08-05-2025
Why are employees who challenge their bosses or established leadership passed over for greater responsibility, even when organizations claim to value empowerment and initiative?
The Daniels School’s Tobias Dennerlein, along with co-authors Troy A. Smith, Stephen H. Courtright, Bradley L. Kirkman and Pengcheng Zhang, published “Why do bootlickers get empowered more than boat-rockers? The effects of voice and helping on empowering leadership through threat and goal congruence perceptions” in the Journal of Applied Psychology, which offers a timely and nuanced look at a paradox many leaders and ambitious professionals face.
At the heart of Dennerlein and his colleagues’ research is rigidity theory, which explains how entrenched organizational structures and mindsets can undermine even the most well-intentioned empowerment initiatives. Rigidity theory posits that leaders in organizations, despite advocating for agility and decentralization, often default to thinking in leader-centric ways rather than empowering followers to bring new solutions to the team.
It’s comfortable to revert to command-and-control habits, particularly when challenges arise. Leaders who say they value empowerment — encouraging employees to take initiative, question assumptions and propose new ideas — may still resort to maladaptive habits like shutting off valuable dissent and challenging ideas, which creates a disconnect. Employees are told to be proactive, but when they challenge the status quo or their superiors, they encounter invisible barriers. The system, in effect, punishes those perceived as engaging in challenging voice as leaders feel that their status is threatened by team members who engage in such challenging behavior.
Employees who challenge leadership often find themselves sidelined when crucial decisions and promotions are made. Why? Rigidity theory provides the answer: leaders unconsciously favor those who conform to existing norms and hierarchies, even as they claim to value initiative. Challengers are considered threats to the established order.
When leaders themselves feel constrained by rigid structures or fear losing control, they may interpret challenges as insubordination rather than constructive engagement. This defensive posture leads to a cycle in which only those who adhere to the unspoken rules are rewarded, while true innovators are marginalized.
The team’s research highlights that genuine empowerment necessitates more than motivational speeches or superficial policy changes. It’s a two-way relational process. Since leaders bear the responsibility of fulfilling organizational goals and maintaining unity, they may become overly concerned that followers who vocally propose changes or challenge practices and procedures will harm the team or organization.
As a remedy, the researchers found that followers who buffer their challenging voice with a “helpful” or supportive behavioral approach, targeted at helping their leaders, are less likely to be perceived as threatening. Using “leader-directed helping behaviors” can reduce the negative effects of a challenging voice. By signaling deference and harmony and offering to help with heavy workloads, followers demonstrate concern for the greater good, for well-being, and for goal fulfillment. In turn, they earn the trust of leaders.
Dennerlein and his colleagues suggest both organizational and interpersonal solutions. Organizations that encourage leaders to embrace dissent as a sign of engagement, rather than defiance, will benefit from a broader range of valuable voices to solve challenges in both concordant and challenging times. When they align structural conditions with the values of empowerment and agility, they will be able to practice effective empowerment even when stress tested.
Second, followers in organizations can support their leaders and effectively challenge problems with more solutions when they demonstrate understanding of the leader’s concerns and worries. When they feel they must engage a challenging voice or perspective, they will “more clearly and persuasively articulate how their proposed changes alleviate organizational problems and offer ideas in ways that leaders understand and appreciate.”
Dennerlein and his colleagues’ research serves as a wake-up call for organizations and individuals seeking to unlock the full potential of their employees. Empowerment is not just a slogan; it’s a structural commitment. Without it, those who dare to challenge may find themselves on the outside looking in, victims of a rigidity trap that serves neither the individual nor the organization.
