The gendered costs of voice (un)enacted: Differential effects on belonging in traditionally male-dominated contexts.

Recent research indicates that performance benefits on complex tasks accrue when members with diverse social identities speak up and their voice is enacted-that is, incorporated into the team's approach to the task. In this article, we argue that the cost of not enacting diverse members' voice may extend beyond performance to negatively affect their belonging. Integrating social belonging theory with the literature on gender and voice, we examine the case of women in traditionally male-dominated contexts. Archival data from teams of active-duty Marines (Study 1) and student engineering project teams (Study 2) showed that voice enactment was more strongly associated with women's belonging than men's, and women's belonging was disproportionately harmed when voice enactment was low. A preregistered scenario study set in a male-dominated high-tech organization (Study 3) further showed that these differences were explained by the gender-based voice threat women experience when presented with a voice opportunity. This unique sense of threat amplified the relationship between voice enactment and belonging for women and, by extension, their future voice. A supplemental study showed that the costs in belonging when women's voice was not enacted could be mitigated when the leader framed voice as having value for the group even if it is not enacted. Still, only when voice enactment was high did women's sense of belonging reach parity with that of men, showcasing the power of acting on voice as a way of achieving belonging for all in diverse organizations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).