Proactive goals and voice

Proactive Goals and Voice

(Barack Obama, 2008) Thesis by

Ymke de Vries

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of the University of Amsterdam Master Business Studies in Leading and Managing People

June 27, 2014

2

Abstract

Previous studies mainly focus on employees’ decision to voice or remain silent, and not on the usefulness of their voice behavior (Wolsink, forthcoming). This study focuses on the two components of voice: voice behavior and voice quality. To investigate how proactive self- and proactive other-goals (Belschak and den Hartog, 2010) maximize voice quality towards the manager we obtained data through a survey among managers and employees (140 dyads of a manager and an employee). We hypothesized that setting proactive other-goals predicts voice quality towards the manager through the effects of these goals on voice behaviour towards colleagues. In contrast, we hypothesized that setting proactive self-goals also predicts voice quality towards the manager, but now through the effect of these goals on voice behaviour towards the manager. These two propositions could not be confirmed. However, we did find that voice behaviour predicts voice quality. We also demonstrated that individuals who are setting proactive self-goals will voice ideas towards the manager which are of lower quality. These suggestions should not be dismissed, but future research is suggested.

3

Table of Contents

1. Introduction……….………… 4

2. Literature……..………....7

2.1 Voice………..………...7

2.2 Voice Behaviour and Voice Quality………..………...7

2.3 Proactive Goals………. 8

2.4 Proactive Goals and Voice Behaviour………...9

2.5 Proactive Goals and Voice Quality………...………...11

3. Methods ………....13

3.1 Design and Procedure………...13

3.2 Participants………....13

3.3 Measurements………14

3.3.1 Employee Voice Quality towards the manager...14

3.3.2 Proactive Goals of the Employee...15

3.3.3 Employee Voice Behaviour………..16

3.3.4 Control Variables………....………...16 4. Predictions………...17 5. Models……….18 5.1 Conceptual Models………....18 5.2 Measurement Models……….19 6. Results………..21

6.1 Descriptives and Correlations………...21

6.2 Regression and Mediation Model Proactive Other-goals...23

6.3 Regression and Mediation Model Proactive Self-goals...25

6.4 Altern. Regression and Mediation Model Proactive Self-goals …...…….27

6.5 Models with Correlations...29

7. Discussion and Conclusion...30

7.1 Summery and Contributions...30

7.2 Theoretical Implications and Alternative Explanations...31

7.3 Discussion Points...33

7.4 Practical Implications...34

7.5 Concluding Thoughts...35

8.References……….36

4

1. Introduction

Imagine you work as a manager in a large company with one hundred employees you have to lead. You are in contact with your employees on a regular basis. Employees are giving suggestions, advice and opinions. Not only to each other but also to you as their manager, with the aim of improving the company- and the business -processes. This employee voice may have to do with them fulfilling their-, or the company’s future -goals in which they actively anticipate. These goals could be focused on the organization or work teams, but also on the individual himself. How useful, changing, challenging, improving, dissenting and original is their voice. For business success, it is important to take employee voice quality into account, when we talk about employee voice behaviour in organizations (Wolsink, forthcoming). The question that remains is: How do employee other-goals and employee self-goals influence the quality of ideas they communicate to their manager?

Against the backdrop of global economic challenge, organizations and their employees are continuously investigating how to innovate, how to reach essential (valuable) information and how to become more effective. Automation processes put pressure on employees and their added value. People are replaced by machines because many human tasks can be taking over by new inventions. However, in organizations, employees are able to bring in essential information or ideas that could be valuable for the company they work for. When employees experience dissatisfaction in the workplace, they continuously decide whether they decide to speak up or remain silent (Morrison & Milliken, 2003). A voice should be noted in an organization and through the management because a voice may be essential for business success and renewal.

One voice can change a room, and if one voice can change a room, then it can change a city, and if it can change a city, it can change a state, and if it can change a state, it can change a nation, and if it can change a nation, it can change the world. Your voice can change to world.

Barack Obama, 20081

1

Speech Barack Obama. November 3, 2008, Manassas, Prince William County, Virginia. It was the night before the election. On November 4, Obama won the Presidency of America.

5

When employees are unhappy at work, they can leave the organization, be loyal or voice (Withey & Cooper, 1989). When employees decide to ‘voice, they want to have impact on their organization and they are challenging the status quo with actions in which they are involved (Grand & Ashford, 2008; LePine&vanDine,1998; Withey & Cooper, 1989; Detert & Burris, 2007).

Voicing is a form of proactive behaviour. Employees take an active role in their approach towards work and want to impact themselves and their environment. Proactive people actively seek information and improvements instead of passively adapting the present conditions (Grant & Ashford, 2008; Crant, 2000; Belschak & den Hartog, 2010). Individuals are taking a self-starting and active approach and they do more than is required in a specific job. Proactive behaviour is partly overlapping with the concept of personal initiative. Both describe work behaviour that is self -started, future- focused, proactive, feedback-seeking and it overcomes barriers to achieve a specific goal (Frese & Fay, 2001; Frese et al., 1996; Bindl & Parker, Forthcoming ; Parker et. al, 2010). Proactive behaviour can be a result of proactive goal setting. These proactive goals could be organizational, personal and interpersonal. Pro-organizational goals are directed at the organization and its success. Personal goals are self-focused and include promotion of the self. Interpersonal goals are other focused, directed at colleagues (Belschak & den Hartog, 2010).

This study is about the relationship between proactive goals and employee voice. Extant literature has focused on voice behaviour in relation to (transformational) leadership, but not on voice quality. In sum, these studies focus on voice in general. Therefore, Wolsink (forthcoming) makes a distinction between voice behaviour and voice quality. She claims that voice quality and voice behaviour must be separated because it are different concepts with different outcomes. In previous studies, voice behaviour and voice quality are not associated with other variables because they have never been measured separately. Voice behaviour is about having to say something, while voice quality emphasizes on having something to say (Wolsink, forthcoming, p.3.). In contrast to the distinction of voice by Wolsink (forthcoming), Liu, Zu and Yang (2010) claim that employees make another distinction between speaking out (voicing towards peers/colleagues) and speaking up (voicing towards the supervisor). Social identification predicts speaking out, while personal identification predicts speaking up. According to Liu et al. (2009) speaking up and speaking out are different constructs, driven by different antecedents. When employees set proactive goals, they can a provide a number

6

of suggestions to reach that goal and they share these suggestions (speaking out) with colleagues with whom they socially identify. Does speaking out influence the quality of ideas/suggestions that ultimately are communicated to the manager (speaking up)? The contribution of this research for the literature is to give insight into the relationship between proactive goal setting and voice quality and the role of voice behaviour (the quantity of voicing) in this relationship. How do the different foci of proactive behaviour maximize voice quality, are their different strategies? From a managerial point of view, there may be enough useful recommendations for the HR-department. It is important to maximize voice quality in an organization. Top managers need qualitative voice from employees at lower levels in the organization, and without voicing, this information will not come to their awareness (Morrison, 2011).

7

2. Literature

2.1 Voice

The decision of speaking up in organizations is not always an easy one. Contextual factors (for example: trust in supervisor) and individual factors (for example: self-esteem) can play an important role (Detert & Burris, 2007; Premeaux & Bedeian, 2003). There is also the fear of individuals to isolate themselves, when their suggestions or ideas are opposite to the public opinion (Neumann, 1974). In spite of the possible risks for the employees who are challenging the status quo, voicing in organizations is very important (Detert & Burris, 2007). Therefore, voicing must be differentiated from other related concepts. It differs from complaining, whistle-blowing or affiliative behaviour such as helping. Voicing is, in contrast to helping, more a challenging promotive behaviour intended to improve the situation/organization rather than merely criticize (van Dyne & LePine, 1998). It is focused on change-, self-initiative and improvement (Wolsink, forthcoming). According to Morrison (2011) there are three forms of voice-behaviour: suggestion focused voice, problem focused

voice and opinion focused voice. Suggestion focused voice is concentrating on improving the

organization by communication ideas and suggestions. Problem focused voice is about an employee’s expression about preventing harmful situations and opinion focused voice is about communicating individuals point of view about work-related issues. She noted that voice could be divided in different smaller concepts. With this division she answered the need for a better understanding of the concept of voice. Subsequently, Wolsink (forthcoming) sees a dichotomy in voice, and made a distinction between voice behaviour and voice quality. Voice quality is about the originality, flexibility or usefulness of the information noted by others (Wolsink, forthcoming) and voice behaviour is about the behaviour of speaking out or up. In this thesis, voice action or voice quantity will be described as voice behaviour. When it comes to the content of voice behaviour, voice quality is meant. The distinction between voice quality and voice behaviour will be discussed in the next section.

2.2 Voice Behaviour and Voice Quality

Frese, Teng and Wijnen (1999) made a distinction between ideas, the suggestion, and the quality of the suggestion, which can lead to a particular reward. Furthermore, according Bindle and Parker (2010, p. 41) voice is not always displayed in an appropriate way. ‘It can be negatively perceived by supervisors, and also in some situations, voicing concerns might

8

be rather passive behaviour.’ Frese and Fay (2001) claim that employees who take personal initiative are often a ‘pain in the butt’ for managers. le Pine and van Dyne (1998) claim that differences in individuals can lead to differences in voice behaviours. Individuals who are open to experience have different opinions, experiences and they prefer to seek opportunities to learn new things. As noted earlier, voice behaviour is change-oriented (Wolsink, forthcoming; le Pine & van Dyne, 1998), so new perspectives and innovations of specific individuals could have an effect on (the quality of) voicing. In sum, different individuals provide different suggestions, ideas etc. which are of different quality.

Learning curve studies are important here, to understand the aggregate learning process of individuals, especially in voicing. Most learning curve studies focus on this learning process, concentrating on the selection of proxies for experience (Adler & Clark, 1991). According to the generally accepted learning curve model of Wright (1936) about diminishing marginal costs when producing more products; because of the learning process, the result is a more smooth learning curve. If this model is applied to voicing, because of the learning curve, less voicing is needed to reach the same amount of voice quality. Employees are voicing towards each other, and when they voice towards their supervisor, the quality has been improved because of the learning curve. So, employees who often practice their voice skills and content towards colleagues, will in turn voice higher quality towards the manager. So, there could be a positive linkage between voice behaviour and voice quality. The distinction between voice behaviour and voice quality and the effect of learning on voicing lead to the first hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1

There is a positive relationship between employee’s voice behaviour towards colleagues and employees’ voice quality towards the manager.

2.3 Proactive Goals

As noted earlier, proactive behaviour is typically seen as goal driven. Griffin, Neal and Parker (2007) distinguish three forms of proactive behaviour that can effect different organizational levels. These are individual task-proactivity, team-member proactivity and organization

member proactivity. Individual task-proactivity is about taking initiative in improving the

way of doing core tasks, team-member proactivity is about helping teams to perform better and organization member proactivity is about making suggestions to improve the

9

organization and to make the organization more efficient. In contrast to Belschak and Den Hartog (2010), Griffin et. al (2007) only include organizational and pro-social goals, they leave out personal goals. The three foci of proactive behaviour according to Belschak and den Hartog (2010) are pro-organizational, pro-interpersonal and pro-self-goals. Pro-organizational and pro-social goals are other-focused, directed at the organization, the supervisor or workgroups/colleagues. Pro-self-goals are self-focused like personal- or career-goals. This research focusses on a combination of proactive organizational- and interpersonal-goals (other-focused) separate from proactive goals of the self (self-focused). It is important to notice that when employees set proactive goals it is more than just performing their basic tasks. A task is the starting point of an employee in an organization to achieve goals, and an employee has to perform the task in the best possible way. And in a world of work that is uncertain, it is no longer enough for employees to merely complete their tasks (Grant, Parker & Collins, 2009). Employees have to be proactive and they can set proactive goals. Proactive goals are different from normal goals in the sense that these goals arose from personal initiative (Frese & Fay, 2001). As noted earlier, these goals could be self-focused or other-focused (Belschak & Den Hartog, 2010). The influence of these goals has not yet been researched in relation to voice behaviour.

2.4 Proactive Goals and Voice Behaviour

Personal initiatives are according to Frese and Fay (2001) crucial for organizational health and survival but also for individual performance. However, it is important to distinguish between the three foci of proactive behaviour, because the different foci can lead to different behaviours. Individuals are motivated to engage in behaviours that are in line with their targets and their values. Individuals who are committed to the organization and teams are likely to engage in pro-organizational or pro-interpersonal behaviours. According to Belschak and Den Hartog (2000) these two foci of proactive behaviour are positively linked to performance. However, the foci have different goal orientations. A distinction in goal orientation can be made between the performance-prove goal orientation and the learning- goal orientation. The performance-prove goal orientation focuses on attaining high performance and demonstrating the skills to others. Individuals high on learning goal orientation want to learn from their work tasks and these individuals believe that greater effort leads to success. The learning goal orientation and the performance-prove goal

10

orientation are positively related to organizational proactive goals. The performance-prove goal orientation is positively linked to interpersonal proactive goals. Both orientations and the two other-focused foci of proactive behaviour are positively related to proactive behaviour (Porath & Bateman, 2006; Belschak & den Hartog, 2000). In sum, pro other-goals have the learning goal and the performance-prove goal orientation. These orientations are positively related to proactive behaviour, like voicing. Now, there has to be explained why these other-focused proactive goals specifically lead to employee voice behaviour towards colleagues. It is likely that individuals who set pro-other goals have a need for affiliation because they are other-focused. Individuals with a high need for affiliation have a desire to participate in cooperative activities and a desire for close and friendly relationships with other people (McClelland, 1965, 1976 in Klein & Pridemore, 1992). These individuals are dependent of other people, for example of their colleagues (Wiesenfield, Raghuram, Garud, 2001). According to the motivational theory of Keller (1983) individuals have to satisfy their need for affiliation by establishing cooperative, open and trustful relationships. Social exchange theories are important to understand how to establish such an relationship. Social exchanges are about movements of valued things through social processes (Emerson, 1976). Concluding, it is likely that individuals with a high need for affiliation set pro-other goals. They want to have close relationships with other people. Voice behaviour as a form of social exchange can be valuable in establishing relationships with colleagues. This leads to the second hypothesis.

Hypothesis 2

2a. There is a positive relationship between employees’ proactive other-goals and employees’ voice behaviour towards colleagues.

However, here is a difference with pro-self goals. Pro-other goals corresponding to behaviours aimed on change in the internal organization or the fit between the organization and the environment (Parker & Collins, 2010). But, employees who are committed to their own career engage in proactive activities that will further their career (Belschak & den Hartog, 2010). These proactive self-goals are mostly career directed and refer to the fit between the individual and the organization (Parker & Collins, 2010). Employees take the self-initiative (by means of feedback seeking) to change and improve their career opportunities. They have a high need for achievement and want to succeed for internal

11

reasons. They are less committed to the organization and to their team and colleagues (Belschak & den Hartog, 2010). So, it is likely that these individuals will voice less towards colleagues.

2b. There is a negative relationship between employees’ proactive self-goals and employees’ voice behaviour towards colleagues.

2.5 Proactive Goals and Voice Quality

Individuals want to improve their behaviour in order to fit in the organization. Voicing has been previously described as a form of proactive behaviour that includes a focus on change, self-initiative and improvement (Wolsink, forthcoming). The learning goal- and the performance-prove orientation indicate that individuals who have organizational and interpersonal proactive goals are focused on learning new tasks and on attaining high performance (Belschak & den Hartog, 2010). As note earlier, it is clear that proactive goal setting results in voice behaviour. But proactive goal-setting can also influence the voice quality in organizations. Because employees have a specific goal, directed at the team or the organization (other-focused), they spend more time thinking about their ideas. Through the process of setting goals, they can properly and consciously focus on their other-focused target. They also start voicing towards colleagues more because they want to establish close relationships in the workplace by sharing their goals and ideas (Wiesenfield, Raghuram, Garud, 2001). This can lead to more developed and qualitative voice behaviour because of their experience in voicing. High qualitative voice, when implemented by the management, can be effective in situations where decision making- and change -initiatives are required. In sum, individuals with proactive other- goals directed at the team or the organization are practicing their voice behaviour towards colleagues and spent more time in improving their suggestions or opinions before voicing towards the manager. They are consciously aware of their goal and this awareness can enhance the quality of their voice.

Hypothesis 3

3a. There is a positive relationship between employees’ proactive other-goals and employees’ voice quality towards the manager.

There also is a relationship between proactive self-goals and voice quality towards the manager. Feedback seeking is a way for individuals to improve their person-organization fit and their career opportunities. It is an instrument of employees attempting to achieve their

12

goals within an evaluative context (Ashford & Cummings, 1985). Voice quality is about the usefulness-, originality- and the changing character of voice (Wolsink, forthcoming).When employees take self-initiative to set proactive self-goals and to change and improve their career opportunities by means of feedback seeking or proving themselves to the manager, they probably voice in a more qualitative way towards the manager to get useful feedback and probably achieve their personal (career) goals. This leads to the next hypothesis.

3b. There is a positive relationship between employees’ proactive self-goals and employees’ voice quality towards the manager.

This section has described the relationship between proactive goals and voice behaviour and voice quality. The purpose of this research is to establish that proactive goals influence voice quality towards the manager through communicating many ideas to colleagues. Previous work suggests that voice quality and voice behaviour are two different components of voice (Wolsink, forthcoming). However, without voice actions there is no chance on voice quality. Proactive other-goals motivate employees to voice towards each other. When they are regularly voicing and sharing suggestions with colleagues because of their need for affiliation (Wiesenfield, Raghuram, Garud, 2001), they learn, develop and probably become better. So, when they ultimately are voicing up (Liu et al., 2010), it is likely that the voice of the employee has been evolved to a more original and useful one. This leads to hypothesis 4a.

Hypothesis 4

4a. Proactive other-goals are expected to affect voice quality towards the manager through the effect of these goals on voice behaviour towards colleagues. It has previously been mentioned that proactive self-goals because of the lack of team/organizational commitment do not lead to voice behaviour towards colleagues but only to voice quality towards the manager. This study assumes that the voice of employees who set proactive self-goals has been evolved to a more original and useful one not because of voice behaviour towards colleagues but because of the possibility of voicing towards the manager. Thus, in order to maximize qualitative voice, it is important that employees with proactive self-goals have the opportunity to voice regularly towards the manager. The manager can provide feedback, and may motivate the employee to work hard to achieve their goals.

4b: Proactive self-goals are expected to affect voice quality towards the manager through the effect of these goals on voice behaviour towards the manager.

13

3. Methods

3.1 Design and Procedure

The hypotheses of this study are designed to test whether proactive self- or other-goals predict voice quality of employees towards their supervisor and furthermore how voice behaviour towards colleagues is a mediator in this relationship.

This study is part of a larger study related to voice, containing relating variables, a Working Memory Capacity - and a creativity - test. This specific study only uses an online questionnaire to collect data. A group of seven researchers (Master students Business Studies) from the University of Amsterdam were responsible for administering the surveys and collecting the data under the guidance of their supervisor. The data was collected during three months. This study addressed respondents using an invitation email which included an information brochure. The researcher made personal appointments with the participants to gain trust and to reserve enough time to introduce the research and to let the participant complete the online survey. A day before the appointment, the researcher sent a reminder of the appointment and he or she communicated the participant number of the research to the employee. During the first stage of the appointment, the participants filled in an informed consent (appendix A), to confirm their voluntary participation. The researcher promised to handle the data and personal information of the participant carefully. Then, the participants had to complete a questionnaire. Answers should have been given based on the perception of the manager or the employee of the fit of the item with the behaviour of the colleague/subordinate. All items in the survey were administrated in Dutch. The online survey, both for the employees and the manager had to be completed during the appointment to avoid non-response. After or during the appointment, the participants received a reward in the form of a snack.

3.2 Participants

The hypotheses are tested using data obtaining from 210 participants, arranged into 70 teams of three persons (triad). The triad includes two employees and one manager of the same company who work together on a regular basis. First contact was made with one person from the triad, in order to assure that the company and the other participants were also willing to participate. Only Dutch speaking employees and supervisors were able to participate. It is important to mention that a clear understanding of the definition of a manager is needed.

14

Manager were sometimes called other names, such as team leader, but the criterion used was that a manager had subordinates, with whom he or she works together on weekly basis.The study used a non-probability-sampling technique of purposive sampling (Saunders, Lewis & Tornhill, 2009, p. 365). This to acquire a large reach of the population within the available time of three months. The population is the labor force of the Netherlands. The average age of the managers was 42 years (SD=11.927). The average age of the employees was 33 years (SD=12.308), ranging from 16 to 65 years. Furthermore, out of the employees 49 per cent was male and 51 per cent was female. Out of the managers 64 per cent was male and 36 per cent was female. Most participants were working in the private sector (41 per cent) or in the retail sector (16 per cent). The duration of the employment was at average higher for the manager (135 months) than for the employees (91 months). The triads were recruited through the use of the networks of the researchers and of the networks of undergraduate Business Studies Students from the University of Amsterdam. Personal contact with one member of a traid helped to complete traid. In some cases, snowball sampling was used, because after finding the first triad in a company, subsequent triads were identified by earlier sample members (Saunders et al., 2009). There was no restriction in the kind of firms and sectors participating. Traids from different company types are involved in this study. In the questionnaire, participants had to indicate the sector in which they operate, their age, gender and also their affect/mood before filling in the survey. Some of these variables will be used as control variables during the analysis.

3.3 Measurements

The concepts used in this study are employee voice quality towards the manager (dependent variable), proactive self-goals and proactive other-goals (independent variables) and

employee voice behaviour towards colleagues or towards the manager (mediator). In contrast

to the scale of proactive goals, previous research did not already validate the measurement scales of voice quality and voice behaviour. Wolsink (forthcoming) pretested the statements in order to assure validity and reliability.

3.3.1 Dependent variable: Employee voice quality (towards manager).

The scale of voice quality is designed by Wolsink (forthcoming). It is a 26- item scale. Sixteen items are based on originality, three on flexibility and seven on utility. Responses were given on a seven point Likert scale (1 ‘very applicable’ to 7 ‘not applicable at all’)

15

(appendix C). The concept is measured at the supervisor level. The survey includes 26 questions about voice quality from the employees answered by the manager. A person who scores high on the scale of voice quality has ideas/suggestions that are original, useful or flexible. One example of the originality questionnaire is: ‘Ideas of my colleague are

innovative’. One example of the flexibility questionnaire is: ‘Ideas of my subordinate are often applicable in different circumstances’ and one example of the utility questionnaire is: ‘The advices of my subordinate are very useful.’

3.3.2 Independent variables: Proactive self-goals and other-goals of the Employee

The scale and foci of proactive goals are adapted from Belschak and Den Hartog (2010). This research used a 14 item 7-point Likert scale (1 ‘completelydisagree’ to 7 ‘completelyagree’) to measure different foci of proactive behaviour. The concept is measured at the employee level, and is self-rated. four questions belonging to organizational proactive goals were added to the scale of Belschak and Den Hartog (2010). These are: ‘In my

organization, my goal is to be a driving force for change’, ‘I want to make changes were possible, if the organization benefits’, I have the ambition to gather knowledge to help the organization and ‘I focus on recognizing opportunities to improve the organization’

(Appendix B). This in order to make this scale more extensive.

The survey to measure proactive self-goals includes 4 items. A person who scores high on proactive personal goals is proactive and self – or career – focused.

One example of the questionnaire is: ‘At work, I personally take the initiative to: take on

tasks that will further my career.’

The survey to measure other-goals includes 10 items of organizational (6) and interpersonal (4) proactive goals. A person who scores high on proactive other-goals is proactive and is focused on organizational – or team – success. One example question of the Belschak and Den Hartog (2010) organizational proactive scale is: ‘At work, I personally take

the initiative to: acquire new knowledge that will help the company.’ One example question of

the Belschak and Den Hartog (2010) interpersonal proactive scale is: ‘At work, I personally

16 3.3.3 Mediator : Employee Voice Behaviour (towards colleague or manager)

The scale of voice behaviour is designed by Wolsink (forthcoming). It is a 15- item scale. There are questions about opinion focused voice, suggestion focused voice and problem focused voice. The three types of voice behaviour are equally divided in the survey. Responses were given on a five point Likert scale (1 ‘never’ to 5 ‘often’). The voice behaviour survey starts with three control questions, to guarantee that the participant understands the concept (appendix D). Voice behaviour is measured at employee and manager level. The survey includes 15 questions about voice behaviour from employee x answered by employee y (who are colleagues) and vice versa or from employee x or y answered by the manager. A high score on voice behaviour means that a person scores high on giving advice, judgements, suggestions, even if these differ from the norm.

One example of a question about opinion focused voice is: ‘How often does your

subordinate/colleague give his/her opinion about cases within the company?’ One example of

suggestion focused voice is: ‘How often does your subordinate/colleague suggest new ideas’? And one example of problem focused voice is: ‘How often does your subordinate/colleague

give his/her opinion about cases within the company?’

3.3.4 Control variables: Proactive Personality and Positive Activating Affect

Because of the strong correlations with the main variables, proactive personality and positive activating effect of the manager are used as control variables in this study. The scale of proactive personality is designed by Bateman and Crant (1993). It is a five-item scale (1 ‘completelydisagree’ to 7 ‘completelyagree’). One example of a question about proactive personality is: ‘I excel at identifying opportunities’. A high score on proactive personality means that the respondent is proactive caused by his or her personality. The scale of positive activating affect is designed by Baas, De Dreu and Nijstad (2008). It is a three item scale. Responses were given on a five point Likert scale (1 ‘ very slightly’ to 5 ‘ very strongly’). A high score on positive activating affect means that the respondent scored, before filling in the survey, relative high on the items ‘happy’, ‘elated’ and ‘upbeat’.

17

4. Predictions

1: There is a significant positive effect of the independent variable* voice behaviour towards colleagues on the dependent variable voice quality towards the manager.

2a: There is a significant positive effect of the independent variable proactive other-goals on the dependent variable voice behaviour towards colleagues.

2b: There is a significant and negative effect of the independent variable proactive self-goals on the dependent variable voice behaviour towards colleagues.

3a: There is a positive and significant effect of the independent variable proactive other-goals on the dependent variable voice quality towards the manager.

3b: There is a positive and significant effect of the independent variable proactive self-goals on the dependent variable voice quality towards the manager.

Mediation:

4a. There is a significant positive effect on the independent variables proactive other-goals and voice behaviour towards colleagues on the dependent variable voice quality towards the manager. In this case, no longer a direct significant effect exists of proactive other-goals on voice quality towards the manager.

4b. There is a significant positive effect on the independent variables proactive self-goals and voice behaviour towards the manager on the dependent variable voice quality towards the manager. In this case, no longer a direct significant effect exists of proactive self-goals on voice quality towards the manager.

*In the overall model ‘voice behaviour towards colleagues or the manager’ is the mediator and not the independent or the dependent variable. However, the first three hypotheses involve the relationships between two variables.

18

5. Models

5.1 Conceptual Models

5.1.1-Conceptual framework proactive other-goals

5.1.2-Conceptual framework proactive self-goals

19 5.2 Measurement Models

5.2.1-Measurement model proactive other-goals

20 5.2.3-Alternative measurement model proactive self-goals.

21

6. Results

6.1 Descriptives and Correlations

140 (out of 152) complete dyads were used for analyses in SPSS (version 18). For missing values in non-key variables, hot deck (Myers, 2011) was used. Data was excluded for two reasons: some surveys were incomplete and some answers of the respondents were unrealistic. In this section we discuss the factor analysis, the reliability of the scales and the correlations between the main variables.

First, we have run a factor analysis on each of the five main variables, to ensure the validity of the scales (appendix E).Unexpectedly, voice quality (IV) consist of two instead of three main factors: originality and usefulness. In the scale of voice quality, 9 items that were counterbalanced or items belonged to the subscale flexibility were deleted. The cronbach’s alpha of the complete scale of voice quality improved from .893 to .962. As expected, the scale of proactive other-goals (DV) consists of one main factor. Four items were added to enlarge the scale. The cronbach’s alpha is .886. As expected, also the scale of proactive self-goals (DV) consist of one main factor, the cronbach’s alspha of this scale is .774. The factor analysis of voice quantity (IV) resulted as expected in three main factors: opinion focused-,

suggestion focused-, and problem focused -voice. The cronbach’s alpha of this scale is .897

(towards colleagues) and .866 (towards the supervisor). The cronbach’s alpha for the control variable proactive personality was originally .641, but by deleting one (counterbalanced item) the alpha improved considerably to .713. The cronbach’s alpha for the control variable positive activating affect towards the manager is .783.

Second, we analyzed the correlations between the variables. As expected, we did find positive relationships between voice behaviour towards colleagues and voice quality towards manager (r=.317, p<0.01) and voice behaviour towards the manager and voice quality towards the manager (r=.760, p<0.01). Interesting unexpected outcomes are the weak correlations between proactive self-goals and voice behaviour towards colleagues (r=.103, ns), proactive self-goals and voice behaviour towards the manager (r=.074, ns) and the strong negative relationship between proactive self-goals and voice quality towards the manager (r=.184, p<.05). Furthermore, another interesting unexpected outcome is that we did not find a relationship between proactive other-goals and voice behaviour towards colleagues (r=.021, ns) or towards the manager (r=.034, ns).

Table 7, 8 and 9 content the results for the regressions. For the regressions we used the tool PROCESS (Hayes, 2012). Table 7 shows the three regression models for proactive other-goals. The first model tested the prediction if proactive other-goals (x) have a positive effect on voice behaviour towards colleagues (m). The model, with an explained variance of 0.1% percent shows that there is no effect between proactive other-goals and voice behaviour towards colleagues (B=0,032, t=.401, ns, R²=.0019). That indicates, employees in our sample who set proactive other-goals are not evaluated higher on voice behaviour by their colleagues. Model 2, with an explained variance of 26,8%, shows that proactive other- goals (x) have no effect on voice quality towards the manager (y) (B=-0.06, t=-.480, ns, R²=.268). That means, employees in our sample who set proactive goals are not evaluated higher on voice quality by their manager. As expected, voice behaviour towards colleagues (m) has a positive direct effect on voice quality towards the manager (y) (B=0.606, t=4.425, p<0.001, R²=0.161). That indicates, employees in our sample who are voicing towards colleagues, also voice more quality towards their manager. There is no direct effect of proactive other-goals (x) on voice quality towards the manager (y) (direct effect=0,032, SE=,105, ns). That means that setting proactive other-goals (x) seems to be not related to voice quality towards the manager (y). The specific indirect effect (indirect effect= .016, SE= 0.037, ns.) indicates that setting proactive other- goals by employees (x) do not lead to a higher evaluation of voice quality by their manager (y) by means of voicing a lot suggestions, opinions or problems towards colleagues (m).

Table 7

Table 8 shows the three regression models for proactive self- goals. The first model tested the prediction if proactive self-goals (x) have a negative effect on voice behaviour towards colleagues (m). The model, with an explained variance of 1.4% per cent shows that proactive self goals have no effect on voice behaviour towards colleagues (B=-0,813, t=-1.332, ns, R²=.014). That indicates, employees in our sample who set proactive self-goals are not evaluated lower on voice behaviour by their colleagues. Model 2, with an explained variance of 30% shows that proactive self- goals (x) have a negative effect on voice quality towards the manager (y) (B=-0,239, t=-2.491, p<.05, R²=.300). That effect indicates that employees in our sample who set proactive self-goals are evaluated lower on voice quality by their manager. Model 2 also shows that, as expected, voice behaviour towards colleagues has a positive direct effect on voice quality towards the manager (B=0,565, t=4.195 p<0.001, R²=0.300). That indicates, employees in our sample who are voicing towards colleagues, also voice more quality towards their manager. The direct effect of proactive self- goals on voice quality towards the manager is negative (direct effect=-.239, SE=.081, P<.05). This means that setting proactive self-goals seems to relate to the quality of employee voice evaluated by the manager. The specific indirect effect (indirect effect= -.046, SE= .037, ns.) indicates that setting proactive self-goals (x) do not lead to a higher evaluation of voice quality by the manager (y) by means of voicing a lot suggestions, opinions or problems towards colleagues (m).

In this model we replaced the mediator (voice behaviour towards colleagues) for a different mediator (voice behaviour towards the manager) in order to see which mediation model explained voice quality towards managers best. Table 9 shows the three regression models for proactive self-goals. The first model tested the prediction if proactive self-goals have a positive effect on voice behaviour towards the manager. The model, with an explained variance of 0.07 percent shows that proactive self goals have no effect on voice behaviour towards the manager (B=-0,076, t=-1.305, ns, R²=0.07). This indicates, employees in our sample who set proactive self goals are not evaluated higher on voice behaviour by their manager. In line with earlier analysis, the effect of proactive self-goals (x) on voice quality towards the manager (y) was negative (B=-0,185, t=-2.781, p<.01, R²=0.664). Model 2 also shows that, as expected, voice behaviour towards the manager has a positive effect on voice quality towards the manager (B=1.312, t=13,438, p<0.001, R²=0.664). This indicates, employees in our sample who are voicing towards the manager, also voice more quality towards their manager. The direct effect of proactive self-goals on voice quality towards the manager is negative (direct effect=-0,185, SE=.0561, t=-2,55, P<.01). This means, participants who are setting proactive self-goals (x) are evaluated lower on voice quality by their manager (y). The specific indirect effect (indirect effect= -.085, SE= .067, ns) indicates that setting proactive self-goals (x) do not lead to a higher evaluation of voice quality by the manager (y) by means of voicing a lot suggestions, opinions or problems towards the manager (m).

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 1: 1. A path of proactive other-goals on voice quality towards the manager not mediated by voice behaviour towards colleagues and a path of proactive self-goals on voice quality towards the manager not mediated by voice behaviour towards colleagues. 2. A path of proactive self-goals on voice quality towards the manager not mediated by voice behaviour towards the manager. *p > .05; **p > .01; ***p > .001. Indirect effects in red.

7.1 Summery and Contributions

In this study we made a distinction between voice behaviour and voice quality. The primary aim of this study was to show the relationship between proactive goal setting and voice quality towards the manager. We made a distinction between proactive self-goals and proactive goals. Proactive self-goals are focused on the individual and proactive other-goals are directed to the team or the organization (Belschak & den Hartog, 2010). We hypothesized that proactive other-goals and proactive self-goals have a different strategy to maximize voice quality towards the manager. We expected voice behaviour towards

colleagues to guide the relationship between proactive other-goals and voice quality.

However, we designed an alternative model for proactive self-goals, because we did not expect a high need for affiliation of the individuals who were setting proactive self-goals. Therefore, we expected that voice behaviour towards the manager guide the relationship between self-goals and voice quality.

These two models are not supported by the data. The data show that setting proactive goals (self-goals and other-goals) don’t lead to more useful suggestions, ideas or opinions towards the manager through the opportunity to share a lot of these ideas, suggestions and opinions with colleagues or the manager. However, the data support our hypothesis that voice behavior towards employees or towards the manager predicts voice quality towards the manager. Since voice behaviour towards employees/the manager was unaffected by proactive goal setting there is no reason to assume that employees who are setting proactive goals will voice more ideas. However, here is a difference with voice quality. As not expected, only setting proactive self-goals have a direct effect on voice quality. Proactive self-goals negatively predict voice quality towards the manager. This rejects the hypothesis that individuals who are setting proactive self-goals will voice in a useful way towards their manager because of their need for achievement. Surprisingly, they are not evaluated higher on voice behavior towards the manager, but only lower on voice quality.

This study contributes to the existing literature about voice behaviour and voice

quality. In contrast to other studies, this studies associates voice behaviour and voice quality with different foci of proactive goal setting. Voicing is important in today’s dynamic environment, because new ideas can facilitate business improvements (Nemeth & Staw,

31

1989). Therefore, it is unique, but necessary that this study investigated the relationship between voice quality and different kind of proactive goals.

7.2 Theoretical Implications and Alternative Explanations

In this study we distinguish between different foci of proactive behaviour. This distinction follows the studies of Griffin, Neal and Parker (2007) and Belschak and den Hartog (2010). Their studies claim that it is in a theoretical and empirical way important to make a distinction between the different targets of proactive behaviour. Our research also follows the work of Wolsink (forthcoming), directed at the dichotomy between voice quality and voice quantity.

First of all, our results add to the findings that employee voice behaviour towards colleagues positively leads to an increase in voice quality towards the manager. These results, which are in line with the hypothesis 1, emphasize the link between voice behaviour and voice quality. This is in line with the learning- and experience -based theories of Adler and Clark (1991) and Wright (1936). Employees who are often practice their voice skills and -content towards colleagues, will in turn voice more qualitative information towards their manager. An alternative explanation is that voice behaviour and voice quality are so strongly related and that we can’t use these concepts separately. Both voice quality and voice behaviour are aspects of the overarching concept of voice. To reject this argument, it is very important that we demonstrate that there is a substantial difference between voice behaviour and voice quality. We showed in this study that proactive self-goals affect voice behaviour and voice quality in a different way. Wolsink (forthcoming) showed that voice action does not necessarily lead to voice quality, but that this depends on the ability to control attention. So, the positive relationship between voice behaviour and voice quality can be a result of learning but also a result of the ability to control attention.

Secondly, we found no evidence that proactive other- goals lead to employee voice behaviour towards colleagues and employee voice quality towards colleagues (hypotheses 2a and 3a). This is theoretical interesting because it contradicts with our perception that people with a high need for affiliation want to have open and trustful relationships (Keller, 1983) and because of that might voice a lot. Maybe the role of the need for affiliation works in an opposite way. There is a chance that individuals who are setting proactive other-goals have a fear of negative evaluation. They could be afraid that they are excluded when they are giving

32

suggestions or opinions (Maner, DeWall, Baumeester, Schaller, 2007), precisely because they are oriented on others. Surprisingly, We also found more evidence for a possible negative relationship between proactive goals and voice behaviour. Poortvliet, Janssen, van Yperen and van der Vliert (2007) claim that setting goals will actually lead to less information exchange. They describe that individuals who are setting other-oriented goals demonstrate cooperative behaviour, but they especially appreciate reciprocity. In contrast to individuals who don’t set goals and who are more open in information giving, the individuals who are setting goals are more selective in the exchange of information because they want to be sure that they get something in return. So, having a specific goals can restrict the information exchange and the voice behaviour between colleagues or towards the manager. Indeed, these theories give new insights, but are not in line with our results, because we found no effect between proactive other-goals on both voice behaviour and voice quality. The absence of a link between proactive other-goals and both voice behaviour and voice quality does not necessary hold in future research. Future researchers may improve the measurements methods or the scales of proactive goal-setting and can come up with different results which are more in line with the literature (see 7.3).

Thirdly, we also found no effect of proactive self-goals on voice behaviour towards colleagues or towards the manager. This is not in line with hypothesis 2b. We expected a negative relationship towards colleagues because employees who are setting self goals are not very other-focused, so they do not need to voice towards colleagues. Instead, we expected a positive relationship between proactive self-goals and voice behaviour towards the manager because of the high need for achievement of these employees. Hypothesis 3b predicted that individuals who are setting self-goals will voice higher quality towards the manager. The fact that we found a negative relationship between proactive self-goals of the employee and voice quality towards the manager suggests that employees who set proactive self-goals voice less useful and qualitative opinions, suggestions and problems as was expected. So, the employees are not evaluated higher on voice behaviour towards the manager, but only lower on voice quality. A lack of organizational citizenship of the employee who sets proactive self-goals may play a role here. Self-oriented individuals, in contrast to other-oriented individuals don’t have the need for affiliation, and are therefore less committed to the organization (Wiesenfield, Raghuram & Garud, 2001). The suggestions they voice, might focus more on themselves than on the organization. Therefore, the manager might consider their voice

33

behaviour as less valuable. This explains why self-focused proactive goals do not necessarily make employees voice less towards the manager or towards colleagues, but because the voice is likely to be less organization focused, it is evaluated lower.

It is concluded that we didn’t find the two routes of proactive goals to voice quality. (1) Proactive other-goals do not predict voice quality towards the manager through the effect of these goals on voice behaviour towards colleagues. (2) Proactive self-goals do not predict voice quality towards the manager through the effect of these goals on voice behaviour towards colleagues. So, employees who are setting proactive goals might not communicate more suggestions, opinions or problems towards their colleagues or towards their manager. However, it is true that individuals who are voicing a lot towards their colleagues or towards their manager, will be better in voicing after a while and come up with the best, useful and flexible ideas. However, this is not because they set proactive self- or other-goals. Surprisingly, individuals who are setting self-goals, are negatively evaluated on voice quality by their manager.

7.3 Discussion Points

A critical connotation should be made regarding the sample of the respondents. The researchers used their own networks because they only had the available time of three months, and their networks are not a reflection of society. The sample might not be representative for all the sectors in the labour market, because we used the purposive sampling technique. One disadvantage of sampling is that it is impossible to extrapolate the results for the whole population. 35,6% of our respondents are working in the private sector (appendix F). This may influence our results, because the conditions (career opportunities, money directedness) in the private sector can differ from other sectors and may attract a certain type of person. Only 36% of the managers in our sample is a woman. Female managers may evaluate voice behaviour or voice quality differently than male managers do. However, this don’t have to be a problem in this study, because in real life, women are also underrepresented in management functions (Valgaeren, 2007).

To overcome some of these problems, we controlled for the variable proactive personality. However, it could be valuable in further research to ensure a more representative sample, to guarantee the reliability of the results.

Another potential problem is the lack of prior research studies on the topic of voice quality. Many previous studies did not distinguish between voice behaviour and voice quality.

34

There is a need for further research before valuable and more reliable recommendations can be given.

Finally, in contrast to the scales of voice quantity and voice quality, employees have to fill in the scale of proactive goal setting by themselves. This could be a problem because individuals can provide social desirable answers. This may affect the results. However, every employee knows himself best, employees know their inner thoughts and feelings and their foci of proactive behaviour better than their colleagues or their manager do.

There are some opportunities to improve the scales. First, a colleague and the manager of the respondent can fill in the survey focusing on the respondent. This provides answers from different sources and could be thereby more reliable. Second, to investigate the effects of proactive goal setting on voice behaviour and voice quality, also an experiment can be conducted. Poortvliet et al. (2007) conducted an experiment in which they manipulated goals to investigate the relation with these goals and the openness in information giving. The respondents had to work on a new and challenging task before and after the manipulation. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three goal conditions (no goal, mastery goal or performance goal). They elaborated on the goal that was assigned to them to intensify the manipulation. It was examined whether these goals affect the openness of these individuals and the extent to which individuals utilize information from other individuals (the other person was stimulated by the computer).

Such an experiment can be applied to further research to create a more reliable and objective way to measure the different foci of proactive goal setting. Prior ability to estimate the proactive foci of yourself or your colleague/subordinate is not necessary anymore.

In this future situation, the participants have to be randomly assigned to three goal conditions (no goal, self-goal and other goal). It is necessary that the different sectors in the market are distributed proportionally now. The participants have to complete a task through answering some questions evoked by their specific goal. It must be examined whether these goals affect voice behaviour and voice quality. Their task should be work- and voice-related and they must be in contact with another individual who takes on the role of colleague or manager. This individual has to fill in the original questionnaires of voice behaviour and voice quality based on the behaviour of the participant (Wolsink, forthcoming).

35 7.4 Practical Implications

Some of the outcomes of this study can be of direct practical use. The finding that setting proactive self-goals predicts less voice quality must come to the awareness of the manager. Organizations can adapt their leadership style to prevent individuals to set self-goals. They can, for example, reward or promote other goals more. In this study, proactive self- and other-goals don’t have an effect on voice behaviour. However, we showed that voice behaviour towards colleagues predicts voice quality towards the manager. Previous studies show that transformational leadership has a positive effect on voice behaviour (Liu et al, 2010; Detert and Burrit, 2007). An indirect result of this is that transformational leadership will also have a positive effect on the quality of the suggestions, ideas and opinions of employees. Companies can employ some of the results in their selection procedures for managers by choosing leaders with transformational characteristics. Organizations can also offer training sessions to stimulate inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. Leaders must learn to talk with conviction about their ideals, leaders must be credible and they must describe the future of an organization in an attractive way (Paffen, 2011).

7.5 Concluding Thoughts

This study examines whether proactive goals predict voice quality. The results of this study do not demonstrate that proactive self- and proactive other-goals predict voice quality towards the manager through the effect of these goals on voice behaviour. The results do show that individuals who are setting proactive self-goals, are evaluated worse on voice quality by their manager. Another outcome is that voice behaviour is positively related to voice quality. Even though the currently proposed models are still far from being finished and further research is needed, organizations can already employ some results in their training- and selection procedures. Employee voice behaviour is important in organizations. When people voice a lot towards colleagues or towards their manager, their voice will be of higher quality. And these ideas can change the organization, or the world….

36

8. References

Adler, P. S., & Clark, K. B. (1991). Behind the learning curve: A sketch of the learning process. Management Science, 37(3), 267-281.

Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1985). Proactive feedback seeking: The instrumental use of the information environment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58(1), 67-79. Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta-analysis of 25 years of

mood-creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus? Psychological bulletin, 134(6), 779.

Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behaviour: A measure and correlates. Journal of organizational behaviour, 14(2), 103-118 Belschak, F. D., & Hartog, D. N. (2010). Pro-self, pro-social, and pro-organizational foci of

proactive behaviour: Differential antecedents and consequences. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(2), 475-498. Bindl, U. K., & Parker, S. K. (Forthcoming ). Proactive work behaviour: Forward-thinking and change- oriented action in organizations. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of

industrial and organizational psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

Bindl, Uta K., & Sharon K. Parker. (2010) "Proactive work behaviour: Forward-thinking and

change-oriented action in organizations." APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology 2: 567-598.

McCalley, L. T., & Midden, C. J. (2002). Energy conservation through product-integrated feedback: The roles of goal-setting and social orientation. Journal of economic

psychology, 23(5), 589-603.

Crant, J.M. (2000) Proactive behaviour in organizations. Journal of Management, Vol. 26,

No. 3, 435–462.

Detert, J.R. & Burris, E.R. (2007) Leadership behaviour and employee voice: is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50, No. 4, 869–884. Dyne L. & LePine J.A. (1998) Helping and Voice Extra-Role Behaviours: Evidence of

Construct and Predictive. The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41, No. 1

(Feb., 1998), pp. 108-119

Dyne L. & LePine J.A. (1998) Predicting Voice Behaviour in Work Groups. Journal of

Applied Psychology. No. 6, 853-868.

Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual review of sociology, 335-362. Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). 4. Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work

in the 21st century. Research in organizational behaviour, 23, 133-187 Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A., & Zempel, J. (1996). Personal initiative at work: Differences

between East and West Germany. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 37-63. Frese, M., Teng, E., & Wijnen, C. J. D. (1999). Helping to improve suggestion systems:

Predictors of making suggestions in companies. Journal of Organizational

Behaviour, 20(7), 1139-1155. Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in

Organizational Behaviour, 28, 3-34.

Grant, A. M., Parker, S.K., & Collins, C. G. (2009). Getting credit for proactive behaviour: supervisor reactions depend on what you value and how you feel. Personnel

Psychology, 62(1), 31-55.

Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. (2007). Positive behaviour in uncertain and

37

Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. Manuscript submitted for

publication.

Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2007). Personal initiative, commitment and affect at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 601–622

Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. Instructional design theories and

models: An overview of their current status, 1, 383-434.

Klein, J. D., & Pridemore, D. R. (1992). Effects of cooperative learning and need for affiliation on performance, time on task, and satisfaction. Educational Technology

Research and Development, 40(4), 39-48.

Liu, W., Zhu, R., & Yang, Y. (2010). I warn you because I like you: Voice behaviour, employee identifications, and transformational leadership. The Leadership

Quarterly, 21(1), 189-202.

Maner, J. K., DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., & Schaller, M. (2007). Does social exclusion motivate interpersonal reconnection? Resolving the" porcupine problem.". Journal of

personality and social psychology, 92(1), 42.

Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behaviour: 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 and silence in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6),

1353-1358.

Morrison, E. W. & Milliken, F. J. (2000) Organizational Silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review 2000, Vol.

No. 4, 706-72

Myers, T. A. (2011). Goodbye, listwise deletion: Presenting hot deck imputation as an easy and effective tool for handling missing data. Communication Methods and

Measures, 5(4), 297-310. Neumann, E. N. (1974) The Spiral of Silence: A Theory of Public Opinion. Journal of

Communication; Spring 1974; 24, 2; ProQuest pg. 43.

Paffen, P. (2011). TRANSFORMATIONEEL LEIDERSCHAP-Wat is typerend voor

transformationele leiders? Holland Management Review, (139), 49. 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

multipleproactive behaviours. Journal of Management, 36, 633–662 Poortvliet, P. M., Janssen, O., Van Yperen, N. W., & Van de Vliert, E. (2007). Achievement

goals and interpersonal behavior: How mastery and performance goals shape information exchange. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,33(10),

1435-1447.

Porath, C. L., & Bateman, T. S. (2006). Self-regulation: from goal orientation to job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 185.

Premeaux, S.F. & Bedeian, A.G. (2003) Breaking the Silence: The Moderating Effects of Self- Monitoring in Predicting Speaking Up in the Workplace. Journal of Management

Studies 40: September 2003.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students.

38

Staw, C. J. N. B. M., & Nemeth, C. J. (1989). THE TRADEOFF S OF SOCIAL CONTROL AND INNOVATION IN GROUPS AND ORGANIZATIONS. Advances in

experimental social psychology, 22, 175-210. Valgaeren, E. (2007). De loopbanen van mannen en vrouwen in de ICT-sector. Whithey, M. J., & Cooper, W. H. 1989. Predicting exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 34: 521-539.

Wiesenfeld, B. M., Raghuram, S., & Garud, R. (2001). Organizational identification among virtual workers: The role of need for affiliation and perceived work-based social support. Journal of management, 27(2), 213-229. Wolsink (Forthcoming ) On the Differences Between Voice Actions and Behaviours: The

Ability to Control Attention Facilitates Quality of Voice Behaviours. Wright, T. (1936) Factors affecting the cost of airplanes. Journal of Aeronautical Science, 3,

pp. 122-128.

Source from the internet

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/62978-one-voice-can-change-a-room-and-if-one-voice

39

9. Appendices

Appendix A

a) Toestemmingsverklaringsformulier bij standaardonderzoek

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

Innovatie’. Mijn vragen zijn naar tevredenheid beantwoord.

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

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

Aldus in tweevoud getekend:

……… ………

Naam deelnemer Handtekening

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

……… ………

40

Appendix B

Surveys

PROACTIVE GOALS

At work, I take the initiative to: Organizational:

1. I focus on recognizing opportunities to improve the organization.*

2. I want to make changes were possible, if the organization benefits.*

3. suggest ideas and solutions for company problems. 4. In my organization, my goal is to be a driving force for change.*

5. I have the ambition to gather knowledge to help the organization. *

6. optimize the organization of work to further organizational goals

Interpersonal:

7. Help orient new colleagues

8. take over colleagues’ tasks when needed even though she/he is not obliged to

9. share knowledge with colleagues

10.Help colleagues with developing or implementing new ideas

Personal

1.find new approaches to execute tasks so that s/he can be more successful 2.acquire new knowledge that will help my career

3.realize personal goals at work

4.take on tasks that will further my career

Note: * =These questions were added to the organizational part. s & den Hartog (2010)