Speak up!: Assessing the effects of social capital and power-dynamics on employee voice behavior.

(1)

Master Thesis

Speak up!: Assessing the effects of social capital and

power-dynamics on employee voice behavior

Name of author : B.A. Tonneijck

Student number : 12553646

Date of Submission : 25 – 06 – 2020

Faculty : Graduate School of Communication

Program : Master in Communication Science

Track : Corporate Communication Track

Institution : University of Amsterdam, Graduate School of Communication Name of Supervisor : A.P.V. Berbers

(2)

Abstract

Over the years, the importance of employee voice behavior has been progressively

recognized. Organizations strongly depend on the engagement of their employees by them sharing their knowledge, as this can generate new knowledge and could prevent an

organization from having a crisis. To stimulate employee voice behavior, however, it is important that the organizational environment enables and welcomes its employees to speak up. Though some studies have investigated the roles that employees’ structural social capital and hierarchical relationships have on employee voice behavior, no study has investigated employee voice by examining employees’ cognitive and relational social capital and employees’ relative power within their work-group. As such, this research investigated the relationship between 1) employees’ cognitive social capital and employee voice, 2)

employees’ relational social capital and employee voice, 3) employees’ power and employee voice, and 4) whether or not the relationship between employees’ relational social capital and employee voice behavior is moderated by employees’ participation power. The data (N = 93) were collected using a cross-sectional online survey that was distributed among all employees of three Dutch organizations. Employees’ cognitive social capital and employees’

participation power have shown to be a positive predictor of employee voice behavior. Statistical evidence was insufficient to support the other relationships. However, the results demonstrate that it is beneficial for establishing employee voice to generate employees’ cognitive social capital and to increasingly involve employees into participating in the

allocation and determination of organizational resources and policies. As this is the first study in which the role of employees’ cognitive and relational social capital and employees’ power within the work-group is considered, it is strongly suggested that more research should be conducted in this field.

Keywords: Employee voice behavior, employees’ social capital, employees’ power,

(3)

1. Introduction

A great concern for any organization is when their most passionate and hardworking

employees become quiet (Thompson, 2016). Think about it: how often do employees remain silent when they see injustice, because they do not want to jeopardize their position? And how often do they swallow their words to keep the peace? Whilst this certainly happens in modern-day society, this also frequently occurs in organizations (Hirschman, 1970; Milliken,

Morrison & Hewlin, 2003). Thus, organizations strongly depend on the engagement of their employees by them sharing their knowledge for the benefit of the organization (Morrison, 2014).

Over the years, the importance of employee voice behavior has been progressively recognized (Morrison, 2011). Employee voice is the means by which employees communicate their views to the persons who might be able to take appropriate action, with the intent to bring about improvement or change (Detert & Burris, 2007; Morrison, 2011). By providing feedback about current processes or procedures, employees can be of superior value for an organization (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). As this generates new knowledge, employee voice has a positive effect on organizations’ effectiveness and leads to higher organizational

performance (Lam & Mayer, 2014). Furthermore, employees that engage in voice behavior could prevent an organization from having a crisis (Schwartz & Wald, 2003).

Yet, the question of why employees do or do not speak up when they have potentially useful information is not easy to answer, since many factors influence this decision

(Wilkinson et al., 2014; Morrison, 2014). Organizations do not only differ with respect to the skills of their employees, but also on the ways in which these employees work together in teams, groups and networks (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). Hence, employees’ social capital within these communities becomes of importance (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Storberg, 2002) as this can influence employee voice (Morrison, 2014; Venkataramani, Zhou, Wang, Liao & Shi, 2015). More specifically, social capital involves the components of social organizations that include networks, norms and social trust that facilitate cooperation for mutual benefit (Putnam, 1996; Storberg, 2002).

Next to social capital, employees’ level of power in comparison to their colleagues should be considered (Bunderson & Reagans, 2011). As high-power employees generally control the organizations’ resources and rewards, low-power employees might not want to jeopardize their relationships with them and, in turn, might be reluctant to voice their opinion

(5)

(Milliken et al., 2003; Morrison & Rothman, 2009; Pinder & Harlos, 2001). Furthermore, research has indicated that employees who possess more power as derived from their competency are oftentimes less liked by their colleagues (Casciaro & Lobo, 2005). Accordingly, the potential moderating role of employees’ power on employees’ relational social capital and employee voice should also be examined.

Some studies have assessed the positive relationship between employees’ structural social capital and employee voice (Morrison, Wheeler-Smith & Kamdar, 2011;

Venkataramani et al., 2015). The potential positive, negative and moderating effects of hierarchical relationships between employees and supervisors on employee voice have also been determined (Detert & Burris, 2007; Saunders, Sheppard, Knight & Roth, 1992). However, there is a lack of knowledge on the role of employees’ relational and cognitive social capital and employees’ relative power on employee voice behavior. Thus far, the moderating role of employees’ power on employees’ relational social capital and employee voice behavior has never been investigated, even though employees’ position in the

organizational hierarchy becomes important when generating social capital (Baum & Ziersch, 2003; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998) and deciding to engage in employee voice behavior.

As for managerial implications, employees are believed to be any organization’s most important resource. In fact, employees define the organization; as they go along and provide ideas, make suggestions and give feedback to challenge the status quo (Milliken et al., 2003; Morrison, 2014). However, an important condition for employee voice behavior is the working environment that employees find themselves in: an environment which enables and welcomes feedback or suggestions is essential for employees’ courage to speak up (Morrison, 2014).

The study as described here attempts to reveal the relevance of employee voice

behavior by investigating the effect that employees’ cognitive and relational social capital and employees’ power within their work-group might have on the shaping of their environment. This culminates in the following research question: To what extent do employees’ social capital and power-differences within a work-group predict employee voice in an

(6)

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1 Employee voice

Employee voice has a long and varied history in organizational sciences (Morrison, 2014). In 1970, Albert Hirschman introduced his exit-loyalty-voice framework in which he argued that people respond to situations in two ways: (1) exit, by which people discontinue their

participation in an organization to sidestep unpleasant consequences and (2) voice, through which individuals verbalize their discomfort and critical views in order to alter potential organizational consequences (Hirschman, 1970; Keeley & Graham, 1991). According to Hirschman, employees are more likely to go for the voice option when they are more loyal to the firm (Holland, Teicher & Donaghey, 2019).

Employee voice builds upon the belief that employees have interests that are independent and oftentimes different to those of their employers (Holland, Teicher & Donaghey, 2019; Milliken et al., 2003; Morrison & Milliken, 2000) and there needs to be a (voice) mechanism through which employees are able to advance these interests. Hence, voice refers to the opportunities for employees to have a say and possibly alter organizational affairs that influence their work (Morrison, 2014; Wilkinson, Dundon, Donaghey & Freeman, 2014). More thoroughly, employee voice is defined as: ‘‘informal and discretionary communication by an employee of ideas, suggestions, concerns, information about problems, or opinions about work-related issues to persons who might be able to take appropriate action, with the intent to bring about improvement or change’’ (Morrison, 2014, p. 174).

Employees who engage in conversation and speak up (voice) and employees who keep their thoughts and information to themselves (silence), can highly affect organizational

performance (Detert & Burris, 2007; LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Morrison, 2014). Employees might be reluctant to speak up as it might bring along a substantial or perceived risk (Milliken et al., 2003; Morrison, 2014; LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). Thus, silence may reflect situations in which employees do not have the opportunities for voice, or intentionally do not use these opportunities for various reasons (Wilkinson et al., 2014). The level in which employees speak up might be influenced by their amount of social capital and their relative level of power within the work-group.

(7)

2.2 Employees’ social capital

Although social capital can be viewed in many ways (Bourdieu, 1998; Coleman, 1988; Julien, 2015; Storberg, 2000), it is generally understood as the social components of an organization, which include networks, norms and social trust that promote coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit (Putnam, 1996; Storberg, 2002). Social capital is reflected in the network pattern of social relationships and is inevitably linked to economic capital, although it cannot be merely reduced to an economic form (Baum & Ziersch, 2003; Julien, 2015). In fact, it is the concealment of this association with economic capital that enables social capital to be powerful (Bourdieu, 1998).

Social capital is a multidimensional construct (Putnam, 1996) that consists of three dimensions: structural, cognitive and relational (Baum & Ziersch, 2003; Meng, Clausen & Borg, 2008; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). The structural dimension of social capital refers to social structures such as networks and associations, and involves the entire pattern of connections between individuals (Baum & Ziersch, 2003; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). The cognitive dimension involves greater subjective or intangible features that result in shared interpretations and systems of meaning among groups and individuals (Baum & Ziersch, 2003). In practice, this cognitive dimension could emerge as shared language, codes and narratives among parties (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Lastly, the relational dimension entails the sorts of personal relationships that individuals have developed with each other resulting from a history of interactions (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998) such as trust, norms of reciprocity, obligations, respect and identity (Baum & Ziersch, 2003). Through the dynamics of these ongoing personal relationships, individuals are believed to fulfill social purposes that involve sociability, authorization, and prestige (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998).

The types of social capital that emerge might be influenced by the particular work-group that employees find themselves in. Work-work-groups or teams are generally understood as sets of interdependent individuals who share responsibility for outcomes (Ilgen, 1994; LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). As such, the work is assigned to groups that are supposed to come up with effective means for pulling off the work (Morrison et al., 2011). In order to achieve this, members of the group must actively communicate and share ideas and knowledge to make sure that all viewpoints are taken into consideration when working towards the group’s end goal(s) (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Morrison et al., 2011).

Employees’ social capital facilitates actions, but might as well be an outcome of employee voice behavior. As such, there is evidence suggesting that employees voicing their

(8)

(Whiting, Maynes, Podsakoff, & Podsakoff, 2012), which may lead to higher or lower levels of employees’ social capital. When voice is communicated effectively, the employee

engaging in voice behavior will most likely receive positive feedback and more likability (Van Dyne, Cummings & McLean Parks, 1995). When communicated ineffectively, the employee’s voice behavior might be considered destructive, resulting in negative feedback and less likeability by the co-workers. Thus, employees’ voice behavior can have either positive or detrimental effects on their interpersonal relationships (Van Dyne et al., 1995; Whiting et al., 2012), and as a result may affect employees’ social capital (Morrison, 2014).

Yet, all forms of social capital contain two similar characteristics (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). First, they all contain some aspects of the social structure, as it exists in the relations between and among parties (Putnam, 1996). Different to other forms of capital, social capital is collectively owned by the people in a relationship and, thus, no one can have exclusive ownership rights over it (Coleman, 1988). Second, social capital facilitates the actions of individuals within the structure, as it grants the achievement of ends that would be unachievable without it (Bourdieu, 1998; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998).

From this multidimensional perspective, social capital in the workplace can be

considered a job resource (Meng et al., 2008). The level of social capital indicates the amount of practical and emotional support that is available for employees in a work environment (Thoits, 2011). High levels of social capital in the workplace are linked with better coordination of work tasks (Gloede, Hammer, Ommen, Ernstmann & Pfaff, 2013) and employees’ positive psychological states (Carmeli, Ben-Hador, Waldman & Rupp, 2009), which have demonstrated to advance efficiency and cooperation among employees (Meng et al., 2008). Additionally, employees who are satisfied with their work-group environment will feel a stronger sense of commitment to their colleagues and, therefore, will be more

stimulated to engage in voice behavior (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Morrison et al., 2011). Social relations among co-workers are value creators for organizations and social capital offers a lens to view and explain employee voice (Cumberland, Alagaraja, Shuck & Kerrick, 2018; Storberg, 2002). In order for corporations to function properly, it is therefore essential to incorporate the social capital elements of trust, social relations, commitment to the team and a process of communication (Requena, 2003). In fact, if an employee picks up on social cues that suggest that their co-workers appreciate voice behavior, they will be more prone to share information that might be of importance for the organization (Morrison et al., 2011).

(9)

As this study aims to examine the effect that the depth and richness of social relations among employees who belong to a work-group might have on their engagement in voice behavior – instead of examining how the structure of employees’ social network ties might affect their voice behavior – this study will focus on employees’ cognitive and relational social capital. Building on the previously discussed literature, it is therefore hypothesized that:

H1a.: The level of employees’ cognitive social capital within the work-group will be positively related to voice.

H1b.: The level of employees’ relational social capital within the work-group will be positively related to voice.

2.3 Employees’ power

Power is generally defined as a function of dependence (Van der Vegt, de Jong, Bunderson & Molleman, 2010). More specifically, power refers to the ability to influence others and to have charge of others’ outcomes (Fiske, 1993; French & Raven, 1959). As this control is often exercised by providing or restraining resources that are valued by others (Guinote, 2007; Magee & Galinsky, 2008), power can be described as individuals’ asymmetric control over valued resources in social relations (Fiske, 1993; Magee & Galinsky, 2008). As such, the low-power employees are dependent on the high-low-power employees to receive rewards and avoid punishments (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). Employees can acquire power through competence, as competence is reasonable evidence that an employee is qualified to hold a higher-power position (Wei, Sun, Liu, Zhou & Xue, 2017).

As employees’ competences vary, power-differences are likely to exist among employees (Hage & Aiken, 1967). Evidence suggests that power-differences within work-groups can interfere with team learning and team performance (Van der Vegt et al., 2010), as members’ propensity to take initiative and independent action can be restrained by it

(Bunderson & Reagans, 2011). In practice, high-power employees have demonstrated to be better at managing their behavior towards the achievement of goals than low-power

employees (Guinote, 2007). The latter seem to be distracted by their resource dependency and constraints, as well as by the actions of the high-power employees (Guinote, 2007). As such, the possession of power is believed to be associated with fewer constraints and, hence, with greater opportunities to act at will (Bunderson & Reagans, 2011; Guinote, 2007).

(10)

Subsequently, power-differences between employees may negatively affect work-group members’ ability to focus on the work-group’s collective goals (Bunderson & Reagans, 2011; Van der Vegt et al., 2011) and employees’ voice behavior (Detert & Burris, 2007; Morrison, 2014; Morrison & Milliken, 2000). As such, power-asymmetry can generate a work

environment in which low-power employees do not feel safe to voice their opinion

(Bunderson & Reagans, 2011; Edmondson, 1999; Morrison, 2014). Employees might fear substantial losses (e.g. loss of support, restricted career mobility) from speaking up at work, because they have less access to the organization’s resources, assignments and rewards (Bunderson & Reagans, 2011; Detert & Burris, 2007; Edmondson, 1999; Morrison, 2014).

Therefore, not merely the characteristics of the employee determine whether the employee speaks up or not, but also the power-rank of the employee and the power-rank of the person to whom the employee speaks to plays a significant role (Detert & Burris, 2007; Detert & Trevino, 2010). Furthermore, as in many organizations high-power leaders may not be considered as very open or interested in feedback and input from other employees

(Milliken et al., 2003), low-power employees may perceive voice behavior as risky and unwanted (Morrison, 2014; Morrison & Rothman, 2009). Thus, it is hypothesized that:

H2: High-power employees are more likely to engage in voice than low-power employees.

Furthermore, employees with power attempt to influence others (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). High-power employees have demonstrated to behave in manners that lead to the retention and acquisition of power (Bunderson & Reagans, 2011) as they have the opportunity to abuse power due to their authority and resource control (Vredenburgh & Brender, 1998). As a result, high-power employees’ exercise of power can lead to reductions in the low-power employees’ felt respect and dignity (Vredenburgh & Brender, 1998). Furthermore, high-power

employees’ desires and ideas can affect low-power employees’ wellbeing (Bunderson & Reagans, 2011).

In addition, research has indicated that employees who possess more power as a result of their competence are oftentimes less liked by their colleagues (Casciaro & Lobo, 2005; Vredenburgh & Brender, 1998). As such, employees appear to choose their work-partners not for competency and ability, but for likability. Since (low-power) employees have shown to ascribe less likability to employees in high-power positions and rather work with a lower-power employee who is likable (Casciaro & Lobo, 2005), the creation of employees’ relational social capital might be affected by the relative amount of power that employees

(11)

have within the work-group. As such, it is expected that the relationship between employees’ power and employees’ relational social capital on employee voice is different for employees who possess more versus less power. More specifically, as relational social capital involves trust, norms of reciprocity, and sociability (Baum & Ziersch, 2003), it is expected that an increase in employees’ power negatively affects their relational social capital. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:

H3: The relationship between employees’ relational social capital and employee voice is moderated by employees’ power.

(12)

3. Data and method

3.1 Procedure and sample

The objective of this study is to examine to what extent employees’ cognitive and relational social capital and employees’ power within their work-group predict employee voice in an organization. As various studies on employee voice have taken a qualitative approach (Detert, Burris, Harrison & Martin, 2013; Detert & Trevino, 2010; Donovan, O’Sullivan, Doyle & Garvey, 2016; Milliken et al., 2003; Mowbray, 2018), this study aims to build on previous findings by taking a quantitative approach. Due to the restricted time frame and feasibility of this study, the data was measured at one specific point in time (cross-sectional) by means of an online survey (see Appendix A). This survey method was chosen as it allows for high complexity of the posed questions and provides a reasonable response at a low cost (Babbie, 2011). The online survey was conducted in Qualtrics and was distributed digitally from April 27th, 2020 until May 11th, 2020. The gathered data were analyzed using the statistical package IBM SPSS Statistics (V26).

The sample of this study was gathered through volunteer- and purposive sampling, as this is a convenient, quick and inexpensive way of sampling (Babbie, 2011). After a public message was posted on the researcher’s LinkedIn page – in which companies were asked to participate in the study – representatives of three Dutch companies offered to voluntarily distribute the survey amongst its employees. Accordingly, the survey was distributed through personally addressed e-mails amongst all employees of (1) a brokerage firm, (2) a market research agency and (3) a pet food manufacturer – containing 47, 49, and 55 employees, respectively. To motivate the employees to participate, two Bol.com gift cards of €25 were raffled among the participants who finished the survey. One week after the employees received the first e-mail invitation, a follow-up e-mail was sent to remind the employees to participate. Consequently, the survey was distributed among a total of 151 employees. As the survey gathered an amount of 106 responses, the response rate of this survey was 70.2%.

However, 13 cases were excluded as these respondents did not finish the survey entirely. Of the 93 respondents, 51.6% was male and 48.4% was female, the youngest being 20 and the oldest being 69 years old, with an average age of M = 34 years (SD = 12.97). Most respondents had finished higher professional education such as HBO (35.5%) or a university master’s degree (31.2%), and currently work a 32+ hours fulltime job (59.1%). Furthermore, the majority of respondents (65.6%) were employed according to a permanent or indefinite contract. Lastly, 22.6% of the respondents had been working at their job for less than one

(13)

year, 19.4% between one and two years, 23.7% between two and four years, 14% between four and six years, 6.5% between six and eight years, and 14% of the respondents had been at their company for more than eight years.

Despite the fact that the survey was distributed amongst organizations’ employees, 4 respondents indicated that they are currently unemployed. As the survey was sent to

employees’ work e-mail addresses, it is presumed that these employees were only recently let go. As such, these 4 respondents were still able to provide valid responses to the questions posed in the survey and were, therefore, included in the analysis.

3.2 Measurement of variables

The items that were used in this research where selected based on previous scientific research and were administered in English. As all scale items were adapted to fit the research question of this study, factor and reliability analyses were performed for each scale.

3.2.1 Outcome variable: Employee voice

Employee voice was measured by means of the six-item scale as developed by LePine and Van Dyne (1998). Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which they agreed with items such as ‘‘I develop and make recommendations concerning issues that affect my work-group’’ (M = 5.59, SD = .80). A seven-point Likert scale was used for answering each question (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

In order to see if the sample size of this scale was adequate, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure was considered. As the KMO = .84, the measure verified the adequacy for the analysis (p < .05). Furthermore, the principal axis factor analysis (PAF) showed that the six items form a single uni-dimensional scale: only one component contains an eigenvalue above 1 (eigenvalue 3.50) and there is a clear point of inflexion after this component in the scree plot. Together, these factors explain 50.31% of the variance in the original variables. After a direct oblimin rotation, all items correlate positively with the first factor, the variable ‘‘I develop and make recommendations concerning issues that affect my work-group’’ has the strongest association (factor loading is .79). As the reliability of the scale is good (α = .85), it appears that the scale measures employee voice behavior.

(14)

3.2.2 Predictor variable: Employees’ social capital

Employees’ social capital within the work-group was measured by adapting and dividing the eight-item ‘‘Social Capital at work’’ scale as developed by Kouvonen, Kivimäki, Vahtera, Oksanen, Elovainio, Cox, Virtanen, Penti, Cox and Wilkinson (2006), into measuring employees’ amount of (1) relational - and (2) cognitive social capital within their work-group. Again, a seven-point Likert scale was used for answering each question (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

Relational social capital. The first five items were used to measure employees’

amount of relational social capital (see Appendix A). Thus, respondents were asked to rate the extent to which they agreed with items such as ‘‘I can trust the members of my work-group’’ (M = 5.68, SD = .78). The PAF demonstrated that the measure verified the adequacy for the analysis, as the KMO = .79 (p < .05). Furthermore, the five items form a single

uni-dimensional scale: only one component contains an eigenvalue above 1 (eigenvalue 3.16) and there is a clear point of inflexion after this component in the scree plot. Together, these factors explain 55.44% of the variance in the original variables. After a direct oblimin rotation, all items correlate positively with the first factor, the variable ‘‘I feel understood and accepted by the members of my work-group’’ has the strongest association (factor loading is .88).

Reliability of the scale is good, Cronbach’s alpha = .84. Therefore, it appears that the scale measures relational social capital.

Cognitive social capital. Accordingly, the latter three items of the ‘‘Social Capital at work’’ scale were used to measure employees’ amount of cognitive social capital within their work-group. A sample question posed was ‘‘I keep other members of the work-group

informed about work-related issues’’. As cognitive social capital involves subjective or intangible features that result in shared interpretations among parties (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998), two extra questions were added to this scale. An attempt to measure these shared systems of meaning was made by posing the questions ‘‘Members of my work-group use (technical) terms that only members of the work-group understand’’ and ‘‘Members of my work-group laugh at jokes that only members of the work-group understand’’.

However, when performing a PAF, it appeared that the five items do not form a single uni-dimensional, and more importantly, valid scale, as in the attempt to extract two factors, the extraction was terminated. Additionally, the measure did not verify the adequacy for the analysis (KMO = .46, p < .05). As such, another PAF on the first three items of the cognitive social capital scale was performed (M = 5.53, SD = .78), which does show that the three items form a single uni-dimensional scale: only one component has an eigenvalue above 1

(15)

(eigenvalue 1.78). Furthermore, after this component, there is a clear point of inflexion in the scree plot. Hence, together these factors explain 59.40% of the variance in the original

variables. After a direct oblimin rotation, all items correlate positively with the first factor, the variable ‘‘I cooperate with the work-group in order to help develop and apply new ideas’’ has the strongest association (factor loading is .43). Reliability of the scale, however, remains questionable, Cronbach’s alpha = .63.

3.2.3 Predictor & moderator variable: Employees’ power

Employees’ power within the work-group was measured according to the centralization of power scale as created by Haige and Aiken (1967). This questionnaire approach specifically measures three aspects of the centralization of power, namely: the personal participation in decision making (PP), the hierarchy of authority (HP) and the departmental participation in decision making (DP).

First, the PP-scale measured how much the employee participates in decisions about the allocation of resources and the determination of policies (Hage & Aiken, 1967). Out of the four-item scale, one sample question was ‘‘How frequently do you usually participate in the decision to hire new staff?’’ (M = 2.29, SD = 1.18). For this scale, respondents were asked to rate the frequency of these tasks by answering through a five-point Likert scale (1 = never, 5 = always).

The PAF demonstrated that the measure verified the adequacy for the analysis, as the KMO = .84 (p < .05). In addition, the four items form a single uni-dimensional scale, as only one component contains an eigenvalue above 1 (3.10) and there is a clear point of inflexion after this component in the scree plot. Together, these factors account for 70.36% of the variance in the original items. After a direct oblimin rotation, all items correlate positively with the first factor. Furthermore, the variable ‘‘How frequently do you usually participate in the decision to hire new staff?’’ has the strongest association (factor loading .92) and the reliability of the scale is good (α = .90). Therefore, it appears that the scale measures power according to employees’ personal participation in decision making.

Second, the HP-scale measured the degree to which the employee participates in decisions involving the tasks associated with his position (Hage & Aiken, 1967), by means of five items (M = 3.00, SD = 1.14). A sample question posed was ‘‘There can be little action taken here until a supervisor approves a decision’’. Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which they degree with the statement, answering through a seven-point Likert scale (1 =

(16)

Another PAF was performed and showed that the measure verified the adequacy for the analysis, as the KMO = .74 (p < .05). Furthermore, the factor analysis showed that the five items form a single uni-dimensional scale: only one component contains an eigenvalue above 1 (eigenvalue 2.78) and there is a clear point of inflexion after this component in the scree plot. Together, these factors explain 45.99% of the variance in the original items. After a direct oblimin rotation, all items correlate positively with the first factor, the variable ‘‘I have to ask my boss before I do almost anything’’ has the strongest association (factor loading is .84). Reliability of the scale is good (α = .79). As such, the scale measures power according to employees’ hierarchy in authority.

Third, the DP-scale determined how much an individual participates in decisions involving their work and work environment (Hage & Aiken, 1967). A question that was posed in this five-item scale was ‘‘People here are allowed to do as much as they please’’. Despite the fact that the measure verified the adequacy for analysis (KMO = .72, p < .05), it became apparent that it did not measure one single uni-dimensional scale: two components contain an eigenvalue above 1 (eigenvalue of 2.89 and 1.03), so there is no one clear point of inflexion after this component in the scree plot. Together, these factors explain 64.81% of the variance in the original items.

After a direct oblimin rotation, it became apparent that the two items ‘‘I feel that I am my own boss in most matters’’ and ‘‘I can make my own decisions without checking with anybody else’’ loaded on another factor. As such, these two items were taken out and the scale that was used to measure departmental participation in decision making was adapted to three items (M = 3.88, SD = 1.34). Reliability of this new scale is good (α = .80), which means that the scale measures power according to employees’ engagement in departmental decision making. Again, respondents were asked to rate the extent to which they degree with the statement, answering through a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

As these scales each measure a particular type of power, the mean of each scale would be combined into one overarching score that measures employees’ total amount of relative power. To test whether this would be possible, a correlation analysis was conducted. Prior to the analysis, preliminary checks were performed to ensure no violation of the assumptions of normality, linearity and homoscedasticity. Then, there was a small, negative correlation between the PP and HP variable, r = -.29, n = 93, p < .01. Continuing, there was a small but insignificant correlation between the PP and DP variable, r = .11, n = 93, p > .05. Lastly, there was a medium, negative correlation between the HP and DP variable, r = -.42, n = 93, p <

(17)

.001. Since not all of these scales correlate with one another, these variables could not be computed into one overarching power scale. As a result, H2 and H3 – which both involve employees’ power – are tested separately for each of the three scales that measure employees’ power.

3.2.4 Control variables

Control variables taken into consideration in this research are gender, age, education, contract hours, type of contract and the years that respondents have spent working for the company. First, the gender and age of the respondent might affect their engagement in voice behavior as males might act differently than females (Fapohunda, 2016), and younger people might respond differently to organizational matters than people who are older.

Second, employees’ level of education might be of influence as employees that have completed a higher education might feel more at ease with voicing their opinions compared to employees who have completed a relatively lower level of education (Köllner & Süß, 2017). Third, the amount of weekly hours that an employee works at a company might affect whether they are motivated or reluctant to share their opinion at work, as they might not be around as much as other employees who work more hours according to their contract (Putnam, Meyers & Gailliard, 2014).

Fourth, the type of contract (permanent or temporary) that an employee has might also be of interest when examining their engagement in voice behavior. As such, employee voice might be perceived as more of a risk if one does not have a permanent contract in which they are employed for an indefinite period (Morrison, 2014). Lastly, the time that an employee is working for a company might also influence their voice behavior (Li, 2016), as one might feel uncomfortable in the beginning and more comfortable after a certain amount of time.

(18)

4. Results

First, preliminary analyses were performed to ensure that the assumptions of normality, linearity and homoscedasticity were met. Second, to test whether the data meets the assumption of collinearity, analysis indicated that multicollinearity was not a concern (relational social capital, Tolerance = .46, VIF = 2.17; cognitive social capital, Tolerance = .48, VIF = 2.09; participation power, Tolerance = .56, VIF = 1.79; hierarchical power, Tolerance = .55, VIF = 1.84; departmental decision power, Tolerance = .72, VIF = 1.40).

Then, to test hypotheses one and two – about the effect of employees’ social capital (H1) and employees’ power (H2) on employee voice behavior – a linear regression analysis was performed (see Table 1). The regression model with employee voice as dependent

variable and relational social capital, cognitive social capital, participation power, hierarchical power and departmental decision power as independent variables, and gender, age, education, contract hours, type of contract and the years that respondents have spent working for the company as covariates is significant, F(20, 92) = 4.69, p < .001.

Therefore, the regression model can be used to predict employee voice behavior, and the strength of the prediction is high: 56.6% percent of the variation in employee voice behavior can be predicted on the basis of relational social capital, cognitive social capital, participation -, hierarchical - and departmental decision power (R2 = .57, R2adjusted = .45). Cognitive social capital b* = 0.37, t = 3.29, p < .01, 95 CI % [0.15, 0.60] and participation power b* = 0.43, t = 4.17, p < .01, 95 CI % [0.15, 0.43], have a moderate, significant association with employee voice behavior. Relational social capital b* = 0.14, t = 1.24, p > .05, 95 CI % [-0.08, 0.38], hierarchical power b* = -0.00, t = -.01, p > .05, 95 CI % [-0.15, 0.15] and departmental decision power b* = 0.07, t = .75, p > .05, 95 CI % [-0.07, 0.15] do not have a significant association with employee voice behavior.

In line with hypothesis 1a, the analysis revealed that an increase in employees’ cognitive social capital within the work-group is positively related to employee voice. As such, when employees’ amount of cognitive social capital increases with 1, on average, the predicted engagement in voice behavior increases by 0.38 (SE = 0.11). Here, predictions of other independent variables and covariates are assumed to be held constant. Testing

hypothesis 1b, the regression analysis shows that the prediction of employee voice by relational social capital is not significant (p = .22). Therefore, hypothesis 1b is rejected.

Continuing, hypothesis 2 proposed that high-power employees within the work-group are more likely to engage in voice than low-power employees. As the three power scales

(19)

could not be computed into one overarching scale, all variables were tested separately in the linear regression analysis. As mentioned previously, only participation power has a significant effect on employee voice. Therefore, hypothesis 2 is confirmed for participation power, as it demonstrates that when employees’ participation power increases with 1, on average, the predicted engagement in employee voice behavior increases by 0.29 (SE = 0.07).

Accordingly, hypothesis 2 is rejected for hierarchical power (p = 1.00) and departmental decision power (p =.46).

Table 1

Regression models to predict employee voice (H1 & H2) Dependent variable

Employee voice

b (SE)

Constant 2.62 (.95)**

Independent variables

Relational social capital 0.14 (0.12)

N = 93

Cognitive social capital 0.37 (0.11)**

N = 93

Participation power 0.43 (0.07)**

N = 93

Hierarchical power -0.00 (0.07)

N = 93

Departmental decision power 0.07 (0.06)

N = 93

Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

Examining hypothesis 3, it is expected that the relationship between employees’ relational social capital and voice behavior is moderated by employees’ power. As participation power has demonstrated to be the only power variable that has a significant effect on employee voice, this variable was included in this moderation analysis. To ensure no violations of multicollinearity, both the relational social capital and the participation power variable were mean-centered before computing the interaction-term. This clarifies the regression

coefficients whilst the overall model fit (R2) remains undisturbed (Iacobucci, Schneider, Popovich & Bakamitsos, 2017). Finally, another linear regression was performed.

(20)

The linear regression model with employee voice as dependent variable and relational social capital, cognitive social capital, and participation power as independent variables, the interaction between relational social capital and participation power as the moderator variable and type of contract as the covariate is significant, F(5,92) = 17.34, p < 0.001. Therefore, the regression model can be used to predict employee voice behavior, and the strength of the prediction remains high: 49.9 percent of the variation in employee voice behavior can be predicted on the basis of relational social capital, cognitive social capital, participation power, type of contract and the interaction of relational social capital with power (R2= .50, R2adjusted= .47).

Relational social capital, in this example, does not have a significant association with employee voice behavior b* = -.09, t = .81, p = .42. 95 % CI [-0.13, 0.31]. Furthermore, the effect of relational social capital on employee voice behavior does not seem to be moderated by participation power (b* = -.14, p = .11). Since the interaction term is not significant, hypothesis 3 is rejected. This means that the effects of relational social capital on the level of employee voice behavior do not differ by employees’ high or low levels of power.

(21)

5. Conclusion and discussion

5.1 Conclusion

This study was based on the assumption that employees’ cognitive and relational social capital and employees’ power within a work-group positively predict employee voice in an organization. Furthermore, it was expected that the relationship between employees’ relational social capital and employee voice is moderated by employees’ power. This is relevant as there have been no previous quantitative studies that examined the role of

employees’ cognitive and relational social capital and employees’ power on employee voice behavior in the context of their work-group. The data were collected through a

cross-sectional, online survey that was distributed among employees of three Dutch organizations who self-administered their answers (N = 93). As such, this study was based on a non-probability sampling method.

The research question that has guided this study was: To what extent do employees’ social capital and power-differences within a work-group predict employee voice in an

organization? In line with the proposed conceptual model, the results of the study showed that employees’ cognitive social capital and employees’ participation power are positive

predictors of employee voice behavior. Different than initially expected, relational social capital, hierarchical power and departmental decision power do not significantly predict employee voice behavior. Furthermore, it was proposed that employees’ power would moderate the relationship between employees’ relational social capital and employee voice behavior. However, no moderated effect of employees’ power on the relationship between employees’ relational social capital and employee voice behavior was found.

To conclude, the findings of this study are a valuable contribution to prior scientific research on employees’ cognitive and relational social capital, employees’ power and

employee voice behavior. In fact, no study has investigated the effect of employees’ types of social capital and power on employee voice, let alone the moderating role of employees’ participation power on employees’ relational social capital and employee voice behavior. As such, this study bridges this gap by defining the role of employees’ cognitive and relational social capital and employees’ power within their work-group on whether or not employees are willing to speak up in the organization. As employees are believed to be any company’s most important resource, it is suggested to further examine the effects of employees’ social capital and employees’ power on employee voice behavior in an organization.

(22)

5.2 Theoretical implications

Several studies have demonstrated that employee voice behavior is influenced by factors deep-rooted in the social dynamics of the workplace (Brinsfield, Greenberg & Edwards, 2009; LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Morrison, 2014; Morrison et al., 2011; Venkataramani et al., 2015). Accordingly, this study proposed that the level of employees’ cognitive and relational social capital and the relative amount of employees’ power within their work-group would positively predict employee voice behavior in an organization. Though not all relationships were significant, the results of this study extend existing literature as they have indicated that both employees’ social capital and employees’ power consist of dimensions that should be treated separately, as each dimension appeared to have a different effect on employee voice behavior within the organization.

5.2.1 Employees’ cognitive social capital and employee voice

Hypothesis 1a proposed that the level of employees’ cognitive social capital within the work-group is positively related to employee voice. Consistent with this hypothesis, this study found that employees’ amount of cognitive social capital was significantly and positively related to employee voice behavior. This builds upon findings from other studies that have investigated the relationship between employees’ shared systems of meaning within their work-group and employee voice (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Morrison et al., 2011; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). As such, results indicated that an emergent shared language, codes and narratives among employees had a positive effect on employee voice behavior. So, employees who experience more shared systems of meaning within their work-group are more likely to voice their opinions, suggestions and/or feedback in the organization.

5.2.2 Employees’ relational social capital and employee voice

Hypothesis 1b suggested that the level of employees’ relational social capital within the work-group would be positively related to employee voice. However, the results of this study could not confirm this relationship. As such, the types of personal relationships that individuals have developed with one another following a history of interactions, did not appear to have a positive effect on employee voice behavior.

This might be due to what organizational psychologists have termed the mum-effect (Morrison, 2014; Rosen & Tesser, 1970). The mum-effect suppresses sincere, straightforward and often necessary communication as employees have a general reluctance to convey

(23)

negative information because of the discomfort that they feel with being the conveyer of bad news (Conlee & Tesser, 1973; Milliken et al., 2003). In addition, employees often do not want to be perceived as a know-it-all by speaking up – either positively or negatively – in the office, especially not by colleagues with whom they experience good social relations

(Milliken et al., 2003; Morrison, 2014). Thus, in an attempt to maintain social harmony in the workplace, employees that possess a substantial amount of relational social capital with their co-workers might have the tendency to not voice their opinions as they are afraid to damage the pleasant and valuable relationships they have with their colleagues (Rosen & Tesser, 1970).

5.2.3 Employees’ power and employee voice

Hypothesis 2 proposed that high-power employees within the work-group are more likely to engage in employee voice than low-power employees. This hypothesis was tested for three types of power: participation power, hierarchical power and departmental decision power. Consistent with this hypothesis, this study found that employees’ relative amount of

participation power is significantly and positively related to their employee voice behavior. The effect of participation power on employee voice is in line with other studies that have examined this relationship (Bunderson & Reagans, 2011; Milliken et al., 2003; Morrison & Rothman, 2009; Pinder & Harlos, 2001; Wittenbaum, Hollingshead & Botero, 2004). As high-power employees typically have more control over the organizational resources and rewards (Morrison, 2014) and therefore have more power to act at will (Bunderson & Reagans, 2011), they are more likely to voice their opinions on the work-floor (Pinder & Harlos, 2001). As such, the findings of this study demonstrated that employees who

increasingly participate in the allocation and determination of resources and policies are more likely to speak up.

However, both hierarchical- and departmental decision power did not affect employee voice behavior significantly. This could be ascribed to the size of the organizations that have participated in this research. As such, each of the three Dutch organizations did not exceed the amount of 60 employees in total, whereas the organizations that were examined in multiple landmark studies contained several hundred up until fifty thousand employees (Detert & Burris, 2007; Detert & Trevino, 2010; Hage & Aiken, 1967). When organizations grow bigger, related units are grouped together to work in departments and corporate hierarchy arises (Shih, 1998). As such, hierarchical power and departmental power are much more

(24)

prevalent among large corporations (Detert & Burris, 2007; Detert & Trevino, 2010; Hage & Aiken, 1967; Shih, 1998) than among smaller corporations. Thus, as small organizations generally have a simple organizational structure in which there is less need for strict departments and hierarchy to manage the organizations’ daily operations (Shih, 1998), employees’ hierarchical and departmental decision power might not have a significant effect on employee voice behavior in smaller organizations.

5.2.4 The moderating role of power on employees’ relational social capital and employee voice

Hypothesis 3 proposed that the relationship between employees’ relational social capital and employee voice is moderated by employees’ power. More specifically, it was expected that an increase in employees’ participation power would negatively affect employees’ relational social capital. The results of this study did not significantly support the hypothesis.

This might be due to the level of respect that lower-power employees’ can ascribe to their higher-power colleagues. Respect is understood as the ‘‘perceived worth accorded to one person by one or more others’’ (Spears, Ellemers, Doosje & Branscombe, 2006, p. 179). Respect can be determined according to a person’s behavior, competence, and achievements (Rogers & Ashforth, 2014) and treating someone with respect entails having a sense of admiration for their good and valuable qualities (Rogers & Ashforth, 2014). Since relational social capital involves respect (Baum & Ziersch, 2003), ascribing respect to high-power individuals and their competence might facilitate their creation of relational social capital instead of reduce it.

5.3 Practical implications

The findings of this study have several practical implications. Employees’ cognitive social capital and participation power can positively influence employee voice behavior and therefore, overall organizational performance (Detert & Burris, 2007; LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Morrison, 2014). Furthermore, the analyses of this study demonstrated that employees’ participation power did not moderate the relationship between employees’ relational social capital and employee voice behavior.

Considering these results, organizations may consider opportunities to invest in the creation of employees’ cognitive social capital by actively creating shared systems of meaning within the work-groups. These systems of meaning can be created through the

(25)

introduction of rituals, roles, symbols and goals (Ayers, 2002). As such, by developing a strong mission statement and clear objectives for the work-group, organizations could facilitate and stimulate cognitive social capital and employee voice behavior.

In addition, as employees’ amount of participation power has shown to be positively related to employee voice behavior, organizations might want to consider to increase the participation of their employees in the allocation of resources and the determination of organizational policies. This could be done by actively asking for employees’ personal opinions on these topics and bearing these in mind when making a decision. As employees will then notice that their voices are being heard and valued, it might lead them to speak up on other matters too.

5.4 Limitations and future research

Although this study adhered to the guidelines and requirements given, there are a few limitations that might have had an impact on this study. First and foremost, the sample was acquired by means of volunteer- and purposive sampling. As the call for volunteers can attract individuals with similar characteristics, volunteer sampling might not be representative of the entire population and might lead to a low level of reliability and high levels of (volunteer) bias (Babbie, 2011). Furthermore, the sample of this study includes 93 respondents, which could be considered too small of a sample as it should be N > 106 ideally (Van Voorhis & Morgan, 2007). In addition, as the study was only conducted in three small-sized, Dutch organizations, the reliability and validity of the results could be increased by amplifying the scope and size of the research. However, as the response rate of the survey of this study was 70.2%, the sample could be perceived as valid and representative of the general population (Babbie, 2011).

Furthermore, the data was self-administered and collected at one specific point in time, which could lead to a bias in the results of this study as it can decrease internal validity

(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff, 2003). A longitudinal, peer assessment or face-to-face interviews of employees’ voice behavior would be valuable additions to examine more thoroughly if and how employee voice evolves. Although experimental research is considered to be the golden standard for establishing causality, the main benefit of a longitudinal study is that developments or changes in employees’ voice behavior can be detected beyond a single moment in time (Babbie, 2011).

(26)

the theoretical concepts of employees’ relational and cognitive social capital best. However, as the reliability of the cognitive social capital scale appeared to be questionable (α = .63), it would be interesting to see if the outcomes of this study would be similar with another, valid and more reliable scale that measures employees’ cognitive social capital.

The last limitation might be that the survey was administered in English whilst being conducted in the Netherlands. As a result, respondents’ education level was rather high, possibly implying that potential respondents with lower education levels and/or with a poorer understanding of the English language might have felt uncomfortable to participate in the survey. As it was the aim to measure employee voice behavior from various employees with diverse educational backgrounds, it would be interesting to see what would happen to the data if the survey would be administered in Dutch.

As the findings of this study create new questions, they grant directions for future research. First, as employees’ social capital might as well be an outcome of employee voice behavior (Van Dyne et al., 1995; Whiting et al., 2012), the reverse relationship(s) of these variables should be further investigated. Furthermore, this study could be used as a starting point when examining how work-groups (can) create cognitive social capital and shared systems of meaning among employees (Cumberland et al., 2018). In addition, the effects of bonding, bridging and linking social capital on employee voice behavior could be

investigated, as these types connect people who possess different amounts of organizational power (Baum & Ziersch, 2003). Furthermore, it might be valuable to investigate the potential differences between employees’ power and employees’ status on employee voice, as a status hierarchy is characterized by the rank ordering of employees according to the amount of respect that is ascribed to them (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). Lastly, it would be interesting to examine the differences between small and large corporations, to see if the potential lack of organizational hierarchy has a significant influence on employees’ amount of power, social capital and their employee voice behavior (Liu & Moskvina, 2016).

(27)

6. References

Ayers, M. (2002). LEADERSHIP, SHARED MEANING, AND SEMANTICS. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 59(3), 287-295. Retrieved June 2, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/42578221

Babbie, E. (2011). The practice of social research. Nelson Education.

Baum, F., & Ziersch, A. (2003). Social Capital. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (1979-), 57(5), 320-323. Retrieved March 30, 2020, from

www.jstor.org/stable/25570000

Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical reason: On the theory of action. Stanford University Press. Brinsﬁeld, C. T., Edwards, M. S., & Greenberg, J. (2009). Voice and silence in organizations:

Historical review and current conceptualizations. Voice and silence in organizations, 1.

Bunderson, J. & Reagans, R. (2011). Power, status, and learning in organizations. Organization Science, 22(5), 1182-1194.

Carmeli, A., Ben-Hador, B., Waldman, D. & Rupp, D. (2009). How leaders cultivate social capital and nurture employee vigor: Implications for job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1553–1561.

Carzo, R., & Yanouzas, J. (1969). Effects of Flat and Tall Organization Structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(2), 178-191. doi:10.2307/2391096

Casciaro, T., & Lobo, M. (2005). Competent jerks, lovable fools, and the formation of social networks. Harvard Business Review, 83(6), 92–99, 149.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.

Conlee, M., & Tesser, A. (1973). The Effects of Recipient Desire to Hear on News Transmission. Sociometry, 36(4), 588–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786254 Cumberland, D., Alagaraja, M., Shuck, B., & Kerrick, S. (2018). Organizational Social

Capital: Ties Between HRD, Employee Voice, and CEOs. Human Resource Development Review, 17(2), 199–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484318772488 Detert, J., & Burris, E. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door

really open?. Academy of management journal, 50(4), 869-884.

Detert, J., Burris, E., Harrison, D., & Martin, S. (2013). Voice Flows to and around Leaders: Understanding When Units Are Helped or Hurt by Employee Voice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(4), 624-668. Retrieved May 28, 2020, from

www.jstor.org/stable/43185051

Detert, J., & Trevino, L. (2010). Speaking Up to Higher-Ups: How Supervisors and Skip- Level Leaders Influence Employee Voice. (2010). Organization Science, 21(1), 249– 270. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0405

Donovan, S., O’Sullivan, M., Doyle, E., & Garvey, J. (2016). Employee voice and silence in auditing firms. Employee Relations, 38(4), 563–577.

https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-05-2015-0078

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999 Fapohunda, T. M. (2016). Gender, voice and silence: Strategies for inclusion of female employees. Archives of Business Research, 4(1).

Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people. American Psychologist, 48, 621-628.

French, J.R.P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

(28)

perceived by the medical director associated with coordination among hospital staff? A nationwide survey in German hospitals. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 27, 171– 176.

Guinote, A. (2007). Power and Goal Pursuit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(8), 1076–1087. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207301011

Hage, J., & Aiken, M. (1967). Relationship of Centralization to Other Structural Properties. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1), 72-92. doi:10.2307/2391213

Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states (Vol. 25). Harvard university press.

Holland, P., Teicher, J., & Donaghey, J. (2019). Employee Voice at Work (1st ed. 2019.). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2820-6

Iacobucci, D., Schneider, M. J., Popovich, D. L., & Bakamitsos, G. A. (2017). Mean

centering, multicollinearity, and moderators in multiple regression: The reconciliation redux. Behavior research methods, 49(1), 403-404.

Ilgen, D. R. (1994). Jobs and roles: Accepting and coping with the changing structure of organizations. Personnel selection and classification, 13-32.

Julien, C. (2015). Bourdieu, Social Capital and Online Interaction. Sociology, 49(2), 356–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038514535862

Keeley, M., & Graham, J. W. (1991). Exit, voice, and ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(5), 349-355.

Köllner, B., & Süß, S. (2017). Voice behavior in higher education. Managementforschung, 27(1), 113–135. https://doi.org/10.1365/s41113-016-0010-3

Lam, C. F., & Mayer, D. M. (2014). When do employees speak up for their customers? A model of voice in a customer service context. Personnel Psychology, 67(3), 637-666. LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of

applied psychology, 83(6), 853.

Li, F. (2016). Employee work experience, locomotion, and voice behavior. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 44(11), 1851–1862.

https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2016.44.11.1851

Liu, J., & Moskvina, A. (2016). Hierarchies, ties and power in organizational networks: model and analysis. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 6(1), 1–26.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-016-0413-2

Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). 8 social hierarchy: The self‐reinforcing nature of ‘ power and status. Academy of Management annals, 2(1), 351-398.

Meng, A., Clausen, T., & Borg, V. (2018). The association between team‐level social capital and individual‐level work engagement: Differences between subtypes of social capital and the impact of intra‐team agreement. Scandinavian journal of psychology, 59(2), 198-205.

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. (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav., 1(1), 173-197.

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. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management review, 25(4), 706-725. Morrison, E. W., & Rothman, N. B. (2009). Silence and the dynamics of power. Voice and

silence in organizations, 6, 111-134.

(29)

level study of group voice climate and voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 183.

Mowbray, P. (2018). Giving a voice to managers: forging the desire line through the creation of informal employee voice channels and productive resistance. The International Journal of Human Resource Management: Voices Unheard?, 29(5), 941–969. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1396552

Nahapiet, J. & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23, 242 –266.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of applied psychology, 88(5), 879.

Putnam, R. D. (1996). The strange disappearance of civic America. The American Prospect, 24, 34 –48

Putnam, L., Myers, K., & Gailliard, B. (2014). Examining the tensions in workplace

flexibility and exploring options for new directions. Human Relations, 67(4), 413–440. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726713495704

Requena, F. (2003). Social Capital, Satisfaction and Quality of Life in the Workplace. Social Indicators Research, 61(3), 331-360. Retrieved March 31, 2020, from

www.jstor.org/stable/27527079

Rogers, K., & Ashforth, B. (2017). Respect in Organizations: Feeling Valued as “We” and “Me.” Journal of Management, 43(5), 1578–1608.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314557159

Rosen, S., & Tesser, A. (1970). On Reluctance to Communicate Undesirable Information: the MUM Effect. Sociometry, 33(3), 253–263. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786156

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

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01385051

Schwartz, J., & Wald, M. L. (2003). The Nation: NASA’s curse? “Groupthink” is 30 years old, and still going strong. New York Times, 5.

Shih, M. (1998). Corporate Hierarchy and Goal Attainability. The Accounting Review, 73(4), 557-564. Retrieved June 25, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/248190

Spears, R., Ellemers, N., Doosje, B., & Branscombe, N. R. 2006. The individual within the group: Respect! In T. Postmes & J. Jetten (Eds.), Individuality and the group: Advances in social identity: 175-195. London: Sage.

Storberg, J. (2002). The evolution of capital theory: A critique of a theory of social capital and implications for HRD. Human Resource Development Review, 1, 468-499.

doi:10.1177/1534484302238437

Thoits, P. A. (2011). Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52, 145 –161

Thompson, G. (2016, August 12). When your most motivated employees become quiet! Retrieved June 4, 2020, from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/when-your-most-motivated-employees-become-quiet-graham-thompson

Van Dyne, L. , Cummings, L. L. , & McLean Parks, J. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.),

Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 17 (pp. 215-285). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Van der Vegt, G. S., De Jong, S. B., Bunderson, J. S., & Molleman, E. (2010). Power

asymmetry and learning in teams: The moderating role of performance feedback. Organization Science, 21(2), 347-361.

(30)

determining sample sizes. Tutorials in quantitative methods for psychology, 3(2), 43-50.

Venkataramani, V., Zhou, L., Wang, M., Liao, H., & Shi, J. (2015). Social networks and employee voice: The influence of team members’ and team leaders’ social network positions on employee voice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 132, 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.12.001

Vredenburgh, D., & Brender, Y. (1998). The Hierarchical Abuse of Power in Work Organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(12), 1337-1347. Retrieved June 23, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/25073966

Wei, C., Sun, X., Liu, J., Zhou, C., & Xue, G. (2017). High Power Distance Enhances Employees’ Preference for Likable Managers: A Resource Dependency Perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 2066. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02066

Whiting, S., Maynes, T., Podsakoff, N., & Podsakoff, P. (2012). Effects of Message, Source, and Context on Evaluations of Employee Voice Behavior. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 97(1), 159–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024871

Wilkinson, A., Dundon, T., Donaghey, J., & Freeman, R. (2014). Employee voice: Charting new terrain. In A. Wilkinson, J. Donaghey, T. Dundon, & R. Freeman (Eds.), The handbook of research on employee voice: Participation and involvement in the workplace (pp. 1–16).

Wittenbaum, G. M., A. B. Hollingshead, I. C. Botero. 2004. From cooperative to motivated information sharing in groups: Moving beyond the hidden proﬁle paradigm. Comm. Monographs 71(3) 286–310.

Speak up!: Assessing the effects of social capital and power-dynamics on employee voice behavior.

Master Thesis