Every manager faces the same uncomfortable moment. An employee walks into your office, eyes bright with enthusiasm, ready to share an idea they’ve been mulling over. They’ve clearly put thought into it. They believe it will make a real difference. And you know, with absolute certainty, that you cannot implement their suggestion.
The question that haunts every thoughtful leader is this: How do you reject their idea without crushing their willingness to speak up in the future?
In our recent study, published in the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology and recognized as a Top Cited Article by Wiley in 2025, my colleagues and I investigated whether using humor when turning down employee suggestions might help maintain what we call “voice resilience” – the likelihood that employees will continue speaking up even after experiencing rejection.
The Voice Dilemma
Employee voice has become something of a holy grail in organizational research. When employees feel comfortable sharing ideas, flagging problems, and suggesting improvements, organizations benefit enormously. Innovation flourishes. Problems get caught early. Decisions improve because they incorporate diverse perspectives.
But here’s the rub. Even the most progressive leader cannot implement every suggestion. In our study sample of nearly 4,000 voice instances, roughly one-third of employee suggestions were turned down or ignored. This creates a fundamental tension. Organizations desperately need employees to keep speaking up, yet those same organizations must regularly reject the very input they’re encouraging.
What We Actually Found
We surveyed 343 employees whose suggestions had recently been turned down by their supervisors, measuring them across three time points. The findings defied our own expectations. When supervisors used humor while turning down suggestions, it didn’t create the anticipated trade-off between safety and impact. Instead, humor produced benefits across the board.
Employees whose supervisors used humor reported both feeling safer about speaking up again and believing more strongly that their voice would have impact in the future. Both of these perceptions, in turn, predicted greater voice resilience.
Think about what this means. An employee comes to you with a suggestion you need to reject. If you handle that rejection with appropriate humor – a warm smile, perhaps a self-deprecating comment about budget constraints, maybe a lighthearted acknowledgment of the challenge – that employee walks away feeling two things simultaneously. First, they feel reassured that you won’t punish them for speaking up. Second, and this is the surprising part, they actually feel more convinced that their voice matters to you.
We drew on signaling theory to make sense of these results. When a supervisor uses humor while delivering bad news, they’re sending a signal of benevolence. The lighthearted approach communicates something essential: “I am rejecting your suggestion, but I am not rejecting you, and I certainly don’t want to discourage you from bringing me ideas in the future.”
The Relationship Quality Wildcard
Perhaps our most fascinating finding emerged when we examined how relationship quality affected these dynamics. We expected that humor would work better in high-quality relationships. It turned out to be backwards.
Humor had its strongest positive effects on employees who had low-quality relationships with their supervisors. Employees who already had strong, trusting relationships showed high levels of voice safety, impact, and resilience regardless of whether humor was used. They didn’t need the extra signal. They already knew their supervisor valued their input.
But employees in weaker relationships desperately needed that signal. Without a rich history of positive interactions, these employees were operating in a state of greater uncertainty. The use of humor provided crucial information, helping them interpret the rejection more charitably.
This finding has profound implications. The employees you know well will probably be fine even if you deliver bad news somewhat bluntly. But the employee you don’t know as well, the one who’s newer to the team or less assertive in seeking face time – that’s the employee who most needs you to soften the blow.
From Theory to Practice
Consider the difference between these two responses. First, the straightforward approach: “Thanks for bringing this to me. This doesn’t align with our current strategic priorities, so we’re not going to move forward with it.”
Now consider the approach informed by our research: “You know what, I really appreciate you bringing this to me. I love that you’re thinking about ways we could improve things. Unfortunately, with our current budget situation, there’s no way the finance team would let me get away with this – believe me, I’ve tried to squeeze blood from that stone before! But seriously, I want you to keep bringing me these ideas.”
The second response takes only a few seconds longer, but it signals benevolence. It communicates that the rejection isn’t personal, that you value the employee’s initiative, and that future voice is actively desired.
Our research also offers a critical warning. Not all humor is created equal. We explicitly controlled for aggressive humor – sarcasm, mockery, teasing, anything that might embarrass the employee. This kind of humor doesn’t just fail to help; it actively harms. The humor that works is genuinely benevolent, warm, and inclusive.
The Broader Picture
Our finding that voice impact matters more than voice safety in predicting voice resilience is particularly noteworthy. After experiencing rejection, employees care less about whether they’ll be punished for speaking up again and more about whether speaking up will actually accomplish anything. This suggests that when rejecting suggestions, supervisors should pay particular attention to preserving the employee’s sense that their voice generally has impact, even if this particular suggestion couldn’t be implemented.
The message is clear. When you need to say no to an employee’s suggestion, don’t just focus on the words you use. Think about the tone, the warmth, the small touches of humor that signal your genuine appreciation for their initiative. Those few seconds of thoughtful communication might make the difference between an employee who retreats into silence and one who returns tomorrow with their next idea. And in today’s complex organizational environments, you need every idea you can get – even the ones you ultimately can’t implement.
Reference: Hamstra, M. R. W., Guzman, F. A., Qian, S., Schreurs, B., & Jawahar, I. M. (2024). Turning down employee voice with humour: A mixed blessing for employee voice resilience? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 97, 1854–1873. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12530
Recognition: Top Cited Article, Wiley, 2025 (Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)
Bert Schreurs, PhD 
Leave a comment