Abstract
Academics in the higher education sector have been known to thrive on collegiality and academic freedom through their voice. They are known to see exercising of neglect as indentation to their professional identity. However, contemporary scholars have found that more often than not, they choose neglect over exit, voice and loyalty and they choose to not voice in the wake of objectionable policies. It is witnessed in everyday conversation as well that academics find voice risky. Such studies and conversations open the door for study of responses to any (not just specific) sources of potential harm arising in education settings. The lens (explanations) used to explain the prohibitive voice so far majorly are embedded in risk of speaking up and efficacy of voice. Where risk is high and efficacy is low, those could be the contexts that require prohibitive voice. Thus, the scholars have called for research on alternative antecedents. We have studied meaning -in work and -in organization and go along to get ahead embedded in idiosyncrasies of academic settings as predictors of Prohibitive voice and neglect. Data was collected from three hundred seven academics. The confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the validity and reliability of the scales. Structural equation modeling used to test hypotheses finds support for the model. Our findings enhance understanding of antecedents leading to neglect and prohibitive voice of academics and offer managerial insights for managing academics in higher education.