EXPLORING ANTECEDENTS OF SPEAKING UP IN SELF-MANAGING TEAMS: A MODERATION AND MEDIATION ANALYSIS
Master thesis, MscBA, specialization Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
EXPLORING ANTECEDENTS OF SPEAKING UP IN SELF-MANAGING TEAMS: A MODERATION AND MEDIATION ANALYSIS
Whereas the use of self-managing teams has become commonplace in modern organizations, and both scholars and practitioners emphasize the importance of team members’ equal contribution to decision-making, little research has focused on antecedents of speaking up in self-managing teams. Drawing on various literature, two conceptual models were developed and tested to examine whether self-perceived status moderates the relationship between psychological safety and speaking up, and whether psychological safety mediates the relationship between self-perceived status and speaking up. Data from 24 self-managing teams operating in eight different healthcare organizations were used to test these hypotheses. Results from multiple regression analyses do not manage to bring full confirmation to the propositions. Rather, there are conditional effects that slightly point to the hypothesized direction of moderation by self-perceived status, and modest indications of a partial mediating role of psychological safety.
Keywords: speaking up; psychological safety; self-perceived status; self-managing teams
INTRODUCTION
can be described as groups of interdependent individuals that are able to self-regulate their behavior concerning relatively complete tasks (Cohen, Ledford, & Spreizer, 1996). Members of self-managing teams have a certain degree of discretion in deciding how to allocate work, carry out tasks and resolve interpersonal issues (Langfred, 2004). This discretion involves decisions that traditionally were the responsibility of (higher-level) managers. More specifically, self-management brings decision-making authority to the level of operational problems, processes, and work activities (Tata & Prashad, 2004).
Self-managing team members are usually organized into teams of 10 to 15 people (Barker, 1993). Given the relative absence of a formal leader, members of self-managing teams are jointly responsible for making decisions about work-related issues (Roberson & Williamson, 2012). This not only requires team members to contribute to, and participate in decision-making equally (Park, 2012), but indicates a need for individuals to speak their minds and voice their opinions, suggestions, and concerns as well. After all, teams need input from all of their members if they are to perform effectively and make good decisions (Morrison, 2011). Speaking up can be described as team members’ “expression of challenging but constructive opinions, concerns, or ideas on work-related issues” (Venkataramani & Tangirala, 2010: 582). Speaking up is assumed to be essential for early detection of problems and opportunities, and due to its organizational significance there has been renewed interest in antecedents of speaking up behavior (Janssen & Gao, 2015; Venkataramani & Tangirala, 2010).
& Zyphur, 2005; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). The idea that it is safe to express concerns or admit mistakes – defined as psychological safety – has been found to predict team members’ willingness to speak up (Bienefeld & Grote, 2014; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). Status differences, however, can cause low-status team members’ reluctance to speak up because they fear negative social or personal repercussions (Bienefeld & Grote, 2014; Detert & Edmondson, 2011; Islam & Zyphur, 2005).
Second, previous research has not yet explored the moderating effects of self-perceived status and mediating effects of psychological safety on speaking up behavior in self-managing teams. This is surprising, given the growing use and importance of, and interest in self-managing teams (Kuipers & Stoker, 2009; Langfred, 2007), especially since speaking up in self-managing teams is essential in order to collectively make decisions about work- related issues. Therefore, this study also aims to examine what the underlying mechanisms are for speaking up in self-managing teams in particular. This in turn, underlines the practical contribution of this research.
Based on the above, the questions central to this study are as follows: (1) Does self-perceived status moderate the relationship between psychological safety and speaking up? and (2) does psychological safety mediate the relationship between self-perceived status and speaking up? By testing these relationships, a wider and more comprehensive view on speaking up in self-managing teams will be obtained. The following section provides a theoretical framework as well as empirical support to help develop hypotheses pertaining to these relationships.
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
Psychological Safety and Speaking Up
or opinions about workplace matters, including the actions or suggestions of other team members, suggested and necessary improvements, and alternative approaches for addressing job-related issues (Premeaux & Bedeian, 2003).
When speaking up, it is important that individuals feel that they do not need to fear any personal or social repercussions. Several studies on employee silence suggest that the risks or threats associated with speaking up prevent team members from voicing their opinions and concerns freely (Detert & Edmondson, 2011; Milliken, Morrison, & Hewlin, 2003; Premeaux & Bedeian, 2003). Psychological safety can be described as team members’ belief that they can take interpersonal risks without having to fear punishment, rejection, or embarrassment (Edmondson, 1999). This study follows Bienefeld and Grote’s (2014: 934) operationalization of psychological safety as “the cognitive and emotional state that it is safe to voice concerns or admit mistakes”.
Hypothesis 1. Psychological safety is positively associated with speaking up; high psychological safety leads to more speaking up.
Self-perceived Status and Speaking Up
In contrast to status, which reflects the prominence, respect, and influence that a team member enjoys in the eyes of others (e.g., Anderson, John, Keltner, & Kring, 2001; Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch, 1972), self-perceived status refers to how valued and respected individuals perceive themselves to be as members of a team (e.g., Janssen & Gao, 2015; van Dijke, De Cremer, Mayer, & Van Quaquebeke, 2012). As a result of self-perceived status differences feelings of superiority or inferiority among team members might arise, which explains why low-status members underestimate the value of their input or let higher-status members make decisions (Bienefeld & Grote, 2014; Kirchler & Davis, 1986). Janssen and Gao (2015) argue that the amount of status team members perceive themselves to have within the team may promote or inhibit their expression of ideas about work-related issues in the team. Team members are likely to behave according to their own self-perceptions and do so by either voicing their opinions powerfully, making verbal commands and directives to other members, and speaking frequently in team discussions (e.g., Anderson, Srivastava, Beer, Spataro, & Chatman, 2006), or by remaining silent (e.g., Milliken et al., 2003). Perceived high-status individuals feel they are expected and allowed to come up with opinions and suggestions for improvement and change, in contrast to perceived low-status individuals who keep their opinions to themselves (Anderson et al., 2006; Janssen & Gao, 2015). Together, these findings imply that self-perceived status is positively related to speaking up. Stated formally:
Psychological Safety, Speaking Up, and Self-perceived Status
As psychological safety increases, team members are more likely to speak their minds freely and provide suggestions about work-related issues, as they do not fear reprisal, criticism, or punishment from doing so (Edmondson & Nembhard, 2009). Members who perceive themselves to be high in status are also more likely to voice their opinions, as they tend to become “puffed up with their own importance” (Kipnis, 1984: 30). These relationships were described in hypothesis 1 and 2, respectively. However, there are several reasons for believing that self-perceived status also moderates the relationship between psychological safety and speaking up. First, team members who perceive themselves to be high in status are less concerned about, and susceptible to negative personal consequences or risks of speaking up. These members will assert their opinions forcefully and speak frequently in group discussions even if their psychological safety is low (e.g., Anderson et al., 2006). More specifically, as perceived high-status individuals tend to view themselves positively, they pay less attention to psychological states while voicing their opinions (Islam & Zyphur, 2005). Moreover, Fiske (1993) mentions that people with higher status are less aware of the perceived riskiness of speaking up. These individuals would speak up freely, even if there is a possibility of other members’ disapproval (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). Therefore, higher levels of self-perceived status cause the relationship between psychological safety and speaking up to be weakened.
FIGURE 1
Conceptual Model
+ (H2)
- (H3)
+ (H1)
individuals (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). To them, the belief that it is safe to take interpersonal risks, and that others would not reject or embarrass them for sharing contradictory thoughts, is more important (Kahn, 1990).
Together, these findings imply that for lower levels of self-perceived status, the relationship between psychological safety and speaking up becomes more positive. Figure 1 represents this relationship. Consequently, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 3. Self-perceived status moderates the relationship between psychological safety and speaking up. This relationship is more positive for lower levels of self-perceived status.
Self-perceived Status and Psychological Safety
Team members who perceive themselves to be low in status compared to other members, underestimate their contribution to tasks and decision-making (e.g., Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). If their status increases, team members are less concerned about others’ disapproval and more likely to freely voice opinions and requests to other team members. According to Nembhard and Edmondson (2006) this suggests that individual differences in status lead to differences in perceived psychological safety. Higher-status members are less
Speaking Up Psychological Safety
fearful of what other team members might say to them for speaking their mind (e.g., Venkataramani & Tangirala, 2010). People with perceived higher status are also less likely to perceive interpersonal risks of voicing their opinion (Fiske, 1993), and therefore feel psychologically safe (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). Perceived low-status individuals however, lack the confidence that other members would not reject or embarrass them (Kahn, 1990), and therefore feel psychologically less safe (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). Based on these findings, it is argued here that self-perceived status is positively associated with psychological safety. Consequently, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 4. Self-perceived status is positively associated with psychological safety; high self-perceived status leads to increased feelings of psychological safety.
Self-perceived Status, Speaking Up, and Psychological Safety
There are several studies indicating a mediating role of psychological safety between self-perceived status and speaking up. Bienefeld and Grote (2014) found that psychological safety acts as a strong mediator between subjective status and speaking up across teams, because a psychologically safe environment ‘promotes’ speaking up. In their study of interdisciplinary health care teams, Nembhard and Edmondson (2006) found that status differences determined the level of perceived psychological safety, which in turn predicted team members’ willingness to speak up in the context of work-improvement efforts. In other words, team members’ perceived status influenced their belief about whether it was safe to take interpersonal risks, which then determined if they spoke up to offer ideas, raise concerns, or ask questions (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006).
FIGURE 2
Conceptual Model
+ (H4) + (H1)
+ (H2)
perceived low-status however, suffer from low self-efficacy and feelings of inferiority, and underestimate their contributions (Edmondson & Nembhard, 2009). They therefore perceive a greater interpersonal risk associated with speaking up (e.g., Bienefeld & Grote, 2014; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). Contrary to perceived high-status individuals, those with perceived low-status feel psychologically less safe, and thus withhold certain information and speak up less (Kirchler & Davis, 1986).
Based on these findings it is expected that self-perceived status relates to psychological safety, which in turn relates to speaking up. Figure 2 represents this relationship. Consequently, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 5. Psychological safety mediates the relationship between self-perceived status and speaking up.
METHOD Sample and Procedure
In order to investigate the aforementioned hypotheses, a field study was conducted among 24 self-managing teams operating in eight different Dutch healthcare organizations. These particular organizations are known for their provision of home- and healthcare to
Speaking Up Psychological Safety
varying target groups (e.g., elderly people, physically, and/or mentally impaired people, etc.). The organizations vary in their size, ranging from 2000 to 9300 employees in total. All participating teams operate in the Northern and Eastern parts of The Netherlands.
In this study, a total of 269 team members within my personal network were invited to voluntarily participate in an online questionnaire. The questionnaires were used to gather self-reports on four individual level variables, and contained statements about speaking up, psychological safety, self-perceived status, and level of self-management. Before they started the questionnaire, the content and purpose of this study were explained to team members via e-mail. The questionnaire took approximately ten minutes to complete. Participants received a unique code per team and were asked to enter this code at the beginning of the questionnaire solely for the purpose of determining the number of members per team that participated in the questionnaire. To ensure participant confidentiality, this particular code was not linked to names of participants or organizations in any way.
Overall, 104 usable questionnaires were received from the focal sample, resulting in a response rate of 38.7%. Of the respondents 96 were female (92.3%), the mean age was 43.20 years (SD = 11.36), and the mean team tenure was 37.06 months (SD = 38.13). The mean team size was 11.19 (SD = 4.95), and the mean level of self-management was 4.17 (SD = .89) on a scale ranging from 1 to 5. Of all respondents 1% had a secondary education, 67.3% an intermediate vocational training, and 31.7% a higher vocational education. No one had an university degree.
Measurement
Speaking up. This variable was measured with six items developed byVan Dyne and LePine (1998). I replaced the originally used word “co-worker” with “I”. The items included:
“I develop and make recommendations concerning issues that affect this team.” and “I
communicate my opinions about work issues to others in this team even if my opinion is different and others in the team disagree with me.”. The items were measured on a five-point
Likert scale, ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). The internal consistency of this scale was high (Cronbach’s α = .93). The items included in this scale are listed in Appendix A.
Psychological safety. This variable was measured with seven items developed by Edmondson (1999). Examples of the items measuring psychological safety include the following: “It is difficult to ask other team members for help.” (reversed item) and “It is safe
to take a risk within this team.”. To mitigate potential response bias, Edmondson (1999) used
a mix of positively and negatively worded items. The items on psychological safety were measured on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). The internal consistency of this scale was acceptable (Cronbach’s α = .75). The items included in this scale are reproduced in Appendix A.
Self-perceived status. This variable was measured with seven items developed by Anderson et al. (2006). Sample items measuring self-perceived status are: “I receive respect
from other team members.” and “I influence important team decisions.”. The items on
self-perceived status were measured on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). The internal consistency of this scale was high (Cronbach’s α = .88). The items included in this scale can be found in Appendix A.
education (1 = primary education, 2 = secondary education, 3 = intermediate vocational
training, 4 = higher vocational education, 5 = university degree) can influence speaking up,
psychological safety, and/or self-perceived status. Therefore, these three demographic variables were included as control variables. As past research has recognized that team size is linked to voice behavior, team size was also included as a control variable (e.g., LePine & Van Dyne, 2001; Venkataramani & Tangirala, 2010). To measure the extent to which teams were indeed self-managing, five items developed by Kirkman, Shapiro, Novelli, and Brett (1996) were included, which together constitute the last control variable. The level of self-management was assessed by asking participants to rate, for example, the extent to which they do the following: “Plan and schedule own work.” and “Take action when problems arise.”. The items were measured on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). The internal consistency of this scale was high (Cronbach’s α = .97). The items included in this scale are listed in Appendix A.
Data Analysis
RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
The means, standard deviations, and zero-order Pearson correlations of the variables in this study are presented in Table 1. An examination of the variable means revealed that, on average, team members assessed their speaking up, psychological safety, self-perceived status, and particularly their level of self-management as relatively high. Bivariate individual-level correlations revealed that psychological safety was positively associated with speaking up (r = .45, p < .001), as was self-perceived status (r = .61, p < .001). Also, self-perceived status was positively related to psychological safety (r = .53, p < .001). Among the three demographic control variables, only education exhibited a moderately positive correlation with speaking up (r = .19, p < .10). Following the recommendations of Becker (2005), age and gender were therefore excluded from hypotheses testing. Notably, the fourth control variable – level of self-management – was positively associated with speaking up (r = .38, p < .001), as well as with psychological safety (r = .54, p < .001) and self-perceived status (r = .60, p < .001). The only team-level control variable, team size, was not related to speaking up. Hence, this variable was omitted from further analyses (Becker, 2005).
Hypotheses Testing
Regression results for models with speaking up as the dependent variable are shown in Table 2. Of the control variables, especially level of self-management was significantly related to speaking up in Model 1 (b = .33, p < .001). There was some evidence for a positive relationship between education and speaking up (b = .28, p < .10).
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics and Pearson Zero-order Correlations Among Study Variables
r Variable Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Speaking Up 4.00 .79 2. Psychological Safety 3.94 .55 .45*** 3. Self-perceived Status 4.02 .56 .61*** .53*** 4. Gender 1.92 .27 .00 .13 .07 5. Age 43.20 11.36 .04 .10 .08 .04 6. Education 3.31 .48 .19† .08 .11 .04 -.08 7. Level of Self-management 4.17 .89 .38*** .54*** .60*** .10 -.01 .04 8. Team Size a 11.19 4.95 .08 -.32 -.44* .11 -.11 -.15 -.41* Note: N = 104, a N= 24 teams. † p <.10., *p < .05., *** p < .001.
speaking up were indeed significant and positively related (b = .27, p < .05). These results provide support for Hypothesis 1.
TABLE 2
Linear Model of Predictors of Speaking Up
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Model Variable B SE B SE B SE 1. Control …Variables Education Level of Self-management .28† .33*** .15 .08 .19 -.04 .13 .09 .21† -.05 .13 .09 2. Main ....Effects Psychological Safety Self-perceived Status .27* .74*** .14 .14 .23† .74*** .14 .14 3. Interaction Psychological Safety ×
Self-perceived Status -.22 .16
R2 .18 .41 .42
R2Δ .01
Note: N = 104.
† p <.10., *p < .05., ***p < .001.
Conditional Effect of X on Y at Different Values of Moderator
95 % Confidence Interval
Conditional Effect LLCI ULCI
- 1SD* .35 .06 .65
M † .23 -.04 .51
Hypothesis 3 suggested that self-perceived status would moderate the relationship between psychological safety and speaking up such that this relationship would be more positive when self-perceived status was low. The third step of the analysis, shown in Model 3, indicates that the suggested interaction appears to be nonsignificant (b = - .22, p < .16).1 While there is no support for Hypothesis 3, the conditional indirect effects appear to be slightly in the hypothesized direction (- 1SD = .35; 95% confidence interval = .06 to .65).
Hypothesis 4 stated that self-perceived status is positively associated with psychological safety; high self-perceived status leads to increased feelings of psychological safety. Controlling for education and level of self-management, self-perceived status was indeed found to be significantly and positively related to psychological safety (b = .31, p < .01), as shown in Table 3. These results support hypothesis 4.
Hypothesis 5 suggested that the indirect relationship between self-perceived status and speaking up would be mediated by psychological safety. As Table 3 indicates, self-perceived status was found to be significantly and positively related to speaking up (b = .74, p < .001). Also, self-perceived status significantly predicts psychological safety (b = .31, p < .01). After controlling for the effect of self-perceived status, psychological safety still appears to be significantly and positively related to speaking up (b = .27, p < .05). A bootstrapping procedure implied that the indirect relationship between self-perceived status and speaking up was indeed significant and positive (indirect effect = .08; 95% confidence interval = .01 to .25), indicating that psychological safety at least partially mediated the relationship between
1
TABLE 3
Results of Mediation Analysis
Predictor Psychological Safety Speaking Up
Constant 1.69 (.42)*** -.51 (.62)
Education .03 (.09) .19 (.13)
Level of Self-management .22 (.06)*** -.04 (.09)
Self-perceived Status .31 (.10)** .74 (.14)***
Psychological Safety .27 (.14)*
Indirect Relationship between Self-perceived Status and Speaking Up through Psychological Safety
Sobel Test 95 % Boot Confidence Interval a
Indirect Effect z p LLCI ULCI
.08 1.06 .11 .01 .25
Note: N = 104. Regression coefficients are shown; standard errors are noted within parentheses.
a
Based on 1,000 Bootstrap Samples.
*p < .05., **p < .01., ***p < .001.
self-perceived status and speaking up. However, a Sobel test showed that this indirect relationship was nonsignificant (z = 1.06, p < .11). These results do not support hypothesis 5.
Supplement Analysis
TABLE 4
Results of Mediation Analysis Without Control Variables
Predictor Psychological Safety Speaking Up
Constant 1.85 (.34)*** .05 (.50)
Self-perceived Status .52 (.08)*** .73 (.13)***
Psychological Safety .26 (.13)*
Indirect Relationship between Self-perceived Status and Speaking Up through Psychological Safety
Sobel Test 95 % Boot Confidence Interval a
Indirect Effect z p LLCI ULCI
.13 1.86 .06† .01 .31
Note: N = 104. Regression coefficients are shown; standard errors are noted within parentheses.
a
Based on 1,000 Bootstrap Samples. † p <.10., *p < .05., ***p < .001.
DISCUSSION
Findings
The goal of the current study was to advance understanding of speaking up behavior in self-managing teams and to resolve the ambiguity concerning moderating and mediating factors influencing this behavior. The moderating role of self-perceived status, and mediating role of psychological safety on speaking up were empirically examined using data from a questionnaire among members of 24 self-managing teams.
The results demonstrated that both psychological safety and self-perceived status are positively associated with speaking up, thus supporting hypothesis 1 and 2, respectively. Hypothesis 3 suggested that self-perceived status would moderate the relationship between psychological safety and speaking up, such that this relationship would be more positive when self-perceived status was low. The results pertaining to this hypothesis provided no support. At the very most, the conditional indirect effects appeared to be in the hypothesized direction. Furthermore, the results confirmed that self-perceived status was positively associated with feelings of psychological safety, as posited in hypothesis 4. Lastly, it was proposed that psychological safety would mediate the relationship between self-perceived status and speaking up. The (additional) results pertaining to the last hypothesis showed that psychological safety does operate as a partial mediator that links self-perceived status to speaking up.
Theoretical Implications
the relationship between psychological safety and speaking up is contingent upon self-perceived status. That is, to some extent psychological safety possibly may be important to those low in self-perceived status but, contrary to Kahn’s (1990) premise, they probably still speak up less than those high in self-perceived status. These findings might imply that for those members who perceive themselves to be low in status, the decision to speak up not only involves their psychological safety, but has to do with other individual or contextual factors as well (Premeaux & Bedeian, 2003). Even though the current moderation results do not directly provide us with indications to believe that the level of self-management could be one of these factors2, its highly significant correlations with the study variables suggest otherwise.
In their study of situational features relevant to trait expression, Tett and Burnett (2003) offer an interesting perspective on how the nature of work situations and related psychological processes can influence team members’ work behavior. More specifically, they describe how strong situations (structured, regulated) tend to negate individual differences, whereas weak situations (unstructured, ambiguous) provide greater variance in trait-expressive behavior. Building on Tett and Burnett’s (2003) work, Judge and Zapata (2015) go even more into detail and postulate that these weak situations comprise situations in which structures are decentralized, external control is limited, and jobs provide considerable discretion (e.g., decision-making freedom). Recall that these characteristics for a great deal correspond with the definition of a self-managing team (e.g., Langfred, 2004; Tata & Prashad, 2004). In terms of Tett and Burnett (2003), a high level of self-management as a situational feature might act as a facilitator that makes individual differences (such as self-perceived status or tendency to speak up) among team members more salient. In light of the current findings, this may explain the high correlations of the level of self-management with the study
2 The level of self-management was analyzed at the individual level, due to extremely low response rates in six
variables. The perceived status team members already have, may be amplified by the self-managing environment they are in. This in turn may explain why low self-perceived status individuals are still less inclined to speak up than high self-perceived status individuals in self-managing teams, even if they feel psychologically safe.
With their theory of person-situation interaction, Mischel and Shoda (1995) somewhat underline this thinking. According to them, individuals differ in how they focus on features of the situation that activate a set of internal reactions. Consequently, these individual differences cause behavioral variability among team members (e.g., remaining silent, speaking up).
speaking up, the relevance of self-perceived status to the situation is reduced. Hence, initially no mediation took place. By taking level of management out of the equation, self-perceived status may have become more relevant, as the increased significance level of the relationship between self-perceived status and psychological safety implies. This in turn, may explain why partial mediation did take place when both control variables were dropped from the analysis.
Although Tett and Burnett’s (2003) theory offers a possible understanding of the study findings, it does not explain the somewhat contradicting results concerning the level of self-management (e.g., highly significant correlations with the study variables, but no significant relationship with speaking up in the mediation analysis). Therefore, it might be worthwhile to take the potential confounding effects of control variables in regression analysis into account, as outlined by MacKinnon, Krull, and Lockwood (2000). Possibly, level of self-management acted as a confounder related to all variables of interest, that falsely obscured or accentuated the relationship between them (MacKinnon et al., 2000).
The possible post-hoc explanations mentioned above, however, remain tentative and need further support in future research. Consequently, the study findings should be interpreted with caution.
Practical Implications
work-related issues than those low in self-perceived status. To ensure equal participation in, and contribution to decision-making, it is suggested to conduct interventions meant to remove barriers to (low self-perceived status) members’ speaking up in their team. As Morgeson (2005) states, external leaders may be ideally situated to perform these types of interventions. For example, external leaders can intervene to act as coaches to direct interactions within the team, which according to Edmondson (1999) also increases team psychological safety. Intervention by an external leader in a self-managing team may seem paradoxical or ironic even, but could be useful to giving self-managing teams the proper skills to manage themselves well (Langfred, 2007; Morgeson, 2005).
Strengths, Limitations, and Future Research Directions
As with any research, the present study has limitations associated with its design that must be considered when interpreting the results, and which should be addressed in future research. First, this study relies on self-reports of the study variables and perceptual data (e.g., participants’ self-perceived status) collected at one point in time. Consequently, the results might be vulnerable to response biases such as lying, self-serving, or socially desirable responding (Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999), and participants’ perceptions can be “objectively” wrong (Detert & Burris, 2007). As a result, the correlations between variables may have been overestimated (Park, 2012). Future research could benefit from including measures from multiple sources (e.g., archival data, peer-ratings) to minimize these biases.
self-management could not be measured at, or aggregated to the team-level, even though it conceptually is meant to be a team-level construct (Langfred, 2007). Also, it restricted the ability to use multilevel modelling as a way to cope with the potentially nested data structure. For future research it is recommended to use a larger sample with more within-team responses, either to re-examine/revisit the current hypotheses with more credibility, or to test some of the assumptions made above. For example, it would be worthwhile to examine the moderating role of the level of self-management on the relationship between self-perceived status and speaking up. This may advance understanding of how self-management “impedes or activates the expression of certain traits, and how these traits are manifest in specific job behaviors” (Judge & Zapata, 2015: 1169). A stronger design, such as a longitudinal study, may make a valuable contribution to this.
As this study was conducted solely among self-managing teams operating in home- and healthcare settings, some caution is advised in drawing generalizations of the findings to other settings (Roberson & Williamson, 2012). Future research could benefit from examining whether similar findings occur in different field settings. By using not only larger, but also more heterogeneous samples the applicability of findings can be broadened.
Notwithstanding, to my knowledge the present study is one of the first to examine the underlying mechanisms for speaking up in self-managing teams, and to shed some light on the dichotomy between moderating and mediating factors influencing speaking up. These contributions may form a stepping stone for additional research in which scholars attempt to further explore antecedents of speaking up in self-managing teams.
Conclusion
and modest indications of a partial mediating role of psychological safety. However, declaring which of these two applies most to, or best predicts speaking up in (self-managing) teams would be premature, also considering the study limitations. Therefore, subsequent research is needed in this area. Nonetheless, both self-perceived status and psychological safety appear to be strong antecedents of speaking up behavior in self-managing teams, which is in line with findings from research conducted in other types of teams (for a review see Morrison, 2011).
REFERENCES
Anderson, C., John, O. P., Keltner, D., & Kring, A. M. 2001. Who attains social status?
Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 81: 116-132.
Anderson, C., Srivastava, S., Beer, J. S., Spataro, S. E., & Chatman, J. A. 2006. Knowing
your place: Self perceptions of status in face-to-face groups. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 91(6): 1094-1110.
Appelbaum, E., & Batt, R. 1994. The new American workplace: Transforming work
systems in the United States. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
Baer, M., & Frese, M. 2003. Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and
psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 24: 45-68.
Barker, J. R. 1993. Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams.
Barkow, J. H. 1975. Prestige and culture: A biosocial interpretation. Current Anthropology,
16(4): 553-562.
Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B. C. 2008. Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational
research. Human Relations, 61(8): 1139-1160.
Becker, T. E. 2005. Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational
research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research
Methods, 8: 274-289.
Berger, J., Cohen, B. P., & Zelditch, M., Jr. 1972. Status characteristics and social interaction.
American Sociological Review, 37(3): 241-255.
Berggren, C. 1992. Alternatives to lean production: Work organization in the Swedish
auto industry. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
Bienefeld, N., & Grote, G. 2014. Speaking up in ad hoc multiteam systems: Individual-level
effects of psychological safety, status, and leadership within and across teams.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(6): 930-945.
Cohen, S. G., & Ledford, G. E., Jr. 1994. The effectiveness of self-managing teams: A
quasi-experiment. Human Relations, 47(1).
Cohen, S. G., Ledford, G. E., Jr., & Spreizer, G. M. 1996. A predictive model of self-
managing work team effectiveness. Human Relations, 49(5).
really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4): 869-884.
Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. 2011. Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted rules of
self-censorship at work. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3): 461-488.
Edmondson, A. C. 1996. Learning from mistakes is easier said than done: Group and
organizational influences on the detection and correction of human error. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 32(1): 5-28.
Edmondson, A. C. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 350-383.
Edmondson, A. C., & I. M. Nembhard. 2009. Product development and learning in project
teams: The challenges are benefits. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
26(2): 123-138.
Fiske, S. T. 1993. Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American
Psychologist, 48: 621-628.
Hayes, A. F. 2015. An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 50: 1-22.
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(2): 93-
103.
status and voice Behavior. Journal of Management, 41(7): 1854-1872.
Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. 1999. Why differences make a difference: A
field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 44: 741-763.
Judge, T. A., & Zapata, C. P. 2015. The person-situation debate revisited: Effect of situation
strength and trait activation on the validity of the Big Five personality traits in
predicting job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4): 1149-1179.
Kahn, W. A. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4): 692-724.
Kipnis, D. 1984. The view from the top. Psychology Today, 18: 30-36.
Kirchler, E., & Davis, J. H. 1986. The influence of member status differences and task type on
group consensus and member position change. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51(1): 83-91.
Kirkman, B. L., Shapiro, D. L., Novelli, Jr. L., & Brett, J. M. 1996. Employee concerns
regarding self-managing work teams: A multidimensional justice perspective.
Social Justice Research, 9(1).
Kish-Gephart, J. J., Detert, J. R., Trevino, L. K., & Edmondson, A. C. 2009. Silenced by fear:
The nature, sources, and consequences of fear at work. Research in Organizational
Kuipers, B. S., & Stoker, J. I. 2009. Development and performance of self-managing work
teams: A theoretical and empirical examination. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 20(2): 399-419.
Langfred, C. W. 2000. The paradox of self-management: Individual and group autonomy in
work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21: 563-585.
Langfred, C. W. 2004. Too much of a good thing? Negative effects of high trust and
individual autonomy in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3): 385-399.
Langfred, C. W. 2007. The downside of management: A longitudinal study of the effects of
conflict on trust, autonomy, and task interdependence in self-managing teams.
Academy of Management Journal, 50(4): 885-900.
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. 2001. Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of
contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with Big-Five
personality characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86:
326-336.
MacKinnon, D. P., Krull, J. L., & Lockwood, C. M. 2000. Equivalence of the mediation,
confounding and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1(4): 173-181.
Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. 2003. An exploratory study of employee
Management Studies, 40(6): 0022-2380.
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. 1995. A cognitive-affective system theory of personality:
Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality
structure. Psychological Review, 102(2): 246-268.
Morgeson, F. P. 2005. The external leadership of self-managing teams: Intervening in the
context of novel and disruptive events. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3): 497-508.
Morrison, E. W. 2011. Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future
research. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1): 373-412.
Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. 2006. Making it safe: The effects of leader
inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts
in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(7): 941-966.
Park, R. 2012. Self-managing teams and employee attitudes: The moderating role of
capital intensity. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
23(4): 714-730.
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(6): 1537-1562.
networks in the emergence of procedural justice climates. Academy of Management
Journal, 55(3): 658-701.
Rolfsen, M., & Strand Johansen, T. 2014. The silent practice: sustainable self-managing
teams in a Norwegian context. Journal of Organizational Change Management,
27(2): 175-187.
Tata, J., & Prasad, S. 2004. Team self-management, organizational structure, and
judgments of team effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16: 248-265.
Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. 2003. A personality trait-based interactionist model of job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3): 500-517.
van Dijke, M., De Cremer, D., Mayer, D. M., & Van Quaquebeke, N. 2012. When does
procedural fairness promote organizational citizenship behavior? Integrating
empowering leadership types in relational justice models. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 117(2): 235-248.
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.
Venkataramani, V., & Tangirala, S. 2010. When and why do central employees speak up? An
examination of mediating and moderating variables. Journal of Applied Psychology,
APPENDIX A
Speaking Up Items (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998)
I develop and make recommendations concerning issues that affect this team.
I speak up and encourage others in this team to get involved in issues that affect the team.
I communicate my opinions about work issues to others in this team even if my opinion is different and others in the team disagree with me.
I keep well informed about issues where my opinion might be useful to this team.
I get involved in issues that affect the quality of work life in this team.
I speak up in this team with ideas for new projects or changes in procedures.
Psychological Safety Items (Edmondson, 1999)
If I make a mistake on this team, it is often held against me.
Members of this team are able to raise problems and difficult issues.
Members of this team sometimes reject others for being different.
It is safe to take a risk within this team.
It is difficult to ask other team members for help.
Within this team, my unique skills and talents are valued and utilized.
No one in this team would deliberately undermine my efforts.
Self-perceived Status Items (Anderson et al., 2006)
I make valuable contributions to this team.
I demonstrate my ability in this team.
I influence important team decisions.
I lead activities within this team.
I contribute to the overall functioning of this team.
I make an effort for this team.
Level of Self-management Items (Kirkman et al., 1996)
Handle day-to-day responsibility to manage this team.
Handle job assignments to team members.
Plan and schedule own work.
Make work-related decisions.
