The effect of voice on the mood of employees : enhanced by a voice climate

(1)

BACHELOR THESIS BUSINESS STUDIES

UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM

The Effect of Voice on the Mood of Employees

Enhanced By A Voice Climate

Xandra Koelemeijer

University of Amsterdam Supervisor

PhD. R. Van Geffen

University of Amsterdam

Amsterdam, June 30, 2014

(2)

Abstract

The goal of this research is to provide new insight in the relationship between the communication of new and useful ideas among coworkers and the activating mood of employees. Furthermore, it aims to fill the research gap in the existing literature, regarding the effects of voicing behavior on coworkers. The data does not show a moderation effect of a voice climate (an organizational climate which supports proactivity) on the positive relation between voice behavior of coworkers and the activating affect of employees. The data failed to show that there is an effect of a voicing climate on the mood of employees. However, it does show that the positive mood of employees can be enhanced by the proactive behavior of employees. The relationship between transformational leadership and a voice climate is supported as well. This indicates that transformational leaders could influence the overall culture within the organization, regarding the support of proactive behavior.

(3)

Foreword

This Bachelor thesis was written to graduate at the University of Amsterdam for my study Business Studies. I couldn’t have written this thesis without the help from a lot of people, whom I’m very thankful. First of all I want to thank my supervisor, PhD. R. Van Geffen, for all her helpful comments and suggestions. The meetings with her helped me to translate my vision and beliefs into a successful thesis. The guidance she provided was very useful. Secondly, I want to thank my research group. We helped each other out with some important issues and problems. Because of the Facebook page we created, it was very easy to communicate with each other. The Facebook page also made it possible to respond to each other quickly and this was very pleasant. Furthermore, I want to thank all of the participants one more time for taking part in the diary surveys. Finally, I want to thank my friend and family for their support during the difficulties I sometimes experienced while writing this thesis.

I hope you will enjoy reading my thesis!

Xandra Koelemeijer

1. Introduction

“Do what you can with what you have, where you are”

- Theodore Roosevelt

Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th president of the United States, is one of the most well known characters of the American Culture (Dalton, 2007). Even now, decades after his death, memories of Theodore Roosevelt can still be found in million American

(6)

Houses (Dalton, 2007). One of his well-known quotes “Do what you can with what you have, where you are”, can be related to the topic of this study. Organizations are daily confronted with decisions wherein they need to prove themselves towards competitors. They can only develop themselves with what they have and where they stand right now. Within organizations, employees are a key factor in that development. Companies need the honest and innovative inputs from their workers, in order to make good decisions. Employees can have very important information and improvements to share. However, employees often face situations that put them into the decision whether they should speak up or not (Morrison, 2011). Do I speak up or not about the fact that my colleagues are bullying me, that the buying process can be done much more efficient or that the sales campaign can be done better? So not only companies, but also employees, do the best they can with the means they have.

A lot of studies investigate the predictors of proactive behavior. Why do people share their ideas? What kind of events and situations makes people to anticipate in voicing behavior (speaking up and challenging the status quo) (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998; Morrison, Wheeler-Smith, & Kamdar, 2011; Liang, Farh, & Farh, 2012)? However, little is known about the effects of voicing behavior on the mood of employees. This represents a gap in the literature. What happens when coworkers voice and you do not? Or vice versa when you communicate all your ideas but your colleagues remain silent? There is a need of a deeper and broader understanding of the outcomes of voice. Voicing behavior of coworkers can have an effect on the mood of colleagues (Taggar & Neubert, 2004). Emotions play an important role in the proactivity of people. Emotions influence the way employees act and react on events on the work floor (Wegge, Dick, Fisher, West & Dawson, 2006).

(7)

It also has important implications for their overall job performance and satisfaction (Ilies & Judge, 2002).

Additionally, the work environment has important implications on the mood of employees (Morrison, 2011). Employees are influenced by the overall organizational culture. In a certain way, the work environment predicts how people should behave at work (Lok & Crawford, 1999). An organizational climate is a very important tool for managers and leaders to create a good and supporting culture wherein people feel valued. Managers and leaders desire proactive behavior of their employees, because they often hold important information about the firm (Ilies & Judge, 2002). Previous research by Baas, De Dreu and Nijstad (2008) showed that employees could come up with more innovative ideas when they feel positive emotions. Hence, the overall organizational culture matters al lot. The organizational culture is affected by the overall leadership style in the company (Lok & Crawford, 1999). Once an organization climate has emerged, the strength of it is affected by a transformational leadership style (Zohar & Tenne-Gazit, 2008). Transformational leaders provide both social support and idea support, to motivate employees to explore their own creativity (Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009). A voice climate (an organizational climate which supports proactivity) can positively or negatively enhance voicing behavior (Morrison, Wheeler-Smith, & Kamdar, 2011).

The goal of this research is to provide new insight in the relationship between the communication of new and useful ideas among coworkers and the activating mood of employees. Also, it aims to fill the research gap in the existing literature, regarding the effects of voicing behavior on employees. Therefore, the research question holds: Does a voice climate enhance the relationship between voice behavior of coworkers and the activating affect of those employees?

(8)

To provide an answer to this question, a diary-survey study will be held among Dutch speaking employees within different companies. With the results of the survey, more insight is given in the relation between the voicing behavior of employees and the mood of coworkers. The results of this study can be very important for organizations, while employees are one of their most valuable assets (Morrison, 2011). Employees are key assets in the development of a company, and they can increase the innovation process by engaging in proactive behavior. It is very useful for managers to know what affects the organizational culture and the proactive behavior of their employees have on the overall mood in the company. This is important because employees often have more direct contact with the customers than the managers have (Lok & Crawford, 1999). They are the point of contact for the company, and therefore hear all the negative and positive feedback first. In order for the managers to do something with the feedback from the customers, they need to support their employees to communicate and to behave in a proactive manner (Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009). Also, employees work on a daily basis with the work processes, which are developed by the managers. Therefore, they form a good measure to determine whether those work processes are efficient or not (Morrison, 2011).

2. Literature Review

2.1 Transformational Leadership and Voice Climate

2.1.1 Transformational Leadership

In today’s competitive business environment, employees are very important determinants of a company’s success (Morrison & Miliken, 2000). Employee’s

(9)

comments and suggestions can improve an organization considerably and are therefore critical to a company’s performance (Detert & Burris, 2007).

Supervisors often serve as coaches, mentors, and leaders, which are socializing members into the organizational culture. They help new members to get familiar with the organizational culture (Bass & Avolio, 1993). The organizational culture can be seen as the ‘glue’ that holds the organization together. Leaders create mechanisms for developing the organizational culture (Detert & Burris, 2007). Cultural values and norms arise and change because of what leaders find important. Ultimately, leadership teaches the characteristics of an organizational culture, which will be adopted later on by their employees.

Transformational leaders articulate a challenging vision of the future and they have high performance expectations (Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009). They provide both social support and idea support, which should encourage employees to explore their own creativity (Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009). Transformational leaders believe that people are purposeful and trustworthy, and that every employee can make a unique contribution to the company. Managers typically share their sense of vision and purpose with employees, to align them around the vision (Bass & Avolio, 1993). They inspire the employees to challenge the status quo. Often transformational leaders create a culture, which can handle creative changes and growth (Bass & Avolio, 1993). In this way they motivate employees to develop themselves to the fullest (Bass & Avolio, 1993).

2.1.2 Voice Climate

An organization’s development is dependent on its employees. Employees are capable to provide feedback and can give warning signals about work practices (Den Hartog

(10)

& Belschak, 2012). However, when those employees remain silent, the company does not receive feedback. Contextual factors can have an important effect on the voicing behavior of employees. It concerns if employees are able to voice and if proactive behavior is acceptable and encouraged within a certain company (Morrison, Wheeler-Smith, & Kamdar, 2011). A good organizational culture is very important when managers want to motivate their employees to engage in proactive behavior (Morrison, Wheeler-Smith, & Kamdar, 2011). Individuals tend to engage more in proactive behavior when their work environment is characterized by shared beliefs and opinions (Morrison, 2011). It gives employees the feeling that it is safe and worthwhile to share their opinion with their colleagues. It is very important for a company to create a climate wherein people feel comfortable to engage in proactive behavior. A climate refers to the collective beliefs and assumption about the activities, behaviors and actions that are rewarded and supported within the work environment. A voice climate seems especially important to enhance and motivate individuals to engage in proactive behavior (Morrison & Miliken, 2000).

A voice climate is a climate in which it is promoted to speak up and share your opinion or suggestions (Morrison, Wheeler-Smith, & Kamdar, 2011). When there is no voicing climate it will not be appreciated if employees share their ideas about the work processes. Voice climate has two dimensions. The first is a belief in the organization whether voicing is safe versus dangerous (Morrison, Wheeler-Smith, & Kamdar, 2011). In a situation where it is safe to speak up, voicing can lead to rewards. Voicing in a dangerous situation can lead to cold-shoulder or maybe even punishment. The second dimension is a shared belief about whether speaking up in an organization is effective (Morrison, Wheeler-Smith, & Kamdar, 2011). This assumption is based on the moral notion of a group; the group’s belief in its own

(11)

capacity to perform a particular task (Morrison, Wheeler-Smith, & Kamdar, 2011). In this study there will be refered to voice climate as voice climate safety, because the feelings of safety are most closely related to emotions and affect of employees.

Contexts that are less supportive, signal to employees that speaking up is not desirable and potentially even harmful to one’s presence (Morrison, 2011). Moreover, people are more willing to make a difference when this does not result in personal harm. Morrison and Miliken (2000) argue that there are several different reasons why people may withhold information about organizational problems and issues. The two most common reasons employees gave for not speaking up is that they were afraid that there would be any kind of negative reaction and that they believed that voicing would not make a difference (Morrison & Miliken, 2000). Before employees engage in proactive behavior they weigh all the potential risks and benefits of this behavior (Morrison, Wheeler-Smith, & Kamdar, 2011). If employees have the feeling that speaking up would not change anything in the company, they will remain silent.

In the consideration of engaging in proactive behavior the collective beliefs and assumptions of the organization are seriously taken into account. Individuals always make a decision whether to voice or not within the individual’s immediate environment (Morrison & Miliken, 2000). That immediate environment can be the organizational culture within a company. There is a possibility that individuals are guided by the collective opinion of the organization. If the dominant choice within the company for employees is to remain silent – a phenomenon known as organizational silence – this is harmful for the organization (Morrison & Miliken, 2000).

(12)

2.1.3 Relation between Transformational Leadership and Voice Climate

There is a constant interaction between leadership and culture (Bass & Avolio, 1993). Nevertheless, once an organizational climate has emerged, the strength of it is affected by a transformational leadership style (Zohar & Tenne-Gazit, 2008). In an innovative organizational culture transformational leaders build the general beliefs and assumptions (Bass & Avolio, 1993). Transformational leadership is one of the most important sources to can determine whether it is safe and worthwhile for employees to voice. Leaders have the power to value the outcomes of proactive behavior (Morrison, 2011).

Zohar and Tenne-Gazit (2008) provide three main reasons why transformational leadership affects the strength of an organizational culture. The first reason they propose is that transformational leaders have close relationships with their subordinates. This provides a very strong leader-member relationship. People will experience low power distance and feel that they are important (Zohar & Tenne-Gazit, 2008). Second, leaders with a transformational leadership style will exhibit greater consistency across situations (Zohar & Tenne-Gazit, 2008). A leader is a sort of anchor for the organizational culture. The more consistent the leader acts, the more employees can rely on them. The last reason Zohar and Tenne-Gazit (2008) provide is that the consistency of transformational leaders creates a culture wherein people feel safe. This third reasons refers to the motivational base of transformational leadership. Leaders can influence the behavior of employees by intellectually stimulating them and inspire them to become committed to their work (Zohar & Tenne-Gazit, 2008).

Consequently, the organizational culture is very important for a company. It affects how people feel at work and this ultimately can lead to satisfied or dissatisfied employees. However, a good and supportive organizational culture is not per

(13)

definition a voicing climate. Organizations can create climates about speaking up or not speaking up (Morrison and Miliken, 2000). It is shown that transformational leadership has a positive relation with the organizational culture and that leaders can create a specific culture on the work floor (Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009). It is also shown that leaders can create a voicing climate (Morrison & Miliken, 2000). However, it’s not yet shown whether transformational leadership actually leads to a voicing climate. The following hypothesis is developed to test whether this assumption holds:

Hypothesis 1: Transformational leadership has a positive relation with the voice climate of an organization.

2.2 Voice Behavior and Affect

2.2.1 Voice

Not only in companies but also in the literature, more attention is given to employees themselves (Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012; LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Van Dyne, Cummings and Parks, 1995). Employee’s creativity and their ideas and suggestions are of great value for a company. Proactive behavior can be seen as a form of motivation and change-oriented work behavior (Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012). Employee voice behavior is defined as “promotive behavior that emphasizes expression of constructive challenge intended to improve rather than merely criticize” (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998, p. 854). LePine and Van Dyne (1998) also recognize the importance of employee behavior that goes beyond the role expectations and job requirements of one’s job. Voicing behavior is distinct from normal role behavior when the expression of constructive challenge is not specified in the formal job requirements.

(14)

An example of voicing behavior is when an employee makes a suggestion to improve the efficiency of a company, even when such a suggestion might upset others. However, voice is very broad in terms of content. The message, which is being voiced by employees, can be about improving work methods, an organizational problem, a solution to an organizational problem, an unfair situation, a strategic issue or an opinion that differs from the overall view in the company (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). Voicing refers to a communication method where work or organizational issues are reflected. Morrison (2011) explains that in the definition from LePine and Van Dyne (1998) there is an implicit idea that voicing implies risk. Speaking up is not always a positive behavior. It can lead to a damaged image or even to formal sanctions (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Whistle blowing is also generally not seen as a positive phenomenon (Morrison, 2011). People may be afraid to speak up to their colleagues because there is a risk that their colleagues do not like their ideas. Communicating your own opinion about challenging the status quo will always be scary for people, because they do not know how other people will react to their opinion.

Van Dyne, Cummings and Parks (1995) proposed a two-dimensional typology of extra role behavior. The first dimension contrasts promotive (encouraging something to happen) versus prohibitive behavior (encouraging something to cease). The other dimension contrasts interpersonal behavior that promotes cooperation and which strengthen relationships between people (affiliative behavior) and change-oriented behavior that focuses on ideas and suggestions (challenging behavior). Liang, Farh and Farh (2012) broadened the definition of voice even further. In line with Van Dyne et al. (1995) they conceptualize two types of voice, promotive and prohibitive voice. Promotive voice is defined as “employee’s expression of new ideas

(15)

and suggestions to improve the overall functioning of their organization” (Liang, Farh & Farh, 2012, p. 74). Prohibitive voice describes employee’s expressions of concern about work practices (Liang, Farh & Farh, 2012). Employees give alarming messages about the course of events in a business in order to improve these. This kind of behavior is very important for a company’s health, because such alarming messages may prevent problematic initiatives from taking place. So leaders should value voice behavior because it can reveal problems and solutions as well as point out other ideas that may improve the organization (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998).

Morrsion (2011) believes that there should be more focus on the type of message that is being voiced. The range of types of voice behavior, like suggestions, ideas, challenges and opinion, relate to a wide range of job related and organizational issues. However, rather than specifying the type of information that is being conveyed, all the definitions are treated as one general conceptualization. Therefore, Morrison (2011) makes a distinction between three types of voicing behavior. These three types are problem-focused voice, opinion-focused voice and suggestion voice (Morrison, 2011). Problem-focused voice is defined as “an employee’s expression of concern about work practices, incidents, or behaviors that he or she regards as harmful, or potentially harmful to the organization” (Morrison, 2011, p. 398). This type of voice focuses on challenging the status quo by stopping or preventing harm. The second type, opinion-focused voice, concerns the communication of an opinion that is different from the overall opinion within the company regarding work related issues (Morrison, 2011). Suggestion voice is defined by Morrison (2011, p. 398) as “the communications of suggestions or ideas for how to improve the work unit or organization”. This type of voice is also focused on challenging the status quo, like

(16)

problem-focused voice. Suggestion voice is more concentrated on realizing new possibilities and ways to approach thing differently.

By combining the two different distinctions between types of voice by Liang, Farh and Farh (2012) and Morrison (2011), this study will distinguish voice in three concepts. These are promotive voice, prohibitive voice and suggestion voice. These three types are chosen because together they fully cover the concept of voice. Problem-focused voice and opinion-focused voice are left out. Problem-focused voice is in a way the same as prohibitive voice. Both focus on the communication of concerns about work practices and avoiding harm for the organization. However, the latter is a broader concept. It covers other alarming messages, which employees may communicate about work practices in the company, as well. Opinion focused voice is left out because the other three types of voice, promotive, prohibitive and suggestion, cover this type in an implicit manner. Challenging the status quo is already a form of communicating your opinion. It is not really challenging when others already feel that way. Furthermore, there will always be a change that might upset others.

In this study there will be referred to voice as to the definition by LePine and Van Dyne (1998, p. 854); “promotive behavior that emphasizes expression of constructive challenge intended to improve rather than merely criticize”. Furthermore, with voice there will be referred to the following three types of behavior: promotive, prohibitive and suggestion.

2.2.2 Affect

Emotions play an important role in the relationship between coworkers. They can explain how employees react to strong and poor performers. This can be compared with colleagues that engage in proactive behavior. In order to get a deeper

(17)

understanding of emotions at work, a model called affective events theory (AET) is developed (Weiss & Cropanzano (1996), as cited in Wegge, Dick, Fisher, West & Dawson, 2006). Weiss and Cropanzano (as cited in Wegge et al., 2006) presented AET as a new framework for studying emotions, mood and job satisfaction of employees at work. The framework explains linkages between the employees’ emotions and their reactions to events that happen in their work environment. Those emotions affect their performance, organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Wegge et al., 2006). AET’s basic assumption is that job satisfaction should be defined as an evaluative judgment about one’s job. Evaluative judgment should however not be confused with real emotions that employees experience at work, because moods and emotions have causes that can be distinguish from the causes of evaluative judgment (Wegge et al., 2006). AET suggests that affective moods and emotions can have many effects at the time they occur. Those physiological components, nevertheless, are not necessarily linked to satisfaction. The evaluative judgments, on the other hand, are often influenced by general beliefs and assumptions in an organization (Wegge et al., 2006). However, those general beliefs and assumptions in a company are not directly linked to the mood and emotions people experience (Taggar & Neubert, 2004).

Voicing behavior can be seen as events that happen at work. People may recognize that their colleagues are engaging in proactive behavior. They share their opinion, ideas and suggestions, and this will ultimately affect the mood of coworkers. For example, if someone speaks up in a business meeting and proposes a new way of handling orders in the company, his/her colleagues will be aware of their colleagues’ proactive behavior. This event of speaking up could have an effect on their mood, job satisfaction and job performance. Proactive behavior of employees

(18)

may not just affect the actor, but also his or her coworkers. Morrison and Milliken (2000) found that speaking up about a problem might embarrass others or shed them in a negative light. This is even the case when that specific idea or suggestion may even benefit the workgroup. However, voicing is not only seen as negative to subordinates. Voicing behavior can also benefit colleagues (Morrison, 2011). For example, if one speaks up about the poor working conditions all the employees can benefit from that. Hence, voicing behavior can positively and negatively affect coworkers.

Differences in how employees experience the organizational culture and how committed they are to engage in proactive behavior, may explain why some individuals voice more than others. However, previous studies have shown that employees are highly dependent on contextual factors when they decide whether to speak up or remain silent (Morrison, 2011). Detert and Burris (2007) also note that voicing behavior of coworkers should be positively related to the proactive behavior of the employee. Voicing behavior of subordinates has important effects for organizations as a whole as well as for workgroups.

Apart from the negative effects that voice behavior can have, generally proactive behavior is likely to have a positive effect on the individual’s mood (Morrison, 2011). Voicing behavior may enhance feelings of control, because people make their own choice to express themselves. This may lead to positive mood states due to the benefits of being able to speak up and share your own opinion. It is even shown that speaking up instead of remaining silent, in a situation of mistreatment, can avoid negative effects on the employee’s psychological and physical health (Morrison, 2011).

(19)

Important determinants of organizational performance are job performance and the satisfaction level of its employees (Ilies & Judge, 2002). If an employee feels that his coworkers or manager does not value him, he may lack motivation to perform. His work than suffers from his emotions. So an employees’ mood can influence their job performance and their satisfaction level (Ilies & Judge, 2002). Some mood states are positive in tone, like happy, cheerful and relaxed and others are negative, like anger, anxiety and sadness. Baas, De Dreu & Nijstad (2008) differentiate mood in terms of their hedonic tone (positive or negative mood) and the extent to which they arouse and activate or deactivate, as seen in table 1.

Table 1 – Mood states in terms of hedonic tone, level of activation and regulatory focus (Baas, De Dreu & Nijstad, 2008)

It follows that mood states with an activating hedonic tone promote proactive behavior to a greater extent that deactivating mood states. Positive or negative activating emotions that people feel will result in action or voice behavior (Baas, De Dreu & Nijstad, 2008). So in this research there will only be looked at the activating affect of employees.

2.2.4 Relation between Voice and Affect

People can experience different emotions when their colleagues speak up. You can imagine that when your colleagues come up with very different and challenging ideas they can inspire you. An individual’s capacity for challenging thinking is enhanced by

(20)

arousal and activation (Baas, De Dreu & Nijstad, 2008). People may go with their colleagues’ emotional expressions. For example, when your colleague is very happy about his/her idea and shares this with you, you may get excited too. However, it is also possible that people find their proactive colleagues annoying. For instance, if you colleague shares a brilliant idea with you, you may feel frustrated that you haven’t come up with that idea yourself. Low levels of arousal can lead to inactivity and lower performance (Baas, De Dreu & Nijstad, 2008). People can affect their colleagues in several ways. This is consistent with AET, which shows that the acts of coworkers emotionally affect people (Wegge et al., 2006). To test whether voicing behavior actually affects the mood of employees, the following hypotheses are developed:

Hypothesis 2: Voicing behavior of coworkers has a positive effect on the positive activating affect of employees.

Hypothesis 3: Voicing behavior of coworkers has a positive effect on the negative activating affect of employees.

2.3 Voice Climate as Moderator

In the previous sections the relationship between the voicing behavior and the affect of employees is explained. People can feel several emotions as a response to the actions of their colleagues (Wegge et al., 2006). Furthermore, the organizational culture has a great impact on the overall mood of employees in a company (Zohar & Tenne-Gazit, 2008). To enhance employees to engage in proactive behavior, a voice climate seems especially important. If a company creates a voicing climate this will ultimately enhance the positive behavior between voice of coworkers and the positive emotions people feel (Morrison & Miliken, 2000). However, absence of a voicing

(21)

climate can have a negative effect on the mood of employees when a coworker does speak up (Morrison, Wheeler-Smith, & Kamdar, 2011). The relationship between the voicing behavior of employees and the negative activating mood of people may be negatively moderated by the absence of a voicing climate. However, the individual outcomes of voice also seem to depend on whether employees and managers have the same perceptions of proactive behavior within the firm (Morrison, 2011).

To test whether a voicing climate has an effect on the relationship between proactive behavior and the activating emotions of employees, the following hypotheses are developed:

Hypothesis 4: The voice climate of an organization positively moderates the positive relation between voice behavior of coworkers and the positive activating affect of employees.

Hypothesis 5: The voice climate of an organization buffers the positive relation between voice behavior of coworkers and the negative activating affect of employees.

2.4 Conclusion

Previous studies about proactive behavior mostly look at the determinants of voicing. Why do people engage in voicing behavior and what are the reasons why people remain silent? However, the effect of proactive behavior matters as well. Organizations motivate employees to be creative and come up with challenging ideas and suggestion, without even knowing what the impact of those ideas will be. This study will look at the outcomes of voice behavior. It will focus on the organizational culture and more specifically on employee’s mood states.

(22)

This study will try to fill the research gap in the existing literature, regarding the effects of voicing behavior on coworkers, by attempting to answer the research question: does a voice climate enhance the relationship between voice behavior of coworkers and the activating affect of those employees?

This will be done by looking at the effect of the voicing behavior of subordinates and the mood states of employees. It will look at both positive and negative mood states of employees. Furthermore, the voicing climate is taken into account when researching the relationship between voice and the activating affect of employees.

3. Conceptual Framework

After a thorough analysis of the research topic, the section will provide the conceptual framework. The framework, which will be presented, is the framework where this study will be based on. According to the hypotheses a conceptual model (shown in figure 1) can be drawn. The independent variable in this model is the voicing behavior of coworkers, which has a relation with the dependent variable: the activating affect of employees. The expectation of this research would be that a voice climate moderates this relationship.

(23)

Figure 1: The General Conceptual Model

There has been pointed out that a voice climate can positively enhance the positive relation between the voicing behavior of coworkers and the positive activating affect of employees. Also, it is stated that the absence of a voice climate can negatively enhance the positive relation between the voicing behavior of coworkers and the negative activating affect of employees. The general conceptual model therefore only holds the general relationships. In the analysis of the model there will be a split between two separate models to test all hypotheses. Hypotheses 2 and 4 are presented in figure 2. The positive relationship between the voicing behavior of coworkers and the positive activating affect of people is positively moderated by the voice climate.

(24)

Figure 2: The Positive Conceptual Model

Hypotheses 3 and 5 are displayed in figure 3. The positive relationship between the voicing behavior of coworkers and the negative activating affect of people is negatively moderated by the absence of a voice climate.

Figure 3: The Negative Conceptual Model

4. Methodology

4.1 Research design

(25)

because it is associated with the deductive research approach and makes is easy to compare a large amount of data (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2012). It also allows collecting standardized data from a sizable population in a highly economical way. A sizeable population can be reached because a survey is seen as an authoritative method by people in general to collect data (Saunders et al., 2012). The data collection using a questionnaire can be used to explain relationships between variables and produce models of these relationships. It is thus highly suited for a quantitative research design. This is also exactly what is needed to test all the hypotheses of this study. There are two conceptual models designed, with four different variables that all must be tested. A questionnaire-based survey makes it easier to test the relationships within those models. Besides that it is highly economical to use surveys, it also makes the comparison between people easier and more reliable. The questions and statements must be standardized and consistent, to ensure that every person gets the same questions (Saunders et al., 2012).

However, a survey design does not only have advantages. There are also important disadvantages that must be considered carefully. Saunders et al. (2012) note that people are generally not willing to fill in large questionnaires. The number of questions that can be included in the survey are limited. Nevertheless, this research design allows collecting data within a limited number of questions. Because a diary-survey is used, data are collected at multiple times a day for five days in a row. This ensures that sufficient data are collected, despite the short questionnaires. Another limitation is that the questions cannot be adapted when it is noticed that some questions are not correct (Saunders et al., 2012). There is only one time to collect your data and therefore this must be done right. This limitation is very important to

(26)

keep in mind while developing the questionnaires. Designing surveys is a conscious and well-thought process.

The diary-survey is a self-administered survey, because the questions are send to the email addresses of the participants. The participants can easily access the surveys via their own computer at work and quickly fill in the questions. Almost all questions are items with ranking type answers. Self-administered surveys save a lot of time. Often researchers complain that their progress is being delayed because of their dependence on others (Saunders et al., 2012). The diary-survey design makes sure that every respondent is available in the previously agreed week. This also provides a good estimation about the timeframe in which the data are collected. The use of self-administered surveys has another advantage; it will guarantee anonymity and it will reduce the subject or participant bias (Saunders et al., 2012). People can fill in the questionnaires at their own desk at work, where they feel generally comfortable and are not distracted by an interviewer. This will improve the reliability of the data. However, because the survey includes questions about how people feel at work and how they judge colleagues about their proactive behavior, it may be the case that people do not feel safe while filling in those types of questions when their colleagues are in the same room. This may results in a participant bias (Saunders et al., 2012). The respondents may provide falsely positive answers because they fear being overheard by their coworkers.

4.2 Sample

The aim of this study is discover whether a voice climate can enhance the relationship between the voice behavior of coworkers and the activating affect of employees. So this research will be focused on employees. Since it is impossible to collect data from

(27)

all the employees in the Netherlands, data are collected from a sample that represents the population. The sampling technique, which is used to create a sample, is the probability or representative sampling method. With a probability sampling method the change of each case being selected from the population is known (Saunders et al., 2012). This technique is often associated with survey strategies where you need to achieve objectives that require you to estimate statistically the characteristics of the population from the sample (Saunders et al., 2012). It offers a good compromise between the amount of time and money that is available and the accuracy of the findings.

The focus of this study is on Dutch employees. Since the data are collected through a diary-survey, the sample can only consist of full-time employees, who must be at their offices five days a week. The respondents should have access to the internet at their work and also they have to own a personal e-mail address. This is needed because the surveys were sent via e-mail to all respondents.

To improve the level of generalization of this study, the sample size was strived to be as large as possible (Saunders et al., 2012). According to Saunders et al. (2012) the larger the sample size the lower the likely error on generalizing to the population. A sample size of 30 or more respondents will result in a sampling distribution that is close to a normal distribution (Saunders et al., 2012). A sample size of 210 was desired for this study. This number takes into account that some respondents will refuse to fill in a five-day survey or just drop out because of absence. The final sample consisted of 820 respondents who filled in both the pre-test and at least one full day. However, the final sample, which will be used during this study, consists of 309 respondents. This is the number of participants who filled in the pre-test and at least one full day regarding the following variables: activating affect, voice

(28)

among coworkers, voice climate safety and transformational leadership. After deleting the missing values, the final sample size consisted of 309 respondents.

4.3 Data collection

The data collection was part of a bigger group project. The group consisted of seven people. All seven-group members had to collect at least 30 respondents. To reach people I used my personal network. Additionally, I asked my respondents if they knew other people who may want to participate in the surveys. Every respondent than received an e-mail with the ‘proactivity flyer’ (appendix A) and a short explanation about the diary-study surveys.

In order to explore the extent of the variables, a diary survey was conducted. Diary surveys are a very effective tool since the 1970s (Scollon, Kim-Prieto & Diener, 2003). Since then researchers have long recognized the need for an assessment tool that is more true to real life experiences than laboratory studies. Diary surveys have high ecological validity, as they are carried out in the user’s real environments (Czerwinski, Horvitz & Wilhite, 2004). Diary studies permit greater generalization of the study’s finding, because the theoretical concepts and empirical findings are validated in real-life setting (Scollon et al., 2003). Furthermore, a diary survey study allows investigating within-person processes (Scollon et al., 2003). Using a diary survey makes it possible to research emotions and which emotions occur together. This perfectly fits with this study’s goal. It is possible to measure differences within individuals that emerge over time and across situations (Scollon et al., 2003). Another advantage of using a diary survey instead of a regular one-time survey, is that the major pitfall associated with traditional self-reporters, namely memory bias, is prevented (Scollon et al., 2003). The memory bias is known for

(29)

years, however researchers were not able to prevent this bias in self-report questionnaires. A diary survey shortens the time lag between the signal and the response (Scollon et al., 2003). Participants are asked several times a day about their feelings at that specific moment, so the timelag between the actual feeling and the moment when they answer a question about this feeling is shortened. On the negative side, diary surveys suffer from the problem that they may lack motivation for the participants (Czerwinski et al., 2004). Offering the respondents an incentive can prevent this weakness. Naturally, money or other monetary incentives are a source of motivations for the participants. However, a more effective way to motivate the participants in this study is to gain participants trust. You have to show them the importance of the study, of course without telling them the exact purpose of the study (Scollon et al., 2003). In this study motivating is generated via the proactivity flyer and the regular e-mails the respondents received in the week of the data collection. Despite the motivation problem, a dairy survey layout was found best to collect the data in this study.

The website www.qualtrics.com was used to develop the questionnaires. This website offers an easy tool to design the questionnaire. It provides different options for all kind of questions and it is easy to use for the respondents. Using this website to roll out the diary-survey saves money and time. It saves money because the survey does not need to be printed, and it saves time since the researchers did not have to go to the offices of the respondents to let them fill in the questionnaires and because the data did not have to be entered manually (Saunders et al., 2012).

However, besides the advantages to use the internet for the surveys there is an important drawback of this method (Saunders et al., 2012). Since the design of this study requires an everyday participation of the respondents, it requires extensive

(30)

participation. Because people are approached via e-mail, so no actual presence of the researchers, they may lack motivation to finish the whole research. In spite of this drawback, the use of the internet is the only practicable way for doing a diary-survey (Scollon et al., 2003). It is impossible to visit multiple offices a day to get every respondent to fill out the questions as provided.

The questionnaires are written in the Dutch language, since they are solely focused on Dutch employees. In order to increase the response rate, the layout is a very important part of the development of the surveys (Saunders et al., 2012). The layout seems especially important in self-completed questionnaires (Saunders et al., 2012). They survey is designed to make reading and answering the questions easily, also it encourages the respondent to fill in all the questions. According to the layout, it was achieved to make the surveys not longer than necessary. A survey, which includes too many questions that makes is time-consuming to fill in, may reduce the response rate (Saunders et al., 2012). Furthermore the diary-survey included an introduction letter, which provided a superficial explanation of the research. The flyer, which was sent earlier on, guaranteed the anonymity of all the respondents. At the end of the five-day research an e-mail was sent to all respondents. In this e-mail all respondents are thanked for their participation and provided an opportunity to contact me, or one of the other group members, with any questions and/or comments on the survey.

4.4 Measurement

In order to measure the variables the survey consists of opinion and behavioral variables (Dillman, 2009 as cited in Saunder et al., 2012). These types of variables record how respondents feel about something and record what activities respondents

(31)

engage in. Since the surveys are part of a bigger research project and the data collection is a group effort, there were more variables measured than just the four variables used in this study. This section describes the measures that are used to test those variables, starting with transformational leadership followed by voice climate, voice among coworkers and affect of employees. For a copy of the pre-test and the final survey (in Dutch), see appendix B and C.

Dependent Variable Activated Affect

Activated affect was measured with a 20-item Likert scale developed by Watson, Clark and Tellegen (1988). An example question from the survey is: ‘In the previously mentioned statements by a colleague did you feel proud’. The answer categories ranged from (1) very slightly to (7) to a very great extent. Employees had to rate their own feeling as a response to their colleague’s proactive behavior. Since activating affect consists of both positive and negative activating affect, both positive and negative items are tested in the survey. The negative items that were tested are: stressed, of stroke, guilty, afraid, angry, irritated, alert, ashamed, nervous and anxious. The positive items are: energetic, enthusiastic, proud, happy, active, observant, active, determined, inspired, strong and interested. In the analysis positive and negative activating affect are treated as two different variables. A high score in this case can represent a high degree of positive activating affect, as it can also represent a high degree of negative activating affect. The Cronbach’s alpha of activated affect is considered reasonable (α = .698).

(32)

Independent Variable Voice Of Coworkers

Voice behavior of coworkers is measures with a 3-item scale, which is based on the items from Liang, Farh and Farh (2012) and Morrison (2011). The three questions are pilot tested among 500 respondents. This pilot-test confirmed the validity and reliability of the questions. The Cronbach’s alpha of voice of coworkers is considered as low (α = .526) in this study. However, a higher reliability of the items was found in the pilot-test. Employees have to evaluate if their colleagues showed proactive behavior. An example questionon is: ‘Did your coworker give a work related suggestion this morning?’. The categories to answer the questions ranged from (1) totally disagree to (7) totally agree. A high score indicates that the coworker of the respondent showed voicing behavior, and conversely a low score indicates that the coworker did not engage in proactive behavior.

Moderator Variable Voice Climate Safety

The moderator variable, voice climate safety, was measured with a 6-item likert scale, ranging from (1) totally disagree to (7) totally agree. The 6-item scale was developed by Morrison (2011). Employees had to assess their working environment, whether they feel safe enough to voice. An example question is: ‘Communicating opinions about work issues to others in the team, even when the opinion is different and others may disagree’. In this case a high score represents the existence of a voicing climate in the organization. The Cronbach’s alpha of voice climate safety is considered good (α = .965).

(33)

Independent Variable Transformational Leadership

Transformational leadership was measured with an 11-item scale developed by De Hoogh, Den Hartog and Koopman (2005). The Cronbach’s alpha of transformational leadership is considered good (α = .944). An example item is: ‘My leader involves employees in important decisions’. For the answer categories a Likert scale was used, the scale ranged from (1) totally disagree to (7) totally agree. Transformational leadership is measured among employees. Employees have to assess their managers or leaders on the basis of transformational characteristics or activities. In this case a high score represents a high degree of transformational leadership.

Furthermore, it is stated that when using the Likert-scale rating method, it is important that the respondents understand all the questions in order to provide good answers (Saunders et al., 2012). Another focus point to keep in mind is that the concepts must be clear and that no other interpretation is possible. In order to test reliable and valid items, the respondents must understand the concepts in the same way as the researcher (Saunders et al., 2012).

Since the focus is on Dutch employees, all the survey questions are also in Dutch. However, the most items that are used are originally in English. This means that the items have to be carefully translated into Dutch. This can be done while keeping in mind the attention points and techniques from Usunier (1998, as cited in Saunders et al., 2012). Multiple people translated the questions from English to Dutch. Subsequently, the translations were compared and differences were discussed. As mentioned before, the data collection was a group effort, so the group also contributed to the translation and correctness of the surveys. Each person of the group made the surveys and checked the questions and readings at spelling errors.

(34)

4.5 Analysis

A correlation test, a reliability test and a regression will be done to analyze the collected data. Since a moderation variable, voice climate, is involved in this study the regression will test two models. The first regression model will test the main effect of the independent variable and the moderator, voice among coworkers and voice climate, on the dependent variable affect (Baron & Kenny, 1986). This test is indicated in figure 4 by arrows ‘a’ and ‘b’. The second model will test the interaction effect. This regression consists of the interacting influence of voice climate on the independent variable (voice among coworkers) and the moderator together on the dependent variable, affect (Baron & Kenny, 1986). This model can be seen as the final model, because this actually tests the moderation influence of a voice climate. The second model is indicated in figure 4 by arrow ‘c’.

Figure 4 – The Moderator Model (Baron & Kenny, 1986)

4.6 Predictions

The two moderation models that will be tested are tested because of the following predictions. In the first model it is expected that voice among coworkers has an effect on the affect of employees and that a voice climate has an effect on the affect of employees. In the second model it is expected to find an interaction effect of voice

(35)

Since this study will test two different moderation models, one with positive activating affect and one with negative activating affect, the aforementioned regression analysis will be done twice. In both cases it is predicted that the interaction effect will fit the data better that the main effect.

5. Results

5.1 Descriptive Statistics

In order to get to know the sample more precisely, the respondents general characteristics are provided. The general characteristics give a description of the data that were collected.

The total sample size consisted of 820 respondents, however, as mentioned before, the final sample size that was used in this study was 309. This is the amount of respondents who filled in the pre-test and at least one full day of the surveys for the four variables; activating affect, voice among coworkers, voice climate safety and transformational leadership. The final sample consisted of 44.7% female and 55.3% male respondents. The mean age of the respondents was 3.41 years (SD=1.40) with an average tenure of 9.32 years (SD=10.35). Almost two-thirds of the respondents worked less than ten years for an organization. For the distribution of age and tenure, see the below tables 1a en 1b. In table 1c the distribution of education of the sample is shown. Almost 81% of the respondents have enjoyed a higher educational background. However, the lowest education category consisted of 10 respondents. The MBO, HBO and university categories consisted of 50, 138 and 111 respondents respectively.

Table 1a: Distribution of Age

< 20 20-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 > 60

(36)

Table 1b: Distribution of Tenure

< 20 1-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 > 30

Sample (N=309) 14.9% 37.9% 14.2% 12.6% 17.5% 2.9%

Table 1c: Distribution of Education

Primary School MBO HBO University

Sample (N=309) 3.2% 16.2% 44.7% 35.9%

5.2 Reliability

To be able to validate the questionnaire, the reliabilities of the variables were checked. The reliability of the variables shows the ability of a measure to produce consistent results when the same entities are measured under different conditions (Field, 2009). In order to check the reliability, some new variables were created. Those new variables were derived from the existing variables from the questionnaire. The most common measure to test scale reliability is the Cronbach’s alpha (Field, 2009).

For every variable, used in this study, a new variable was created. The new variables were created from multiple items from the surveys. The variables were created as the sum of means from the measured items. For example, using the sum of means an overarching variable for transformational leadership was created. This variable consisted of the sum of means from the six items that were used to measure the construct of transformational leadership. All the five new variables with their Cronbach’s alpha and some descriptives are presented in table 2.

According to Field (2009) a Cronbach’s alpha is considered reasonable when is lies between 0.6 and 0.8 and good when the alpha is equal or above 0.8. When the Cronbach’s alpha is lower than 0.6 you should not use it. As shown in table 2, all the

(37)

This alpha is even lower than 0.6, and therefore it should not be used. In this case, the correlated item-total correlations should be checked. These correlations should be higher than 0.3 (Field, 2009). The values for voice were around 0.3, but the correlated item-total for the first item of voice subsequently was 0.278. This indicates fairly bad consistency and identifies the first item as a potential problem. However, the variable voice only consisted of three items, compared to eleven, six and nine items on the other scales. In this case the reduced reliability was not going to be dramatically affected by the number of items (Field, 2009). For this reason, the variable voice was contained.

Lastly, the Cronbach’s alpha’s, as shown in table 2, are the original values without the removal of any items. Only in the case of transformational leadership, a deleted item could improve the reliability (α = 0.947). Nevertheless, this increase is negligible and both values reflect a good degree of reliability.

Table 2: Reliability and descriptives of created variables

N=309 Cronbach’s alpha Nr. Of items Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

Positive Activating Affect 0.878 11 4.945 0.884 0.050

Negative Activating Affect 0.897 9 1.816 0.963 0.055

Voice (Coworker) 0.526 3 4.819 1.271 0.072

Voice Climate Safety 0.965 6 5.512 1.149 0.064

Transformational Leadership 0.944 11 5.152 1.168 0.066

5.3 Correlations

Before the actual regression analysis is presented, some correlations are explained. Table 3 shows the correlations of the variables and the Cronbach’s alpha on the diagonal. As expected transformational leadership correlated with voice climate safety, r (309) = 0.306, p<0.01. A small correlation between transformational leadership and positive activating affect, r (309) = 0.140, p<0.05, was found as well. However, no correlation was found between transformational leadership and negative

(38)

activating affect, r (309) = 0.008, ns. This is the lowest correlation that was found. Transformational leadership correlated with voice climate and affect, but there was no correlation found with voice, r (309) = 0.093, ns. Since it was predicted that transformational leadership has an effect on voice climate, and voice climate on both positive and negative activating affect, this result is interesting. It already points a little bit in the direction of the predictions.

Voice correlated with positive activating affect, r (309) = 0.368, p<0.01, however it did not with negative activating affect, r (309) = -0.070, ns. This is surprising but also very interesting for the regressions analysis, since it was predicted that voice has a relationship with both variables. Positive and negative activating affect did correlate which each other, r (309) = -0.433, p<0.01. However, voice did not correlate with voice climate, r (309) = 0.039, ns.

Voice climate did not correlate with positive activating affect, r (309) = 0.067, and neither with negative activating affect, r (309) = -0.018 (all ns). This is surprising because voice climate was used as a moderator in this study. There was predicted that the interaction model of the regression would fit the data better than the main effect. However, this result slightly puts this into another perspective.

(39)

5.4 Regression

In the previous result sections, the descriptive statistics, reliabilities and correlations were shown. The section will present the regression analysis. As explained before, the moderation regression was tested with two models. The first one was the main effect and the second one was the interaction effect. The moderation regression was done twice, for the positive as well as for the negative model of activating affect.

Transformational Leadership and Voice Climate

As shown in table 4, the explained variance of the first regression was 9,3%. This regression showed the relationship between transformational leadership and voice climate. Transformational leadership (β = 0.306, p<0.001, R2 = 0.093) has a positive effect on voice climate. This indicates that a transformational leadership style has a positive influence on the voice climate in an organization. As stated before, transformational leaders can influence the organizational climate.

Figure 5 – Regression Model of Transformational Leadership and Voice Climate

Main Effect Model of Positive Activating Affect

The explained variance in the first model, with the main effects, was 13,8%. The voicing behavior of coworkers ((β = 0.366, p<0.001, R2 = 0.138) has a positive effect

(40)

on the positive mood of employees. However, voice climate ((β = 0.053, ns, R2 = 0.138) has no effect on the dependent variable: positive activating affect. The relationships of model 1 are shown in figure 6. These results indicate that the positive mood of employees was only positively enhanced by the proactive behavior of coworkers. The voicing climate seems to have no effect on the mood of the employees.

Figure 6 – The Main Effect Model of Positive Activating Affect

Interaction Model of Positive Activating Affect

As shown in table 5, the explained variance of the interaction model (model 2) was 14%. Unexpectedly, the interaction model did not show an interaction effect of voice behavior of coworkers and voice climate on the positive activating affect of employees. There was predicted to find an interaction effect of the independent variable and the moderator on the dependent variable. This model is shown in figure 7. This means that voice behavior of coworkers and a voice climate have independently from each other a higher explanation power on the positive activating mood of employees than when they are combined. However, the interaction model showed a slightly higher explained variance. Since this increase in explained variance

(41)

is negligible, from R2 = 0.138 to R2 = 0.140, model 1 fits the data better than the interaction model.

Figure 7 – The Interaction Effect Model of Positive Activating Affect

Main Effect Model of Negative Activating Affect

The second sets of regressions were the regressions with negative activating affect as dependent variable. In model 1, the main effects were tested. It was predicted that voice climate and voice would buffer the negative activating affect of employees. However, none of these predicted relationships were found. As seen in figure 8, voice did not affect negative activating affect ((β = -0.069, ns, R2 = 0.005) and neither did a voice climate ((β = -0.015, ns, R2 = 0.005). The explained variance of the model was also very low, namely only 0,5%. This means that only 0,5% of the negative activating mood of employees can be explained by the voice climate or the voice behavior of coworkers.

(42)

Figure 8 – The Main Effect Model of Negative Activating Affect

Interaction Model of Negative Activating Affect

Model 2 shows the interaction model wherein voice and voice climate are combined. In figure 9 it is shown that the interaction model did not show an interaction effect of the independent variable and the moderator on the dependent variable. This means that neither separately nor together, the voice climate and the voicing behavior of coworkers affect the negative activating affect of employees. Furthermore table 6 shows the explained variance of this interaction model, which is 0,6%. There is almost no increase in the explained variance in model 2 compared to model 1.

(43)

(44)

(45)

(46)

6. Discussion

6.1 Findings

The main goal of this study is to provide a new insight in the relationship between voicing behavior of coworkers and the mood states of employees. Previous studies indicate that the organizational culture can play a key role in this relationship and especially a voice climate seems to be important (Morrison, 2011). Therefore, a research question was designed: Does a voice climate enhance the relationship between voice behavior of coworkers and the activating affect of those employees?

The first relationship that was tested is the relationship between transformational leadership and voice climate. This relationship was confirmed by the data. The results showed that a transformational leadership style could influence the voicing climate in the organization. Also, a positive relationship was found between the voice behavior of coworkers and the positive mood of employees. However, the results failed to support hypothesis 3. This hypothesis stated that the negative activating affect of employees is enhanced by the voicing behavior of coworkers. Therefore, this study only provides evidence for the relationship between the proactive behavior of coworkers and positive activating affect.

Furthermore, voicing climate was tested as a moderator on the relationship between voice behavior and activating affect. Unexpectedly, both interaction models are not supported by the data. This indicates that the relation between the proactive behavior of coworkers and the activating mood of employees will not be intensified by a voicing climate. Hypotheses 4 and 5 were also not supported by the data.

(47)

6.2 Discussion Points

In this study it was examined whether a voicing climate in an organization enhances the relationship between voice behavior of coworkers and the mood of employees. However, previous research showed that not only the overall culture within the company matters; subcultures may even have a bigger impact than the overall organizational culture (Lok & Crawford, 1999). Lok and Crawford (1999) even found that subcultures are more strongly related to employee’s commitment. Subcultures may exist independently of the organizational culture; they may exist in separate departments or working groups. It is possible that several small groups in an organization have their own set of beliefs and values. Those beliefs and values could overlap the organizational culture, but they still have something of their own. Also, Lok and Crawford (1999) suggest that if the overall organizational culture is not strong enough, or not communicated enough, the subcultures may take over.

Not really surprising, differences in individual’s reaction to voice also matter (Morrison, 2011). Personal outcomes of voice may depend on the assumptions of employees and managers about proactive behavior (Morrison, 2011). If one colleague thinks he acts very proactive if he brings coffee to a general meeting and the other colleagues thinks he is very proactive when he brings new ideas into that meeting, than there is a conflict in concepts. It should be generally known in the company what proactive behavior is and if this is supported or not. When employees know what is expected of them, they can act upon it. It makes it a lot easier for employees to share their ideas and opinions in the group, when they know that this kind of behavior is supported. Employees are less afraid to speak when they know that there are limited chances of a negative response (Morrison, Wheeler-Smith, & Kamdar, 2011). People weigh all their options when they want to share an idea. When there a less negative

(48)

than positive consequences, they ultimately will engage in proactive behavior (Morrison, Wheeler-Smith, & Kamdar, 2011).

A variety of other individual-level attributes have been investigated in relation to voicing behavior. However, the theory in this area is not clear. Previous studies have investigated if there are gender differences in voice, but those results are very mixed. The results found for experience and tenure present a clearer picture. Employees may be more willing to voice when they feel secure and safe about their ability to do so (Morrison, 2011). Accordingly, Deter and Burris (2007) showed that newer employees in the organizations voice less than veterans. New employees may feel that they lack credibility to voice effectively or that proactive behavior would put them in a bad light. Deter and Burris (2007) respondents reported that voicing could hurt their new public image. Also, veterans may feel the obligation to engage in proactive behavior because they feel a greater sense of investment. They might feel more secure when engaging in voicing behavior than new employees, because they already know the risks and rewards of this kind of behavior. It is shown that voicing behavior is positively related with organizational tenure. In this study, tenure could be used as a control variable for voice of coworkers.

As shown in the methodology, the Cronbach’s alpha of voice is rather low. It is below 0.6 and therefore not usable. Despite the (too) low alpha value, the voice variable was used in this study. As mentioned before, it is possible to delete two items to increase the reliability. Since the voicing behavior of coworkers is only measured with three items, deleting two items will results in the measurement of voice by only one item. In this case, the reliability will increase significantly. However, in the pilot test, which tested only the voicing variable, the Cronbach’s alpha was higher than 0.8. For this reason, it was surprising that the alpha turned out differently in the

The effect of voice on the mood of employees : enhanced by a voice climate