How proactive personality and different aspects of transformational leadership influence the quality of voice of employees

(1)

How Proactive Personality and Different Aspects of Transformational Leadership Influence the Quality of Voice of Employees.

Renée Ruigrok

June, 11, 2014

Master thesis under supervision of: Inge Wolsink

Word count: 6608 (excl. references and abstract) Student number: 10649557

(2)

Abstract

Voicing useful ideas and information leads to individual performance of employees (Detert & Burris, 2007; Detert & Treviño, 2010; LePine & Van Dyne, 2001; Morrison, 2011; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Therefore, understanding the antecedents of voice behavior is important. As earlier research on the antecedents of voice behavior have yielded mixed results, this study focused specifically on voice quality (the evaluation of voice). We investigated the interaction effect between proactive personality and two forms of transformational leadership (individual and inspirational leadership) on employee voice quality. Data were collected amongst seventy triads, consisting of a manager and two employees. Results showed that both individual leadership behavior and the proactive personality of employees predict voice quality of employees. However, there was no interaction effect. We conclude that there is a difference between inspirational and individual leadership and their influence on voice quality of employees, which has important practical and scientific implications.

Word Count: 150

(3)

~“Speak only if it improves upon the silence.”~ Mahatma Gandhi

Few leaders manage to get their company from good to great (Collins, 2001). But what differentiates the well performing companies from those performing exceptionally well? Previous studies suggest that communicating useful ideas and information in the work

environment contributes to individual performance of employees (Morrison, 2011; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Communicating ideas and information is commonly referred to as voice behavior (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; LePine & Van Dyne, 2001; Morrison, 2011; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998; Wolsink, Forthcoming). Voice behavior can have a positive influence on the effective functioning of organizations and, consequently, on the performance of companies overall (Ashford, Rothbard, Piderit, & Dutton, 1998; Janssen, De Vries, & Cozijnsen, 1998; Morrison, 2011; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000; Tan & Lim, 2009). Thus, employees can contribute to the performance of a company by engaging in voice behavior, for example, by communicating useful work related ideas, suggestions and problems towards their manager (Detert & Burris, 2007; Detert & Treviño, 2010; LePine & Van Dyne, 2001; Morrison, 2011; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Voice behavior is different from other types of communication as it is self-starting and has a change and improvement focus (Wolsink, Forthcoming). Furthermore, voice behavior can be defined as a form of extra-role behavior as it goes beyond the role expectation and is innovative and spontaneous behavior (Barnard, 1968; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Organ, 1990).

There has been quite some research on voice behavior as a whole (Ashford et al., 1998; Ashford, Sutcliffe, & Christianson, 2009; Crant, Kim, & Wang, 2011; Detert & Burris, 2007; Detert & Treviño, 2010; Janssen et al., 1998; Kanten & Ulker, 2012; Milliken,

Morrison, & Hewlin, 2003; Morrison, 2011; Saunders, Sheppard, Knight, & Roth, 1992; 3

(4)

Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). When talking about voice behavior, however, most often the focus is on how frequently employees speak up and not on how useful or improving voice behavior is. Understanding what stimulates useful and

improved voice behavior is important for both theoretical and practical reasons. Therefore, Wolsink (Forthcoming) divides voice behavior into voice quantity – how frequently

employees speak up – and voice quality – whether what employees say is useful. In spite of this distinction, different mechanisms that determine what stimulates voice quality remain understudied. To get a better understanding of this the contribution of this study is to investigate how different mechanisms relate to voice quality.

Detert and Burris (2007) described three elements that can have an influence on whether employees voice, which will be described as voice quantity from now on. The first element that influences voice quantity are the personal characteristics of employees.

Secondly, the attitude of employees can be a predictor for their voice behavior. For example, employees are more likely to voice if they are motivated to improve work conditions

(Rusbult, Farrell, Rogers, & Mainous, 1988). Lastly, the organizational context that employees are in can have an influence on their voice behavior.

The present study focuses on whether the first and third element described by Detert and Burris (2007) will also influence how useful or improving voice behavior of employees is, which we will describe as voice quality from now on. Firstly, the focus will be on the influence of proactive personality on voice quality. Having a proactive personality can be described as the relatively stable propensity to create or influence environmental change (Bateman & Crant, 1993; Wolsink, Forthcoming). For example, people who are generally inclined to show initiative or take action to be able to create environmental change.

(5)

Previous studies show how employee performance can be explained by extra-role behavior (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998) and how various mechanisms influence the likelihood that employees will voice ideas in order to reach organizational change (Janssen et al., 1998). However, it remains unclear whether the proactive personality of employees have an

influence on their voice quality. For example, will an employee with a proactive personality engage in more useful and improved voice behavior than employees with a less proactive personality? It will therefore be researched how employees’ proactive personality influences their voice quality.

Moreover, the focus of this study will be on the third element described by Detert and Burris (2007); the influence of the organizational context. We will investigate how leadership behavior affects voice quality of employees towards managers. Detert and Burris (2007) suggest the openness of a leader is positively related to voice. They focused mainly on voice quantity as they defined voice as the cautious act of communicating information aimed at organizational improvement (Detert & Burris, 2007). Other studies suggest employees who feel safe and supported are more likely to communicate their ideas, worries and suggestions (Detert & Treviño, 2010; Morrison, 2011). Whether employees feel supported and

encouraged is, for the greater part, determined by their leader (Detert & Burris, 2007). Nevertheless, it is not yet clear whether certain behaviors of managers influence the usefulness of what employees voice. For example, will the ability of managers to motivate their employees lead to qualitatively better voice behavior, compared to a manager who is not able to motivate their employees? It will therefore be investigated what the influence of managers’ behavior is on voice quality.

Based on the aforementioned questions, the goal of this study is to investigate the relationship between proactive personality and voice quality and address whether proactive personality and certain leadership characteristics interact in predicting voice quality.

(6)

This study is of practical relevance because understanding how contextual factors and personal characteristics of employees influence voice quality of employees is relevant for managers as useful and improving voice behavior can contribute to improved organizational performance (Ashford et al., 1998; Janssen et al., 1998; Morrison, 2011; Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1997; Tan & Lim, 2009; Wolsink, Forthcoming). When managers have a better understanding of how they can influence and stimulate their employees to voice useful and innovating ideas, the efficiency of managing organizational performance can be

improved.

Based on this, the current study will address the following research question: How does leadership behavior influence the relationship between proactive personality and voice quality?

Voice

As previously mentioned, voice behavior is a form of extra-role behavior and can be defined as behavior in which people voluntarily choose to communicate work-related ideas,

suggestions and worries in order to improve the performance of a team or organization (Detert & Burris, 2007; Detert & Treviño, 2010; LePine & Van Dyne, 2001; Morrison, 2011; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Voice is thus a specific form of communicating, since it is planned behavior for which employees consciously choose to engage in (Liang, Farh, & Farh, 2012). It can be used to bring about positive change to the situation or the environment at work (Seibert et al., 2001). To be able to bring about positive change, voice behavior challenges the status quo (LePine & Van Dyne, 2001). This spontaneous cooperative behavior is expected to be present in every good functioning organization (Barnard, 1968; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Organ, 1990). The previous studies mentioned earlier generally focused

(7)

on the action of voicing, which is different from voice quality. This is not a behavior per se, but an outcome or evaluation of behavior (Wolsink, Forthcoming).

The influence of various mechanisms on voice behavior has been investigated in previous studies (Detert & Burris, 2007; Janssen et al., 1998; Seibert et al., 2001), but the influence of specific personal characteristics on voice quality has not yet been researched. Therefore, the focus will now be on how the proactive personality of employees can influence voice quality.

The Positive Influence of Proactive Personality on Voice Quality

Previous research investigated whether personal characteristics have an influence on voice behavior (Crant et al., 2011; Detert & Burris, 2007; Janssen et al., 1998; Kanten & Ulker, 2012; Seibert et al., 2001), where the focus was mainly on voice quantity. One study shows the cognitive style preference of employees affects their likelihood to voice in organizations (Janssen et al., 1998). Two other studies show the proactive personality of employees is a predictor for voice behavior (Crant et al., 2011; Kanten & Ulker, 2012). However, another study suggests proactive people are more innovative, have more political knowledge and take more career initiative, but there was no relationship found with voice (Seibert et al., 2001). Those previous studies show mixed results and it is not yet clear what the effect of proactive personality is when voice quality is taken separately. Therefore, the focus will be on whether what proactive employees say is more useful than what less proactive employees say to their manager. Possible explanations will now be given for how someone’s proactive personality can have an influence on voice quality.

Firstly, proactive people are more change oriented than less proactive people (Crant, 2000). They are involved in constructive change rather than devastating criticism (Bateman & Crant, 1993). Proactive people can therefore be described as people who bring forth

(8)

change to their environment in a positive way (Seibert et al., 2001). Because proactive people want to bring forth positive change, we expect that those people will try to make what they say useful, to be able to positively change the environment.

Secondly, proactive employees have a stronger need to innovate. Seibert et al. (2001) found that proactive personality was positively related to innovation. To be able to innovate, employees need to voice their useful and innovative ideas towards their managers. Through this, qualitative voicing can be an effective way to be able to reach the specific innovation the proactive employees are aiming for (Bateman & Crant, 1993).

Because of the need of proactive employees to bring forth positive change and innovation, we expect that those employees to voice higher quality than less proactive employees. Based on those previous arguments we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 1: Proactive employees engage in voice behavior of higher quality towards their manger than less proactive employees.

The Positive Influence of Transformational Leadership on Voice Quality

The leadership style that is applied in an organization, as well as the relationship between the leader and an employee, can influence voice behavior of employees (Detert & Burris, 2007; Greenberg & Edwards, 2009). One specific leadership style is transformational leadership, which has its focus on motivating and influencing employees in order to reach organizational goals (Den Hartog, 2013).

Transformational leadership was explained by Bass’ four-fold of components of transformational leadership (Bass, 1985). These components are charismatic or idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. We will give possible explanations for how these components might influence voice quality.

(9)

Understanding the influence of the different components on voice quality is interesting as it shows the specific techniques leaders can use to stimulate voice quality, which is relevant for improving organizational performance (Ashford et al., 1998; Janssen et al., 1998; Morrison, 2011; Podsakoff et al., 1997; Tan & Lim, 2009; Wolsink, Forthcoming). Because of the practical relevance of understanding how the leadership style influences voice quality, the focus of this study will specifically be on transformational leadership

Firstly, the component of intellectual stimulation can lead to higher voice quality of employees as the leader encourages subordinates to challenge themselves to think outside the box to come up with new solutions for problems and think further to develop new plans (Bass & Stogdill, 1990; Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003). They stimulate their employees to do their work with greater devotion and encourage them to think in solutions rather than

problems (Detert & Burris, 2007). By creating a stimulating work environment the

component of intellectual stimulation creates better opportunities for employees to voice their useful and meaningful ideas (Ashford et al., 2009).

Secondly, the component of individualized consideration is expected to have a positive influence on voice quality. The leader encourages employees to seize new learning opportunities and to further develop themselves (Bass & Stogdill, 1990; Bass et al., 2003). This personal encouragement stimulate employees, which can result in higher voice quality (Crant, 2000; Milliken et al., 2003).

Those first two components mainly focus on the individual stimulation of employees. We expect this to positively influence employees’ voice quality as this can serve as a specific guidance for employees as to how they can improve the organizational environment. Because of the individual stimulation of those two components, we will refer to them together as Individual Leadership from now on. Based on this reasoning, we hypothesize:

(10)

Hypothesis 2: Individual leadership has a positive influence on the voice quality of employees.

The component, inspirational motivation, regards the way transformational leaders try to create challenging and meaningful work for their subordinates and by this, create

motivation and commitment from them (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Through this inspiring and positive way of communicating, the subordinates will aim for the higher goal of the

organization and consequently, reach exceptional goals (Bass & Stogdill, 1990; Bass et al., 2003; Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001; Yammarino, Spangler, & Bass, 1993). This possibly leads to higher voice quality from employees towards their managers.

The component of charismatic or idealized influence focuses on the values and ethics of the leader, which are important motivators for his behavior and decisions (Bass & Stogdill, 1990; Bass et al., 2003; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Because of those values and ethics of the leader, subordinates of those leaders can feel highly motivated and supported, creating trust in their leader. This trust can lead to commitment from employees to the job (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001) and enhanced feelings of psychological safety (Detert & Burris, 2007). However, it is not clear whether the feeling of psychological safety and commitment, as well as the charismatic way of inspiring employees, have a positive influence on voice quality of employees.

The components of inspirational motivation and charismatic influence are focused on inspiring employees by the charismatic behavior of the leader. Therefore, we will refer to those components as Inspirational Leadership from now on. Therefore, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 3: Inspirational Leadership has an influence and voice quality of employees.

(11)

The Interactive Effects of Proactive Personality and Components of Transformational Leadership on Voice Quality

We will now focus on how transformational leadership can have an influence on the positive relationship between proactive personality and voice quality. Here again, the different

components of transformational leadership will be used. Understanding the influence of those different components on voice quality can be interesting, as it clarifies which specific

techniques leaders can use for both proactive and non-proactive employees to motivate them to voice their useful and improving ideas.

As stated earlier, less proactive people can think what they say might not be useful (Detert & Treviño, 2010). Because of the stimulating behavior of the leader to think of new solutions, seize new learning opportunities and develop new plans, as reflected in individual leadership (Bass & Stogdill, 1990; Bass et al., 2003; Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001;

Yammarino et al., 1993), employees can feel encouraged to voice their useful ideas which leads to higher voice quality of those less proactive employees. Since proactive employees are already self-confident about their voice quality (Detert & Treviño, 2010), we expect that individual stimulation from the leader will not have a big influence on voice quality of proactive employees.

Because of this reasoning, we expect the influence of individual leadership on voice quality to be bigger for less proactive employees than for more proactive employees. We therefore hypothesize:

Hypothesis 4: The influence of individual leadership on the relationship between proactive personality and voice quality is larger for less proactive employees than for more

proactive employees.

(12)

As explained earlier, inspirational leadership is focused on inspiring and challenging employees. This more abstract way of motivating employees can positively influence voice quality of employees who already know how they can create or influence environmental change (Bateman & Crant, 1993; Wolsink, Forthcoming). However, for less proactive employees who are not as conscious of their influence or contribution to environmental change, this abstract way of motivating can negatively influence their voice quality. We expect that they will feel intimidated by their leader rather than encouraged to voice useful or improving ideas. Through this, the charismatic or inspirational way of motivating can have a counterproductive result for voice quality of less proactive employees. Therefore, we

hypothesize:

Hypothesis 5: The influence of inspirational leadership on the relationship between proactive personality and voice quality is larger for more proactive employees than for less proactive

employees.

Design

This study was designed to test whether proactive personality predicts voice quality. Subsequently, it was supposed to test whether individual and inspirational leadership have an influence on the relationship between proactive personality and voice quality. We used an online questionnaire based survey as research design.

(13)

Methods

Measurement Model

(14)

Sample

In total, 70 triads delivered completed surveys, which resulted in a total of 210 surveys. Each triad consisted of a manager and two employees (co-workers). Voice quality was rated by the manager. Proactive personality and transformational leadership were rated at the employee level.

All (N=210) respondents were native Dutch speaking managers and employees. Men (64,29%) were somewhat overrepresented in the leader-sample, but this is a good example of the Dutch management population (Merens, Hartgers & Van Den Brakel, 2012). In the employee sample, men (48,57%) and women (51,43%) were equally represented. The average age of managers was 42,07 years (SD = 11,93) with an average tenure of 135,44 months (SD = 127,07). For the employees the average age was 33,21 years (SD = 12,31) with an average tenure of 96,40 months ( SD = 170,32). Respondents work in a variety of organizations, varying from private companies (35,71%), to retail organizations (17,14%) and health care institutions (4,29%).

Procedure

A group of 7 master students from the University of Amsterdam (UvA) collected survey responses in a direct manner, approaching the mangers and subordinates personally through e-mail or telephone. Either all three were contacted by the student to ask for their participation, or one of the three respondents asked the other two for their participation. Subsequently, appointments were arranged. On the morning of the appointment, reminder

(15)

mails were sent to both the employees and the manager. After the respondents signed the consent forms (Appendix A), an e-mail was sent in which the link could be found to the online surveys. Two different questionnaires were used for gathering the data; one filled in by managers and another one filled in by employees. The survey for managers took approximately 20 minutes to fill in, the survey for employees approximately 30 minutes.

Despite using online surveys (www.qualtrics.com), a researcher was present when surveys were filled out at the location requested by the respondents. This was done to motivate them to fill in the survey accurately and completely. Also, this enabled respondents to ask questions when needed. As the respondents were personally contacted and the researchers were present at the appointment, the response rate was high (92,11%). The non-response of 7,89% were because of incomplete triads or cancelled appointments.

When the respondents completed their survey, they received a small present to thank them for participating. Furthermore, an e-mail was sent to thank them again for their participation. In this e-mail the purpose of the study was also explained and their chance of winning a monetary reward was amplified (Appendix B). When all data gathering was finished, the respondents received a summary of the outcomes from the whole sample. The data were collected over a period of four months.

Measurements

Dependent variable: Voice quality

For voice quality, managers were asked to respond to 26 statements about their subordinates (Wolsink, Forthcoming). The managers were asked to evaluate these statements from their own point of view and rated the items on a 7-point scale ranging from (1) ‘does not apply at all’ to (7) ‘completely applies’. Six negatively formulated items were counterbalanced.

Furthermore, the scale consisted of multiple facets of originality, usefulness and flexibility of ideas. 14 statements focused on the originality of ideas. An example is:

(16)

‘Whenever my employee communicates a suggestion, it is usually (an) innovative (suggestion)’. 9 statements focused on the usefulness of ideas. An example statement is: ‘Advice from my employee is useful’. The last element was the flexibility of ideas. This element consisted of three statements. An example of such statement is: ‘Whenever my employee has an idea, he/she has also thought of different variations of this idea’.

Independent variable: Proactive Personality

Proactive personality of employees was measured using five questions from the 17-item scale of proactivity developed by (Bateman & Crant, 1993). One example question is: ‘Whatever the chances are, if I believe in something, I will make sure that it happens.’ All answer possibilities were based on a Likert scale ranging from (1) ‘strongly disagree’ to (5) ‘strongly agree’. One of the five questions was recoded, so that a higher score was tantamount to a more proactive personality. Since proactive personality was measured based on the personal judgment of employees, when proactive personality was discussed it was specifically about proactive personality as a trait, instead of proactive behavior of employees.

Transformational leadership

The moderator variable ‘transformational leadership’ was measured based on 12 questions developed by De Hoogh, Den Hartog and Koopman (2004). These questions were answered from the employees’ point of view. The scale measured aspects of individual and

inspirational transformational leadership that possibly separately influence voice quality. An example of an individual leadership item is: ‘My manager stimulates his employees to

develop their talents as much as possible.’ An example of an inspirational leadership item is: ‘My manager has a vision and a clear picture of the future’. These questions could be

answered using a 7-point scale ranging from (1) ‘totally disagree’ to (7) ‘totally agree’. A higher score indicated a more transformational leader (Appendix C).

(17)

Analyses and Predictions

In this study, two models tested the direct effects between all variables by looking at correlations and using linear regression analyses. The other two models tested the interaction effects using Process (Field, 2009). The first model tested whether proactive personality had a positive effect on voice quality. Based on the idea that proactive employees have a bigger need to bring forth positive change and innovation, we expected those employees to have higher voice quality than less proactive employees. Furthermore, this model tested our expected effect of individual leadership on voice quality. The second model tested whether there was an interaction effect of proactive personality and individual leadership on voice quality. We expected that individual leadership stimulates employees to think of new solutions, seize new learning opportunities and develop new plans leading to higher voice quality of less proactive employees. In the third model, the effect of inspirational leadership on voice quality was tested. In contrast to individual leadership, we expected that inspirational leadership would not lead to higher voice quality of less proactive employees, because this way of inspiring and challenging employees could be intimidating for those less proactive employees. This was tested in the fourth model.

(18)

Results

Participants

Data was collected amongst 76 triads of which 70 triads delivered completed surveys. This resulted in a total amount of 210 surveys. From the 210 respondents, 70 were managers and 140 were employees.

Exploratory Factor analysis

Both for transformational leadership and voice quality an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) with oblique rotation (direct oblimin) was conducted (Field, 2009). For voice quality we started with 26 items, 10 of which were removed after conducting an EFA (Table 3). Of the 16 items that were left for voice quality, 10 items focused on the originality of voice quality and 6 items focused on the usefulness of voice quality. With these 16 items the variable voice quality was computed.

Based on the theory, we expected that transformational leadership could be split up into two factors. The first factor was expected to be formed from the two components that focused on individual stimulation of employees by offering specific guidance as to how employees could contribute to improving the organizational environment. The other factor was expected to be formed by the two components that mainly focused on inspiring employees by the charismatic behavior of the leader. For transformational leadership we started with 12 items, of which two were removed after the EFA (Table 4). Of the 10 items left after conducting an EFA, as expected two constructs could be formed; an individual stimulation focused construct of six items and an employee inspiration focused construct of four items (for summary see appendix D).

For the proactive personality variable an EFA does not provide useful information. This variable will be further analyzed using reliability tests.

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

Reliabilities

After conducting reliability analyses, four different variables were computed. Voice quality consists of 16 items (α = 0.97), individual leadership consists of 6 items (α = 0.93) and inspirational leadership consists of 4 items (α = 0.87). Proactive personality consist of 5 items (α = 0.66).

Correlations

The hypotheses were tested by looking at correlations and by using two Process analyses. We expected a positive relationship between proactive personality and voice quality in the first model, based on the assumption that proactive employees aim for positive change and

innovation. Proactive personality and voice quality were positively related in our sample (r = .210, p < 0,05) supporting our first hypothesis. We also expected a positive relationship between individual leadership and voice quality. This was confirmed by the results showing a positive relationship between individual leadership and voice quality (r = .201, p < 0,05). This supports the second hypothesis that employees who state their leaders provide them with individual stimulation, get higher voice quality ratings from their leaders than employees who do not have individual stimulating leaders. As expected in the third model, the data showed no relationship between inspirational leadership and voice quality. This indicates that

employees who state that their leader focuses on inspiring and challenging employees do not get higher voice quality ratings from their leaders than employees who do not have an

(23)

inspirational leaders (r = .050, n.s.). This does not support the third hypothesis. Furthermore, there was a positive relationship between proactive personality and individual leadership (r = .329, p < 0.01). There was also a positive relationship between proactive personality and inspirational leadership (r = .226, p < 0,05). These correlations possibly indicate that individual and inspirational leaders are prone to give more attention to proactive employees than to less proactive employees, through which these leaders get higher individual and inspirational leadership ratings from their employees. Linear Regression analyses were conducted to check all direct effects. All coefficients corresponded with the correlation results.

Interaction Effects

To test the hypothesized interactions, two Process analyses were conducted, which focused on the second and fourth model. The second model tested whether there was an interaction

(24)

effect of proactive personality and individual leadership, on voice quality. We expected individual leadership positively influenced voice quality of less proactive employees, but not of more proactive employees. Together, they did not predict voice quality (b= -0.09, n.s.). The fourth hypothesis was not supported, indicating that there was no difference in voice quality for different types of proactive employees when the leader performed individual leadership behavior.

In the fourth model we tested whether there was an interaction effect between proactive personality and inspirational leadership on voice quality. In contrast to the expected moderating effect of individual leadership, we did not expect inspirational

leadership to lead to higher voice quality of less proactive employees. Together, they did not predict voice quality (b = -.02, n.s.). This does not support the fifth hypothesis: There was no difference in voice quality for different types of proactive employees when the leader was inspirational (Table 6 and 7).

(25)

Discussion

Our main goal was to show that proactive personality has a positive influence on voice quality and that voice quality of less proactive employees is higher when those employees have an individual transformational leader. Furthermore, we wanted to investigate whether having an inspirational transformational leader leads to higher voice quality of both less and more proactive employees.

Summary

The first hypothesis, which stated that employees with a proactive personality voice higher quality towards their manager than employees with a non-proactive personality, was supported. This can be explained by the goal of proactive employees to bring forth positive change to the environment, as well as their strong need to innovate (Bateman & Crant, 1993; Crant, 2000; Seibert et al., 2001). We assume that proactive employees voice higher quality, to be able to bring forth positive change and to reach the innovation they are aiming for.

The second hypothesis, whether individual leadership positively influences voice quality of employees, was supported: Employees with highly stimulating (individual) leaders reach higher voice quality. As predicted by the third hypothesis, however, there was no effect

(26)

of inspirational leadership on voice quality. The positive influence of individual leadership on voice quality compared to no influence of inspirational leadership on voice quality, can possibly be explained by the importance individuals place on voice quality. We assume as individual leaders find voice quality important, they will be more focused on voice quality of employees. Consequently, they will also report more voice quality than inspirational leaders, who are not specifically focused on voice quality of employees.

The fourth hypothesis stated that the influence of individual leadership on the relationship between proactive personality and voice quality is larger for less proactive employees than for more proactive employees. This (interaction) hypothesis was rejected. Due to the non-finding in the relationship between inspirational leadership and voice quality, the fifth (interaction) hypotheses was also not supported. The lack of support for those hypotheses indicates that both individual and inspirational leadership do not interact with proactive personality in predicting voice quality.

Contributions and Theoretical Implications

An important contribution of this study is that proactive employees voice higher quality than less proactive employees. Another important finding is that having an individual leader increases voice quality of employees. However, having an inspirational leader does not increase voice quality of employees. The findings that proactive personality predicts voice quality, as well as the different effects of individual and inspirational leadership on voice quality, have important theoretical and practical implications.

Our findings supporting the positive influence of proactive personality on voice quality complement earlier research by Detert and Burris (2007), who proposed that personal characteristics influence voice behavior of employees. Previous studies mainly investigated the act of voicing, rather than the outcome or evaluation of voice behavior (Wolsink, Forthcoming). This study adds to the literature by focusing on specific antecedents of voice

(27)

quality compared to investigating voice behavior in general. In addition, previous studies have shown mixed results about the influence of proactive personality on voice behavior. Thus, the current research adds to literature by specifically clarifying the relationship between proactive personality and voice quality.

Secondly, this study contributes to the literature by investigating the influence of different components of individual leadership, which focused on individually stimulating employees and inspirational leadership, which is focused on inspiring employees by charismatic leadership behavior, on voice quality. Previous studies have only shown the behavior of the leader influenced voice behavior (Detert & Burris, 2007; Greenberg & Edwards, 2009). We expected that individual leadership would lead to higher voice quality because individual leaders encourage and stimulate employees to think outside the box, seize new learning opportunities and voice solutions rather than problems (Bass & Stogdill, 1990; Bass et al., 2003; Crant, 2000; Detert & Burris, 2007; Milliken et al., 2003). This study confirms those expectations. However, the motivating and supporting behavior of inspirational leaders, which was expected to lead to trust and enhanced feelings of

psychological safety from the employees in the leader (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001; Detert & Burris, 2007) , did not lead to higher voice quality of employees. The fact that we found no relationship between inspirational leadership and voice quality indicates that inspirational leaders do not necessarily induce employees to voice higher quality. This can be explained by earlier literature, which suggests the strong personal vision of inspirational leaders can lead those leaders to be less receptive to alternative ideas and suggestions (Conger, 1998). In addition, this can lead to resistant behavior of employees, which can have an aversive effect on their voice quality (De Vries & Miller, 1986; Howell & Shamir, 2005).

(28)

Practical Implications

In our society, often people put inspirational leaders like Elon Musk (co-founder of PayPal) and Nelson Mandela on a pedestal. But is having an inspirational leader always of added value? Or is this leadership style only relevant in very few specific situations? The relation between inspirational leadership and voice quality is absent in this study. However,

individual leadership did predict voice quality of employees. This provides interesting insights for management trainings that are mainly focused on visionary and inspirational leadership. As the results do not support the positive influence of an inspirational charismatic leadership style on voice quality of employees, it might be interesting to shift the focus of those management trainings from inspirational leadership to other leadership styles, such as individual leadership. For example, managers could get training in personal coaching and the importance of personally encouraging and stimulating employees could be emphasized. By shifting the focus of those management trainings to individual leadership, those trainings can contribute to reaching better employee performance (Bass & Stogdill, 1990; Bass et al., 2003). This increased performance can positively influence the effective functioning of the organization, and consequently, contribute to the performance of companies overall (Ashford et al., 1998; Janssen et al., 1998; Morrison, 2011; Podsakoff et al., 2000; Tan & Lim, 2009).

The findings show that proactive personality predicts voice quality of employees also has important practical implications. Because of the important contribution of communicating useful information and ideas to organizational performance (Ashford et al., 1998; Janssen et al., 1998; Morrison, 2011; Podsakoff et al., 2000; Tan & Lim, 2009), it is relevant to recruit those people who voice high quality. Therefore, knowing that proactive personality predicts voice quality of employees is very important for increasing the efficiency of the recruitment process. Human Resource (HR) departments can then focus specifically on this personal characteristics when recruiting new people.

(29)

Strengths and Limitations

A strength of the present study is the multi-source design. This enabled testing the

relationships between variables measured at different levels, like managerial and employee level. Another strength was the way data were collected. By working together with a group of students, as well as being closely involved as researchers, it was possible to get a large

amount of respondents who delivered reliable data. However, by collecting data through snowball sampling, the way data were collected can also be seen as a limitation due to the fact that snowball sampling can lead to similarity in respondents. Even though data were collected this way, questionnaires were distributed without a specific focus on industry, sector or job level. Because of this, there was still a good distribution of gender, age and tenure, as well as a wide variety of companies the respondents worked in.

Another strength is the relationship which was found between proactive personality and voice quality. Researchers in previous multi-source experiments were not always able to find a relationship between proactive personality and voice behavior when using this

proactive personality scale (Belschak, Wolsink, & Den Hartog, Forthcoming). By selecting the right items for the proactive personality scale and conducting reliability analyses, we were able to find a positive relationship between proactive personality and voice quality.

A point of note is the subjectivity of the data, as all variables were answered from the respondents’ point of view. This can lead to deviant results, for example with regard to proactive personality, because employees may find it difficult to accurately judge their own personality and behavior. Another limitation of the present study is that the data were collected at only one point in time. Therefore, the design of the present study does not allow for determining whether there was a causal effect of individual leadership on voice quality of employees.

(30)

Future Research

Based on the positive influence of individual leadership on voice quality, future research should investigate whether individual leadership also has a positive influence on other

domains of behavior for employees. For example, by adding performance to the model, it can be investigated whether individual leadership has a general positive influence on performance of employees, or whether it is only a specific effect on voice quality of employees.

Furthermore, by not finding an influence of inspirational leadership on voice quality, future research should investigate whether inspirational leadership has an influence on other performance domains of employees. For example, does inspirational leadership have a positive influence on whether employees react in an efficient way to challenging work situations.

In addition, it is possible that employee performance, or other forms of employee behavior, mediate the relationship between individual leadership and voice quality. To test whether performance mediates this relationship, it is useful to measure performance using an objective third source, for example another colleague. When measuring performance in this objective way, it is independent from the respondents who also rate individual leadership or voice quality of the employee. This increases the objectivity and reliability of the

relationships in a multi-source design. Measuring performance through this objective manner can also be interesting to further clarify the non-finding in the relationship between

inspirational leadership and voice quality.

To get a better understanding of the relationship between individual leadership and voice quality, future research should furthermore investigate whether a causal relationship between individual leadership and voice quality of employees exists. This can be done by gathering data in project based teams. Individual leadership and voice quality of employees should then be measured at the start of a project, after working together for several weeks

(31)

(e.g. eight weeks), and at the end of the project (e.g. after sixteen weeks). When measuring individual leadership and voice quality at different points in time and leadership behavior is measured from leaders who are new at the project or team, it is possible to accurately investigate the causal effect of individual leadership on voice quality.

Detert and Burris (2007) noted that personal characteristics can predict voice behavior of employees. More specifically, Janssen et al., (1998) showed that innovators can serve as models in being creative, decisive and who are able to find solutions for problems, are more likely to deliver voice ideas of higher quality than adaptors. As higher voice quality can lead to higher organizational performance (Ashford et al., 1998; Janssen et al., 1998; Morrison, 2011; Podsakoff et al., 2000; Tan & Lim, 2009), it is important for HR to know which personal characteristics positively influence voice quality. This enables HR to hire those employees who contribute to the performance of the company. Therefore, it is interesting to further investigate the relationship between proactive personality and voice quality and whether this relationship is mediated by other personal characteristics, for example being innovative or self-confident.

Conclusion

The results of our study emphasize the importance of separately investigating the antecedents of voice quality, compared to voice behavior overall. We showed that proactive employees voice higher quality. Based on mixed results from previous studies on voice behavior, we suggest further research on the antecedents of voice quality specifically. In addition,

researchers interested in employee performance have long focused on the interplay between transformational leadership and personal characteristics of employees and its effects on employee performance (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001; Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012; Detert & Burris, 2007; Liu, Zhu, & Yang, 2010). In this study, transformational leadership was split up in individual- and inspirational leadership, for which the results showed that

(32)

individual leadership influenced voice quality of employees, compared to no influence of inspirational leadership on voice quality. This shows the importance of further investigating the influence of the different leadership styles separately.

(33)

References

Ashford, S. J., Rothbard, N. P., Piderit, S. K., & Dutton, J. E. (1998). Out on a limb: The role of context and impression management in selling gender-equity issues. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(1), 23-57.

Ashford, S. J., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Christianson, M. K. (2009). Speaking up and speaking out: The leadership dynamics of voice in organizations. In J. Greenberg & M. S. Edwards (Eds.), Voice and Silence in Organizations (175-202). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Barnard, C. I. (1968). The functions of the executive. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207-218.

Bass, B. M., & Stogdill, R. M. (1990). Handbook of leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 103-118.

Belschak, F. D., Wolsink, I., & Den Hartog, D.N. (Forthcoming).

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap--and others don't. New York: HarperCollins.

(34)

Conger, J. A. (1990). The dark side of leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 19(2), 44-55.

Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435-462.

Crant, J. M., Kim, T., & Wang, J. (2011). Dispositional antecedents of demonstration and usefulness of voice behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(3), 435-462.

De Hoogh, A., Den Hartog, D., & Koopman, P. (2004). De ontwikkeling van de CLIO: Een vragenlijst voor charismatisch leiderschap in organisaties. Gedrag En Organisatie, 17(5), 354-381.

De Vries, M. F., & Miller, D. (1986). Personality, culture, and organization. Academy of Management Review, 11(2), 266-279.

Charismatic (and ethical) leadership – insights from Research. : Charismatic (and ethical) leadership – insights from Research. : University of Amsterdam, Theories of Leadership and Management (2013).

Den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L. (2001). Leadership in organizations. In N.

Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial,

work, and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, 166-187). London, UK: Sage.

Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2012). When does transformational leadership enhance employee proactive behavior? The role of autonomy and role breadth self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 194.

Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869-884.

(35)

Detert, J. R., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Speaking up to higher-ups: How supervisors and skip-level leaders influence employee voice. Organization Science, 21(1), 249-270.

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London, UK: Sage.

Greenberg, J., & Edwards, M. S. (2009). Voice and silence in organizations. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 96-112.

Janssen, O., De Vries, T., & Cozijnsen, A. J. (1998). Voicing by adapting and innovating employees: An empirical study on how personality and environment interact to affect voice behavior. Human Relations, 51(7), 945-967.

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755-768.

Kanten, P., & Ulker, F. E. (2012). A relational approach among perceived organizational support, proactive personality and voice behaviour. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 62, 1016-1022.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.

LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 853-868.

LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with big five

(36)

personality characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(2), 326-336.

Liang, J., Farh, C. I., & Farh, J. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 71-92.

Liu, W., Zhu, R., & Yang, Y. (2010). I warn you because I like you: Voice behavior, employee identifications, and transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 189-202.

Merens, Hartgers & Van Den Brakel. (2012). Emancipatiemonitor 2012. Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.

doi:file:///C:/Users/10649557/Downloads/Emancipatiemonitor%202012_Web_2.pdf

Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why*. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1453-1476.

Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373-412.

Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12(1), 43-72.

Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 262-270.

(37)

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513-563.

Rusbult, C. E., Farrell, D., Rogers, G., & Mainous, A. G. (1988). Impact of exchange variables on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: An integrative model of responses to declining job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 31(3), 599-627.

Saunders, D. M., Sheppard, B. H., Knight, V., & Roth, J. (1992). Employee voice to supervisors. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 5(3), 241-259.

Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology, 54(4), 845-874.

Tan, H. H., & Lim, A. K. (2009). Trust in coworkers and trust in organizations. The Journal of Psychology, 143(1), 45-66.

Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108-119.

Wolsink, I. (Forthcoming). On the differences between voice actions and outcomes: The ability to control attention facilitates quality of voice outcomes.

Yammarino, F. J., Spangler, W. D., & Bass, B. M. (1993). Transformational leadership and performance: A longitudinal investigation. The Leadership Quarterly, 4(1), 81-102.

(38)

Appendix A a) Informed consent bij standaardonderzoek

‘Ik verklaar hierbij op voor mij duidelijke wijze te zijn ingelicht over de aard en methode van het onderzoek, zoals uiteengezet in de bovenstaande informatie brochure ‘Prestatie en

Innovatie’. Mijn vragen zijn naar tevredenheid beantwoord.

Ik stem geheel vrijwillig in met deelname aan dit onderzoek. Ik behoud daarbij het recht deze instemming weer in te trekken zonder dat ik daarvoor een reden behoef op te geven en besef dat ik op elk moment mag stoppen met het experiment. Indien mijn onderzoeksresultaten gebruikt zullen worden in wetenschappelijke publicaties, dan wel op een andere manier openbaar worden gemaakt, zal dit volledig geanonimiseerd gebeuren. Mijn persoonsgegevens zullen niet door derden worden ingezien zonder mijn uitdrukkelijke toestemming.

Als ik nog verdere informatie over het onderzoek zou willen krijgen, nu of in de toekomst, kan ik me wenden tot de onderzoeker: ………..……….. (e-mail: ………...……...) of de coördinator: Inge Wolsink (i.wolsink@uva.nl). Voor eventuele klachten over dit onderzoek kunt u zich wenden tot het hoofd van de afdeling Human Resource Management: Deanne Den Hartog (D.N.denHartog@uva.nl)

Aldus in tweevoud getekend:

……… ………

Naam deelnemer Handtekening

‘Ik heb toelichting verstrekt op het onderzoek. Ik verklaar mij bereid nog opkomende vragen over het onderzoek naar vermogen te beantwoorden.’

……… ………

Naam onderzoeker Handtekening

(39)

Appendix B

(40)

Appendix C

Voice quality

In hoeverre zijn de volgende stellingen van toepassing op uw werknemer? 1. De adviezen van mijn werknemer zijn nuttig.

(1) Helemaal niet van toepassing (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Helemaal van toepassing

2. Als een ander met een idee komt, draagt mijn werknemer nuttige toevoegingen aan. (1) Helemaal niet van toepassing (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Helemaal van toepassing

3. De ideeën van mijn werknemer zijn goed toepasbaar.

4. Als mijn werknemer suggesties doet heeft men hier weinig aan.

5. Ideeën van mijn werknemer zijn vaak toepasbaar onder verschillende omstandigheden. (1) Helemaal niet van toepassing (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Helemaal van toepassing

6. Als mijn werknemer met een nieuw product/methode komt, dan is dit op nauwkeurige wijze uitgewerkt.

7. Mijn werknemer heeft een verfrissende mening.

(41)

8. De suggesties van mijn werknemer zijn origineel.

9. De adviezen van mijn werknemer zin weinig vernieuwend.

10. Als mijn werknemer met een idee komt is dit origineel.

11. Ideeën van mijn werknemer zijn voorspelbaar.

12. Het advies van mijn werknemer geeft mijn geen nieuwe inzichten.

13. Als mijn werknemer met een suggestie komt, is dit meestal vernieuwend.

14. De mening van mijn werknemer is origineel.

15. Suggesties die mijn werknemer doet zijn innovatief.

(42)

16. Als mijn werknemer zijn/haar zorgen uit over processen die niet optimaal functioneren is dit waardevol.

17. Mijn werknemer bedenkt niet alleen ideeën voor onze afdeling, maar ook voor andere afdelingen binnen dit bedrijf.

18. De ideeën van mijn werknemer zijn in de praktijk slecht uitvoerbaar.

19. Mijn werknemer denkt na over hoe zijn/haar ideeën later geïmplementeerd moeten worden.

20. Als mijn werknemer met een idee komt heeft hij/zij ook al nagedacht over variaties op dit idee.

21. Als mijn werknemer zijn/haar mening geeft, gaat dit om belangrijke zaken.

22. Als mijn werknemer een advies geeft, is dit verfrissend.

(43)

23. Als mijn werknemer een idee aandraagt, is dit vernieuwend.

24. Suggesties van mijn werknemer zijn voorspelbaar.

25. De ideeën van mijn werknemer zijn innovatief.

26. Mijn werknemer komt met originele adviezen.

Proactive Personality

1. Er is niks spannender dan mijn eigen ideeën werkelijkheid te zien worden.

(1) Helemaal niet mee eens (2) Oneens (3) Eens/oneens (4) Mee eens (5) Helemaal mee eens

2. Wat de kansen ook zijn, als ik ergens in geloof, zorg ik dat het gebeurt.

3. Ik ben er goed in om problemen om te zetten in mogelijkheden.

4. Ik heb de neiging anderen het initiatief te laten nemen in het opstarten van nieuwe projecten. (counterbalanced)

(1) Helemaal niet mee eens (2) Oneens (3) Eens/oneens (4) Mee eens (5) Helemaal mee eens 43

(44)

5. Ik blink uit in het herkennen van mogelijkheden.

Transformational leadership Mijn leidinggevende…

1. Praat met medewerkers over wat voor hen belangrijk is

(1) Helemaal niet mee eens (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Helemaal mee eens

2. Stimuleert medewerkers om op nieuwe manieren over problemen na te denken

3. Heeft visie en een helder beeld van de toekomst

4. Straalt vertrouwen uit in zijn/haar visie en ideeën

5. Moedigt medewerkers aan om onafhankelijk te denken

6. Is in staat anderen enthousiast te maken voor zijn/haar plannen

7. Betrekt medewerkers bij besluiten die van belang zijn voor hun werk

(45)

8. Stimuleert medewerkers hun talenten zo goed mogelijk te ontwikkelen

9. Geeft medewerkers het gevoel aan een belangrijk en gemeenschappelijk doel te werken

10. Laat zien overtuigd te zijn van zijn/haar idealen, opvattingen en waarden

11. Is altijd op zoek naar nieuwe mogelijkheden voor de unit of organisatie

12. Delegeert uitdagende verantwoordelijkheden aan medewerkers

(46)

Appendix D Factor analyses

An exploratory factor analysis, principal components method with direct Oblimin rotation, is conducted on the items of Voice Quality and Transformational Leadership. The factor analysis is used to maximize the explained variance by the least possible explanatory constructs. Direct Oblimin rotation is chosen as it is expected that the factors are related (Field, 2009). All items with factor loadings lower than 0,5 will be removed, as only the factors with higher loadings match the factor sufficiently. When testing for interaction, centering can be important. This is automatically done when conducting the Process analyses (Field, 2009).

Transformational Leadership

The variable of Transformational Leadership was first investigated as one factor, with high loadings overall with a total of 63,34% variance explained (Appendix D:TL Figure 1). There are two items with communalities lower than 0,05. Based on this and the theory,

Transformational Leadership can be divided into two separate factors, with one factor focusing on individual stimulation of employees (intellectual stimulation and individual consideration) and one factor with items which focus inspiring employees (charisma and inspirational motivation). The total variance explained is then 71,12% (Appendix 4:TL Figure 2). Communalities increase when the construct is separated into two factors, with only one item scoring below 0,5 (0,461 for item 12). When this item is removed, all

communalities are above 0,5 (Appendix D:TL Figure 3), the explained variance is 73,88%. There is one item that theoretically does not fit in well with the factor (item “able to enthuse other for his/her plans), even though it scores high on that factor. Based on the theory, this item is removed, after which the explained variance increases to 74,08% and two statistically

(47)

and theoretically clear factors are shown and there are no cross loading items (communalities all above 0,5) (Appendix D:Figure 4). Of the 10 items that are left for Transformational Leadership, two constructs can be formed; an employee stimulation focused construct of six items and employee inspiration focused construct of four items. The construct focused on stimulating employees is assumed to positively influence voice quality of less proactive employees. The construct focused inspiring employees is expected to positively influence voice quality of proactive employees.

Voice Quality

The variable of Voice Quality was first investigated with min eigenvalue >1. However, five factors were extracted with 72,15% variance explained and one item with communalities below 0,5. Based on the theory, Voice Quality can be divided into two or three separate factors, with factors focusing on originality, usefulness and flexibility. When two factors are extracted, a total of 57,1% is explained (Appendix D:Figure 7). Communalities decrease, with eight communalities below 0,5. However, when three factors are extracted, the total variance explained increases to 63,81% with six communalities below 0,5 (Appendix

D:Figure 8). Based on the theory, the factor analysis is forced into extracting two factors and the counterbalanced items are removed. Now, two clear factors are visible with 67,83% variance explained (Appendix D:Figure 9). However, there are still items with communalities below 0,5. When those items are removed a total variance of 72,88% is explained (Appendix D: Figure 10). Lastly, there is one item which has cross loadings and is therefore removed (Appendix D:Figure 11). Then, the explained variance is 74,88% and two statistically and theoretically clear factors are shown (Appendix D:Figure 11). There are now 16 items left for Voice Quality with 10 items which focus on the originality of voice quality and 6 items which focus on the usefulness of voice quality. With these 16 items the variable Voice Quality will be computed.

(48)

Proactive Personality

A Exploratory Factor Analysis for the variable of Proactive Personality does not give any useful information. This variable will be further analyzed using reliability tests.

(49)

(50)

(51)

(52)

(53)

(54)

(55)

(56)

Appendix E

Syntax

DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet1.

FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=Gender_M Months_of_service_M Sector_M Sector_other_M Age_M VQL_O1_MR

VQL_O2_MR VQL_O3_MR VQL_O4_MR VQL_O5_MR VQL_O6_MR VQL_O7_MR VQL_O8_MR VQL_O9_MR VQL_O10_MR

VQL_O11_MR VQL_O12_MR VQL_O13_MR VQL_O14_MR VQL_F1_MR VQL_F2_MR VQL_U1_MR VQL_U2_MR VQL_U3_MR

VQL_U4_MR VQL_F3_MR VQL_U5_MR VQL_U6_MR VQL_U7_MR VQL_U8_MR VQL_U9_MR

/STATISTICS=STDDEV MINIMUM MAXIMUM MEAN SKEWNESS KURTOSIS /ORDER=ANALYSIS.

FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=Gender_E Age_E Tenure_E sector_E sector_other_E PP1_E PP2_E PP3_E PP4_E PP5_E

TL1_E TL2_E TL3_E TL4_E TL5_E TL6_E TL7_E TL8_E TL9_E TL10_E TL11_E TL12_E

/STATISTICS=STDDEV MINIMUM MAXIMUM MEAN SKEWNESS KURTOSIS /ORDER=ANALYSIS.

DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=VQL_O1_MR VQL_O2_MR VQL_O3_MR VQL_O4_MR VQL_O5_MR VQL_O6_MR VQL_O7_MR

VQL_O8_MR VQL_O9_MR VQL_O10_MR VQL_O11_MR VQL_O12_MR VQL_O13_MR VQL_O14_MR VQL_F1_MR VQL_F2_MR

VQL_U1_MR VQL_U2_MR VQL_U3_MR VQL_U4_MR VQL_F3_MR VQL_U5_MR VQL_U6_MR VQL_U7_MR VQL_U8_MR VQL_U9_MR

Gender_M Months_of_service_M Age_M PP1_E PP2_E PP3_E PP4_E PP5_E PE1_E PE2_E PE3_E PE4_E PE5_E

TL1_E TL2_E TL3_E TL4_E TL5_E TL6_E TL7_E TL8_E TL9_E TL10_E TL11_E TL12_E Gender_E Age_E Tenure_E

/STATISTICS=MEAN STDDEV MIN MAX KURTOSIS SKEWNESS.

EXAMINE VARIABLES=VQL_O1_MR VQL_O2_MR VQL_O3_MR VQL_O4_MR VQL_O5_MR VQL_O6_MR VQL_O7_MR VQL_O8_MR

VQL_O9_MR VQL_O10_MR VQL_O11_MR VQL_O12_MR VQL_O13_MR VQL_O14_MR VQL_F1_MR VQL_F2_MR VQL_U1_MR

VQL_U2_MR VQL_U3_MR VQL_U4_MR VQL_F3_MR VQL_U5_MR VQL_U6_MR VQL_U7_MR VQL_U8_MR VQL_U9_MR Gender_M

Sector_M

/PLOT BOXPLOT HISTOGRAM NPPLOT /COMPARE GROUPS /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES /CINTERVAL 95 /MISSING LISTWISE /NOTOTAL. 56