IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0251850.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How leaders are persuaded: An elaboration likelihood model of voice endorsement

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaobo Li
  • Ting Wu
  • Jianhong Ma

Abstract

Organizations need both employee voice and managerial endorsement to ensure high-quality decision-making and achieve organizational effectiveness. However, a preponderance of voice research focuses on employee voice with little attention paid to voice endorsement. Building on the social persuasion theory of the elaboration likelihood model, we systematically examine the sender and receiver determinants of voice endorsement and how the interplay of those determinants affects voice endorsement. By empirically analyzing 168 paired samples, we find that issue-relevant information, i.e., voicer credibility, has a positive effect on voice endorsement and matters most when leaders have high felt obligation. The results also show that the peripheral cue used in the study, i.e., positive mood, has a positive effect on voice endorsement and matters most when leaders have low felt obligation or low cognitive flexibility. We discuss the contributions of these findings and highlight limitations and directions for future research.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaobo Li & Ting Wu & Jianhong Ma, 2021. "How leaders are persuaded: An elaboration likelihood model of voice endorsement," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(5), pages 1-17, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0251850
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251850
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0251850
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0251850&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0251850?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Allison, Thomas H. & Davis, Blakley C. & Webb, Justin W. & Short, Jeremy C., 2017. "Persuasion in crowdfunding: An elaboration likelihood model of crowdfunding performance," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 707-725.
    2. Yaniv, Ilan & Kleinberger, Eli, 2000. "Advice Taking in Decision Making: Egocentric Discounting and Reputation Formation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 260-281, November.
    3. Baer, Markus & Brown, Graham, 2012. "Blind in one eye: How psychological ownership of ideas affects the types of suggestions people adopt," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 60-71.
    4. Daniella Laureiro‐Martínez & Stefano Brusoni, 2018. "Cognitive flexibility and adaptive decision‐making: Evidence from a laboratory study of expert decision makers," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(4), pages 1031-1058, April.
    5. Xiao-Yun Xie & Chu-Ding Ling & Shen-Jiang Mo & Kun Luan, 2015. "Linking Colleague Support to Employees’ Promotive Voice: A Moderated Mediation Model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-15, July.
    6. Sniezek, Janet A. & Van Swol, Lyn M., 2001. "Trust, Confidence, and Expertise in a Judge-Advisor System," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 288-307, March.
    7. Ng, Kok-Yee & Van Dyne, Linn & Ang, Soon, 2019. "Speaking out and speaking up in multicultural settings: A two-study examination of cultural intelligence and voice behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 150-159.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gino, Francesca, 2008. "Do we listen to advice just because we paid for it? The impact of advice cost on its use," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 234-245, November.
    2. Robert M. Gillenkirch & Julia Ortner & Sebastian Robert & Louis Velthuis, 2023. "Designing incentives and performance measurement for advisors: How to make decision-makers listen to advice," Working Papers 2304, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    3. Bonaccio, Silvia & Dalal, Reeshad S., 2006. "Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 127-151, November.
    4. Palmeira, Mauricio, 2020. "Advice in the presence of external cues: The impact of conflicting judgments on perceptions of expertise," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 82-96.
    5. Jodlbauer, Barbara & Jonas, Eva, 2011. "Forecasting clients' reactions: How does the perception of strategic behavior influence the acceptance of advice?," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 121-133, January.
    6. Van Swol, Lyn M., 2011. "Forecasting another’s enjoyment versus giving the right answer: Trust, shared values, task effects, and confidence in improving the acceptance of advice," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 103-120.
    7. Kausel, Edgar E. & Culbertson, Satoris S. & Leiva, Pedro I. & Slaughter, Jerel E. & Jackson, Alexander T., 2015. "Too arrogant for their own good? Why and when narcissists dismiss advice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 33-50.
    8. Albert E. Mannes, 2009. "Are We Wise About the Wisdom of Crowds? The Use of Group Judgments in Belief Revision," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(8), pages 1267-1279, August.
    9. Julie R. Agnew & Hazel Bateman & Christine Eckert & Fedor Iskhakov & Jordan Louviere & Susan Thorp, 2018. "First Impressions Matter: An Experimental Investigation of Online Financial Advice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 288-307, January.
    10. Ilan Yaniv, 2006. "The Benefit of Additional Opinions," Discussion Paper Series dp422, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    11. Palmeira, Mauricio & Spassova, Gerri & Keh, Hean Tat, 2015. "Other-serving bias in advice-taking: When advisors receive more credit than blame," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 13-25.
    12. Van Swol, Lyn M., 2011. "Forecasting another's enjoyment versus giving the right answer: Trust, shared values, task effects, and confidence in improving the acceptance of advice," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 103-120, January.
    13. Lourenço, Carlos J.S. & Dellaert, Benedict G.C. & Donkers, Bas, 2020. "Whose Algorithm Says So: The Relationships Between Type of Firm, Perceptions of Trust and Expertise, and the Acceptance of Financial Robo-Advice," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 107-124.
    14. Helen Si Wang & Chi Kin (Bennett) Yim, 2019. "Effects of dominance transitions on advice adherence in professional service conversations," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 919-938, September.
    15. Winkler, Jens & Moser, Roger, 2016. "Biases in future-oriented Delphi studies: A cognitive perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 63-76.
    16. Baumann, Michael R. & Bonner, Bryan L., 2004. "The effects of variability and expectations on utilization of member expertise and group performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 89-101, March.
    17. Back, Camila & Morana, Stefan & Spann, Martin, 2023. "When do robo-advisors make us better investors? The impact of social design elements on investor behavior," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    18. Blunden, Hayley & Logg, Jennifer M. & Brooks, Alison Wood & John, Leslie K. & Gino, Francesca, 2019. "Seeker beware: The interpersonal costs of ignoring advice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 83-100.
    19. Jonas, Eva & Frey, Dieter, 2003. "Information search and presentation in advisor-client interactions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 154-168, July.
    20. Philipp Ecken & Richard Pibernik, 2016. "Hit or Miss: What Leads Experts to Take Advice for Long-Term Judgments?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(7), pages 2002-2021, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0251850. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.