The Social Effects of Voice Behavior:
A Study of Employees’ Voice Behavior towards Coworkers in Organizations
MSc in Business Studies – Leadership and Management Supervisor: Renske van Geffen
Second Supervisor: Dr. Wendelien van Eerde University of Amsterdam – ABS
09-06-2014
Master Thesis Business Studies
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
2 Table of contents Abstract ... 4 1. Introduction ... 5 2. Conceptual Background ... 82.1 Proactivity and Voice Behavior in Organizations ... 8
2.1.1 Promotive and Prohibitive Voice behavior ... 9
2.2 Coworker Trust in Teams ... 10
2.3 Self-Efficacy and the link to Role Breadth Self-Efficacy (RBSE) ... 11
2.4 Transformational Leadership ... 14
2.6 Research Model ... 16
Methods ... 17
3.1 Design ... 17
3.2 Measurement of variables ... 18
3.2.1 Independent variable: Role breadth self-efficacy (RBSE) ... 18
3.2.2 Mediating variable: Voice behavior ... 18
3.2.3 Dependent variable: Trust ... 19
3.2.4 Moderating variable: Transformational Leadership ... 19
3.3 Procedure ... 19
3.4 Analyses and Predictions ... 20
Results ... 21
4.1 Descriptives ... 21
4.2 Regression ... 22
4.3 Mediation ... 25
4.4 Moderation ... 26
4.5 Moderated Mediation Model ... 27
Discussion ... 27 5.1 Summary of results ... 27 5.2 Hypotheses ... 28 5.3 Unpredicted results ... 29 5.4.1 Theoretical implications ... 31 5.4.2 Practical implications ... 32
5.5 Strengths and limitations ... 33
5.6 Agenda for future research ... 34
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
3
References ... 38 Appendix ... 49
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
4 Abstract
Due to the rapidly changing environment, employees are expected to behave more proactively in organizations. However, it is less clear what the social effects of proactive behavior are. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine whether employees’ voice behavior- a form of proactive behavior- mediates the relationship between employees’ role breadth self-efficacy (RBSE) and team trust. It was also studied whether transformational leadership moderates the relationship between employees’ role breadth self-efficacy and employees’ voice behavior. The hypotheses were tested with a sample of 212 Dutch employees, currently under employment. Findings indicated that employees’ RBSE leads to voice behavior in organizations and that, in turn, voice behavior leads to trust in work teams. The most important findings in this study were that voice behavior does not mediate the relationship between RBSE and team trust and that transformational leadership does not moderate the relationship between RBSE and voice behavior. The theoretical and practical implications are discussed, as well as future research opportunities.
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
5
1. Introduction
Important changes in organizations have affected the workplace recently (Herman, 1999). A few examples of these changes are globalization, employee diversity, the
replacement of hierarchical management by self-directed work teams and the rapidly advancing technology (Herman, 1999). Furthermore, organizations expect that ‗in a rapidly changing environment… individuals rapidly change what they are doing and in some cases, change the skills that they have in order to perform in new and different ways‘ (Lawler, 1994, p. 5). As a result of these changes, organizations expect employees to behave more
proactively in order to respond to the competitive challenges nowadays (Cohen & Ledford, 1994). According to an HR director of DreamWorks Animations—the studio behind movies like Shrek, Madagascar and Kung-Fu Panda— ‗people are needed that do not only sit at their desk and solve a problem, but that are then be able to articulate that solution to their
supervisor and their team‘ (DreamWorks, 2012). Proactive behavior can be expressed in different ways; examples of these are mentally supporting coworkers or suggesting
improvements for the organization. These expressions of proactive behavior are beneficial for coworkers and should not be neglected because they can increase the effectiveness of an organization (Ng & Feldman, 2013). The examples of proactive behavior that were just mentioned are termed ―voice behavior,‖ a recently developed term in order to distinguish proactive behavior in different forms (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998).
Some research has focused primarily on individual facets that make employees want to voice their ideas (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). Other research has found the importance of leadership in motivating employees to express voice behavior (Detert & Burris, 2007). However, although quite some research has been done on the effects and constructs of voice behavior, the literature has left unanswered the question as to whom employees show voice behavior (Liu, Zhu & Yang, 2010). Also, at this point, little is known about the social effects
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
6
of employees who speak up to their coworkers, as confirmed by Parker, Bindle and Strauss (2010), who mention that little attention has been given to broader social constructs in the voice behavior literature. Employees may show voice behavior by ‗speaking up‘ to their supervisor, but may also speak up to their coworkers (Anderson & Martin, 1995). These constructs of showing voice behavior remain unanswered and therefore, this study will focus on how employees make these choices of being closed up or show voice behavior to their coworkers.
More specifically, managers need to understand coworker interactions. When
employees show voice behavior, they expect social contributions in return. According to the social exchange theory, one of these is trust. Therefore, if employees show voice behavior, they can expect trust from their coworkers (Emerson, 1987). Moreover, the amount of coworker trust was found a predictor of trust in companies (Tan & Lim, 2009). With this in mind, this breeds the notion that companies should promote trust, doing so by advocating such practices as clear and open communication networks (Tan & Lim, 2009). This leads not only to trust in an organization, but also to other possible work outcomes perhaps, for
example, satisfaction, which is positively related to organizational performance according to the authors (Tan & Lim, 2009).
Moreover, it could be that specific factors influence whether or not employees choose to voice their suggestions (Detert & Burris, 2007). For example, it could be argued that specific types of leadership will influence whether or not employees decide to express their ideas, because it has been found that specific behaviors of leaders could lead to voice behavior (Detert and Burris, 2007). Also, the fact that employees feel confident about their own capabilities could influence their voice behavior, because this confidence raises feelings of control, which is crucial for proactive behavior (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). Therefore, the overarching aim of this study is to examine and clarify the social effects of voice behavior by
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
7
analyzing whether the relationship between employees‘ role breadth self-efficacy, a form of self-confidence in capabilities at work, and team trust is mediated by employees‘ voice behavior. In this way, this study tries to fill the gap in the literature, as Ng and Feldman (2013) mention, and further attention is needed to voice behavior and the social outcomes of this behavior in the workplace. By conducting this study, managers will be provided with ways of how to promote coworkers‘ trust in organizations. This could result in the trust in the organization being enhanced, which could lead to positive effects on work outcomes, like performance in organizations (Emerson, 1987). Performance in organizations is linked to beneficial outcomes such as innovation, a quality that is necessary in order to survive in the rapidly changing environment of today (Calantone, Cavusgil & Zhao, 2002). Also, managers will be given ways and ideas as to how and why employees show voice behavior and what variables might impact this behavior. This is of extreme importance and relevance, because the innovation process may very well stop when employees do not voice their ideas that are needed in order to keep expanding. Voice behavior also enhances feelings of control, which has its positive effects in satisfaction and motivation (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998).
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
8
2. Conceptual Background
2.1 Proactivity and Voice Behavior in Organizations
Proactive behavior was first mentioned in the literature of the 1970s and 1980s as a reaction on the perspectives that conceptualized employees as passive respondents. These perspectives were equity theory, expectancy theory, need theory and goal-setting theory (Grant & Ashford, 2008). It became clear that employees want to develop themselves in terms of capabilities at work and strive for expansion of their knowledge and skills through
proactive behavior (Grant & Ashford, 2008). This is how the concept proactive behavior emerged (Grant & Ashford, 2008).
A first characteristic of this behavior, which entails an important distinction from passive behavior, is acting in advance. Proactive employees act and think beforehand with a strong focus on the future (Frese & Fray, 2001). This means that employees envision a future outcome and thus modify solutions in order to arrive at that goal (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1997; Grant & Ashford, 2008). A second characteristic of proactive behavior is intended impact. Proactive employees want to make a difference (Grant & Ashford, 2008). They focus on changing the self, others, or the context in which they are situated (Grant & Ashford, 2008). In order to innovate, scholars have argued for the importance of voice behavior, a specific form of proactive behavior, because it has been shown that voice behavior leads to innovation in organizations, which is necessary in order to survive in this fast-changing world (Ng & Feldman, 2013; Argyris & Schon, 1978; Calantone et al., 2002).
Voice behavior can be defined as expressing suggestions or opinions about issues at work with the intention to improve the situation in the organization (Le Pine & Van Dyne, 1998). An example of voice behavior is when an employee suggests changing something at work, which might be a standard procedure which the employee wants to improve. This type of extra role behavior is related to challenging the status quo, which is a trait of proactive
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
9
behavior (Crant, 2000). For example, employees may challenge the status quo in keeping informed regarding issues that are affecting their work groups and are willing to speak up these issues. In this way, they attempt to improve the functioning of their work group (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). Furthermore, voice behavior is also a form of planned behavior, because employees choose to engage in voice behavior only after weighing the benefits and costs of it (Liang, Farh & Farh, 2012).
Positive effects for proactive behavior in organizations have been found, for example performance enhancement in organizations (Grant, Parker & Collins, 2009). Similarly, advantages in terms of well-being are present, such as job satisfaction (Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000) and effective commitment (Den Hartog & Belschak, 2007). In terms of teams, team effectiveness and team-level job satisfaction are both refined (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). Furthermore, organizations can detect employees‘ dissatisfaction when those workers reveal their ideas (Zhou & George, 2001).More specifically, if individuals have ideas but do not voice them, the innovation process could cease, as has been mentioned in the introduction. Furthermore, voice behavior stabilizes feelings of control. Feelings of control could lead to benefits like satisfaction and motivation.
2.1.1 Promotive and Prohibitive Voice behavior
Having explained voice behavior in terms of its positive effects, critics of the voice behavior construct argue that much of the research on voice behavior merely focuses on the ‗promotive‘ aspects of voice behavior and that less research has focused on the ‗prohibitive‘ aspects of voice behavior (Liang et al., 2012). Promotive voice behavior can be defined as employees that show ideas or suggestions to improve the situation at the work floor. The term is about challenging the status quo. It is called ‗promotive‘ in the way that the focus is on a future ideal position (Liang et al., 2012).
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
10
work practices or employee behavior that are harmful to the organization. Prohibitive voice behavior may induce conflict among coworkers, primarily because the focus is on individuals‘ concern about practices that may harm the organization (Liu et al., 2010). Whistle-blowing is seen as an extreme example of prohibitive behavior. This study will focus on the promotive aspect of voice behavior, because it is seen as a more innovation-oriented type of voice behavior. Furthermore, it is associated with a more improvement and future-oriented and seen as positive, while prohibitive voice behavior is more about conflicting thoughts and harmful practices and thus can be seen as negative (Liu et al., 2010). Therefore, promotive voice
behavior fits more into the research questions of this study.
2.2 Coworker Trust in Teams
Based on empirical research, Sivadas and Dwyer (2000) created the social interaction construct, which consists of three dimensions, namely: trust, communication, and
coordination. Trust is a multi-dimensional construct (Hart, Capps, Cangemi & Caillouet, 1986) and has its roots in social exchange theory (Blau, 1964).Trust exists when ‗one party has confidence in an exchange partner‘s reliability and exchange‘ (Morgan & Hunt, 1994, p. 23). This definition comes from the classic view that ‗trust is a willingness to rely on an
exchange partner in whom one has confidence‘ (Rotter, 1967, p. 651). It is clear that both definitions rely on confidence. Another definition makes it apparent that ‗trust in another party reflects an expectation or belief that the other party will act benevolently.
Trust has positive relationships with various work outcomes, such as performance (Early, 1986), empowerment (Gomez & Rosen, 2001), commitment, and innovation (Ruppel & Harrington, 2000). Similarly, trust is an important outcome, because trust between
individuals and work groups in organizations is important for the long-term stability of the organization and for the well-being of team members (Cook & Wall, 1980) Even more, Mohr & Spekman (1994) found in a study that success in organizations was characterized by greater
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
11 levels of trust.
Trust is a crucial social effect of voice behavior; voice behavior is risky behavior and therefore difficult to predict (Detert & Burris, 2007; LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). According to conflict literature, possible drawbacks of voice behavior are that voice behavior has been found to negatively relate to employee career progress (Seibert, Kraimer & Crant, 2001). Most importantly, LePine & Van Dyne (1998) found that voice behavior is likely to disrupt social relationships despite their beneficial outcomes on work performance. One of the reasons that were indicated most often for not willing to show voice behavior in the
workplace was the fear of a negative image and the negative relationships that might follow (Miliken, Morrison & Hewlin, 2003). An example of this is: ‗The person in charge is paranoid, I felt uncomfortable giving him any advice because he might lash out at me‘ (Miliken et al., 2003, pp. 1461, 1466). These damaging relationships could even result in sanctions against the person that gives suggestions that are challenging the status quo (Nemeth, 1986). However, when employees get increasing levels of trust towards their coworkers, they are more willing to show voice behavior despite the risks that are associated with it, because of confidence in the reliability of the coworker (Morgan & Hunt, 1994).
2.3 Self-Efficacy and the link to Role Breadth Self-Efficacy (RBSE)
After mentioning voice behavior and a social effect of this kind of proactive behavior, it should be considered what factors motive expressing voice behavior in the workplace. For example, a motivational concept is self-efficacy (Axtell & Parker, 2003). This term refers to how people perceive their ability to perform particular tasks. Employees with a high self-efficacy believe that they are of high value to the organization and have a relatively high social status among employees (Liang et al., 2012). This is of relevance, because a lack of status often restrains employees to show voice behavior (Miliken, Morrison & Hewlin, 2003). A meta analysis found a positive correlation between self-efficacy and performance at work
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
12
(Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). In addition, it has been discovered that self-efficacy edifies proactive behavior in organizations and increases willingness to take action because according to the expectancy theory, individuals show certain behavior if they assume that they will be successful and if the expected consequences will fulfill their expectations (Speier & Frese, 1997; Stajkoic & Luthans, 1998; Bandura, 1997l; Vroom, 1964). Also, employees who possess high self-efficacy do not need to be encouraged strongly to show proactive behavior (Speier & Frese, 1997).
RBSE focuses on proactive tasks, but is distinct from proactive behavior. Whereas proactive behavior is about the actual behaviors that are expressed, RBSE is concerned with the perceived capability to express these behaviors (Axtell & Parker, 2003). More specifically, RBSE has been defined as the way that employees believe that they are capable to perform a more and broader proactive role (Parker, 1998). RBSE has been
discovered to positively predict proactive behavior at work, because when one feels capable, successful and worthy, one is more willing to express these ideas in the form of proactive behavior than when he feels just the opposite of these behaviors (Crant, 2000; Parker, Williams & Turner, 2006; Parker & Collins, 2010). Furthermore, employees‘ RBSE was found to positively predict trust in a team, because employees with low levels of RBSE may feel stressed when being confronted with changes at the workplace, which will lead to inconvenience and mistrust in a team (Koch, Binnewies & Dormann, 2013). However, when employees feel confident about their tasks at work, team trust is fostered, because of the open-mindedness of employees, which will lead to trust according the authors (Koch et al., 2013). Although it is known from research that RBSE leads to voice behavior and that voice behavior could have positive effects, less is known about the mediating effect of voice behavior on RBSE and coworkers‘ trust in teams. Stated more succinctly, it is not yet known whether RBSE has an effect on trust and why voice behavior would play a role in this
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
13 relationship. Therefore, the first research question is:
(1) Does employees’ voice behavior mediate the relationship between employees’ RBSE and team trust?
As made clear, RBSE is concerned with employees‘ beliefs about the capabilities of performing specific roles in the organization. When employees feel that they are capable of doing their job, they will probably voice more suggestions, because feeling worthy makes employees want to share their ideas. Therefore, the first hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 1: Employees’ RBSE is positively related to employees’ voice behavior.
Furthermore, it is predicted that employees with high levels of RBSE will be more confident concerning their tasks at work and that this fosters trust in teams. Therefore, the second hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 2: Employees’ RBSE is positively related to team trust.
Voice behavior will increase coworkers‘ perception of resources in the form of social support (Halbesleven & Wheeler, 2012). However, it could be that the effects of voice behavior will become negative over time as employees continually raise ideas or suggestions (Morrison, 2011). When the amount of voice behavior increases beyond a certain level and there is too much voicing within a work group, such that members become overwhelmed, this could lead to a neglect of task performance (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). As Plato said: ‗wise men speak because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something‘.
To illustrate, imagine that you are a team member of a work group in a company. During a meeting with your coworkers, you have coworkers that constantly show voice behavior, over and over again. However, you do not appreciate voice behavior of employees who do not have something useful to say, because this takes up time and causes unnecessary conflict.
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
14
Seibert, Kraimer and Crant (2001) found that employees who show voice behavior without really giving solutions to the problem may experience negative consequences in terms of their career success. Therefore, it might be concluded that the quality of ideas matters. Therefore, the amount of voice behavior is predicted to be negatively related to team trust. Furthermore, it is predicted that employees‘ voice behavior is positively related to team trust, because when employees show voice behavior, they can expect trust in return from their coworkers
according to the social exchange theory (Emerson, 1987). Thus:
Hypothesis 3a: The amount of employees’ voice behavior is negatively related to team
trust.
Hypothesis 3b: Employees’ voice behavior is positively related to team trust. Furthermore, it could be argued that employees‘ RBSE leads to team trust when
employees voice their ideas. This leads to the last hypothesis from this mediation model:
Hypothesis 4: The relationship between employees’ RBSE and team trust is mediated by employees’ voice behavior.
2.4 Transformational Leadership
The term transformational leadership was introduced in the 1980s, as a follow-up of the ideas of Bass (1985), who had proposed a new theory of leadership that was called the ‗new leadership models‘. Transformational leaders motivate and inspire followers to perform beyond expectations. They focus on a vision, people, and change and are able to move their followers through (1) idealized influence, (2) inspirational motivation, (3) intellectual stimulation, and/or (4) individualized consideration. These are four characteristics of
transformational leadership and will be shortly explained. Idealized influence, or charisma, is characterized by the fact of how the vision of the leader is perceived by its followers.
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
15
Inspirational motivation is about motivating followers to reach goals by communicating confidence that followers can achieve these goals (Avolio & Yammarino, 2013). Intellectual stimulation refers to how leaders question the status quo and present innovative and creative solutions to problems. The last one, individualized consideration, is present when leaders pay attention to the developmental needs of followers and support these needs (Bass, 1999). Transformational leadership has shown to be directly related to positively performance outcomes and satisfaction (Avolio & Yammarino, 2013). It also leads to motivation, both at individual and at group level.
Liu et al. (2010) show that transformational leadership leads to higher identification with the organization and that this in turn leads to more voice behavior in a team.
Furthermore, various studies have shown that transformational leaders positively affect employee voice behavior (Detert & Burris; 2007; Shin & Zhou, 2003). It should be studied whether transformational leadership could influence the relationship between employees‘ RBSE and employees‘ voice behavior, since no research has been conducted on this
relationship at present. Therefore, the second research question is:
(2) Does transformational leadership moderate the relationship between employees’ RBSE and employees’ voice behavior?
Transformational leaders are change-oriented and it could be stated that the components of transformational leadership, as mentioned before, should all encourage employees‘ voice behavior. For example, intellectual stimulation stimulates employees to challenge the status quo and offer suggestions for improvement (Bass, 1999). Although conflicting viewpoints exist, it could be stated that transformational leadership has a positive effect on the relationship between employees‘ RBSE and employees‘ voice behavior, because when employees feel highly capable of doing their job, they will more likely voice their suggestions or ideas when they are motivated and inspired by their manager.
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
16
Furthermore, when transformational leaders support their employees, employees are more likely to focus on their tasks and not so much on the fear of what could go wrong (Shamir et al., 1993). It is therefore expected that transformational leadership has a positive effect on the relationship between employees‘ RBSE and employees‘ voice behavior, which
leads to the fifth hypothesis:
Hypothesis 5: The relationship between employees’ RBSE and employees’ voice behavior is moderated by transformational leadership.
2.6 Research Model
In the previous sections five hypotheses were established. As shown in Figure 1, the principal relation in the paper is the one between employees‘ RBSE, employees‘ voice behavior, and team trust, while transformational leadership is hypothesized to moderate the relationship between employees‘ RBSE and employees‘ voice behavior. It has to be noted that supervisors will not be included in this study, since this research only focuses on employees and their coworkers. Furthermore, the research model includes employees‘ voice behavior that was expressed during meetings, as will be further explained in the method section.
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
17 Methods
3.1 Design
The goal of this research was to investigate the relationship between RBSE, voice behavior and trust of employees in organizations. Various statistical analysis procedures were conducted using SPSS 22.0 for Windows. The data set consisted of two parts. The first part was collected from surveys filled out by employees and their supervisor, both before and after the meeting. The second part was collected from observations at meetings in a team. A total of 212 employees agreed to participate with the research. The participants for this research were employees and their coworkers. Supervisors of the meeting were not included in this study, because this research focuses mainly on employees and coworkers in a team. The relationship of the variables is individual, not organizational dependent. Therefore, the data was aggregated, and no analysis was conducted linking individual
responses to a specific organization. Only questionnaires that were completely filled out were included in the analysis. When the questionnaire was not filled out completely, missing values were made, so that some variables could still be used for analysis. The final sample consisted of 206 employees. Respondents participated voluntarily and anonymously and did not receive anything in return for their involvement. However, in order to increase the willingness to participate, participants could win a gift card and could receive an outline of the results of this study. What is more, with a view to adding to the amount of representativeness of this study, employees from various organizations, working sectors and professional backgrounds were the target respondents. Employees worked in a range of jobs, including software, engineering, retail and healthcare. Participants ranged in age from 19 to 64 years old (M=39,33;
SD=10,82) and 57 per cent of the employees were female. Finally, employees worked from 0 to 38 years in their respective organizations (M=10,31; SD=8,85).
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
18 3.2 Measurement of variables
3.2.1 Independent variable: Role breadth self-efficacy (RBSE)
Parker (1998) developed a 7-item questionnaire designed to measure an employee‘s RBSE. The scale measures proactive, interpersonal, and integrative competencies that represent an expanded role across jobs and hierarchical levels using a 7-point Likert-type scale with categories from 1 (not at all confident) to 7 (very confident). Participants were asked to note how confident they felt if they were asked to carry out each of the seven tasks. The questions were centered on the belief that people have about fulfilling the task instead of actually fulfilling the task. A sample item is: ‗Indicate how confident you feel when analyzing a long-term problem to find a solution, or presenting information to a group of colleagues‘. The scale was highly reliable (α = 0,96).
3.2.2 Mediating variable: Voice behavior
Voice behavior was measured at employee level. All items were administered in Dutch, and responses were given on a 7-point Likert scale (1= completely disagree to 7= completely agree). The three items measuring voice behavior were developed for this study and validated on a sample of 500 university students. The validation showed that these three items together make up one scale in a principal component analysis. The three items are as follows: ‗In what way was voice behavior expressed during the meeting to improve existing processes‘, ‗in what way was voice behavior expressed during the meeting to prevent damage in the organization‘, and ‗in what way were work related suggestions expressed during the meeting?‘ Cronbach‘s alpha was 0,655.
Furthermore, voice behavior was also observed by the researchers. The amount of promotive voice behavior per individual employee was noted and summarized in a table. This item was also used in the analysis, as the amount of voice behavior per individual employee.
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
19 3.2.3 Dependent variable: Trust
Cook and Wall (1980) have developed three items based on interpersonal trust, which where adapted slightly to refer specifically to coworkers in the team. Sample items are, ‗If I got into difficulties at work, I know my coworker would try to help me out‘, and ‗My coworker can be relied upon to do as he/she says he/she will do‘. Responses were given on a seven-point Likert Scale (1= strongly disagree to 7= strongly agree). Cronbach‘s alpha was 0,91.
3.2.4 Moderating variable: Transformational Leadership
Transformational Leadership was measured with the Dutch validated Charismatic Leadership in Organizations (CLIO) scale (De Hoogh, Den Hartog & Koopman, 2004). Sample items for transformational leadership (11 items) are, ‗My leader encourages subordinates to be
independent thinkers‘, ‗My leader is always searching for new possibilities for the organization‘, and ‗My leader is able to make others enthusiastic about his/her plans‘. Responses were given on a seven-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree to 7= strongly agree). Cronbach‘s alpha was 0,91.
3.3 Procedure
Participants for the questionnaire were recruited by students of the University of Amsterdam. Flyers were made containing the question which factors contribute to the effectiveness of team meetings. The participants were recruited by the use of social media such as Facebook, LinkedIn and Instagram. The questionnaires were distributed shortly before and after a team meeting by ‗paper-and-pencil.‘ First, the management of the organization was contacted in order to ask permission for conducting research in the company. We gave the employees in every team a number so that we could analyze the data anonymously. Responses were sent directly to the researchers, who were available to answer questions. For the participants it was possible to leave their e-mail address behind if they were interested in
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
20
the results of the study and if they wanted to have the chance to win the gift card. The procedure was as follows: Firstly, before and after a team meeting, employees and the supervisor of the meeting in the team are asked to fill out a short questionnaire concerning RBSE, voice behavior, their leader and trust in the team. During the meeting, it was noted what kind of voice behavior an employee expressed, and also by who and against who.
Furthermore, the reaction of this voice behavior was noted. We also gave the supervisor of the meeting a signed document which stated that nothing that was said during the meeting would be saved or documented by the observers. Also, participants were allowed to check the notations of the observer afterwards. After the meeting, the observer was available to answer all questions concerning the research. Furthermore, after the research, all participants would receive a report with the results and tips for contributing to the effectiveness of meetings. As this research was focused on the nature of the relationship, the number of participants per organization was not critical. Also, teams could participate more than once. Limitations of this procedure were that participants could show social desirable behavior during the observations. Furthermore, because of the fact that the companies are not randomly chosen, this could also be a source of bias, candidly speaking.
3.4 Analyses and Predictions
Predictions based on the hypothesized relationships are the following: It is expected that voice behavior mediates the relationship between RBSE and trust. Furthermore, it is predicted that transformational leadership moderates the relationship between RBSE and voice behavior. A multi-source cross sectional design is used to test the hypotheses. The hypotheses will be tested by linear regression analysis and by the mediation and moderation process analysis of Hayes (2008).
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
21 Results
4.1 Descriptives
Descriptives and correlations of the scales are presented in Table 1. The final sample consisted of 212 respondents. Questions that were not filled in by employees were
automatically detected by SPSS as missing value. Therefore, no respondents were deleted from the data set. Furthermore, no counter-indicative items were found. Prior to analyzing, the data had been scanned for outliers. One outlier has been found and deleted.
Cronbach‘s alpha for the variables are found on the diagonal in Table 1. Because these scales were reliable enough, no items from the scales were deleted.
Table 1: Descriptives and correlations between the variables (Cronbach’s Alphas on diagonal)
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 RBSE 5,245 1,072 (0,897) 2 Voice 5,273 1,114 0,163* (0,655) 3 Trust 5,663 0,918 0,133 0,399** (0,845) 4 Trans- 5,424 0,818 0,161* 0,336** 0,293** (0,909) formational Leadership 5 Voice 2,312 2,560 0,077 0,089 -0,055 0,139 (1,000) Amount 6 Age 39,338 10,822 -0,041 -0,061 0,033 0,031 -0,020 (1,000) 7 Gender0,571 0,496 -0,269** 0,022 -0,012 0,086 0,067 -0,006 (1,000) 8 Educa- 2,901 0,895 0,457** -0,065 -0,134 0,029 -0,091 -0,162* -0,022 (1,000) tion 9 Tenure 10,313 8,850 -0,149* -0,058 0,072 0,169* -0,047 0,638** -0,012 -0,282** (1,00)
Note. RBSE, N = 207, Voice, N = 211, Trust, N = 210, Transformational Leadership, N = 206, Voice Amount, N = 212, Age, N = 210, Gender, N = 212, Education, N = 212 and Tenure, N = 21.
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
22
RBSE and voice behavior are weakly positively correlated (r = 0,163, p<0,05). Furthermore, voice behavior and trust are positively related (r = 0,399, p<0,01). These outcomes are within the range to perform linear regression analysis (Pallant, 2001).
4.2 Regression
Six regression analyses were completed to test the relationships between RBSE and voice behavior; RBSE and trust and, finally, voice behavior and trust. Tables 2, 3 and 4 show the results. For all the variables, the assumptions for the analyses are met, because the data are linear and the dependent variable is normally distributed.
In Table 2b, a significant main effect of RBSE on voice behavior measured at employee level is found. This finding supports hypothesis 1. Furthermore, table 2a shows the relationship between RBSE and voice behavior, taking into consideration the control variables gender, education and tenure. The significant effect of education makes the RBSE/voice behavior relationship even more significant.
Table 2a: Results of the Regression Analyses Testing the Direct Relationship between Voice behavior and RBSE, with Tenure, Education and Gender as control variables.
Voice behavior (DV) Model
Coefficient SE Beta Constant 4,532 0,462 Gender 0,196 0,159 0,087 Education -0,257** 0,098 -0,207 Tenure -0,009 0,009 -0,074 RBSE 0,281** 0,083 0,271 R² 0,064
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
23
Table 2b: Results of the Regression Analyses Testing the Direct Relationship between Voice behavior and RBSE.
Voice behavior (DV) Model
Coefficient SE Beta
Constant 4,382 0,380
RBSE 0,170* 0,071 0,163
R² 0,027
Note. Dependent variable is Voice behavior, N = 210. * P< .05
Second, when looking at table 3b, no significant main effect of RBSE on trust has been found. RBSE is not related to trust, which rejects hypothesis 2. However, when taking table 3a into consideration, the control variables gender, education and tenure are added into this relationship. This makes the RBSE/trust relationship positively significant. Education has a positive effect on the RBSE/trust relationship, which will be further elaborated in the
discussion.
Table 3a: Results of the Regression Analyses Testing the Direct Relationship between Trust and RBSE, with Tenure, Education and Gender as control variables.
Trust (DV) Model 2 Coefficient SE Beta Constant 5,100 0,379 Gender 0,090 0,131 0,048 Education -0,246** 0,080 -0,241 Tenure 0,005 0,007 0,044 RBSE 0,226** 0,068 0,264 R² 0,070
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
24
Table 3b: Results of the Regression Analyses Testing the Direct Relationship between Trust and RBSE. Trust (DV) Model Coefficient SE Beta Constant 5,063 0,315 RBSE 0,114 0,059 0,133 R² 0,018
Note. Dependent variable is Trust, N = 210.
Furthermore, when looking at table 4b, no significant main effect of the amount of voice behavior on trust has been found. This rejects hypothesis 3a.
However, a significant main effect of voice behavior on trust has been found, which supports hypothesis 3b (see table 4a).
Table 4a: Results of the Regression Analyses Testing the Direct Relationship between Trust and Voice behavior. Trust (DV) Model Coefficient SE Beta Constant 3,929 0,282 Voice behavior 0,329** 0,052 0,399 R² 0,159
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
25
Table 4b: Results of the Regression Analyses Testing the Direct Relationship between Trust and the amount of Voice behavior.
Trust (DV) Model
Coefficient SE Beta
Constant 5,735 0,093
Amount of Voice behavior -0,022 0,032 -0,055
R²
Note. Dependent variable is Trust, N = 161.
4.3 Mediation
Having tested the first three hypotheses, the next step is to test hypothesis number four, which is about the mediation between RBSE and trust by voice behavior. For this mediation, PROCESS by Hayes (2008) has been used. As already seen in table 3b, the regression coefficient for RBSE is not significant and therefore, there could be no chance for mediation. However, a mediation analysis has been conducted to check these results. The results of this analysis are summarized in figure 2. There is a significant positive indirect effect, and no significant direct effect and no significant total effect. Therefore, hypothesis 4 is rejected.
However, when taking education into account as control variable, a significant positive direct effect of RBSE on trust has been found (B = 0,135, p = 0,029). Also, a total effect of RBSE on trust has found to be significantly positive (B = 0,211, p = 0,01). Since we could not compute the significance of the indirect effect with SPSS, it is yet not known whether there is a balancing correlation when taking the control variable education into account. Therefore, there could be a mediating effect when using education as control
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
26
variable. This could be a case for future research, which will be further elaborated in the discussion.
Figure 2: Mediation Model
4.4 Moderation
To check whether transformational leadership moderates the relationship between RBSE and voice behavior, Hayes‘ Process Procedure (2008) has been used. Based on this, the interaction effect has found to be 0,071, with a p value of 0,3970. This is not significant, which means that there is no interaction effect. Transformational leadership does not have an influence on the relationship between RBSE and voice behavior. Therefore, hypothesis 5 is rejected.
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
27 4.5 Moderated Mediation Model
The results of the Moderated Mediation Model are summarized in Figure 3. Only the
significant results are displayed here.
Figure 3: Moderated Mediation Model
Discussion
5.1 Summary of results
This study focused on the social effects of voice behavior between employees and coworkers. Different hypotheses were formed and tested to get a clearer vision on the gap that exists in the academic literature on this subject. The first goal of this research was to study the mediating role of voice behavior in the relationship between RBSE and trust. Furthermore, the second goal of this study was to examine whether there was a moderating effect of
transformational leadership in the relationship between RBSE and voice behavior. The first research question was: Does employees‘ voice behavior mediate the relationship between
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
28
employees‘ RBSE and team trust? The second research question was: Does transformational leadership moderate the relationship between employees‘ RBSE and employees‘ voice behavior? Results of this study showed that employees‘ voice behavior does not mediate the relationship between employees‘ RBSE and team trust and that transformational leadership has no influence on the relationship between employees‘ RBSE and employees‘ voice behavior. However, some positive effects have been found in this study, which will be discussed in the next section.
5.2 Hypotheses
The hypotheses in this study were as follows: H1: Employees‘ RBSE is positively related to employees‘ voice behavior. Indeed, as expected, people who are more confident in their capabilities at the workplace show more voice behavior. Therefore, hypothesis 1 is confirmed. This result is in accordance with the study of LePine and Van Dyne (1998). This means that employees who feel capable in performing a broader proactive role, will more likely suggest ways to change something in the organization, compared with employees who feel less capable in performing this role. The positive relationship between RBSE and voice behavior is getting stronger when taking the control variable education in account. This remarkable finding could have diverse reasons, which will be discussed in the section ‗Unpredicted results‘.
Furthermore, the second hypothesis, H2, is as follows: Employees‘ RBSE is positively related to team trust. This hypothesis is rejected. There has been found no relationship
between employees‘ RBSE and team trust. This means that the fact that employees feel capable to perform a more proactive role does not necessarily lead to confidence and support in teams. However, when taking the control variable education into consideration, a positive relationship between RBSE and team trust is present. This unpredicted result will also be discussed later on.
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
29
The third hypothesis, H3, consists of two parts. The first part of the hypothesis (H3a) states that the amount of employees‘ voice behavior is negatively related to team trust. For this hypothesis no support is found, and therefore the amount of voice behavior does not have an influence on trust in a team. The second part of the hypothesis (H3b) states that employees‘ voice behavior is positively related to team trust. This hypothesis is supported. This result means that employees who give suggestions for improvement are likely to gain confidence and support in teams, which will lead to an environment in which individuals are able to innovate.
The fourth hypothesis, H4, states that the relationship between employees‘ RBSE and team trust is regulated by employees‘ voice behavior. No mediating effect has been found. However, the method for testing mediation does not take into account control variables; therefore, it could be that there is a mediating effect indeed if we take the control variable education into account.
The last hypothesis, H5, states that the relationship between employees‘ RBSE and employees‘ voice behavior is moderated by transformational leadership. This hypothesis is rejected. Transformational leadership does not have an influence on the relationship between RBSE and voice behavior of employees.
5.3 Unpredicted results
When taking the unpredicted results into consideration, a remarkable result is that transformational leadership does not play a role in the relationship between how confident employees feel in their capabilities at work and the way they speak up their ideas. This finding is unexpected, because transformational leaders are change oriented and they stimulate employees to give suggestions for improvement (Bass, 1999). In short, literature says that transformational leaders positively affect employee voice behavior (Detert & Burris, 2007; Shin & Zhou, 2003). A possible explanation for this result is that employees who are
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
30
already confident about their capabilities do not need somebody else to inspire them to voice their ideas. However, personality factors or contextual factors could also play a role in this unpredicted result.
It can also be argued that the moderating effect was missing, because this study did not take into account the intentions and actual behaviors of the transformational leaders, also called the authenticity. The authenticity of the leader, according to Zhu et al. (2004), is an important moderator between the effects of leadership on employees‘ behaviors. Therefore, the participants in this study could have perceived their leader as transformational, because they intended their leader to be transformational. However, the leaders might have lacked the actual behaviors of a transformational leader. This illustrates that there is a possibility that transformational leadership moderates the relationship between employees‘ RBSE and employees‘ voice behavior, when using another construct for transformational leadership. However, this has to be studied in future research before any conclusions can be drawn. Another unpredicted result is the fact that employees‘ voice behavior did not influence the relationship between employees‘ RBSE and team trust. However, RBSE leads to voice behavior, and voice behavior leads to trust. This somewhat surprising finding could be due to the fact that we did not include control variables in our mediation model. However, more research needs to be conducted in order to draw any conclusions.
What also has to be taken into consideration is that some organizations do not expect proactive behavior of their employees. For example, if one is employed as a cashier, that one need not voice as much as one working as a sales manager in a software company. Therefore, there is a difference in organizations whether or not voice behavior is expected of employees. This could also lead to some unpredicted results in this study.
Another unpredicted result, as already mentioned in brief in the hypotheses section, is that education influences the relationship between RBSE and voice behavior and, second,
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
31
RBSE and team trust. Furthermore, education might also influence the mediating effect of voice behavior between RBSE and trust in a team. This control variable is chosen in this study because education translates into the ability to recognize opportunities or problems and
solutions to problems. It may also boost confidence to have the knowledge to make
suggestions at work (Farr & Ford, 1990). However, what was not predicted is that this study shows that the relationship between RBSE and voice behavior becomes stronger when education is lower. A possible explanation for this finding is that highly educated people are less satisfied overall about their capabilities, whereas lower educated people are more quickly satisfied when they feel they are capable at work (Farr & Ford, 1990). Therefore, it could be a norm issue.
5.4 Implications for research and for practices 5.4.1 Theoretical implications
The results of this study make an important contribution to the literature on voice behavior. The first theoretical contribution lies in the illustration that it is worthy to integrate multiple kinds of literature that are all examples of the voice behavior construct. In this way, it is the first time that a study has been done to the social effects of voice behavior with RBSE as antecedent.
As brought out earlier, a lot was known about the reasons why individuals engage in proactive behavior. However, far less was known about the facts as to whom employees show voice behavior and what factors play a role in the fact whether employees will exhibit voice behavior or not. Moreover, Morrison and Milliken (2003) suggested that ‗the fact that people choose who to speak to and who to be silent with raises the interesting question of how people make these choices‘. This study attempted to answer this question. In this research, the results show that employees voice to their coworkers when they feel that they have the capabilities to
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
32
do their job. As Ng and Feldman (2013) mention in their article, further attention is needed to the social outcomes of voice behavior. This study showed that one possible outcome of voice behavior is trust in work teams. Tan and Linn (2009) state that the amount of trust in a work team predicts trust in companies. Taking this all together, this study contributes to the
literature by doing research to the antecedent of voice behavior and the positive social effects of voice behavior.
5.4.2 Practical implications
This report has shown that voice behavior has a positive relationship with trust in a team. As already explained in the literature, trust in a team could consequently lead to trust in organizations. In addition, this trust in organizations could lead to positive work outcomes like performance in organizations, which is linked to innovation (Calantone et al., 2002). Voice behavior is also important because the innovation process could be halted if employees do not show their ideas, since creative ideas are necessary for innovation.
Therefore, managers should take care that employees voice their ideas by producing cultures and climates in organizations that foster proactive behavior. They should also take care that no fear of a negative imago or fear of negative relationships are present (Milliken et al., 2003). In this way, employees will be encouraged to show voice behavior.
Because this study shows that transformational leadership does not influence the relationship between RBSE and voice behavior, it is important that organizations stimulate employees directly to show voice behavior. Furthermore, it is important that they make employees feel worthy in doing their work, because voice behavior leads to trust. This could be done by training or creating a healthy job environment (Westman & Etzion, 2001). In this way, RBSE could also be enhanced, which is also important in order for employees to show voice behavior.
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
33
However, although no moderating effect is present, it has been studied before that transformational leaders encourage voice behavior, by the fact that transformational
leadership leads to higher identification with the organization (Detert & Burris, 2007; Shin & Zhou, 2003). Therefore, supervisors should endeavor to motivate and incite their employees to perform beyond expectations and stimulate them to think innovatively. They could do this by removing barriers, creating opportunities and focusing on the personal skills of employees.
5.5 Strengths and limitations
Several strengths of the study helped to provide reasonable results. First, two different sources (i.e. employees and coworkers) are used in this study in order to measure the key variables. This helped in minimizing any source bias. Furthermore, people from different kinds of organizations, educational backgrounds, tenure, age and gender participated in this study in order to prevent common biases. However, there are also some limitations found in this study, which will be discussed now.
First of all, a convenience sample from Dutch employees is used in this study, and therefore the results of this study are limited only to Dutch contexts and cannot be generalized to other contexts. Also, our study is limited by the cross-sectional design. To validate this model, a longitudinal study is needed. This could have implications for the results of this research. For example, it might be possible that a high level of trust in a team leads to showing voice behavior by employees. However, this has to be studied in future research. Also, selection bias is present, because all participants were acquaintances of the researcher, either persona, or via-via. Therefore, the sample is not a random representation of the Dutch workforce.
Another limitation is that employees could show desirable behavior because they were observed during meetings. Employees could show more voice behavior than they normally do, or they could answer the questions in the questionnaire too positively. Moreover, the data
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
34
was self-report. Criticism in the literature is present on using self-reported data (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). It is well known that people evaluate themselves more positively, the so-called ―self-report bias‖ (Donaldson & Grand-Vallone, 2002).
Furthermore, another possible limitation of this study is that employees‘ voice behavior was observed during meetings. This could be a perfect chance for showing voice behavior, but this does not mean that employees who show voice behavior during meetings also show voice behavior at work when no meeting is going on.
Finally, Cronbach‘s Alpha for the voice behavior-scale was not very high, which makes the results less reliable. Next time, another scale could be used to measure voice behavior with a higher Cronbach‘s Alpha in order that more consistent results are present.
5.6 Agenda for future research
There are some points that could be taken into account for future research. For
example, another construct may be chosen. It might be better to refrain from observing during meetings, or not telling employees beforehand that they will be monitored. Also, the study may be repeated in other countries to see if the results could be generalized to other cultures and societies.
Furthermore, it has to be studied whether a mediating effect is present when taking the control variable education into account. It is also interesting to study why transformational leadership does not influence the relationship between RBSE and voice behavior. There might be another moderator that could influence this relationship, which has to be considered. Also, the quality of voice behavior is a point of future research, because this study only focused on the quantity of voice behavior and not so much on the quality of voice behavior. It is also possible that group composition may promote voice behavior through group members‘ reactions to one another. It may be possible to increase voice behavior by
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
35
interact more and show more voice behavior, which can lead to more trust in a team, and thus to better results for the company.
Finally, in the voice behavior-trust relationship, the relationship between coworkers might also be of influence. For example, voice behavior might only lead to trust in a team when the relationship between employees and coworkers is good. When coworkers do not feel comfortable with each other, voice behavior could lead to irritation instead of trust. This is also a point of consideration in future research.
5.7 Concluding thoughts
In conclusion, this study offers some new insights that advance the understanding of the social effects of voice behavior in organizations. The combination of prior research regarding RBSE, voice behavior, trust and transformational leadership, with more recent findings makes clear that there is more research that needs to be conducted in order to get a better understanding of the relationships between these variables. New studies could research under which circumstances voice behavior mediates the relationship between RBSE and trust.
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
36 References
Anderson, C. M., & Martin, M. M. (1995). Why employees speak to coworkers and bosses: Motives, gender, and organizational satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 32(3), 249-265.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1995). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective, 1978. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
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, 23-57.
Aspinwall, L. G., & Taylor, S. E. (1997). A stitch in time: self-regulation and proactive coping. Psychological Bulletin, 121(3), 417.
Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (2013). Transformational and charismatic leadership:: The road ahead Emerald Group Publishing.
Axtell, C. M., & Parker, S. K. (2003). Promoting role breadth self-efficacy through involvement, work redesign and training. Human Relations, 56, 113-131.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self‐Efficacy Wiley Online Library.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations.
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9-32.
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
37
Butler. J. R., J. K., & Cantrell, R. S. (1994). Communication factors and trust: An exploratory study. Psychological Reports, 74(1), 33-34.
Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(6), 515-524.
Cheung, C.K., Chan, C.M., 2000. Social-cognitive factors of donating money to charity, with special attention to an international relief organization. Evaluation and Program Planning 23 (2), 241–253.
Choi, J. N. (2007). Change‐oriented organizational citizenship behavior: Effects of work
environment characteristics and intervening psychological processes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(4), 467-484.
Cohen, S. G., & Ledford, G. E. (1994). The effectiveness of self-managing teams: A quasi-experiment. Human Relations, 47(1), 13-43.
Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need non‐fulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53(1), 39-52.
Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435-462.
Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. (2000). Charismatic leadership viewed from above: The impact of proactive personality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(1), 63-75.
De Hoogh, A. H. B., Den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L. (2004). De ontwikkeling van de CLIO, een instrument voor het meten van leiderschap in organisaties. Gedrag &
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
38
de Hoogh, A., den Hartog, D., Koopman, P., Thierry, H., van den Berg, P., van der Weide, J., & Wilderom, C. (2004). Charismatic leadership, environmental dynamism, and
performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13(4), 447-471.
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice behavior: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869-884.
Donaldson, S. I., Grand-Vallone, E. J. (2002). Understanding self-report bias in organizational behavioral research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 2.
Earley, P. C. (1986). Trust, perceived importance of praise and criticism, and work
performance: An examination of feedback in the united states and england. Journal of Management, 12(4), 457-473.
Emerson, R. M. (1987). Toward a theory of value in social exchange. Social Exchange Theory, 11, 46.
Farr, J. L., & Ford, C. M. (1990). Individual innovation.
Feuille, P., & Delaney, J. T. (1992). The individual pursuit of organizational justice: Grievance procedures in nonunion workplaces. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 10(2), 187-232.
Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). 4. Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. Research in organizational behavior, 23, 133-187.
Gómez, C., & Rosen, B. (2001). The leader-member exchange as a link between managerial trust and employee empowerment. Group & Organization Management, 26(1), 53-69.
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
39
Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3-34.
Grant, A. M., Parker, S., & Collins, C. (2009). Getting credit for proactive behavior:
Supervisor reactions depend on what you value and how you feel. Personnel Psychology, 62(1), 31-55.
Greenberger, D. B., & Strasser, S. (1986). Development and application of a model of personal control in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 11(1), 164-177.
Griffin, M. A., & Neal, A. (2000). Perceptions of safety at work: A framework for linking safety climate to safety performance, knowledge, and motivation. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 5(3), 347.
Halbesleben, J. R., & Wheeler, A. R. (2012). To invest or not? the role of coworker support and trust in daily reciprocal gain spirals of helping behavior. Journal of Management,
Hart, K. M., Capps, H. R., Cangemi, J. P., & Caillouet, L. M. (1986). Exploring organizational trust and its multiple dimensions: A case study of general motors. Organization Development Journal,
Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2007). Personal initiative, commitment and affect at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80(4), 601-622.
Hayes, A. F. (2008). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
Herman, A. M. (1999). Futurework: Trends and challenges for work in the 21st century: Labor day 1999: A report of the united states department of labor US Dept. of Labor.
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
40
Kirby, E. G., Kirby, S. L., & Lewis, M. A. (2002). A Study of the Effectiveness of Training Proactive Thinking1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(7), 1538-1549.
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and
consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 58-74.
Koch, A. R., Binnewies, C., & Dormann, C. (2013). Fostering teachers‘ trust in scientific evidence. International Scientific Publications, 26.
Lawler, E. E. (1994). Motivation in work organizations.
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 853.
Liang, J., Farh, C. I., & Farh, J. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and
prohibitive voice behavior: 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.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
41
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.
Mohr, J., & Spekman, R. (1994). Characteristics of partnership success: Partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic Management Journal, 15(2), 135-152.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. The Journal of Marketing, , 20-38.
Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373-412.
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2003). Speaking up, remaining silent: The dynamics of voice behavior and silence in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1353-1358.
Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 403-419.
Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93(1), 23.
Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2013). Changes in perceived supervisor embeddedness: Effects on employees‘ embeddedness, organizational trust, and voice behavior. Personnel Psychology,
The Social Effects of Voice Behavior
2014
42
Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS Survival Guide: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 835.
Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4), 827-856.
Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Management, 36(3), 633-662.
Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 636.
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.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of management, 12(4), 531-544.
Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust1. Journal of Personality, 35(4), 651-665.
Ruppel, C. P., & Harrington, S. J. (2000). The relationship of communication, ethical work climate, and trust to commitment and innovation. Journal of Business Ethics, 25(4), 313-328.
