Epistemic Authority in Organizations: How Employees Decide Whom to Believe During Organizational Uncertainty

Organizational uncertainty requires employees to interpret incomplete information, competing explanations, rumors, and conflicting managerial cues. In such situations, access to information alone does not determine whose account will be believed. Formal authority grants decision-making rights but does not guarantee epistemic authority. This narrative review critically synthesizes conceptual and empirical literature from organizational communication, leadership, organizational behavior, social and organizational psychology, knowledge management, and relevant scholarship on epistemology and source credibility to examine how employees attribute epistemic authority under uncertainty. The literature suggests that such authority depends on perceived competence, credibility, and consistency, relational trustworthiness, informational access, status, social proximity, prior accuracy, and contextual relevance. However, existing perspectives often examine these factors separately, leaving their interactions insufficiently integrated. To address this gap, the review proposes a conceptual framework in which uncertainty increases epistemic dependence, prompting employees to evaluate competing information sources and attribute issue-specific authority. Their subsequent acceptance, qualification, or rejection of knowledge claims may shape sensemaking, trust, employee voice, resistance, and responses to organizational change. The framework emphasizes that epistemic authority is dynamic and revisable as new evidence emerges. It offers a basis for investigating how employees evaluate competing claims during uncertainty and how organizations can support credible communication, informed decision-making, and organizational learning. The proposed framework remains conceptual and requires empirical testing.