peer-spectiv.com

I first became interested in the question of who an organization should truly speak for while reading HBR 10 Must Reads titled “on sales”. Across different articles—whether discussing leadership, strategy, or organizational alignment—a similar pattern repeatedly emerged: many of the toughest organizational challenges are not caused by a lack of data or talent, but by conflicting “voices” within the same institution. [1]

​

Leaders are routinely expected to speak on behalf of the company, safeguarding strategy, performance, and long-term viability. At the same time, they are called upon to represent employees, advocating for engagement, fairness, and psychological safety. Increasingly, they are also expected to champion customers, ensuring that decisions reflect genuine needs and create lasting value. Each voice is legitimate. Yet, in practice, they rarely speak in harmony.

​

This tension is not unlike the misalignment often described in HBR between interconnected functions—such as sales and marketing—where each side believes it best represents reality, while undervaluing the perspective of the other. Similarly, when leaders privilege one voice too strongly—whether corporate, employee, or customer—the organization may appear decisive, but risks becoming disconnected from critical stakeholders. [1]

​

The question, then, is not simply which voice is preferred, but how the corporates recognize, balance, and consciously navigate these competing roles. In a world of heightened transparency, rapid feedback, and rising stakeholder expectations, the ability to manage this tension may be one of the most underappreciated leadership capabilities of our time.

Hence through this writing, I will try to explore how organizations can think more deliberately about these three voices—where they conflict, where they converge, and what happens when one is allowed to dominate the others.

​

In many organizations, employees stand in the middle of three powerful voices: the company, the employees, and the customers. When a customer facing role (such as: sales or frontliners) sits in front of a client, they carry official company policies, their own professional judgment, and the customer's expectations at the same time. The tension between these voices becomes especially visible when salespeople try to speak on behalf of customers, while corporate headquarters focuses on protecting the company perspective. Drawing on research on employee voice, customer-focused voice, boundary-spanning roles, and organizational communication ethics, this article explains why such gaps emerge and how organizations can systematically bridge them.[2][10][4][5][6]

​

1. Three voices in tension

 

• The company voice, includes formal policies, price lists, contract terms, brand promises, and risk concerns, usually defined by headquarters through official documents and training.

• The employee voice, reflects individual experience, constraints, values, and professional judgment about what is realistic and fair in specific situations.

• The customer voice, represents customers' needs, frustrations, and expectations, which frequently do not align neatly with company rules or standard offers.[3][5][6][7][8]

​

Research on boundary spanners describes roles like commercial people (such as: salesperson, key account executive) as links between external stakeholders and the internal organization. These individuals are expected to translate customer needs into language that operations, finance, and product development can understand, and to translate internal constraints into explanations customers will accept. Studies in sales and industrial marketing show that this in-between role is valuable but psychologically demanding, because boundary spanners experience conflicting expectations, emotional labor, and role ambiguity.[3][4][5]

​

At the same time, research on employee voice examines how and when employees speak up to improve organizational functioning. "Customer-focused voice" has been defined as voluntary, constructive suggestions by employees that challenge existing practices to enhance customer satisfaction. In sales contexts, this happens when employees raise customer concerns or propose changes that better serve clients, even when those suggestions conflict with current pricing structures, product designs, or processes.[2][9]

 

2. Why headquarters protect the company voice

​

From the perspective of corporate headquarters, there are rational reasons to prioritize the company voice, including risk management, legal compliance, and brand consistency. Communication ethics research shows that organizations tend to protect their legitimacy and reputation, especially when confronted with conflicting or negative information. When salespeople bring customer requests that appear to threaten margins, increase complexity, or create precedents, corporate decision makers may respond defensively rather than seeing them as opportunities for learning and innovation. [2] [6][10][11][12]

​

Power and hierarchy also shape whose voice is heard. Several conventional not forward looking types may treat Frontline sales and service employees typically occupy lower-status positions than corporate managers, making their challenging messages easier to filter or ignore. Many organizations display a preference for "good news," welcoming confirmation that strategies are working while discouraging reports of dissatisfied customers or failed initiatives. When employees learn that raising problems leads to blame instead of improvement, their willingness to report customer issues declines.[13][2][9]

From an ethical communication perspective, this situation creates a dilemma. Organizations have obligations to represent products honestly, treat employees fairly when they raise concerns, and balance the interests of multiple stakeholders.[10][11][12]

​

3. Customer-focused voice and value creation

​

A growing body of research shows that when employees speak up on behalf of customers, organizations can improve service quality and innovate more effectively. Customer-focused voice includes suggestions to fix service failures, feedback about product weaknesses, and insights into emerging customer needs and experiences.[7][8][2][9]

​

Illustrative example 

​

• Several mid-size customers complain to their salesperson that a new pricing structure is confusing and feels unfair compared to previous contracts. The salesperson collects specific feedback and brings it to headquarters, recommending clearer discount tiers and more transparent communication. The pricing committee listens briefly but dismisses the input, insisting that "customers will adapt" and focusing on short-term margin improvements. Over the next year, some customers quietly reduce their purchase volume or shift part of their business to competitors, and the salesperson becomes less willing to raise similar concerns because "no one listens anyway." This pattern is consistent with research showing that when voice is ignored, both customer outcomes and employee motivation suffer.

• A large customer asks for a product modification that would make installation easier in their environment. Based on other client conversations, the salesperson believes this change would benefit many similar customers and presents the request to product development, supported by estimates of potential sales impact. The team agrees the idea has potential but cannot justify a full redesign in the current cycle, so they develop a low-cost workaround and add the feature to the next-generation roadmap. The salesperson explains this transparently to the customer, who appreciates the honesty and continues the relationship. This example corresponds with findings that even partial acceptance of customer-focused voice, combined with clear communication, helps maintain trust and signals that feedback is taken seriously.

​

Research on customer experience and customer-company identification suggests that when customers feel connected to a company, they try to "speak to" or "speak for" it through their feedback and suggestions.[8][15][7]

​

4. Salespeople or customer facing roles as designed boundary spanners

​

One way to bridge the voice gap is to deliberately design the salesperson's role as a boundary-spanner role, instead of treating customer advocacy as an informal extra. Boundary spanners are required to interact constantly with customers, perform emotional labor, and adapt their behaviors to individual customer needs and demands. Studies of service provider-customer relationships show that when boundary spanners perceive strong support from both their own organization and the customer, they develop higher commitment, which in turn drives knowledge exchange, innovation, and performance.[3][4][5]

Successful boundary spanners share several characteristics: they have clear expectations from both sides, including what they may and may not promise and how they should represent customer interests internally. They receive organizational support—training, tools, and access to decision-makers—enabling them to act on customer insights. [3][4][5]

​

5. Bridging the tensions

​

Research suggests several mechanisms to align company, employee, and customer voices.

​

• First, structured channels for customer voice through sales are more effective than ad-hoc complaints. Organizations can set up regular "voice of the customer" forums where aggregated feedback from sales and service is presented directly to cross-functional leaders.[16][9][14][2]

• Second, clarifying role definitions and metrics for salespeople reduces boundary-role conflict. Including "representing customer interests internally" in job descriptions and performance reviews signals that customer advocacy is part of the role, not a distraction.[3][5]

• Third, leadership support is crucial for challenging forms of voice. Leaders who invite dissenting views, protect employees who raise uncomfortable truths, and explain constraints transparently create climates where customer-focused voice is more likely.[12][9][10] [13][2]

• Fourth, ethical communication guidelines help organizations handle the responsibilities of speaking on behalf of others.[10][11][12]

​

In conclusion, This article has argued that organizational life—particularly in customer-facing contexts—is shaped by the ongoing tension among three voices: the company voice, the employee voice, and the customer voice. Each voice carries its own logic and legitimacy. The company voice emphasizes consistency, scalability, and protection of organizational interests; the employee voice reflects practical judgment, lived experience, and ethical discomfort when rules collide with reality; and the customer voice articulates needs and expectations formed through direct interaction with products and services. Problems arise not because these voices exist, but because they are rarely weighted equally. In many situations, one voice is prioritized—often by default rather than by deliberate choice—while the others are muted or filtered, creating misalignment that only becomes visible over time through frustration, disengagement, or lost trust.

​

From my own perspective (open for any debate!) the central question is therefore not which voice should dominate, but how organizations implicitly prioritize among them in everyday practice. Temporary prioritization is sometimes necessary: company rules may take precedence to manage risk, employee judgment may guide adaptation in complex situations, or customer needs may drive exceptions and innovation. However, when prioritization becomes habitual and unquestioned—such as when the company voice consistently overrides employee insight and customer feedback—the tension hardens into silence rather than dialogue. Recognizing the three voices as interdependent, rather than competing, allows organizations to surface tension as information rather than treat it as resistance or noise. Ultimately, the productive handling of these tensions is less about resolution and more about acknowledgment: accepting that organizational effectiveness depends on keeping all three voices present, audible, and in conversation.

​

References:

​

1. Harvard Business Review Press. (2014). HBR’s 10 must reads on sales (with bonus interview of Andris Zoltners). Harvard Business Review Press.

​

2. Burch, T. C., Guarana, C. L., & Smith, D. G. (2022). Why do frontline employees speak up on behalf of customers? The influence of supervisors versus coworkers and the role of intrapersonal factors. Journal of Business Research, 150, 221–234.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0148296322009791

​

3. Singh, R. (2017). Salespeople as boundary spanners: Exploring the psychology of boundary-spanning behavior (Doctoral dissertation).
https://d-nb.info/1135607818/34

​

4. Lages, C. R., Silva, G., & Styles, C. (2013). Enhancing dyadic performance through boundary spanners and innovation: An assessment of service provider–customer relationships. Journal of Business Logistics, 34(4), 303–318.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12077
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jbl.12077

​

5. Singh, R., & Saatcioglu, B. (2007). Role theory approaches for effectiveness of boundary-spanning positions. In R. Belk (Ed.), Research in consumer behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 103–138). Emerald Group Publishing.
https://faculty.weatherhead.case.edu/jxs16/Singh_Saatcioglu_07_Book%20Chapter.pdf

​

6. Rapp, A., Beitelspacher, L. S., Grewal, D., & Hughes, D. E. (2020). Building customer relationships while achieving sales performance results: Is listening the holy grail of sales? Journal of Business Research, 113, 132–144.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.03.042
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0148296319303017

​

7. Verhoef, P. C., Lemon, K. N., Parasuraman, A., Roggeveen, A., Tsiros, M., & Schlesinger, L. A. (2009). Customer experience creation: Determinants, dynamics, and management strategies. Journal of Retailing, 85(1), 31–41.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2008.11.001

​

8. Verhoef, P. C., Lemon, K. N., Parasuraman, A., Roggeveen, A., Tsiros, M., & Schlesinger, L. A. (2009). Customer experience creation: Determinants, dynamics, and management strategies [PDF].
https://www.rug.nl/staff/p.c.verhoef/jr_customer_experience.pdf

​

9. Lam, C. F., & Mayer, D. M. (2014). When do employees speak up for their customers? A model of employee customer advocacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(4), 790–803.
https://davemayer.me/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2019/07/Lam-Mayer-2014.pdf

​

10. Wrench, J. S., McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (n.d.). Organizational communication ethics. In Organizational communication: Foundations, challenges, and misunderstandings.
https://open.library.okstate.edu/orgcomm/chapter/2-5-organizational-communication-ethics/

​

11. Kumar, N., & Sharma, S. (2022). Ethical communication for better organization management. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 6(7), 702–708.
https://rsisinternational.org/journals/ijriss/Digital-Library/volume-6-issue-7/702-708.pdf

​

12. Allen, M., & Davis, S. (2022). Work/life relationships and communication ethics. Frontiers in Communication, 7, Article 9024652.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9024652/

​

13. Huang, X., Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (2022). A story about speaking up: Mediation effects of narrative transportation in voice. Management Communication Quarterly, 36(3), 423–452.
https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884221091275
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23294884221091275

​

14. Rahman, M., & Karim, R. (2021). Employee well-being and voice behavior on customer service performance. Bangladesh Review of Business Studies, 12(1), 45–62.
https://openaccessojs.com/JBReview/article/view/3787

​

15. Gong, T., Yi, Y., & Choi, J. N. (2020). Customer–company identification as the enabler of customer voice behavior: How does it happen? Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 777.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00777
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00777/pdf

​

16. Wilkinson, A., Barry, M., & Morrison, E. W. (2018). Channels of employee voice: Complementary or competing? Industrial Relations Journal, 49(2), 174–193.
https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/indrel/v49y2018i2p174-193.html