-0-7506-7222-1.50009-x

68.

Nakamura

Y. T.

Yorks

(2011). The role of reflective practices in building social capital in organizations from an HRD perspective. Human Resource Development Review, 10, 222-245. doi:10.1177/1534484311411076

69.

Norris

(2014, March 27). History gives other cases of G.M.’s behavior. The New York Times. Available from https://www.nytimes.com

70.

A. Y.

Tsui

A. S.

Kinicki

A. J.

Waldman

D. A.

Xiao

Song

L. J.

(2014). Humble chief executive officers’ connections to top management team integration and middle managers’ responses. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59, 34-72. doi:10.1177/0001839213520131

71.

Park

D. J.

Berger

B. K.

(2004). The presentation of CEOs in the press: Increasing salience, positive valence, and a focus on competency and personal dimensions of image. Journal of Public Relations Research, 16, 93-125.

72.

Peng

A. C.

Lin

H. E.

Schaubroeck

McDonough

E. F.

Zhang

(2016). CEO intellectual stimulation and employee work meaningfulness: The moderating role of organizational context. Group & Organization Management, 41, 203-231.

73.

Peters

T. J.

Waterman

R. H.

(1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s best-run companies. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

74.

Pincus

J. D.

DeBonis

J. N.

(1994). Top dog. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

75.

Pincus

J. D.

Rayfield

R. E.

DeBonis

J. N.

(1991). Transforming CEOs into chief communications officers. Public Relations Journal, 47(11), 22-30.

76.

Ployhart

R. E.

Moliterno

T. P.

(2011). Emergence of the human capital resource: A multilevel model. Academy of Management Review, 36, 127-150. doi:10.5465/amr.2009.0318

77.

Porter

Lorsch

J. W.

Nohria

(2004). Seven surprises for new CEOs. Harvard Business Review, 82(10), 62-75.

78.

Prusak

Cohen

(2001). How to invest in social capital. Harvard Business Review, 79(6), 86-93. doi:10.1093/0195165128.003.0001

79.

Quatro

Waldman

D. A.

Galvin

B. M.

(2007). Developing holistic leaders: Four domains for leadership development and practice. Human Resource Development Review, 17, 427-441. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.08.003

80.

Reagans

McEvily

(2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 240-267.

81.

Reichard

R. J.

Serrano

S. A.

Wefald

(2013). Engaging followers at a distance: Leadership approaches at work. In Bligh

M. C.

Riggio

R. E.

(Eds.), Exploring distance in leader-follower relationships: When near is far and far is near (pp. 109-135). New York, NY: Routledge.

82.

Rotteau

Shojania

K. G.

Webster

(2014). “I think we should just listen and get out”: A qualitative exploration of patient safety walkrounds. BMJ Quality & Safety, 23, 823-829.

83.

Schaubroeck

J. M.

Hannah

S. T.

Avolio

B. J.

Kozlowski

S. W.

Lord

R. G.

Treviño

L. K.

. . . Peng

A. C.

(2012). Embedding ethical leadership within and across organization levels. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1053-1078.

84.

Shirazi

A. N. M.

Mohamadi

Jahangiri

Zahed

R. K.

(2013). A comparison of social capital between owner-managers and professional managers. Global Journal of Science, Engineering, and Technology, 8, 48-57.

85.

Shuck

Twyford

Reio

T. G.

Shuck

(2014). Human resource development practices and employee engagement: Examining the connection with employee turnover intentions. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25, 239-270. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21190

86.

Sparrowe

Liden

Wayne

Kraimer

(2001). Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 316-325.

87.

Storberg

(2002). The evolution of capital theory: A critique of a theory of social capital and implications for HRD. Human Resource Development Review, 1, 468-499. doi:10.1177/1534484302238437

88.

Swanson

R. A.

Holton

E. F.

III . (2009). Theory of human resource development. Foundations of Human Resource Development, 2, 97-111.

89.

Tahmincioglu

(2011, March 28). Empathy can go a long way at the office. NBC News Online. Available from http://www.nbcnews.com

90.

Tourish

Robson

(2006). Sensemaking and the distortion of critical upward communication in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 711-730. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00608.x

91.

Unger

J. M.

Rauch

Frese

Rosenbusch

(2011). Human capital and entrepreneurial success: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 341-358. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.09.004

92.

Venkataramani

Zhou

Wang

Liao

Shi

(2016). Social networks and employee voice: The influence of team members’ and team leaders’ social network positions on employee voice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 132, 37-48.

93.

Walumbwa

F. O.

Schaubroeck

(2009). Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1275-1286. doi:10.1037/a0015848

94.

Weisman

Steinhauer

(2018, March 29). Senators reach accord easing worries over veterans’ health measure. The New York Times. Available from https://www.nytimes.com

95.

Werner

J. M.

DeSimone

R. L.

(2011). Human resource development. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.

96.

Wilkinson

Donaghey

Dundon

Freeman

R. B.

(Eds.). (2014). Handbook of research on employee voice: Elgar original reference. Mason, OH: Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

97.

Wood

S. J.

Wall

T. D.

(2007). Work enrichment and employee voice in human resource management-performance studies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 1335-1372. doi:10.1080/09585190701394150

98.

Young

Post

J. E.

(1993). Managing to communicate, communicating to manage: How leading companies communicate with employees. Organizational Dynamics, 22, 31-43.

99.

Yuan

Rose

J. B.

Archer

(1998). A web-based negotiation support system. Electronic Markets, 8(3), 13-17. doi:10.1080/10196789800000033