Employee voice is both incredibly beneficial and inherently risky. The benefits of voice are numerous and well-documented, contributing to organizational effectiveness (Morrison, 2014) and reducing employee dissatisfaction (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). However, employees who challenge the status quo are at risk of receiving negative sanctions (Cortina & Magley, 2003). Because voicing has the potential to be extremely costly for the person who speaks up, employees would benefit by speaking up to whichever person will respond the most favorably. This work explores the positive and negative outcomes that result from skipping over a low-ranking superior and targeting a high-ranking superior with a suggestion. In two experimental studies, I provide a mechanism through which superiors sanction employees who speak up to skip-level leaders (i.e., warmth perceptions) and a mechanism through which employees may benefit (i.e., competence perceptions). Further, I demonstrate that the formal power level of the superior influences how they react to voice, both in terms of endorsement of the suggestion and their resulting perceptions of the employee. I assert that although the formal power level of the superior does not influence their willingness to implement the suggestion, superiors of all ranks believe that it’s more appropriate to approach the low-ranking superior with a suggestion.