Scholars increasingly recognize the existence of voice habit, wherein employees speak up automatically without considering relevant situational factors, being able to control their impulse to voice, and exerting effort in deciding whether to voice. However, a lack of theory testing and an absence of a psychometrically valid measure have called into question its theoretical usefulness as well as its construct validity. Moreover, contrary to Lam et al.'s (2018) theorizing on the interpersonal costs and intrapersonal benefits of voice habit, research on the reticence bias suggests the opposite: Habitual voicers may gain interpersonal benefits by experiencing higher supervisor liking, but they may also suffer intrapersonal costs by experiencing voice regret. Integrating these divergent insights with theorizing on voice habit, we predict that voice habit may elicit supervisor liking when supervisors perceive habitual voicers as having higher prosocial motives or behavioral integrity, even though habitual voicers may experience regret in work units with a weaker voice climate. Results from a multiwave, multisource field study with 435 employees and 135 supervisors using a 12-item validated scale of voice habit support our hypotheses. Our work provides a direct test and extension of the recently proposed theorizing on voice habit and introduces a psychometrically valid measure for future research use. Our findings also empirically support the dual nature of voice habit, highlighting both its potential functional interpersonal outcomes in relation to supervisors and its potential dysfunctional intrapersonal outcomes for habitual voicers. (PsycInfo Database Record

Drawing on demands-resources theory, we develop and test a dual-path model to unpack the energizing and draining mechanisms, captured by leader need satisfaction and role conflict, through which servant leadership affects leader psychological strain and job performance. We further identify leader-leader exchange (LLX) as a critical resource moderator that can strengthen the energizing benefit and buffer against the draining cost of servant leadership behaviors. Using five-wave, multisource field data from 474 team leaders, 3,712 followers, and 97 superior leaders, we find support for the energizing benefit, in that servant leadership satisfied leader psychological needs, which subsequently reduced leader psychological strain. This energizing benefit was stronger when LLX was higher. In parallel, servant leaders experienced role conflict, which subsequently increased their psychological strain and deteriorated their job performance when LLX was lower. Overall, our research contributes to a fine-grained understanding of the double-edged effects of servant leadership on leaders and sheds light on how and when leaders can benefit from practicing servant leadership. (PsycInfo Database Record