Organizations increasingly invite employees to question decisions, report risks, and contribute ideas, yet these invitations operate inside unequal distributions of authority, status, resources, and credibility. This integrative review examines how psychological safety, employee voice, and inclusion connect when openness is filtered through organizational power. It combines conceptual reviews, meta-analytic evidence, qualitative and quantitative studies, longitudinal and multilevel research, and methodological guidance without treating unlike designs as directly commensurable. The synthesis distinguishes interpersonal permission from actual speaking, speaking from managerial endorsement, and participation from consequential influence. Evidence converges in suggesting that psychological safety can reduce anticipated interpersonal risk and that hierarchy shapes whether voice is attempted, heard, or rewarded. However, findings also reveal conditional status benefits, strategic silence, diffusion of responsibility, selective endorsement, and differences across occupations and cultures. These tensions indicate that formal openness may be genuine, uneven, or symbolic. The article proposes a Power–Safety–Voice–Inclusion Framework in which unequal power conditions interpersonal permission, voice pathways, evaluative responses, and access to influence, while recursive relationships remain propositions requiring testing. The contribution is a bounded conceptual integration rather than a validated causal model or managerial prescription. Limitations include heterogeneous measures, substantial cross-sectional evidence, context-specific samples, and incomplete multilevel and cross-cultural testing. Stronger longitudinal, experimental, comparative, and process designs are needed to establish temporal ordering, transferability, and the conditions under which openness becomes consequential inclusion.
