arbiter
JournalsAccount

If they can do it, so can I: When vicarious experiences of coworker voice create a spiral of voice

Arjuna SNOEP‐DELLEMAN et al.

Economic and Industrial Democracy: an international journal2025https://doi.org/10.1177/0143831x251331747article
AJG 3ABDC A
Weight
0.44

Abstract

This study examines how vicarious experiences of voice, i.e., observing or hearing about coworkers’ voice experiences, can affect worker voice, i.e., expressing dissatisfaction about a work-related issue. Using data of 829 Dutch workers, the authors find that vicarious experiences of supervisor support of coworker voice are positively related to voice efficacy and perceived supervisor responsiveness. Conversely, vicarious experiences of supervisor suppression of coworker voice are associated with lower levels of perceived supervisor responsiveness. Furthermore, the authors find that workers’ voice efficacy is positively related to worker voice. These vicarious learning effects show how voice can spill over to other actors within an organization.

3 citations

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0143831x251331747

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{arjuna2025,
  title        = {{If they can do it, so can I: When vicarious experiences of coworker voice create a spiral of voice}},
  author       = {Arjuna SNOEP‐DELLEMAN et al.},
  journal      = {Economic and Industrial Democracy: an international journal},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0143831x251331747},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

If they can do it, so can I: When vicarious experiences of coworker voice create a spiral of voice

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.44

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.32 × 0.4 = 0.13
M · momentum0.57 × 0.15 = 0.09
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.