University of Groningen
Upward voice and influence Zhang, Ran
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date:
2017
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):
Zhang, R. (2017). Upward voice and influence. University of Groningen, SOM research school.
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license.
More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne- amendment.
Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
Download date: 15-10-2022
-115-
CHAPTER 5
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Some employees work hard to develop competence, some work hard to show off competence, and some desire to do both. Although all of them exert much effort at work, the achievement goals that drive them to do so are different. As a result, their efforts are manifested in different behaviors. In this research project, we have investigated how employees’ dispositional and situational achievement goals are related to their upward influence behaviors (i.e., upward voice, upward influence tactics). We have also taken into account the roles that a number of achievement- relevant constructs such as social status, intrinsic motivation, and expertise power may play in the effects of achievement goals on employee upward influence behaviors and capacity.
In this concluding chapter, we will summarize and integrate the key findings from the three empirical studies. We will first discuss the theoretical implications of our findings for the research literature on upward influence behaviors and achievement motivation. After that, we will reflect on the potential limitations that exist in our research and give recommendations for future research. We will also highlight a number of key practical implications for employees and managers in organizations.
Lastly, we will end the dissertation with a few concluding remarks.
Summary of key results
The central theme of investigation in this dissertation is the relationship between achievement motivation and upward influence. Relying on achievement goal theory (e.g., DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Dweck, 1999; Elliot, 1999) and the multiple
-116-
goal perspective on achievement motivation (e.g., Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001), we have examined how mastery-oriented and performance-oriented achievement
motivation in combination may promote employees' engagement in upward influence behaviors. We have also identified the moderating and mediating roles that other achievement-relevant constructs played in regulating and clarifying the relationship between achievement motivation and upward influence. We present a summary of our main empirical findings below on the basis of the key research questions on which each empirical chapter focused.
Multiple goal orientations, voice, and influence
The main focus of Chapter 2 was on the different roles employees’ mastery and performance goal orientations may play in promoting their engagement in challenging- promotive voice to influence the supervisor. Embedding our reasoning in achievement goal theory (e.g., DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Dweck, 1999; Elliot, 1999; Payne, Youngcourt, & Beaubien, 2007; VandeWalle, 1997; Yeo, Loft, Xiao, & Kiewitz, 2009), we proposed and found that a dispositional mastery-approach orientation -- defined as the desire to develop competence through gaining knowledge, skills, and abilities (Dweck, 1999) -- motivated employees to engage in challenging-promotive voice towards the supervisor. The reason for this is that mastery-oriented employees have a disposition towards detecting problems and identifying improvement
opportunities in the work environment that form the content of voice behaviors.
Moreover, as employee voice behavior may have substantial value for
supervisors, we proposed and found that those employees who consistently provided voice input to the supervisor were perceived by the supervisor as important and influential members of the work unit. The empirical data indeed showed that
employees’ engagement in voice behavior was positively related to their influence on
-117-
the supervisor, and that voice mediated the indirect relationship between employees’
mastery orientation and their influence on the supervisor.
Finally, based on the multiple goal perspective (e.g., Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001; Senko, Hulleman, & Harackiewicz, 2011), we proposed and found that a high performance-approach orientation, defined as the desire to demonstrate superior competence relative to others (Dweck, 1999), enhanced the influence of employee voice on the supervisor. The reason for this second-path moderation was that a high performance-approach orientation increased employees' motivation to leverage voice behavior into influence on their supervisor by persuading the supervisor of their valuable voice input and superior competence.
Taken together, our findings from Chapter 2 revealed that mastery and performance orientations played differential roles in promoting employee voice towards and employee influence on the supervisor. We have shown that a mastery orientation serves as a motivational antecedent that promoted engagement in voice behavior, while upward influence was the social outcome of voice behavior.
Additionally, a performance orientation was found to enhance voice's influence on the supervisor. As such, employees with multiple goal orientations were best positioned to use voice behavior to exert influence upwards.
Motivational antecedents of voice: A multiple goal - status interaction perspective
In Chapter 3, relying on the multiple goal perspective (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001; Senko et al., 2011), we further honed in on the motivational antecedents of voice behavior by proposing a three-way interaction between mastery goals, performance goals, and status in predicting employee voice. We argued that a mastery goal, or the desire to develop competence by acquiring knowledge and mastering achievement situations (Elliot, 2005; Elliot & McGregor, 2001), would trigger employees' intrinsic
-118-
interest in voice – they would perceive voice as valuable in and of itself because of its potential for development and improvement. A performance goal, or the desire to demonstrate superior competence by outperforming others (Elliot, 2005; Elliot &
McGregor, 2001), would trigger employees' extrinsic interest in voice – they would perceive voice as valuable because it can demonstrate superior competence and positively influence performance appraisals. We proposed that a strong performance goal would boost mastery goals' effects on voice, thereby both goals would interact in predicting voice behavior. Moreover, as voice bears social risks (Milliken, Morrison,
& Hewlin, 2003; LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Detert & Edmondson, 2011; Morrison, 2014), we proposed that employees with higher status in the work team would tend to believe they can safely and effectively engage in voice due to their elevated
prominence. Consequently, a higher status would enhance motivated employees' tendency to engage in voice.
In sum, we hypothesized that mastery goals, performance goals, and status would interact in predicting voice such that relationship between mastery goals and voice is positive only when performance goals are higher rather than lower and status is higher rather than lower. Consistent with the reasoning above, we believed that the reasons for mastery and performance goals to exert their motivational effects on employees' engagement in voice are through intrinsic interest and extrinsic interest in voice behavior. Consequently, we set out to test a moderated mediation model in which status operated as a second-stage moderator in the indirect relationships of mastery and performance goals with voice that were mediated by the two-way interaction between intrinsic and extrinsic interest in voice. Specifically, the indirect relationship between mastery goals and voice through intrinsic interest in voice would
-119-
be more pronounced when extrinsic interest in voice was higher rather than lower and status was higher rather than lower.
We tested the direct three-way interaction in Study 1 presented in this chapter and the moderated mediation model in Study 2. Results from the two studies support our conceptualizations and show a similar pattern of three-way interactions across both studies: the highest levels of voice occur when employees have high mastery goals, high performance goals, and high social status. This pattern of interaction is robust across different instruments to measure achievement goals, different methods of
capturing social status, different measures of voice behavior and different geographical and organizational contexts.
Multiple goals and power-influence relationship
In Chapter 4, we examined how employees’ achievement goals may regulate how they use their expert power base in rational and hard upward influence tactics. As expert power is the most applicable and relevant social power base employees possess in the relationship with the supervisor, its use is likely to be manifested through different kinds of influence tactics directed at the supervisor.
Embedding our arguments in the multiple goal perspective (Barron &
Harackiewicz, 2001; Senko et al., 2011) and the approach-inhibition theory of power (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003), we argued and showed that elevated
expertise power would increase employees' tendency to engage in upward influence through rational and hard influence tactics. Given the consistent nature between expertise power and rational persuasion, the positive relationship between the two constructs was found to be stable regardless what achievement goals employees pursued.
-120-
The relationship between expert power and hard tactics was dependent on employee's achievement goals. We proposed and found that employees used their expert power in the form of hard tactics (i.e., assertiveness and coalition building) when they pursued a strong performance goal and a weak mastery goal. When
employees pursued a strong mastery goal, either singly or in combination with a strong performance goal, they would not use their expert power in the form of hard tactics. In other words, our findings indicate that a high mastery goal is associated with a
collaboration focus and a high performance goal is associated with a competition or rivalry focus. In the multiple-goal condition, the collaboration focus associated with mastery goals would enable performance goal employees to see more potential for collaboration with their supervisor, thereby diminishing their tendency to use expert power in the form of hard upward influence tactics.
Taken together, our findings from Chapter 4 showed that mastery goal and performance goal interacted directly in moderating the relationship between expert power base and hard upward influence tactics such that the relationships between expert power and these hard tactics were only positive when performance goal was high and mastery goal was low. As such, these results showed that the multiple goal perspective was relevant in predicting how employees converted expert power into upward influence behaviors.
Theoretical implications
The findings summarized above make a number of contributions to theories and literatures on voice, upward influence, and achievement goals. In this section, we present these contributions and theoretical implications to the existing literatures. We first consider how our empirical findings speak to employee voice literature, then we
-121-
focus on research regarding employee upward influence on the supervisor, and finally, we address our findings' implications on the core theoretical foundation of this
dissertation -- the multiple goal perspective of achievement goal theories.
Implications for voice literature
The empirical studies included in this dissertation have made several contributions to the voice literature. First, we have identified mastery goals, both dispositional and situational, to be a crucial motivational antecedent of voice. We have shown that a strong mastery orientation could motivate employees to engage in voice behavior. As such, we contribute to the voice literature by identifying mastery goals as a key motivational antecedent of employees' upward, challenging-promotive voice behavior. This is a noteworthy contribution because the voice literature had lacked systematic investigation into voice's motivational antecedents despite voice requires much motivational effort from the employees. Many authors have made it clear that the underlying motivation for voice is prosocial and improvement-focused (Detert &
Burris, 2007; Morrison, 2011; 2014; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998), but few studies attempted to uncover the specific motivational force that propelled employees to engage in voice.
It is also worth mentioning that a strong mastery orientation could have
motivational effect on employee voice even in the absence of strong performance goals (Chapter 2). Supplementary analyses that we performed in Chapter 2 showed that performance goal orientations had no bearing on the relationship between mastery goal orientations and voice. Results from Chapter 3 showed the relationship between
mastery goals and voice was positive even when performance goals and status were both lower rather than higher. As such, our findings indicate that mastery-oriented
-122-
achievement motivation is a key motivational force that underlies employees' engagement in voice behavior.
Second, our finding that voice mediated the indirect relationship between employees' mastery goal orientations and their influence on the supervisor has implications for the literature on voice and its consequences. While researchers have been able to identify various outcomes of voice behavior such as improved group problem-solving (Nemeth, Connell, Rogers, & Brown, 2001), high work-group task performance (MacKenzie et al., 2011), and increased work-unit effectiveness (Detert, Burris, Harrison, & Martin, 2013), relatively little is known in terms of the social consequences of voice for the individual voicer (Greenberg & Edwards, 2009;
Morrison, 2011). Our finding that employee voice towards the supervisor resulted in increased upward influence addresses this call and indicates that the proper use of voice may essentially serve as a means through which employees can gain influence on the supervisor in the employee-supervisor relationship. We also found that employees' ability to leverage voice into influence was enhanced by a strong
performance goal orientation, indicating that the influence of voice on the supervisor can be augmented when employees approach voice behavior towards the supervisor as an opportunity to demonstrate competence and expertise. This finding adds to the voice literature which had previously shown that the effectiveness of voice can be potentially increased through different strategies. For example, when employees present their voice as more feasible (Morrison, 2011) or use a more tentative speech style (Fragale, 2006), their voice behavior is more likely to be perceived as positive and be accepted by the recipient. Performance oriented employees may use these and similar strategies when presenting their voice input to the supervisor in order to better persuade the supervisor through their voice behaviors.
-123-
Third, we have identified intrinsic interest in voice and extrinsic interest in voice as proximal mechanisms in the moderated mediation model we tested, which clearly indicates that in addition to prosocial motivations, individuals' intrinsic interest in voice and their desire for extrinsic reward are also key elements to understanding motivational antecedents of employee voice. The voice literature places emphasis on the prosocial motivation driving employee voice (e.g., Grant & Ashford, 2008;
Morrison, 2014; Van Dyne, Ang, & Botero, 2003). Our identification of mastery goals being such an antecedent is in support of this view. However, what alters and adds to this prosocial motive line of thinking is that the attention on extrinsic reward also plays a motivational role in promoting voice behavior. Consequently, a more thorough way to view the motivational complexity of voice is to incorporate performance oriented focuses (e.g., attention on extrinsic rewards, desire to demonstrate competence to socially relevant others) to the traditional prosocial motives driving employee voice behavior.
Implications for upward influence literature
The term "upward influence" is used in this dissertation to reflect two main concepts -- employees' capacity to exert influence upwards (Magee & Galinsky, 2008;
Sturm & Antonakis, 2015) and the behaviors through which employees attempt to exert influence on the supervisor such as voice behavior, and rational and hard influence tactics (Higgins, Judge, & Ferris, 2003; Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980). Our findings have theoretical implications in both areas. With respect to upward influence as employees' capacity to exert influence on the supervisor, our findings show that employees' challenging-promotive voice functions as a crucial means through which employees can build their influence capacity on the supervisor.
Researchers have correctly pointed out the risky nature of challenging-promotive voice
-124-
and that directing such voice behavior at the supervisor may offend and upset the supervisor (e.g., Ashford et al., 1998, Detert & Burris, 2007; Morrison, 2014;
Morrison & Milliken, 2000). However, our findings demonstrated another possibility:
that employees who successfully engage in voice behavior were able to leverage their voice input into upward influence and a strong performance orientation enhanced this influence. These findings indicated that, compared with hard upward influence tactics such as assertiveness, voice behavior is essentially a relatively safer choice for
employees when attempting to exert influence upwards. Hard upward influence tactics tend to damage employee-supervisor relationships (Falbe & Yukl, 1992; Su, 2010;
Thacker & Wayne, 1995) and, therefore, are highly risky for employees to use. In contrast, voice behavior, likely due to its prosocial motive and improvement focus emerges as a relatively safe form of upward influence behavior in comparison to hard tactics such as assertiveness. Our findings indicate that supervisors appear to recognize the improvement-focused, prosocial motive behind employee voice and therefore, the engagement in this behavior is less risky compared to hard tactics for employees in terms of achieving upward influence capacity.
With respect to upward influence as behaviors or behavioral tactics, our findings show that employees with different achievement motivation would exercise their expert power differently and through various upward influence tactics. A
fundamental assumption in the power literature is that power is a strong social cue that guides people's behavior; that powerful people act differently from the powerless because of the possession of power (Keltner et al., 2003, Magee et al., 2007). Our findings from Chapter 4 refine this principle by showing that the manner in which people used their power to gain upward influence depended on what they wanted to achieve with it. Specifically, our results offers two contributions to upward influence
-125-
and power literature. First, research and theory has emphasized the inherently tight relationship between power and influence (French & Raven, 1959; Sturm &
Antonakis, 2015). We demonstrate how power triggers influence behaviors can be subject to alteration by achievement motivation. Employees' pursuit of different achievement goals altered the relationship between their expert power base and their use of hard upward influence tactics. Second, while power and upward influence literature indicate a clear alignment between expert power and rational influence tactics (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1990; Hysong, 2008; Yukl et al., 1996), our findings show that expert power, a soft power base, can also trigger hard influence behaviors among employees with substantial expertise and who are highly competitively minded due to their strong performance goals.
Implications for achievement goal and multiple goal perspective literatures
Our findings have a number of contributions to the literatures on achievement goal theory in general and the multiple goal perspective in particular. First, the results from the two voice chapters (i.e., Chapter 2 and Chapter 3) indicate that mastery achievement motivation induces prosocial employee behaviors that are beneficial to individual and organizational functioning. Specifically, we have found that employees' mastery orientation motivated employees to engage in upward, challenging-promotive voice behavior, while strong mastery goals induced intrinsic interest in voice and, in turn, upward, challenging-promotive voice behavior. Although voice behavior does not equate work performance per se, research has shown that challenging-promotive voice typically results in improved task performance and work productivity (Detert et al., 2013; Nemeth et al., 2001). As such, our results that mastery-oriented achievement motivation is beneficial for the organization is fully consistent with prior studies which have demonstrated the beneficial effects of mastery orientations and mastery goals on
-126-
individual and organizational functioning (e.g., Barron & Harackiewicz, 2000; Elliot &
Church, 1997; Ford et al., 1998; Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004; Payne et al., 2007; Yeo et al., 2009; VandeWalle et al., 1999). Prior research showed that a strong mastery goal promoted helping behaviors (Chiaburu et al., 2007), backing up behaviors among coworkers (Porter, 2005), and epistemic regulations (Darnon et al., 2006). Our findings that this achievement goal serves as a significant motivational antecedent which is conducive to intrinsic interest and employee voice behavior are fully consistent with and add to the body of achievement goal research that investigated the cognitive and behavioral outcomes of mastery orientations and mastery goals.
Second, our findings show that a performance goal is also a powerful
motivational force highly relevant to employee voice and employee upward influence, not as a direct antecedent, but as an enhancer of mastery goals' effects on upward voice and upward influence. In line with the multiple goal perspective (Barron &
Harackiewicz, 2001; DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Senko et al., 2011), employees can be motivated simultaneously by high levels of both mastery and performance goals. We have used this theoretical framework throughout all three empirical studies to address the underlying motivational complexity that drives employee upward voice and upward influence. Because a strong performance goal is associated with competitive mindsets driven to win in order to demonstrate superior competence to others
(Poortvliet, 2007; Poortvliet, 2012; Poortvliet & Darnon, 2010), we expected and found that a strong performance goal would motivate mastery-oriented employees to further leverage and capitalize on their tendencies and capabilities in terms of exerting influence upwards. Consistent with our hypotheses, our findings from Chapter 2 showed that performance goal orientations enhanced the effects of voice on upward influence and that the indirect relationship between mastery orientations and employee
-127-
influence on the supervisor through employee voice behavior was enhanced by performance orientations. Results from Chapter 3 showed that mastery goals,
performance goals, and status formed a three-way interaction in predicting voice and that the highest levels of voice occurred when both goals and status were all higher rather than lower. These results indicate when and how mastery and performance goals combine to produce optimal effects in terms of motivating employees to engage in voice behavior and achieving upward influence through voice. As such, our findings contribute to the relatively small body of empirical research on the multiple goal perspective (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001; Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004; Senko et al., 2011).
Finally, our findings add to the research literature concerning the effects of employees' pursuit of multiple goals at work. Previous research has shown that multiple-goal pursuit could impact employees' attitudinal response to their work environment. For instance, Janssen and Van Yperen (2004) found that the relationship between job demand and job satisfaction was significant and negative when
performance goal was high and mastery goal was low. When both goals were high, however, the demand-satisfaction relationship was no longer significant. Janssen and Van Yperen's (2004) findings show that having a strong mastery goal on board alongside a strong performance goal could alter how employees perceive and respond to high levels of job demands and that multiple-goal pursuit was beneficial for the employees. The results of this present research project advanced our knowledge by showing that multiple-goal pursuit was related, not only to employee attitudes, but also to behaviors. Specifically, we found that the relationship between expert power and hard upward influence behavior was positive when performance goals were high but mastery goals were low, when mastery goals and performance goals were both high,
-128-
such a relationship is no longer significant. Consistent with prior research and theory (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001; Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004; Senko et al., 2011), these findings indicate that multiple-goal pursuit is beneficial to the employee and the organization.
Strengths, limitations, and future research directions
Among the four empirical studies presented in the three chapters, three studies utilized multiple-sourced data collected from dyadic pairs of employees and
supervisors in a four-star hotel in the Netherlands while the other study relied on employee-supervisor dyads in a South Korean R&D organization. Employees' self- reports of their own achievement motivation (i.e., achievement goals and goal orientations) were paired up with supervisors' ratings of employees' influence
behaviors directed at the supervisor (i.e., upward voice, upward influence tactics). In this way, we collected dyadic pairs of employee-supervisor data nested in various work teams in order to avoid common-source bias as best as we could. We were able to achieve these strengths through close collaboration with the organizations where we administered our surveys. Despite these desirable features in data collection and analyses, the findings and conclusions of this project need to be considered in view of a number of potential limitations.
First, with our research data being cross-sectional, we cannot draw conclusions with absolute certainty concerning the direction of causality. In Chapter 2 and Chapter 3, we conceptualized that achievement goals would promote and predict employees' engagement in upward voice behavior. Although our conceptualizations were causal, our data could only speak to the relationships between achievement goals and voice behavior. In Chapter 4, we conceptualized that achievement goals would moderate the
-129-
relationship between expert power and employees' use of assertiveness and coalition building tactics. In this chapter, too, we were encountered with the issue of correlation versus causality. In the respective chapters, we have provided strong theoretical arguments regarding why the direction of causality we conceptualized was the most logical. For instance, we have cited an array of studies to make the case that
achievement cognitions rooted in mastery and performance goals would induce voice behavior (e.g., Barron & Harackiewicz, 2000; Elliot & Church, 1997; Ford et al., 1998;
Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004; Payne et al., 2007; VandeWalle et al., 1999; Yeo et al., 2009). We also conducted supplementary analyses where possible to support our findings. But the fact remains that our studies were cross-sectional and the
hypothesized directions of causality cannot be established with absolute certainty. This raises the need for future research to replicate our findings through experiments and longitudinal studies.
Second, related to the previous limitation with regard to data collection, three of the four datasets utilized in this project were from the same organization. Although we did collect these data at three different points in time and used three different samples, the organization was the same. The implication is that the findings and conclusions of our research may not generalize to other types of organizations,
industries, and geographical locations. For instance, with the source of our data being a four-star hotel, there are high levels of labor intensiveness and interpersonal
interactions among employees and supervisors in this type of organization (Groschl &
Barrows, 2003). Had we collected data from a different organizational context where levels of employee-supervisor interpersonal interactions are substantially lower or where organizational hierarchical levels are much more diffused, the relationship between achievement motivation and upward influence behaviors may be different.
-130-
Therefore, we caution our reader regarding the potential limitations on generalizability and recommend future researchers to test our conceptualizations in other types of organizations globally.
Third, we have focused on the approach versions of mastery and performance goals throughout the three empirical chapters in this dissertation and purposefully excluded avoidance goals. We have done so due to the alignment between approach goals and upward influence behaviors. That is, the approach nature of upward
influence behaviors such as voice and upward influence tactics are clearly and closely aligned with approach-oriented achievement motivation (Morrison, 2011; Van Dyne, Ang, & Botero, 2003), and therefore, we focused on the approach versions of mastery and performance goals. Moreover, the two-approach-factor conceptualization of mastery and performance goals has a rich theoretical and empirical foundation (e.g., Anseel et al., 2011; Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004; Poortvliet, 2012; Poortvliet et al., 2009; Poortvliet et al., 2011; Porter, Gogus, & Race, 2010; Senko, Hulleman, &
Harackiewicz, 2011; Van Hooft & Noordzij, 2009) that we could use for
conceptualizing our research models. Despite the fact that we had these important reasons for considering only approach goals in this research project, we do
acknowledge at this point that including avoidance goals would have been an
additional strength. For instance, including avoidance goals could have enabled us to statistically control for them in our data analyses when testing the current models or conceptualize even more complex models relating achievement motivation to upward influence. We put forth the recommendation to include both approach and avoidance goals to researchers in their future examination of achievement motivation and upward influence.
-131-
Fourth, we have focused on how employees’ achievement goals would promote their engagement in upward influence behaviors. However, employee-supervisor achievement goal fit (i.e., the extent to which the employee's achievement goal structure is similar to that of the supervisor's) may have played a role in determining how employees engage in upward influence. Recent research has shown that goal congruence between peers can potentially augment and attenuate how task conflicts contribute to employee creativity (De Clercq, Rahman, & Belausteguigoitia, 2017), providing the theoretical indication that goal congruence between employees and supervisors may also alter the power dynamics between the two parties and potentially influence how employees exert influence upwards. As such, we believe that
investigating employee-supervisor achievement goal fit in relation to upward voice and upward influence represents a fruitful avenue for future research.
Finally, among the various forms of upward voice behavior, we focused on employees' use of challenging-promotive voice due to its clear motive to effect change and exert influence (Morrison, 2011; Van Dyne, Ang, & Botero, 2003), similar to that of upward influence tactics. However, there are other forms of employee voice that may occur as a result of employees' achievement motivation. For instance, in Chapter 2, we discussed why a strong performance orientation, although in itself would not directly propel employees to engage in challenging-promotive voice, may motivate employees to exhibit supportive voice or defensive voice in order to elicit supervisor liking and to shift blame. Along the same vein, acquiescent voice may occur
irrespective of employees' achievement goal structure because such voice behaviors would not require substantial motivational resources (Van Dyne et al., 2003).
Therefore, we would recommend that future studies empirically examine how
-132-
achievement goals would motivate employees to engage in these more subtle forms of upward voice and influence behavior.
Practical implications
In modern day organizations where decision-making is no longer always top- down and organizational structures are becoming less hierarchical, there are more opportunities for employees to speak up, voice their ideas, and exert influence
upwards. Our examination of how employees' achievement motivation drives them to engage in upward challenging-promotive voice behavior and upward influence tactics directed at their immediate supervisors has several practical implications for
employees and managers in the business field.
From the perspective of an employee, our findings suggest that employees can optimize their upward influence processes by pursuing both mastery and performance goals at work. As a consequence of pursing a strong mastery goal, employees tend to focus on the intrinsic value of upward influence behaviors and be motivated to develop voice substance and the desire to communicate such substance to the supervisor.
Pursuing a strong performance goal in combination with a strong mastery goal would result in additional motivational boosts for the employee to more effectively leverage voice into influence on the supervisor. In terms of how employees are motivated to use their expert power in upward influence tactics, pursuing mastery and performance goals simultaneously would also ensure that employees are likely to convert their expert power into rational persuasion instead of hard tactics which may pose more risks to employee-supervisor relations. In sum, as far as employees are concerned, engaging in multiple-goal pursuit is beneficial and offers the optimal motivational drive for upward influence.
-133-
Our findings also provide some managerial implications to managers in organizations. Setting up policies and practices that would encourage employees' pursuit of both mastery and performance goals could promote employee upward voice behavior and potentially contribute to a healthier and more balanced employee-
supervisor relation. Supervisors and managers can also take greater advantage of the useful voice inputs from employees in order to improve the functioning of the work unit for which the supervisor or manager is responsible. In addition, promoting multiple-goal pursuit would reduce employees' tendency to use their expert power in the form of hard and aggressive upward influence tactics, which could pose difficulties for employee-supervisor relations. In terms of practical strategies to promote both mastery and performance goals, achievement goal literature offers useful suggestions (e.g., Dragoni, 2005; Dragoni & Kuenzi, 2012). For instance, organizations may select and recruit employees with a multiple-goal disposition. HRM policies and practices that reflect both achievement goals can also be used to induce employees' achievement cognitions. Moreover, dispositional and situational goals can be combined to a certain extent. For example, if an employee is mastery-oriented by disposition, the company could still cultivate and induce the pursuit of a performance goal through incorporating some interpersonal performance criteria in employee performance appraisals. Finally, when supervisors and managers, being the leader of work teams, exhibit visible
behaviors reflecting their own multiple-goal pursuit, it would signal to their employees the desired motivational focus and help to gradually shape employees' achievement goals. As such, organizations are able to promote both mastery and performance goals to best motivate employees and guide their upward influence behaviors.
-134-
Concluding remarks
This thesis has examined how the combination of mastery and performance goals serve to explain and clarify the complex underlying motivation that drives employees to exert influence upwards through the use of upward, challenging- promotive voice behavior and upward influence tactics. The findings from the three empirical chapters show that a mastery goal motivates employees to formulate voice substance and communicates it upwards while a performance goal motivates
employees to place extra efforts in convincing the supervisor and leveraging voice into influence on the supervisor. The findings also show that employees driven by a
performance goal singly are motivated to use their expert power through hard
influence tactics and that this tendency is mitigated by the presence of a strong mastery goal. As such, the findings of this dissertation lay a solid foundation for further
research on the multiple goal perspective and employee upward influence in organizations.
