HOW GOAL ORIENTATION INFLUENCES VOICE BEHAVIOR AND THE MODERATING INFLUENCE OF MANAGEMENT OF VOICE.
Master thesis, Msc, Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
June 10, 2013
RUUD HENDRIKUS EVERHARDUS HOONHORST Studentnumber: 1802801
Fivelstraat 6a 9715 BG Groningen Tel: +31 (0)613961876
Email: r.h.e.hoonhorst@student.rug.nl
2
ABSTRACT
When an individual person is working in a team, he or she does not only show in-role behavior, but also extra-role behavior. Such an extra-role behavior is voice, voice is “the expression of one’s suggestions with the intent of improving a task, process, or organization” LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). In this research it was expected that this voice behavior was influenced by the goal orientation of the individual. When we speak of the mastery goal orientation approach the individual wants to develop knowledge and skills, whereas the individual with a performance goal orientation approach wants to better than others. Secondly, the relationship between management of voice and voice behavior was researched. Management of voice concerns the fact how a
supervisor is perceived on the aspects of responsiveness and approachability. Finally, the third hypothesis entails the moderating effect of management of voice on the relationship between goal orientation and voice behavior. No significant data was found to support any of the hypotheses. To gain this data, paper-and-stencil survey was executed. The survey was distributed to 32 teams which each consists of 1 supervisor and 5 subordinates. In total 86 respondents replied the survey.
3
INTRODUCTION
For already a long time, scholars have researched and discovered that behavior is not strictly role prescribed and that it contributes to organizational effectiveness indirectly. This because it helps developing the organization’s social psychological environment. Historically seen the focus is on cooperative forms of these behaviors such as organizational citizenship behavior. The last decade(s) changes have occurred in (organizational) environment. The need for flexibility and adaptability has grown rapidly and with that the need for behaviors on a more individual level. One of the behaviors on an individual level is voice behavior.
In the present time, individuals are becoming more and more important to gain a
competitive advantage. It is “just not possible any longer to ‘figure it out’ from the top” (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). To gain competitive advantage, organizations rely more and more on innovation as a key factor (Kim, Min, & Cha, 1999). By strengthen this key factor, the chance of surviving or growing in rapid changing markets and severe competitors is increased (Edmondson, 1999; Morrison & Phelps, 1999). To be innovative, organizations have to produce or adopt useful ideas and implement them (Kanter, 1988; Van de Ven, 1986). The first step in innovation is to generate and recognize novel ideas or solutions that challenge practices and standard operating procedures (Scott & Bruce, 1994). The production of such a novel or useful idea is called creativity (Mumford & Gustafson, 1988).The production of a novel or useful idea is therefore a key factor for an
4
In most jobs the creation of creative ideas is not a part of the job-description of the subordinate and is thereby a form of extra-role behavior. This discretionary communication of ideas, suggestions, concerns, or opinions intended to improve organizational or unit functioning is called voice (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). By this brief explaining of voice, one can already start to understand that voice is a critical aspect of organizing high performance (Cheng, Lu, Chang & Johnstone, 2013).
Recently, the topic of voice has regained interest of scholars since the managerial
significance of the issue has become more acknowledged (Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2012). Scholars see that subordinates’ upward expression of ideas, suggestions, concerns, or opinions can have great value for the organization (Detert & Burris, 2007).
5
In literature the most common theme with voice is to find antecedents that explain why subordinates express voice to their supervisor stronger than normal (Edmondson, 1999: LePine & Van Dyne, 1998: Morrison & Phelps, 1999). This is because an increase in voice behavior can mean more creativity what, as an end result, leads to a more competitive organization. In previous research individual factors such as satisfaction (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Withney & Cooper, 1989) and general self-efficacy (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Morrison & Phelps, 1999) have found to have a positive relation with subordinates’ voice behavior. As well as situational factors such as team psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999; Liu, zhy & Yang, 2010). More recent research has stressed the importance of supervisors in motivating subordinates to voice their thoughts (Detert & Burris, 2007; Edmondson, 2003; Gao, Janssen & Shi, 2011; Lam, Huang & Snape, 2007). However, there is a gap in literature on other motivational factors that could be of influence on voice behavior.
One of these motivational factors could be goal orientation. In the achievement
motivational theory a key assumption is that a person chooses the most likely behavior to attain a desired goal or goals (Nicholls, 1984). Goal orientation refers to a set of goals pursued by individuals in achievement situations (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Goal orientation is set of higher-order goals that an individual has. These higher-order goals help to determine an individuals’ attitudes and
behaviors (Dweck & Legget, 1988). By higher-order goals I mean that these goals are relatively stable in guiding behavior over time and situations (Horvath, Herleman & McKie, 2006). Empirical research has already showed that these higher-order goals are important. That is because
outcomes such as performance, feedback seeking and life satisfaction can be connected to these goals (Elliot, McGregor & Gable, 1999; Elliot & Sheldon, 1997; VandeWalle & Cummings, 1997). There are two types of goals distinguished in the literature, namely, a mastery- and a performance-goal orientation. Both these types of performance-goal orientation have focus on positive outcomes (Silver, Dwyer & Alford, 2006). Goal orientation has shown influence on different job performance
6
Research about voice behavior is not only about what individual characteristics increase or decrease the amount of voice behavior shown by a subordinate. It is also about the examination of to whom they speak up and why or why not they speak up to these persons (Detert & Burris, 2007). Voice behavior in relation with the supervisor is therefore and examination worth researching. In the relationship between supervisors and subordinates there is a power difference. In the case of voice behavior it means that the subordinate has to consider if the voice he or she wants to speak up is safe enough to speak up. The subordinate has to think of how their supervisor will react to one’s voice. Voice behavior challenges the status quo and as a result carries some risk to the actor (Detert & Burris, 2007). This is why in many cases the subordinate remains silent. The subordinate is afraid for the consequences that might take place for him or her after he or she tells the supervisor of the idea, suggestion etc. (Milliken & Morrison, 2003). In this research however the focus lies on factors that increase voice behavior and not on what might have an effect on silence. An
subordinate’s perception of how their supervisors manage voice is therefore likely to influence the relationship between management of voice and voice behavior. Supervisors who are perceived to be approachable and responsive have subordinates who are more likely to voice (Saunders, Sheppard, Knight, & Roth, 1992). Subordinates that want to express voice behavior but that are uncertain of how their supervisor will react are therefore less likely to express their voice. How the supervisor manages the voice is therefore of importance. Supervisors therefore act as “voice managers” whenever they receive input form subordinates (Saunders et al., 1992).
7
HYPOTHESES Goal orientation
As stated above, goal orientation could be a motivational factor that has influence on voice behavior. Goal Orientation refers to a set of higher-order goals that help to determine individuals’ attitudes and behaviors in achievement situations (Dweck and Leggett, 1988).
The literature speaks of two main types of goal orientation. The first is called performance-goal orientation. When a performance performance-goal is adopted, individuals strive to demonstrate, and thereby gain favorable judgments of, their competence through a high task performance or to avoid negative judgments of their competence (Button, Mathieu, & Zajac, 1996). In this research we will focus on the part of performance-goal orientation that entails the gain of favorable judgments of one’s individual competence. This is in literature called performance approach goal orientation. The part of avoiding negative judgments in not the focus (performance avoidance goal orientation). From here on forward, this research speaks of performance goal orientation instead of performance approach goal orientation. People that have a performance-goal orientation focus on establishing one’s superiority over others (Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004) as well as a focus on performance outcomes and interpersonal standards (Yeo et al., 2009). For example in the case of salespeople with a performance goal orientation; They are most interested in showing their ability to others. Showing their ability is more important to them than in any intrinsic value of the task (Silver, Dwyer & Alford, 2006). Subordinates with this orientation aspire to be seen by peers and/or supervisors as competent and be evaluated favorable in their work (Simmons & Ren, 2009). When creativity is valued as a part of one’s competence, these individuals will show creativity (Hirst, Van Knippenberg & Zhou, 2009). So basically, performance-goal orientation can be seen as an effort be to “look good” to others (VandeWalle, 2001). A way of looking good to others is by showing one’s
competence of signaling possible solutions for problems. These solution or ideas have to be shared and therefore voice behavior has to be shown by the subordinate to supervisors.
8
Besides the performance goal orientation, there is second type of goal orientation. Namely, mastery goal orientation. Individuals with a mastery goal orientation focus on developing
competence, gaining skills, and doing one’s best (Janssen & van Yperen, 2004). They believe that ability is an incremental skill that can be continually improved by acquiring knowledge and perfecting competencies (Wood and Bandura, 1989). They look for challenging tasks that provide chances to enhance their knowledge and competencies, and regard errors as a natural part of a learning process. Mastery goals have been related to a number of adaptive outcomes, including higher levels of efficacy, task value, interest, positive affect, effort and persistence, learning strategies, as well as better performance (Pintrich, 2000). Mastery goal orientation this research focusses on the positive attributes of this motivational variable. This means that, as with
performance goal orientation, this research focusses on the approach side of goal orientation and does not researches the avoidance part. From here on forward, this research speaks of mastery goal orientation instead of mastery approach goal orientation. Research has shown that mastery goal oriented individuals react to challenges with positive affect, pride, and intrinsic motivation (Dweck and Leggett, 1988). This intrinsic motivation is widely acknowledged as critical for creativity
(Amabile, 1988). Mastery goal orientation is the most effective in complex tasks and less affective in simple tasks (Earley, Connolly & Ekegren, 1989; Seijts, Latham, Tasa & Latham, 2004; Winters & Latham, 1996). So when a task at hand becomes more challenging, the individual perceives this as an opportunity to build competence. This challenging task, and the thereby belonging mastery oriented goals, leads to a constructive exchange relationship building by interactive interaction between individuals (Poortvliet & giebels, 2012). This internal motivation can also be seen as an act of the individual to positively contribute to the workplace in the manner of voice (Frese & Fay, 2001; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008a, 2010). Subordinates with a high mastery goal orientation want to gain a higher level of competence in their activity. This motivates them to engage in change oriented behaviors such as voice (Frese & Fay, 2001; Venkataramani & Tangirala, 2010). When the individual does not succeed in achieving the higher level of competence and negative feedback is given, the individual sees this negative feedback as information that can help to improve the individuals’ competence the next time (Janssen & Prins, 2007). Thus, in the context of voice,
individuals with a high mastery goal orientation are expected to enjoy the challenge of their job and want to improve on it, and thus voice more than individuals with a low mastery goal orientation.
9
Management of voice
Input from subordinates has long been recognized as an important part of effective organizations (Likert, 1961; McGregor, 1960) and has received attention from a variety of scientific perspectives. This is because constructive voice behavior can reveal problems and solutions to the supervisor next to the fact that voice can entail creative ideas. These creative ideas may help a team function better (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). The last decade the perspective of what role
supervisors’ play in increasing voice behavior of subordinates has been noted by several researchers (Ashford, Sutcliffe, & Christianson, 2009; Detert & Burris, 2007; Detert & Trevino, 2010;
Edmondson, 2003; Saunders et al., 1992). These researchers have stated that subordinates speak up more easily when the supervisor is perceived as open and seeks input from the subordinates. This perceived openness encourages subordinates to communicate with their supervisor (Ashford, Sutcliffe, & Christianson, 2009; Edmondson, 2003; Detert & Burris, 2007). However, there will always be a difference in power between supervisors and subordinates. Supervisors have power over the subordinates because voice involves sharing the idea of the subordinate with the supervisor. The supervisor then determines whether or not organizational attention and/or
10
Summarized, the supervisors act as “voice managers” whenever they receive input from subordinates (Saunders et al., 1992). The perception of the subordinate on how their supervisors perceive the subordinate voice is therefore likely to influence the relationship between
management of voice and voice behavior. Supervisors who are perceived to be responsive and approachable are more likely to have subordinates that use voice (Saunders et al., 1992).
Responsiveness is about whether the supervisor is perceived to response to the subordinate’s voice. The second part, approachability, regards to the level of which the supervisor makes the process of voicing certain (Saunders et al., 1992). This is congruent with the work of Edmondson (1999 & 2003) which states that when subordinates perceive their supervisors as accessible and interested in open communication they are more likely to speak up. This upward communication is effected by the relationship between the supervisor and the subordinate (Milliken & Morrison, 2003). When subordinates are insecure about how to approach their supervisor and how the supervisor will react, the subordinates are less likely to show voice behavior (Saunders et al., 1992). This is consistent with Glauser’s (1984) review of earlier works on communication. Voice behavior of subordinates alerts supervisors to needed organizational change and the adjustment in
organizational strategy and policy. So when a subordinate suggests change in the organization the management of voice is positively related to the voice behavior of that subordinate.
Hypothesis 2: Management of Voice is positively related to subordinates’ Voice behavior.
Goal orientation and voice behavior
11
With a performance goal orientation, individuals try to gain positive judgments of their competence. A characteristic of an individual with performance goal orientation is that he or she wants to do better than others and thereby showing one’s ability in order to gain recognition from the supervisor (Dweck and Leggett, 1988; Silver, Dwyer & Alford, 2006). One situation where voice behavior often occurs is in an innovative/complex environment (Van Dyne, Graham, & Dienesch, 1994). This kind of environment entails processes and tasks that often imply the risk of failure. In such an environment the chance of showing one’s incompetence instead its competence is much higher than in a simple environment (Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004). When a supervisor is then not responsive and/or approachable to voice behavior the individual cannot show its competence by voice. Therefore, the next hypothesis can be drawn.
Hypothesis 3a: Low Management of Voice weakens the positive relationship between Performance Goal Orientation and Voice Behavior.
Individuals with a mastery goal orientation approach a task in order to enhance their level of competence or when to understand it if they never did the task before. In their eyes, ability is an incremental skill that, by acquiring knowledge and perfecting competencies, can be constantly improved (Wood and Bandura, 1989). These individuals look for challenging tasks that can provide changes to improve their knowledge and competences. They accept errors in that process as a natural part of their learning curve (Hulleman, Schrager, Bodmann & Harackiewicz, 2010). Therefore it is expected that external factors such as management of voice doesn’t affect subordinates’ with a mastery goal orientation.
Hypothesis 3b: Low Management of Voice doesn’t affect the positive relationship between Mastery Goal Orientation and Voice Behavior.
Yet, despite the numerous research that has been conducted on the theme of voice behavior and how it can be improved, we do not have enough insight on the relationship between goal orientation and voice behavior. For example, how management of voice affects this
12
In this paper the above will be researched. When put all together the conceptual model of figure 1 forms itself. The model suggests that the relationship between goal orientation and voice behavior is moderated by the management of voice.
FIGURE 1
13
METHOD
Sample and procedure
The data for this research was gathered from a large Dutch supermarket (over 850 supermarkets in the Netherlands) by distributing a paper-and-pencil survey. The organization employs approximately 100.000 employees originated from more than 100 different cultures and from young to old. This supermarket is part of a larger multi-national holding with a core-business in the food sector. For this research a sample is taken from a group supermarkets from this
organization in the region of the Dutch city Groningen. This resulted in a total amount of ten supermarkets. The respondents were selected at random from the ten participating supermarkets. In total 32 teams were submitted a Dutch paper-and-pencil survey. Each team consisted of one supervisor (in total 32) and five subordinates (in total 160), what brings a total of 192 employees. There were made two different paper-and-pencil surveys, one for the subordinates and one for supervisors. The entire paper-and-pencil survey was distributed in Dutch. The questions of the paper-and-stencil survey can be found in appendix 1.
For different reasons, not all paper-and-pencil surveys were returned or were fully returned. A total of 51 respondents returned their fully completed paper-and-pencil survey. This means that 26.5% of the participants who have been approached the have replied the paper-and-pencil survey. The male/female ratio in the sample was 39.2% and 60.8%, respectively; the average age was 19 years(M=19.47, SD=5.9, min=16, max=53); the average tenure at the organization was 39 months (M=38.82, SD=72.19); 56.9 % of the respondents work in the same team; the average time of the respondents in their current function was 27 months (M=27.38, SD=39.46) and they work on average 11 hours per week (M=10.64, SD=7.07). The predominance of relative young respondents and low average tenure of the subordinates at the organization in the sample mirrors the composition of subordinates in the Dutch supermarket branch (Evers & van Well, 2012).
Measures
14 Control variable. This research uses a control variable to account for alternative explanations of employee voice. Previous studies have indicated that some demographic variables could influence voice behavior (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). Characteristics of the respondents such as gender (Mauno, Kinnunen, Makikangas & Natti, 2005), education (Farr & Ford, 1990) and organizational tenure (Allen, Poteet & Russel, 1998) could potential be a variable that affects the results (Detert & Burris, 2007). In this research, gender was taken as the control variable along with age, current education, organizational employment and working hours per week in team.
Goal orientation. This was measured using the 18-item achievement goal questionnaire scale from Elliot & Murayama (2008). This scale determines the kind of goal orientation of a respondent. To limit the length of the paper-and-pencil survey, not all the items of the questionnaire were
submitted. The items related to the avoidance part of goal orientation was deleted from the survey. This to be in line with the hypotheses where the avoidance content of goal orientation is excluded. This resulted in six items regarding mastery goal orientation (i.e. Mijn doel in mijn werk is om mijzelf te verbeteren) and three items regarding performance goal orientation (i.e. Mijn doel is om het in mijn werk beter te doen dan andere collega’s). The nine questions were asked to all the respondents (α = .718).
Management of Voice. This was measured using the 14-item voice manager scale from Saunders et al. (1992). This scale determines the likelihood of a supervisors positive respond to voice. Of the 14 items, seven items are related to responsiveness (i.e. Mijn leidinggevende onderneemt acties naar aanleiding van creatieve ideeën die ik aan hem/haar voorleg, α = .909). The other seven items are related to approachability (i.e. Ik ben niet bang om creatieve ideeën aan mijn leidinggevende voor te leggen, α = .854). For this variable, the subordinates rated their supervisor on the items of voice manager scale.
15
RESULTS Descriptives,
Means, standard deviations and correlations between the examined variables are shown below in Table 1. In the table below only the background variables that are significant correlated with dependent variables are shown. A correlation table including all the background variables and the independent/dependent variables can be found in appendix 2.
Table 1 shows a significant relationship between gender and performance goal orientation (r = -.32, p < .05). This implies that when subordinates are female their performance goal
orientation is low. Other background variables that are significant with independent variables are “Age”, “Current education”, “Organizational employment” and “Working hours per week in team”. Age is positive correlated with management of voice, what implies that when the age of a
subordinate increases, management of voice also increases (r = .40, p < .01). Current education is positive correlated with management of voice, what implies that when the current education of a subordinate increases, management of voice also increases (r = .28, p < .05). Organizational employment is positive correlated with management of voice, what implies that when the Organizational employment of a subordinate increases, management of voice also increases (r = .36, p < .05). Table 1 shows also a significant relationship between working hours per week and mastery goal orientation (r = .34, p < .05). This implies that an increase of the working hours per week by the subordinate, their mastery goal orientation also increases. Besides these background variables, mastery goal orientation and performance goal orientation are significantly positively correlated (r = .35, p < .05) and mastery goal orientation and management of voice are also
16
TABLE 1
Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and bivariate correlations a
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Gender b .61 .49 - .15 .16 .16 -.05 -.16 -.32* .09 .06
2. Age 19.47 5.90 - .48** .99** .27 .04 .08 .40** .08
3. Current education 4.71 1.83 - .44** .36* .15 .01 .28* .21
4. Organizational employment c 38.82 72.19 - .24 .03 .09 .36* .06
5. Working hours per week in team 10.64 7.07 - .34* .23 .14 .12
6. Mastery Goal Orientation 4.23 .50 - .35* .34* .20
7. Performance Goal Orientation 3.61 .82 - .13 -.20
8. Management of Voice 3.57 .69 - .16 9. Voice behavior 2.26 1.02 - a n = 51 b 0 = “male,” 1 = “female.” c Measured in months.
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Hypotheses testing
17
TABLE 2
Linear Regression Analysis for Mastery Goal Orientation, Management of Voice and Voice Behavior
Voice Behavior Variable β Sig. Step 1 Gender .04 .15 .79 Age .58 1.45 .69 Current education .18 .19 .33 Organizational employment -.43 .97 .66
Working hours per week in team .06 .16 .74
R² .05 Step 2 Gender .07 .16 .68 Age .36 1.5 .82 Current education .17 .19 .38 Organizational employment -.29 1.00 .78
Working hours per week in team .00 .17 .98
Mastery Goal Orientation .19 .19 .34
Management of Voice .05 .19 .78 R² .08 ΔR² .03 Step 3 Gender .12 .16 .44 Age .30 1.51 .84 Current education .22 .19 .25 Organizational employment -.33 .99 .74
Working hours per week in team .01 .17 .95
Mastery Goal Orientation .15 .19 .43
Management of Voice .08 .18 .66
Mastery Goal Orientation X Management of voice -.29 .19 .12
R² .14
18
TABLE 3
Linear Regression Analysis for Performance Goal Orientation, Management of Voice and Voice Behavior
Voice Behavior Variable β Sig. Step 1 Gender .04 .15 .79 Age .58 1.44 .69 Current education .18 .19 .33 Organizational employment -.43 .97 .66
Working hours per week in team .06 .16 .74
R² .05 Step 2 Gender -.05 .16 .74 Age .00 1.51 1.00 Current education .17 .18 .36 Organizational employment -.07 1.00 .95
Working hours per week in team .11 .17 .50
Performance Goal Orientation -.30 .19 .12
Management of Voice .16 .17 .34 R² .12 ΔR² .06 Step 3 Gender -.05 .16 .77 Age .35 1.54 .82 Current education .22 .19 .25 Organizational employment -.28 1.01 .78
Working hours per week in team .09 .17 .58
Performance Goal Orientation -.29 .19 .13
Management of Voice .11 .18 .54
Performance Goal Orientation X Management of voice -.20 .18 .27
R² .14
19
As the regression results in Table 2 and in Table 3 indicate, the control variables and the two independent variables performance goal orientation and management of voice explain for twelve percent the variance of voice behavior. When a subordinate has a mastery goal performance the control variable and the two independent variables explain for eight percent the variance of voice behavior. When the interaction effect of the goal orientation and management voice was added, fourteen percent of the variance of voice behavior was explained.
The linear regression analysis found no significance data in either Table 2 or Table 3. This means that hypotheses 1 through 3 aren’t significant. Table 2 and 3 show that all the p-values for the hypotheses are larger than .05. For the hypotheses the following data is concluded; Hypothesis 1a (β =-.30, p = n.s.), 1b (β =.19, p = n.s.), 2 (β =.16, p = n.s. and β =.05, p = n.s.), 3a (β =-.20, p = n.s.) and for hypotheses 3b (β =-.29 , p = n.s.).
In conclusion, there is not enough evidence to accept any of the hypotheses. Furthermore, the control variables (gender, age, current education, organizational employment, working hours per week in team) and the independent variables (goal orientation, management of voice) in combination with the interaction between the independent variables explain fourteen percent of the dependent variable.
DISCUSSION
To succeed in the changing environment of the current day, organizations look more and more to the competences of their subordinates. Organizations see that not only in-role behavior but also extra-role behavior is becoming of more value. In this research such an extra-role behavior, namely voice, was investigated. To be precise, this research explores if a certain motivational variable, goal orientation, effects voice behavior. Besides this variable, also the relationship of management of voice with voice behavior and the moderating effect of management of voice on the relationship between goal orientation and voice behavior was researched. In order to do this, a paper-and-pencil survey was executed. The results however show no support to any of the
20
21
In the first hypothesis of this research, the goal was to prove a positive significant
relationship between mastery-, performance goal orientation and voice behavior. This hypothesis was unfortunately not confirmed by the data. The fact that no significant relationship was found can be due to the characteristics of the sample. The Subordinates were rated, on average, a 2.25 on a five-point likert scale (with a standard deviation of 1.02) on voice behavior. With this value on voice behavior and the relatively high distribution of the data it is not surprising that no significant relationship was found.
With the second hypothesis, a possible positive significant relationship between
management of voice and voice behavior was researched. The data however showed no significant results to support this hypothesis. The reasons why no significant results could be found for the first hypothesis regarding voice behavior could also be applicable here. Besides those reasons, some other possibilities could be the reason why no significant relationship was found. Saunders et al. (1992) discovered that when a subordinate experiences a new supervisor or rotating supervisor instead of a fixed supervisor, subordinates are cautious and become less likely to voice upward. Only little more than half of the subordinates work in fixed teams, this could be a factor why no positive relationship between management of voice an voice behavior was found. Secondly, in the low-wage sector where this research was conducted the subordinates have limited financial investment and can easily transfer to another similar organization. In that case, the supervisors’ management of voice may be of less importance to the subordinates when they decide to show voice behavior. Instead other factors such personality of the supervisor me be of higher importance (Detert & Burris, 2007).
The third and last hypothesis of this research concerns the moderating effect of
22
more likely to negatively evaluate the subordinate (Lam, Huang & Snape, 2007). Subordinates with a performance goal orientation want to impress others, supervisors might not like this impression management. A subordinate with a performance goal orientation does not want to fail, when the subordinate understands that the voice is seen as impression management and thereby not appreciated, it is less likely that he or she will show voice.
Practical implications
In the current economic crises, any competitive advantage that can be made are important for organizations. Since employees play a great part in gathering information to gain such a
competitive advantage, the ideas and suggestions of these employees should be viewed with great interest. In order for subordinates to express such ideas, they have to feel safe in speaking out those ideas. Whether the subordinate has a performance or mastery goal does not matter for their voice behavior. Besides that, management of voice does not directly influence or moderates the voice behavior of the subordinates. This means for organization that there are other aspects that influence the voice behavior of their subordinates. Subordinates should not be selected on their goal orientation, and supervisors should not be selected on their management of voice when the organization wants to achieve a competitive advantage based on voice behavior. However, it would not be right to ignore the effects of goal orientation and management of voice, since multiple studies have shown positive effects that supervisors have (Detert, 2010; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2012; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009) and what goal orientation can contribute to an
organization (Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004; Simmons, Aneika L. & Run Ren, 2009).
Limitations
23
Secondly, although data was asked from two different resources (subordinates and
supervisors), they were asked to give answer on different variables. Voice behavior, for example, is only measured by the perception of the supervisor regarding the subordinates what results in a mono-operation bias. Following, it is possible that self-ratings of subordinates on voice behavior might difference from the perception of the supervisor (Klimoski & London, 1974). If the supervisor is not too fond of voice behavior he or she is likely to appreciate voice behavior less than
supervisors who are in favor of voice behavior. Since the supervisor is the one who rates the subordinates on voice behavior, a bias could have been occurred. The supervisors in this sample were asked to provide voice ratings for five subordinates out of a larger population of subordinates. In this context, it is possible that supervisors’ impressions of all the subordinates could contaminate the impression of the five subordinates of which the supervisor was enquired, this could result into halo or horn effects.
Lastly, a limitation towards the method of data gathering exists. Due to the fact that a paper-and-pencil survey was executed and not for example an interview, it was not possible to further explain the respondents the questions if necessary. Since there was no way of checking the answers given by the respondents, the possibility for respondents of not ‘fully’ tell the truth existed. The paper-and-pencil was also the only way that data was gathered this could result in a mono-method bias. All these limitations could have had negative consequences for the validity and reliability of the research.
Future research
For future research, first some basic limitations of the current research should be solved. These limitations regard mainly aspects of data gathering. In future research the sample should consist of more respondents in multiple organization and in multiple regions. Besides that, the measuring instrument should not only be a paper-and-stencil survey. Interviews and or observations could be a feasible complementary measuring instrument to the data gathering.
24
25
REFERENCES
Allen, T. D., & Poteet, M. L. (1998). Attitudes of managers who are more or less career plateaued. Career Development Quarterly, 47(2), 159.
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123.
Arenas, A., Tabernero, C., & Briones, E. (2006). Effects of goal orientation, error orientation and self-efficacy on performance in an uncertain situation. Social Behavior and Personality, 34(5), 569-586.
Ashford, S. J., Rothbard, N. P., Piderit, S. K., & Dutton, J. E. (1998). Out on a limb: The role of context and impression management in selling gender-equity issues. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(1), 23-57.
Ashford, S.J., Sutcliffe, K.M., & Christianson, M.K. (2009). Speaking up and speaking out: The leadership dynamics of voice in organizations. In J. Greenberg & M. Edwards (Eds.), Voice and silence in organizations (pp. 175–202). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.
Avery, D. R., & Quiñnes, M. A. (2002). Disentangling the effects of voice: The incremental roles of opportunity, behavior, and instrumentality in predicting procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 81-86.
Botero, I. C., & van Dyne, L. (2009). Employee voice behavior: Interactive effects of LMX and power distance in the united states and colombia. Management Communication Quarterly, 23(1), 84-104.
Button, S. B., Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1996). Goal orientation in organizational research: A conceptual and empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 67(1), 26-48.
26
Dépret, E., & Fiske, S. (1993). Social cognition and power: Some cognitive consequences of social structure as a source of control deprivation. In G. Weary, F. Gleicher & K. Marsh (Eds.), (pp. 176-202) Springer New York.
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869-884.
Detert, J. R., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Speaking up to higher-ups: How supervisors and skip-level leaders influence employee voice. Organization Science, 21(1), 249-270.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256-273.
Earley, P. C., Connolly, T., & Ekgren, G. (1989). Goals, strategy development, and tack
performance: Some limits on the efficacy of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 24.
Edmondson, A.C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
Edmondson, A. C. (1996). Learning from mistakes is easier said than done: Group and
organizational influences on the detection and correction of human error. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32(1), 5-28.
Edmondson, A. C. (2003). Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1419-1452.
Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A., & Gable, S. (1999). Achievement goals, study strategies, and exam performance: A mediational analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 549-563.
Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals: Critique, illustration, and application. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 613-628.
27
Evers, G.H.M., & Van Well, J.J.M. (2012). Levensfasebewust Personeelsbeleid in de supermarktbranche. Leidschendam.
Farr, J. L., & Ford, C. M. (1990). Individual innovation. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies. Chichester: Wiley.
French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. P. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power: 150–167. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active peformance concept for work in the 21st century. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 133.
Fuller, J., Marler, L., & Hester, K. (2006). Promoting felt responsibility for constructive change and proactive behavior: Exploring aspects of an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 1089–1120.
Gao, L., Janssen, O., & Shi, K. (2011). Leader trust and employee voice: The moderating role of empowering leader behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 22(4), 787-798.
Glauser, M. J. (1984). Upward information flow in organizations: Review and conceptual analysis. Human Relations, 37(8), 613-643.
Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, ,Daan, & Zhou, J. (2009). A cross-level perspective on employee creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 52(2), 280-293.
Horvath, M., Herleman, H. A., & Lee McKie, R. (2006). Goal orientation, task difficulty, and task interest: A multilevel analysis. Motivation and Emotion, 30(2), 169-176.
28
Islam, G., & Zyphur, M.J. (2005). Power, voice, and hierarchy: Exploring the antecedents of speaking up in groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9, 93–103.
Janssen, O., & Prins, J. (2007). Goal orientations and the seeking of different types of feedback information. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 80(2), 235-249.
Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2004). Employees' goal orientations, the quality of leader-member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 368-384.
Kanter, R. 1988. When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and social conditions for innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in
organizational behavior, vol. 10: 169–211. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Klimoski, R. J., & London, M. (1974). Role of the rater in performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 445– 451.
Kim, Y., Min, B., & Cha, J. (1999). The roles of R&D team leaders in korea: A contingent approach. R&D Management, 29(2), 153-166.
Kowalski, R. M. (1996). Complaints and complaining: Functions, antecedents, and consequences. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 179-196.
Lam, W., Huang, X., & Snape, E. D. (2007). Feedback-seeking behavior and leader-member exchange: Do supervisor-attributed motives matter? Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 348-363.
Leavitt, H.J. (2005). Why hierarchies are here to stay and how to manage them more effectively. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 853-868.
29
Likert, R. (1961). Neuw Patterns of Managment. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Liu, W., Zhu, R., & Yang, Y. (2010). I warn you because I like you: Voice behavior, employee identifications, and transformational leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 189-202.
Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., Mäkikangas, A., & Nätti, J. (2005). Psychological consequences of fixed-term employment and perceived job insecurity among health care staff. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 14(3), 209-237.
McGregor, D. (1960) The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill
Miceli, M.P., Near, J.P., & Dworkin, T.M. (2008). Whistleblowing in organizations. New York: Routledge.
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., & 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., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 403-419.
Morrison, E.W., & Rothman, N.B. (2009). Silence and the dynamics of power. In J. Greenberg & M. Edwards (Eds.), Voice and silence in organizations (pp. 111–133). Bingley, England: Emerald.
Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103(1), 27-43.
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91(3), 328-346.
30
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in selfregulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: 451–502. San Diego: Academic Press.
Poortvliet, P. M., & Giebels, E. (2012). Self-improvement and cooperation: How exchange relationships promote mastery-approach driven individuals' job outcomes. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 21(3), 392-425.
Rusbult, C.E., Farrell, D., Rogers, G., & Mainous, A.G., III. (1988). Impact of exchange variables on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: An integrative model of responses to declining job
satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 599–627.
Saunders, D. M., Sheppard, B. H., Knight, V., & Roth, J. (1992). Employee voice to supervisors. Employee Responsibilities & Rights Journal, 5(3), 241-259.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580-607.
Seijts, G. H., Latham, G. P., Tasa, K., & Latham, B. W. (2004). Goal setting and goal orientation: An integration of two different yet related literatures. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 227-239.
Silver, L. S., Dwyer, S., & Alford, B. (2006). Learning and performance goal orientation of salespeople revisited: The role of performance-approach and performance-avoidance orientations. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 26(1), 27-38.
Simmons, A. L., & Ren, R. (2009). The influence of goal orientation and risk on creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 21(4), 400-408.
Sujan, H., Weitz, B. A., & Kumar, N. (1994). Learning orientation, working smart, and effective selling. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 39.
31
Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2008b). Exploring nonlinearity in employee voice: The effects of personal control and organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 51(6), 1189-1203.
Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2012). Ask and you shall hear (but not always): Examining the relationship between manager consultation and employee voice. Personnel Psychology, 65(2), 251-282.
Van de Ven, Adrew. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32(5), 590-607.
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1359-1392.
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), 765-802.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108-119.
Vandewalle, D. (2001). Why wanting to look successful doesn't always lead to success. Organizational Dynamics, 30(2), 162-171.
VandeWalle, D., & Cummings, L. L. (1997). A test of the influence of goal orientation on the feedback-seeking process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 390-400.
Venkataramani, V., & Tangirala, S. (2010). When and why do central employees speak up? an examination of mediating and moderating variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 582-591.
32
Winters, D., & Latham, G. P. (1996). The effect of learning versus outcome goals on a simple versus a complex task. Group & Organization Management, 21(2), 236.
Withey, M. J., & Cooper, W. H. (1989). Predicting exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(4), 521-539.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361-384.
Yeo, G., Loft, S., Xiao, T., & Kiewitz, C. (2009). Goal orientations and performance: Differential relationships across levels of analysis and as a function of task demands. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 710-726.
33
APPENDIX 1: MEASUREMENTS
Goal Orientation (of the subordinate, rated by the subordinate)
Heel erg mee oneens Enigszins mee oneens Niet eens, niet oneens Enigszins mee eens Heel erg mee eens
Mijn doel in mijn werk is om het volledig te beheersen.
1 2 3 4 5
In mijn werk streef ik ernaar om de taken zo goed mogelijk te begrijpen.
1 2 3 4 5
Mijn doel is om zoveel mogelijk te leren op mijn werk.
1 2 3 4 5
Mijn doel in mijn werk is om mijzelf te verbeteren.
1 2 3 4 5
In mijn werk streef ik ernaar om het goed te doen in vergelijking met hoe ik het eerder heb gedaan.
1 2 3 4 5
Mijn doel is om mijzelf te overtreffen in mijn werk.
1 2 3 4 5
Mijn doel in mijn werk is om het goed te doen in vergelijking met andere collega’s.
1 2 3 4 5
In mijn werk streef ik ernaar om het goed te doen in vergelijking met andere collega’s.
1 2 3 4 5
Mijn doel is om het in mijn werk beter te doen dan andere collega’s.
34
Control Variables of the subordinate
1 Wat is je geslacht? □ Man □ Vrouw
2 Wat is je leeftijd? …… jaar
3 Wat is je hoogst voltooide opleiding? □ Basisschool □ VMBO
□ MBO □ HAVO
□ HBO □ VWO
□ Universiteit
4 Welke opleiding volg je momenteel? □ Basisschool □ VMBO
□ MBO □ HAVO
□ HBO □ VWO
□ Universiteit □ Geen 5 Hoe lang werk jij al in je functie? …… jaar …… maanden 6 Hoe lang werk je al bij de Albert Heijn? …… jaar …… maanden 7 Hoe lang werk je al in dit team? …… jaar …… maanden 8 Hoeveel uur per week werk je gemiddeld in dit team? …… uur
35
Voice Manager Scale (of the supervisor, rated by the subordinate) Heel erg mee oneens Enigszins mee oneens Niet eens, niet oneens Enigszins mee eens Heel erg mee eens Mijn leidinggevende geeft hoge
prioriteit aan de behandeling van creatieve ideeën van medewerkers.
1 2 3 4 5
Mijn leidinggevende is eerlijk wanneer ik creatieve ideeën aan hem/haar kenbaar maak.
1 2 3 4 5
Ik vertel mijn leidinggevende mijn creatieve ideeën omdat hij/zij daar effectief mee omgaat.
1 2 3 4 5
Mijn leidinggevende onderneemt acties naar aanleiding van creatieve ideeën die ik aan hem/haar voorleg.
1 2 3 4 5
Mijn leidinggevende behandelt mijn creatieve ideeën ogenblikkelijk.
1 2 3 4 5
Mijn leidinggevende is bereid om mij te steunen wanneer mijn creatieve ideeën zinvol zijn
1 2 3 4 5
Mijn leidinggevende luistert nauwkeurig naar mijn creatieve ideeën.
1 2 3 4 5
Ik weet niet wat te verwachten wanneer ik met creatieve ideeën naar mijn leidinggevende ga.
1 2 3 4 5
Ik weet niet hoe mijn leidinggevende zal reageren wanneer ik met creatieve ideeën naar hem/haar ga.
36 Heel erg mee oneens Enigszins mee oneens Niet eens, niet oneens Enigszins mee eens Heel erg mee eens Ik weet niet hoe mijn leidinggevende
zich zal gedragen wanneer ik mijn creatieve ideeën aan hem/haar voorleg.
1 2 3 4 5
Het is moeilijk om met creatieve ideeën naar mijn leidinggevende te gaan.
1 2 3 4 5
Ik weet niet hoe ik mijn creatieve ideeën naar mijn leidinggevende kan uiten.
1 2 3 4 5
Ik vind het erg stressvol om mijn creatieve ideeën naar mijn leidinggevende uit te spreken.
1 2 3 4 5
Ik ben niet bang om creatieve ideeën aan mijn leidinggevende voor te leggen.
1 2 3 4 5
37
Voice Behavior (of the subordinate, rated by the supervisor)
Deze medewerker… Persoon
A Persoon B Persoon C Persoon D Persoon E komt met creatieve ideeën voor de
aanpak van werk-gerelateerde zaken die spelen in het team.
komt met creatieve ideeën en stimuleert anderen in het team om ook met
creatieve ideeën te komen in werk-gerelateerde zaken die dit team aangaan. communiceert creatieve ideeën over werk-gerelateerde zaken, ook als anderen binnen het team het met hem/haar oneens zijn.
blijft goed op de hoogte en draagt creatieve ideeën aan als deze nuttig zijn voor het team.
komt met creatieve ideeën voor verbetering van de kwaliteit van het werken binnen dit team.
laat zijn/haar stem horen binnen dit team met ideeën voor nieuwe projecten of veranderingen in procedures.
oppert nieuwe manieren om doelen te bereiken.
komt met nieuwe en praktische ideeën om prestaties te verbeteren.
bedenkt nieuwe werkwijzen, methoden of ideeën op het werk
stelt nieuwe manieren voor om de kwaliteit te verbeteren.
38
Deze medewerker… Persoon
A Persoon B Persoon C Persoon D Persoon E is niet bang om risico’s te nemen.
promoot en verdedigt nieuwe ideeën tegenover anderen.
toont zich creatief in het werk wanneer daartoe de gelegenheid is.
ontwikkelt adequate plannen en schema’s voor de invoering van nieuwe ideeën. heeft vaak nieuwe en innovatieve ideeën. komt met creatieve oplossingen voor
problemen.
heeft vaak een frisse benadering voor problemen.
APPENDIX 2: CORRELATION TABLE
Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and bivariate correlations a
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Gender b .61 .49 - .15 .13 .16 .14 .16 .09 -.05 -.13 -.16 -.32* .09 .06
2. Age 19.47 5.9 - .09 .48** .85** .99** .47** .27 -.20 .04 .08 .40** .08
3. Highest completed education 2.90 1.54 - .53** .11 .05 .06 .15 .07 .16 -.02 .05 .26
4. Current education 4.71 1.83 - .42** .44** .33* .36* -.26 .15 .01 .28* .21
5. Time in current function c 27.38 39.46 - .88** .53** -.05 -.21 -.07 -.04 .28 .08
6. Organizational employment c 38.82 72.19 - .48** .24 -.21 .03 .09 .36* .06
7. Time in current team c 19.12 14.63 - .02 -.15 .23 .11 .24 .12
8. Working hours per week in team 10.64 7.07 - -.05 .34* .23 .14 .12
9. Permanent team d .42 .50 - -.11 -.10 -.14 -.01
10. Mastery Goal Orientation 4.23 .50 - .35* .34* .20
11. Performance Goal Orientation 3.61 .82 - .13 -.20
12. Management of Voice 3.57 .69 - .16 13. Voice behavior 2.26 1.02 - a n = 51 b 0 = “male,” 1 = “female.” c Measured in months. d 0 = “yes,” 1 = “no.”
