When leaders listen, employees speak up: a systematic review of communicative leadership, voice and technology in hybrid internal communication

Abstract

This paper’s aim is to systematically identify and conceptually integrate evidence on how communicative leadership practices shape employee voice and/or silence in leader–employee workplace contexts, through which mechanisms, and under what technology-mediated boundary conditions. A PRISMA 2020–reported systematic review searched Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, and ProQuest (February 2026) for English-language, peer-reviewed journal articles. After deduplication (112 records; 41 duplicates removed), 71 records were screened using a two-step title/abstract logic (scope-fit; explicit communicative leadership signal). Full texts were assessed for 38 reports; two were excluded as wrong document type, yielding 36 included studies. Data were extracted and synthesised via qualitative narrative (conceptual) synthesis. Communicative leadership is most often operationalised as enacted practices—listening with follow-up, invitational openness, feedback, and transparency—supported by credible upward channels. Mechanisms linking leader communication to voice/silence centre on psychological safety/risk appraisal, trust and social exchange (including relationship quality), and communication climate and strain-related pathways. Technology-mediated settings (e.g. internal/enterprise social media, remote/hybrid infrastructures, traceable messaging) appear to condition these links by altering visibility and persistence and by amplifying the consequences of leader responsiveness or non-response. Voice/silence operationalisations remain heterogeneous, limiting comparability; direct tests of AI-enabled mediation are scarce. Voice and silence are operationalised heterogeneously across studies, limiting cross-study comparability. The evidence base is dominated by cross-sectional self-report designs, which constrain causal inference and leave reciprocal dynamics plausible. Technology affordances (e.g. visibility, persistence, traceability) are not consistently specified. Future research should test AI-enabled mediation directly, specify voice forms and silence subtypes, and use longitudinal and trace-sensitive designs suited to digitally mediated internal communication. Organisations should institutionalise visible responsiveness: invite input, acknowledge contributions, act where feasible, and close feedback loops. Leaders’ listening should be paired with timely follow-through, because in hybrid and platform-mediated work, interaction traces increase the visibility of responsiveness and can intensify the consequences of non-response for trust and speaking up. Clear channel design and non-punitive response norms can further reduce perceived risk and support upward voice. Strengthening ethical, inclusive internal communication practices that support voice can improve trust, inclusion, and a sense of belonging at work, particularly in hybrid and technology-mediated settings where employees may face higher perceived interpersonal and reputational risks when speaking up. This review consolidates dispersed research into a practice → mechanism → outcome account of communicative leadership for employee voice and silence. It clarifies how technology-mediated conditions in internal communication (e.g. remote/hybrid infrastructures and traceable messaging environments) shape the strength and consequences of leader responsiveness, and it identifies a clear evidence gap regarding AI-enabled mediation as a boundary condition.