Psychological Antecedents of Promotive and Prohibitive Voice: A Two-Wave Examination
J ian Liang Antai College of Economics and Management Shanghai J iao Tong University Shanghai, China Tel: (86-21) 5230-9359 Email: jianliang@sjtu.edu.cn
Crystal I Chien Farh Robert H. Smith School of Business University of Maryland College Park, MD 20740 Tel: (510) 325-3702 Fax: (301) 314-8787 Email: cfarh@rhsmith.umd.edu
J iing-Lih Farh Department of Management of Organizations The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Clear Water Bay, Kowloon Hong Kong Email: mnlfarh@ust.hk
In press, Academy of Management Journal
We would like to acknowledge Elizabeth Morrison and three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments, and Yaping Gong, Riki Takeuchi, Chun Hui, and Gary J ohns for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this article. This research was jointly supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 70902046 and 71032003). An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Third Biannual Conference of the International Associate of Chinese Management Research (IACMR) in Guangzhou, China.
2 Psychological Antecedents of Promotive and Prohibitive Voice: A Two-Wave Examination
Abstract The present study demonstrates how three psychological antecedents (psychological safety, felt obligation for constructive change, and organization-based self-esteem) uniquely, differentially, and interactively predict supervisory reports of promotive and prohibitive voice behavior. Using a two-wave panel design, data were collected from a sample of 239 employees to examine the hypothesized relationships. Our results showed that felt obligation was most strongly related to subsequent promotive voice, psychological safety was most strongly related to subsequent prohibitive voice, and organization-based self-esteem was reciprocally related to promotive voice. Further, while felt obligation strengthened the positive effect of psychological safety on both forms of voice, OBSE weakened this effect for promotive voice. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
3 A means by which employees help their organizations to innovate and successfully adapt to dynamic business environments is through voice the expression of constructive opinions, concerns, or ideas about work-related issues (Van Dyne, Ang, & Botero, 2003). Indeed, employees voice about improvements to or existing failures in the work process has been associated with positive organizational outcomes such as team learning (Edmondson, 1999), improved work processes and innovation (Argyris & Schon, 1978), and crisis prevention (Schwartz & Wald, 2003). Having recognized the critical role of voice in achieving organizational effectiveness and avoiding potential crises, researchers have attempted to understand the individual, motivational, and contextual factors that promote or inhibit voice, both conceptually (e.g., Kish-Gephart, Detert, Trevio, & Edmondson, 2009; Morrison & Milliken, 2000; Van Dyne et al., 2003) and empirically (e.g., Burris, Detert, & Chiaburu, 2008; Detert & Burris, 2007; Fuller, Marler, & Hester, 2006; LePine & Van Dyne, 2001; Morrison, Wheeler-Smith, & Kamdar, 2011; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008; Venkataramani & Tangirala, 2010). Despite this progress, we believe that current approaches to examining voice may be improved in several ways. While early voice research focused on identifying individual and contextual antecedents to voice, more recent efforts have sought to identify the psychological mechanisms underlying these relationships (e.g., Detert & Burris, 2007; Fuller et al., 2006). Because these investigations have examined the effect of various psychological factors in isolation, questions relating to the unique effect of any one factor or how multiple psychological factors may synergistically impact voice remain unanswered. This is unfortunate because researchers readily admit that several proximal motivations are likely to co-exist in predicting voice (Van Dyne et al., 2003). 4 Second, although the definition of voice has been broadened by Van Dyne and colleagues (2003) to subsume both the expression of constructive suggestions as well as concerns, much of the recent research on voice has focused more heavily on promotive aspects of voice, or expressions of ways to improve existing work practices and procedures to benefit the organization (e.g., Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). In comparison, less empirical attention has been paid to prohibitive aspects of voice, or expressions of concern about existing or impending practices, incidents, or behaviors that may harm the organization, despite early definitions of voice that focused on voice as a means of stopping or changing objectionable state of affairs (Rusbult, Farrell, Rogers, & Mainous, 1988; Withey & Cooper, 1989). In light of Van Dyne et al.s (2003) broadened definition of voice and the evolving literature on the content of voice, there is now a need to more fully sample the promotive and prohibitive content domains of voice simultaneously as well as to advance understanding of how psychological antecedents may differ across the two domains. Finally, the vast majority of existing voice models purport that psychological factors causally precede voice (e.g., Fuller et al., 2006). However, previous empirical examinations of these models have been exclusively cross-sectional, precluding the ability to make inferences about causal direction. Theoretically, voice could be both a consequence and antecedent of certain psychological factors. For instance, a reverse causation argument for the positive relationship between psychological safety and voice might be that employees who speak up infer from their behavior that the interpersonal context is safe to do so. Thus, time-lagged research designs are needed to uncover the complex causal mechanisms between psychological factors and voice behavior (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). 5 In light of the discussion above, we present a two-wave panel design study that examines how three psychological antecedents uniquely, differentially, and interactively predict promotive and prohibitive forms of voice. Our study seeks to contribute to the voice literature in several ways. First, by simultaneously examining how three psychological factors relate to voice, we advance current understanding of the unique contributions of each factor, as well as how the proximal motivations of voice can enhance or detract from each others effects. Guided by the three-pronged approach of Ajzens theory of planned behavior (1991), we examine the effects of three psychological antecedents on voice psychological safety (the belief that one is able to show and express ones self without fear of negative consequences; Kahn, 1990), felt obligation for constructive change or FOCC (the belief that one is personally obligated to bring about constructive change; Fuller et al., 2006), and organization-based self esteem or OBSE (the belief that one is a capable, significant, and worthy organizational member; Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, & Dunham, 1989). Second, by including both promotive and prohibitive dimensions of voice in the criterion space of our model, we advance understanding of how psychological factors that have been associated with promotive aspects of voice might relate similarly or differently to prohibitive voice. Guided by prior inductive research on prohibitive aspects of voice (e.g., Farh, Zhong, & Organ, 2002; 2004), we introduce and pilot a measure of prohibitive voice and offer hypotheses about how the three psychological factors in our model might differentially relate to each dimension of voice. Third, as an improvement upon prior work that has utilized primarily cross- sectional designs to examine the impact of the psychological antecedents of voice, we use a two- wave panel design in our study to provide a rigorous examination of how the three psychological factors in our model relate to temporal changes in both forms of voice, and vice versa (Finkel, 6 1995). Finally, by testing our hypotheses in a sample of subordinate and supervisor dyads in China, we offer an empirical test of whether voice models previously supported in Western contexts might be generalizeable to a context in which power distance is traditionally high and speaking up may be culturally discouraged (e.g., Huang, Van de Vliert, & Van der Vegt, 2005). THEORY AND HYPOTHESES Voice as a Planned Behavior Unlike other cooperative forms of citizenship behaviors that are largely discretionary but also beneficial for organizational functioning (Organ, 1988), voice is unique in that it is inherently challenging (Van Dyne, Cummings, & McLean Parks, 1995). Voicing constructive ideas may result in increased visibility (Stamper & Van Dyne, 2001), favorable performance evaluations (Thompson, 2005), and promotion opportunities (Dutton & Ashford, 1993) for the speaker. On the other hand, voicing ideas that challenge the status quo may bring forth the risk of being misunderstood and other undesirable social consequences (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Voice that was intended to benefit the organization may easily be misinterpreted as bossiness, unsolicited interference, and an effort to undermine the credibility of important stakeholders such as peer colleagues and supervisors (Tepper, Duffy, Hoobler, & Ensley, 2004: 457). Because of the potential personal benefits and risks associated with speaking up, employees often choose to voice only after having engaged in a cognitive calculus of costs and benefits (Dutton, Ashford, ONeill, Hayes, & Wierba, 1997; Kish-Gephart et al., 2009; Milliken, Morrison, & Hewlin, 2003). Thus, we consider voice behavior as an intentional planned behavior occurring in an interpersonal context. The theory of planned behavior (TPB) provides a helpful theoretical framework for understanding how multiple psychological antecedents may contribute to the enactment of 7 planned behaviors (Ajzen, 1991). According to TPB, three factors influence an individuals motivation to perform a planned behavior. First, the individual must hold a positive evaluation of the behavior (or positive attitude). Second, the individual must perceive the behavior to be within the bounds of the behavioral expectations of normative pressures (or subjective norm). Third, the individual must perceive sufficient control over the behavior (or perceived behavioral control). According to TPB, the influence of all other antecedents on planned behavior is channeled through these three critical psychological factors (Conner & Armitage, 1998), and although TPB notes that these psychological forces proximally influence an individuals intention to perform a particular behavior, actual performance of the behavior is theorized to closely follow from the strength of intention (Ajzen, 2001). Three Psychological Antecedents of Voice Because TPB as a theoretical framework has received considerable empirical support in the literature (see meta-analysis by Armitage & Conner, 2001) and is viewed as a complete model that explains how multiple psychological factors contribute to predicting the enactment of planned behaviors (Ajzen, 2001), we draw on the rationale of TPB to theorize that employee voice can be jointly explained by three psychological factors psychological safety, felt obligation for constructive change, and organization-based self-esteem due to their respective impact on employees positive attitudinal evaluation of voice, felt normative pressure to voice, and perceived ease of performing the behavior. Psychological safety as contributing to positive attitudes toward voice. An important factor affecting employees attitudinal evaluation of a particular behavior is whether they believe the outcomes of the behavior will be positive or negative (Conner & Armitage, 1998). As discussed, voice as a form of personal initiative may be met with positive consequences (such as 8 greater visibility at work) or negative consequences (such as being misunderstood as a fault- finder). In order to make an attitudinal evaluation of voice, employees often turn to their immediate interpersonal network (i.e., supervisors and coworkers) to read the wind and determine how favorable it is for them to express themselves at work (Dutton et al., 1997; Milliken et al., 2003). Psychological safety refers to the extent that individuals believe their colleagues (e.g., supervisors, coworkers) will not punish or misunderstand them for taking risks, such as speaking up with suggestions or concerns (Detert & Burris, 2007). When employees are free of fears and concerns about expressing their opinions, the perceived costs of speaking up are minimized. Consequently, the benefits of voice outweigh the costs, leading to a more positive evaluation of voice. In contrast, when psychological safety is lacking, employees feel that they cannot freely express themselves, and these fears and concerns cause employees to avoid publicly expressing their opinions and concerns (Zhao & Olivera, 2006). Consistent with this reasoning, perceptions of psychological safety have been reasoned to facilitate voice because such perceptions increase the ease and reduce the felt risk of presenting new ideas (Ashford, Rothbard, Piderit, & Dutton, 1998; Edmondson, 1999; Kahn, 1990). Empirical work has also shown that subordinate perceptions of psychological safety mediate the relationship between managerial openness and employee voice in restaurant chains (Detert & Burris, 2007) and that psychological safety partially mediates the impact of ethical leadership on voice (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009). Felt obligation for constructive change as contributing to normative pressures to voice. As social agents, individuals are constantly under the influence of social norms that indicate the established or approved ways of thinking and behaving. Examples of such norms are descriptive norms, which refer to peoples perceptions of what is commonly done in specific situations, and 9 injunctive norms, which refer of peoples perceptions of what is commonly approved or disapproved of within a particular culture (Schultz, Nolan, Cialdini, Goldstein, & Griskevicius, 2007). A third type of social norm is personal or moral norms (which describes personal rules of conduct), arguably the most relevant norm for predicting planned behaviors that are intended to benefit others (Conner & McMillan, 1999). An example of a moral norm is the norm of reciprocity. As a culturally universal principle, the norm of reciprocity is internalized through social learning and constitutes a strong motivational drive (Gouldner, 1960; Perugini, Gallucci, Presaghi, & Ercolani, 2003). The anticipation of self-punishment or reward arising from individuals internalized values is one of the main drivers of reciprocation (Schwartz, 1977). Felt obligation for constructive change (or FOCC) influences the extent that employees are committed to developing new procedures and correcting problems in the organization (Fuller et al., 2006; Morrison & Phelps, 1999). In particular, employees experiencing higher levels of FOCC are more likely to perceive speaking up as a positive means of caring for the organization and thus are more likely to engage in voice as a responsible citizen of the organization. Doing so constitutes one way for high FOCC employees to reciprocate the organizations supportiveness and maintain a high-quality exchange relationship with the organization. In contrast, those experiencing low levels of FOCC are less likely to feel obliged to perform voice behavior because they are less committed to helping the organization in this way. Consistent with this reasoning, past empirical work has demonstrated support for the importance of FOCC as a psychological state leading to the performance of voice and other discretionary, change- oriented behaviors (Fuller et al., 2006; Morrison & Phelps, 1999; Withey & Cooper, 1989). Organization-based self-esteem as contributing to perceptions of behavioral control over voice. According to TPB, judgments of behavioral control or perceived ease of performing the 10 behavior are influenced by beliefs concerning whether one has access to the necessary resources and opportunities to perform the behavior successfully (Ajzen, 1991). Factors influencing these beliefs include both internal factors (e.g., information, personal skills, abilities, and emotions) as well as external factors (e.g., opportunities, dependence on others, and barriers) (Conner & Armitage, 1998). When people perceive that they have access to the necessary resources and opportunities to perform the behavior, they are more likely to perceive a high degree of control over the behavior and are more motivated to perform it. Organization-based self-esteem (or OBSE) defined as an individuals beliefs about his/her own capabilities and social worth in the workplace (Pierce et al., 1989) is likely to influence employees perceptions of behavioral control over work behaviors, particularly for behaviors that require considerable social and political maneuvering like voice (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). To effectively voice, one must not only speak up about ones ideas, but also do so in a way that is noticeable or heard by important stakeholders (Kish-Gephart et al., 2009). Because employees with higher OBSE believe that they are of higher value to the organization and enjoy relatively high social status among their colleagues, they are also more likely to infer that they have access to resources and opportunities needed to effectively voice and be heard, especially as a lack of status is a common deterrent to speaking up (Dutton et al., 1997; Milliken et al., 2003; Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Consistent with this logic, Van Dyne et al. (1995) proposed that self-esteem would positively relate to voice because high self-esteem individuals are more willing to engage with the work environment (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998), and Venkataramni and Tangirala (2010) found that personal influence (as rated by peers) was positively related to voice. 11 In summary, because greater psychological safety increases favorable attitudes toward voice, FOCC increases normative pressures to voice, and OBSE increases perceptions of behavioral control over voice, we hypothesize that: Hypothesis 1a: Psychological safety is positively related to voice behavior. Hypothesis 1b: FOCC is positively related to voice behavior. Hypothesis 1c: OBSE is positively related to voice behavior. According to Ajzen (1991), the relative importance of the three psychological components of TPB in predicting the behavior of interest depends on the nature of the behavior and the contextual factors surrounding it. Extending this logic, we might expect that psychological safety, FOCC, and OBSE may relate more or less strongly to different forms of voice due to the differences in content and implications of each form of voice. Promotive versus Prohibitive Voice A recent definition of voice provided by Van Dyne and her colleagues (2003) emphasized that voice included both the speaking up for suggestions as well as concerns. This broader conceptualization of voice was timely and necessary in order to capture the various forms of voice occurring in practice. Accordingly, we propose two types of voice promotive and prohibitive and that the three psychological antecedents will relate differentially to each form of voice. In line with Van Dyne and LePines (1998) original conceptualization of voice, we define promotive voice as employees expression of new ideas or suggestions for improving the overall functioning of the work unit or organization. Because promotive voice proposes ways of changing the status quo, it is challenging. However, because it is accompanied with innovative solutions and suggestions for improvement, such voice is promotive in the sense that it is 12 focused on a future ideal state or what could be. In contrast, prohibitive voice describes employees expressions of concern about work practices, incidents, or employee behavior that is harmful to the organization. Prohibitive voice serves an important function for organizational health, primarily because such alarming messages place previously undetected problems on the collective agenda to be resolved or prevent problematic initiatives from taking place. In certain organizational settings, prohibitive voice may potentially be more impactful than promotive voice because the process of developing innovative ideas and solutions may require substantial amounts of time and effort a luxury that organizations operating in high-velocity environments may not be able to afford. In comparison, the prohibitive aspect of prohibitive voice calls harmful factors to a stop, thereby preventing the negative effects of process losses in a timely manner. Because both forms of voice challenge the status quo and are aimed at benefiting the organization, they fall well within Van Dyne et al.s (2003) definition of voice. Nonetheless, we reason that they differ from each other in several important ways (as summarized in Table 1). First, as previously discussed, the two types of voice differ in behavioral content. The promotive versus prohibitive distinction constitutes the conceptual boundary separating the two forms of voice, where the former is focused on realizing ideals and possibilities, and the latter is focused on stopping or preventing harm. The content of promotive voice is also necessarily future-oriented in that it is focused on future ways of doing things better. In contrast, prohibitive voice has both a past and future orientation since it can call attention to factors that have harmed the status quo (e.g., existing problems with coordination) or factors that can potentially cause harm to the organization (e.g., practices that could lead to process inefficiencies). 13 Second, regarding their function, promotive voice points to ways that the organization can function more effectively, whereas prohibitive voice points out factors that are or could be harmful for the organization, without necessarily providing clear solutions to the concerns voiced. Third, they have different implications in terms of their impact on others. While the innovative aspects of promotive voice may imply inconvenient short-term changes for stakeholders (e.g., increased work load), such changes are expected to bring about improvements that will ultimately benefit the whole community in the long term. In contrast, by calling attention to harmful factors, prohibitive voice necessarily implicates the failure of those responsible. As such, prohibitive voice may induce conflict and negative emotions among coworkers and supervisors, upsetting the interpersonal harmony within the work unit. Because of the differing implications that the two forms of voice have on others, promotive and prohibitive voice are likely to be perceived quite differently by important stakeholders. --------------------------------- Insert Table 1 about here --------------------------------- As an additional point of clarification, we emphasize that prohibitive voice differs from other forms of prohibitive workplace expression, such as principled organizational dissent (Graham, 1986) and whistle blowing (Near & Miceli, 1985). Although these latter forms of workplace expression involve calling a halt to organizational practices, prohibitive voice is distinct in that it is born out of a desire to help the organization (e.g., by stopping or preventing harm) rather than out of perceived violations of personal moral norms or legal principles (Permeaux & Bedeian, 2003). The Unique Contributions of the Psychological Factors Consistent with Ajzens framework (1991), we believe that all three psychological factors previously discussed psychological safety, FOCC, and OBSE are likely to positively relate to 14 both promotive and prohibitive voice. However, addressing the impact of each psychological factor independently precludes the possibility of examining whether each factor explains unique variance in voice. Furthermore, it remains unclear whether the three psychological factors impact voice through the same or different pathways. Certain distinctions between promotive and prohibitive voice give us reason to believe that the three psychological factors may uniquely impact the two forms of voice. Promotive voice refers to employees extra efforts to develop novel suggestions and solutions aimed at improving the organizational status quo. The process of generating these ideas and solutions is not easily accomplished without continuous cognitive effort and attentiveness to organizational affairs (Farh, Tangirala, & Liang, 2010). Absent a strong commitment to give back to the organization, employees are unlikely to focus their attention and energy on generating new ideas for the organization. Of the three psychological factors, FOCC is most closely aligned with employees internal commitment to help transform the organization in constructive ways (Fuller et al., 2006). As such, given their hypothesized positive relationships with voice, we further expect that employees FOCC will have the strongest unique effect on promotive voice, compared to psychological safety and OBSE. In contrast, prohibitive voice involves expressing concern about harmful practices, incidents, or behaviors. Compared with promotive voice, prohibitive voice carries far more personal risk because pointing out dysfunction more directly implicates the failure of important stakeholders in the workplace. Particularly when those implicated may be powerful others at work, the prohibitive speaker is often at risk of facing negative social consequences. Hence, to engage in prohibitive voice, the speaker must first read the wind to determine the extent that the interpersonal environment is favorable for speaking up. The perceived absence of negative 15 consequences associated with speaking up becomes a particularly strong and salient motivator for doing so. Of the three psychological factors, psychological safety is most closely aligned with an employees perception that his or her immediate social context will not punish him or her for speaking up. As such, given their hypothesized positive relationships with voice, we further expect employees psychological safety will have the strongest unique effect on prohibitive voice, compared to FOCC and OBSE. Hypothesis 2a: Among the psychological antecedents of voice, FOCC will have the strongest unique positive effect on promotive voice. Hypothesis 2b: Among the psychological antecedents of voice, psychological safety will have the strongest unique positive effect on prohibitive voice. Interactive Effects between Psychological Safety, FOCC, and OBSE Although TPB is essentially an additive model (Bagozzi, 1992) in which each psychological factor is theorized to uniquely account for additional variance in intentions to perform the behavior of interest, there is also good reason to expect that the simultaneous presence of more than one psychological factor may achieve synergistic effects above and beyond their additive impact. Particularly as each psychological factor is theorized to impact behavior through unique mechanisms (Ajzen, 1991), exploration of how these factors may interact amongst themselves is likely to yield a more complete, comprehensive understanding of how these multiple factors operate collectively to impact behavior. In the sections below, we propose several interaction hypotheses in which psychological safety forms the baseline relationship to voice. As established in prior voice literature (Ashford et al., 1998; Dutton, Ashford, Lawrence, & Miner-Rubino, 2002), employees will not voice unless they perceive a sufficiently favorable environment to do so. Psychological safety provides 16 the baseline condition for voice because it creates a context that allows voice to be evaluated positively by employees, and a positive attitudinal evaluation toward voice is an important precondition that other psychological factors can build upon. We reason that an employees psychological safety perception may relate more strongly to voice when that employee also experiences strong normative pressure to engage in constructive change. An employee perceiving psychological safety may not necessarily express his or her personal views aimed at benefiting the organization unless he or she perceives that doing so is a way of giving back to the organization. That is, without this internal motivation to initiate change to benefit the organization, employees may not fully take advantage of the freedom that psychological safety affords them or channel it in the form of voice. This logic may explain why Stamper and Van Dyne (2001) found that employees with full-time work status (or employees likely to perceive greater FOCC) were more likely to engage in voice when they also worked in less bureaucratic organizational cultures (or organizational cultures that permitted greater psychological safety). Thus, we hypothesize that the relationship between psychological safety and voice will be strengthened when FOCC is also high. Hypothesis 3: The positive relationship between psychological safety and both promotive and prohibitive voice is significantly weaker when FOCC is lower, such that when FOCC is low, voice will be low regardless of levels of psychological safety. We also expect OBSE to exhibit an enhancive effect on the relationship between psychological safety and voice. Employees with high OBSE tend to believe their viewpoints are important and are confident in their ability to be heard (Brockner et al., 1998). This confidence in ones opinions increases the likelihood that high OBSE employees will further take advantage of the freedom of expression afforded by a high psychological safety environment. In contrast, 17 because low OBSE employees lack the necessary self-confidence to speak up regardless of whether the interpersonal context is perceived as favorable or not, employees with low OBSE may prefer to stay in the background rather than actively find opportunities to get involved (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). This logic is consistent with Detert and Burris (2007) finding that the positive effect of leadership openness (or higher psychological safety) on voice was stronger for high-performing employees (or employees who were more likely to perceive themselves as important and valuable organizational members) than low-performing employees. Thus, we hypothesize that the relationship between psychological safety and voice will be strengthened when OBSE is also high. Hypothesis 4: The positive relationship between psychological safety and both promotive and prohibitive voice is significantly weaker when OBSE is lower, such that when OBSE is low, voice will be low regardless of levels of psychological safety. Thus far, our arguments suggest that when psychological safety is paired with either high levels of FOCC or OBSE, voice will be more likely to occur. A safe perception acts as a catalyst of voice behavior for an employee who is highly motivated or holds a positive self-regard at work. A logical extension of these arguments is that the simultaneous existence of all three psychological factors represents the most favorable condition for employees to voice, creating a multiplicative effect beyond the mere additive effects of each psychological factor. On the basis of these arguments, we expect that employees will voice the most when they perceive that it is safe to speak up, when they feel obligated to do so, and when they believe they have the personal resources to do it well. Hypothesis 5: There will be a three-way interaction between psychological safety, FOCC, and OBSE in predicting both promotive and prohibitive voice. The positive relationship 18 between psychological safety and voice will be moderated by both FOCC and OBSE such that the interaction between psychological safety and FOCC will be strongest when OBSE is also high. PILOT STUDY To differentiate and validate measures of promotive and prohibitive voice, we looked to existing measures in the voice literature and created an item pool from two major sources. The first source of items was from items published in studies on voice (e.g., Premeaux & Bedeian, 2003; Van Dyne et al., 2003; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). The second source of items was from inductive studies conducted by Farh and colleagues (2002; 2004) on the content of organizational citizenship behavior in the Chinese context. The Farh et al. studies found evidence for both promotive and prohibitive aspects of voice, where the former referred to making constructive suggestions, and the latter referred to prohibiting factors (such as practices, incidents, or behavior) that were or might be harmful to the organization. Farh et al. (2004) identified 38 items that captured promotive voice and 18 items that captured prohibitive voice. We added these items to our item pool. After deleting redundant items, 10 doctoral students in management served as expert judges to evaluate the degree to which each item matched our definitions of promotive and prohibitive voice. Under the supervision of a senior management faculty, this content evaluation procedure resulted in the identification of six representative items each for promotive and prohibitive voice, which were then used for pilot testing. Following translation-back-translation procedures, all the English items were translated into Chinese. A five-point scale was used ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. In order to reduce self-report bias, all voice behaviors were assessed by direct supervisors. Employing a sample of 291 Chinese employees, factor analysis procedures with oblimin method 19 supported a two-factor solution, demonstrating a distinction between promotive and prohibitive voice. The promotive factor consisted of five items and explained 57.24% of the common variance among items. All five promotive items emphasized the expression of new ideas to improve the units productivity. The prohibitive factor also consisted of five items and explained 11.37% of the common variance. All five prohibitive items emphasized the expression of doubts or concerns about harmful practices, incidents, or behaviors. Items with heavy cross-loadings were removed. The items measuring promotive and prohibitive dimensions of voice are listed in Table 2. To further establish the construct validity of our promotive and prohibitive subscales, we examined how each subscale correlated with two other voice measures in two separate Chinese samples. The first sample was composed of 232 employees in R&D divisions of high-technology firms, 76% of whom were male, were 28 years old on average, and 86% held Bachelor or Master degrees. The second sample consisted of 219 manufacturing firm employees, 52.2% of whom were male, and 68.1% were below 30 years of age. In the first sample, we compared how our promotive and prohibitive subscales would correlate with a four-item voice scale from Van Dyne and LePine (1998) 1 . In the second sample, we compared how the subscales would correlate with Farh, Hackett, and Liangs (2007; =.77) voice scale 2 . Since both the Van Dyne and LePine (1998) as well as the Farh et al. (2007) voice scales described voice content focused on prompting constructive improvement as opposed to warning against harmful practices, we expected that both existing scales would be more strongly related to our promotive subscale than our prohibitive subscale. Indeed, in sample 1, we found that our promotive and prohibitive subscales were positively correlated (r =.66) and that the correlation between Van Dyne and LePines scale and promotive voice (r =.83) was higher than its correlation with prohibitive 20 voice (r =.73). Employing Cohen and Cohens (1983: 56-57) formula for testing the difference between correlations calculated from a single sample, we found that the difference was significant (t =3.48, p <.01). Also, in sample 2, we found that our promotive and prohibitive subscales were positively correlated (r =.54) and that the correlation between the Farh et al. (2007) voice scale and our promotive subscale was significantly higher than its correlation with the prohibitive subscale (r =.69 vs. .52, t =3.62, p <.01). These results together suggest that our promotive subscale more strongly reflects suggestions and improvement-focused voice content, compared to our prohibitive subscale. In a third sample, we sought to establish how our promotive and prohibitive subscales might relate differently to supervisors perceptions of the intention behind the voice. Specifically, we examined how our promotive and prohibitive subscales would relate to the supervisors ratings of employee sportsmanship, defined as a form of citizenship behavior in which employees are able to tolerate organizational problems and refrain from actions (such as exaggerating problems, complaining about work, blaming others at work) that may lead to unfavorable tension at work (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). As argued previously, because promotive voice (based on suggestions for improvement) is more easily perceived by important stakeholders as attempts to be helpful, whereas prohibitive voice (based on pointing out harmful factors) may be perceived as complaining or fault-finding, we expected that prohibitive voice would correlate more negatively with sportsmanship than promotive voice. Sample 3 comprised of 248 employees drawn from an IT company in China, 58% of whom were male, were 25.38 years old on average, and most held college degrees. In this sample, promotive and prohibitive voice were correlated at .69. Reversed sample items from Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Morrman, and Fetters (1990) sportsmanship subscale captured the extent that employees tended 21 to focus on what is wrong, rather than the positive side and found fault with what the organization was doing. Indeed, we found the correlation between sportsmanship and prohibitive voice to be significantly more negative than promotive voice (r =-.25 vs. -.03; t = 4.45, p <.01). Taken together, the findings obtained across the three samples provided supportive evidence of the conceptual distinction between promotive and prohibitive voice and also lent discriminant and construct validity to our two subscales. MAIN STUDY Sample and Procedures Survey data were collected from a Chinese retail company located in Shenzhen, China. A two-wave panel design was employed to test the hypothesized relationships among variables. Two-wave panel designs involve assessing the same set of measures on the same group of respondents at two points in time. At Time 1, paper and pencil surveys were distributed to 341 subordinates and 114 of their matched supervisors. Given that the constructs in our theoretical model were subject to change over time and the high turnover rate in the retailing industry (Siebert & Zubanov, 2009), we distributed the questionnaires to the same individuals six weeks later (Time 2), thereby increasing correspondence between the measures of psychological factors and voice, and limiting response attrition in our sample . The responses of 239 subordinates and 106 of their matched supervisors were retained in the final sample pool, yielding a response attrition rate of 29.9% for subordinates and 7% for supervisors. The majority of our subordinate participants were between the ages of 21 and 30 (73.1%), male (65.7%), and college educated (65.2%). Measures 22 We used five-point Likert-type scales ranging from one (strongly disagree) to five (strongly agree) for all substantive variables. We employed translation and back-translation procedures (Brislin, 1986) to translate all English items into Chinese. A complete list of items and their measurement properties are presented in Table 2. --------------------------------- Insert Table 2 about here --------------------------------- Employee voice. The ten items (five items per subscale) developed in the pilot study were used to assess supervisor ratings of their employees promotive and prohibitive voice. Reliability alphas of the promotive and prohibitive subscales were .87 and .86 at Time 1, and .90 and .90 at Time 2, respectively. Psychological safety. Consistent with our theorizing of psychological safety as an individual perception, we measured psychological safety as the extent to which an individual perceived it to be safe to express himself or herself at work. Five items were adapted from the literature (e.g., Brown & Leigh, 1996; May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004) to match our research context. Coefficient alphas were .72 and .75 in Time 1 and Time 2, respectively. FOCC. We adapted Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch and Rhoadess (2001) seven- item felt obligation scale to reflect an employees desire to repay the organization by engaging in actions toward organizational improvement and change. Eisenberger et al.s (2001) scale captured general felt obligation to repay the organization, whereas our adaptation captured the extent that employees felt obligated to repay the organization through generating constructive change. Two of the seven items were later deleted due to low factor loadings or heavy cross- loadings with items of other scales. Coefficient alphas of the retained five items were .77 and .81 in Time 1 and Time 2, respectively. 23 OBSE. We used the ten-item OBSE scale developed by Pierce and colleagues (1989) to measure the extent an individual believed that he or she is a capable, significant, and worthy organizational member. This scale has been successfully validated and used in the Chinese context (e.g., Chen & Aryee, 2007). Three items were later deleted due to low factor loadings or heavy cross-loadings with items of other scales. Coefficient alphas of the scale were .86 and .86 in Time 1 and 2, respectively. Control variables. We included education level, organizational tenure, position in the organization, and job satisfaction 3 as control variables because of their potential impact on voice. For instance, employees with higher levels of education may have more ideas in general to voice (e.g., Frese, Teng, & Wijnen, 1999), employees with longer employee tenure may be more comfortable with speaking up (e.g., Stamper & Van Dyne, 2001), employees in higher positions in the organization may feel more obligated to voice (e.g., Fuller et al., 2006), and more satisfied employees tend to be more committed to helping the organization through voice (e.g., Detert & Burris, 2007). Education level was measured using four categories: middle school or below, college, university, and postgraduate. Organizational tenure was measured as the number of months worked in the company. Position in the organization was measured using four categories: employees, first-line manager, middle manager, and senior manager. J ob satisfaction was measured using three items from Hackman and Oldham (1980), with a coefficient alpha of .79. RESULTS Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) Before testing our hypotheses, we first evaluated the distinctiveness among the study variables through a series of CFA procedures. Five variables were employed in our study: promotive and prohibitive types of voice, psychological safety, FOCC, and OBSE. Using data 24 obtained from both Time 1 and 2, we examined five alternative models against the baseline five- factor model (Model 1). As shown in Table 3, Model 1 fit the data well and provided substantial improvement in fit indices over alternative models (Model 2-6). The results were relatively robust across both points of data collection. --------------------------------- Insert Table 3 about here --------------------------------- Table 2 presents the standardized factor loadings of all items on their specified constructs. All of them were significant at the .01 level, suggesting that the constructs have convergent validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). We further established the discriminant validity among the constructs by examining whether the squared inter-construct correlations for construct pairs were greater than the average shared variance of each construct (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Following the procedures recommended by Netemeyer, J ohnston, and Burton (1990), the results suggested that the average shared variance measures were greater than the squared inter-construct correlations in all cases. In particular, the variance-extracted estimates for the promotive and prohibitive voice were .57 and .56 (Time 1) and .65 and .61 (Time 2), respectively. All of the estimates exceeded the square of the correlation between the latent constructs of promotive and prohibitive voice ( 41 . , 64 . 2 21 21 = = at Time 1, 48 . , 69 . 2 21 21 = = at Time 2). Taken together, these statistics offer supportive evidence of discriminant and convergent validity among our study variables. Descriptive Statistics Table 4 presents the descriptive statistics of the variables in our study. All of our study variables demonstrated moderate test-retest correlations, .42 for promotive voice and .44 for prohibitive voice respectively. 4
25 ------------------------------- Insert Table 4 about here ------------------------------- Hypotheses Testing A two-wave panel model was used to test the main effects of three psychological factors on the two types of voice (Hypothesis 1-2). Paths connected the antecedent variables (i.e., psychological safety, FOCC, OBSE, and promotive and prohibitive voice at Time 1) with the same set of variables at Time 2.
Figure 1 illustrates the relationships we examined in the model. Strong evidence would be provided for the predictive relationship between psychological factors and a temporal change in voice if a significant path existed between Time 1 psychological factors and Time 2 voice, while controlling for Time 1 voice (Finkel, 1995: 29). Considering the nested nature of our data (i.e., a single supervisor provided behavioral assessments for two or three subordinates), we ran our SEM analyses in Mplus (Muthn & Muthn, 2007). All variables were standardized prior to modeling, and we used the maximum likelihood algorithm with robust standard errors to derive parameter estimates. -------------------------------- Insert Figure 1 about here --------------------------------- Table 5 presents the path coefficients of our two-wave structural model. As predicted, controlling for the three demographic variables, job satisfaction, and Time 1 effect, we found that psychological safety was positively related to temporal changes in both promotive voice ( =.17, p<.01) and prohibitive voice ( = .24, p<.01) (Model 1). We also found that FOCC was positively related to temporal changes in both the promotive ( = .22, p<.01) and prohibitive voice ( = .13, p<.05) (Model 2), and OBSE was positively related to a temporal change in promotive voice (=.17, p<.05) and prohibitive voice (=.18, p<.01) (Model 3). Furthermore, we found a significant reverse path for the relationship between promotive voice (at Time 1) and a 26 temporal change in OBSE ( = .35, p<.05). Taken together, these results demonstrate that the three psychological factors were individually related to both forms of voice, therefore supporting Hypotheses 1a, b, and c. Next, we examined the unique effect of the three psychological factors for predicting the two types of voice by including them simultaneously in a single model (see Model 4). Of the three psychological factors, only FOCC was significantly related to a temporal change in promotive voice ( = .20, p<.01), and only psychological safety was significantly related to a temporal change in prohibitive voice ( = .19, p<.05). OBSE did not uniquely relate to either promotive or prohibitive voice over and above the effects of psychological safety and FOCC. The model showed adequate fit to the data: 2 =645.68, d.f. =526; RMSEA =.032, CFI =.96, TLI =.95. Taken together, these results are consistent with Hypotheses 2a and 2b which predicted that FOCC would be the strongest unique predictor of promotive voice and that psychological safety would be the strongest unique predictor of prohibitive voice. In fact, with the three psychological factors considered simultaneously, these were the only ones to have significant effects. -------------------------------- Insert Table 5 about here --------------------------------- To examine our interaction hypotheses (Hypotheses 3-5), we tested a series of random coefficient models in which the three psychological factors at Time 1 were included as predictors and voice behavior at Time 2 as outcomes, controlling for the effects of the three demographic variables, job satisfaction, and voice behavior at Time 1. We first estimated two null models in which no predictors were specified in order to test the significance level of the level 2 residual variance of the intercept. The results indicated that the ICC1 associated with promotive voice at 27 Time 2 was .54, suggesting that 54% of the observed variance resided between supervisors The ICC1 associated with prohibitive voice at Time 2 was .56, suggesting that 56% of its variance resided between supervisors. All predictors were grand-mean centered in the estimation. Results are summarized in Table 6. We found that the interaction effect between FOCC and psychological safety was significant for predicting promotive voice ( =.14, p <.01, Model 2) and prohibitive voice ( =.08, p <.05, Model 5). To explicate these interactions, separate plots were drawn for individuals whose scores were one standard deviation below and above the mean of FOCC (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). Figure 2 illustrates the interaction effect of psychological safety and FOCC on promotive voice, such that the relationship between psychological safety and promotive voice was positive and significant for the higher FOCC group ( =.18, p<.05) but positive and non-significant for the lower FOCC group ( =.08, n.s.). A similar pattern of results was demonstrated for prohibitive voice: the relationship between psychological safety and prohibitive voice was positive and significant for the higher FOCC group ( =.24, p<.05) but positive and non-significant for the lower FOCC group ( =.08, n.s.). These results suggest that the positive relationship between psychological safety and both forms of voice is strengthened when FOCC is also higher, thus lending support for Hypothesis 3. We found that the interaction between psychological safety and OBSE was significant for promotive voice (=-.19, p<.01, Model 2) but not for prohibitive voice (Model 5). Surprisingly, the gamma coefficient for the significant interaction between psychological safety and OBSE was negative and thus inconsistent with the pattern we hypothesized. Figure 3 illustrates the negative interaction effect of psychological safety and OBSE on promotive voice, such that the relationship between psychological safety and promotive voice was positive and significant for 28 the lower OBSE group ( =.18, p<.05) but non-significant for the higher OBSE group ( =.00, n.s.). Thus, our expectation (Hypothesis 4) that the psychological safety-voice relationship would be more positive under higher levels of OBSE was not supported. Finally, we found that the three-way interaction we predicted between psychological safety, FOCC, and OBSE was not significant for promotive (Model 3) or prohibitive voice (Model 6). Hence, our expectation (Hypothesis 5) that the psychological safety-voice relationship would be most positive when FOCC and OBSE were high was not supported. ----------------------------------------------- Insert Table 6, Figures 2-3 about here ------------------------------------------------ Post Hoc Analyses In our study, most of the effect sizes fell in between small (r=.10) and moderate (r=.30) (Cohen, 1988). Thus, we conducted OLS regression analyses on the two types of voice to examine the practical significance of our findings. The results show that together with our control variables (e.g., demographic variables and job satisfaction), the three psychological antecedents at Time 1 explained 15.6 percent of the total variance in promotive voice at Time 2 and 11 percent of variance in prohibitive voice at Time 2. The three two-way interactions further explained an additional 9 percent of variance in promotive voice at Time 2 and 3 percent of variance in prohibitive voice at Time 2. Furthermore, to develop a better appreciation for the practical links between psychological states and voice behavior, we compared voice behavior for those with the theoretically best profile in terms of engaging in voice (those scoring above the mean in psychological safety, FOCC, and OBSE) to those with the theoretically worst profile (those scoring below the mean in psychological safety, FOCC, and OBSE). Although voice had a low base rate, there was a 25% increase in promotive voice for those with the theoretically best 29 profile relative to individuals with the worst profile, and a 19% increase in prohibitive voice for those with the theoretically best profile relative to individuals with the worst profile. Altogether, these findings point to the practical significance of our findings. DISCUSSION Guided by Ajzens (1991) TPB, we set out to examine how three psychological antecedents psychological safety, FOCC, and OBSE would uniquely, differentially, and interactively predict promotive and prohibitive forms of voice in a non-Western context. Using a two-wave panel design, our results showed that when each factor was tested on its own, all three psychological factors were positively related to temporal changes in promotive and prohibitive voice, and we also found a reverse link between promotive voice and temporal change in OBSE. When examining the unique effects of the three psychological factors on voice, we found that FOCC was most strongly uniquely related to promotive voice, and psychological safety was most strongly uniquely associated with prohibitive voice. All other psychological factors did not have significant effects when these two predictors were taken into consideration. Finally, we found that the three psychological factors had interactive effects on voice, such that FOCC enhanced the positive relationship between psychological safety and both forms of voice, whereas OBSE weakened the positive relationship between psychological safety and promotive voice. Theoretical and Managerial Implications A key theoretical implication of our study is that the three psychological factors under investigation here are not equal in predicting voice. Our findings that FOCC and psychological safety differentially predicted promotive and prohibitive voice suggests that the unique and incremental importance of a particular psychological antecedent depends on the content and 30 implications associated with the dependent variable. Our findings further suggest that of the three psychological factors, OBSE emerged as the least robust predictor of voice. There are several plausible explanations for this effect. The first relates to the uniqueness of our sample, given that we tested our model in the Chinese context, in which values of interpersonal harmony and reciprocation are strongly culturally prescribed (Bond & Hwang, 1986). Thus, psychological safety and FOCC, respectively, may have been relatively stronger predictors in this non-western context. It is an empirical question as to whether OBSE will play a stronger role in predicting voice in Western contexts in which self-agency and individualism are valued. A second plausible explanation is that the mechanisms through which OBSE exerts its impact on voice may overlap with those of psychological safety. Self-esteem has been theorized to relate positively to voice because high self-esteem individuals are less concerned about being negatively impacted by the interpersonal consequences of voice (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Van Dyne et al., 1995). In other words, employees with high OBSE may perceive greater personal psychological safety, regardless of the level of psychological safety perceived by others. This explanation is plausible given the positive correlation we found between psychological safety and OBSE at both Time 1 (r =.42) and Time 2 (r =.37), as well as the substitutive interaction effect we found between psychological safety and OBSE on voice. Despite its relatively weaker role in predicting voice, we did find an interesting reciprocal relationship between OBSE and promotive voice that is worthy of mention. In contrast to prior models suggesting that psychological factors precede voice, we found evidence that voice may lead to subsequent psychological beliefs relating to personal influence. Consistent with Korman (2001), our results suggest that the exercise of personal influence on work-related issues through voice further enhances individuals self-concept in the workplace. Despite a general focus of 31 researchers to uncover primarily the antecedents to voice, future research should adopt panel designs in order to capture other reciprocal dynamics between psychological factors and voice, as well as explore what additional benefits may arise from voice other than increased feelings of self-worth in the workplace. A second key implication of our study is that psychological antecedents of voice not only uniquely impact voice, but may also interact amongst each other. Furthermore, our findings suggest that, while in some cases psychological antecedents may strengthen each others predictive power on voice, in other cases they may weaken each others effects. The positive synergistic effect of high psychological safety and high FOCC on voice demonstrates that the two psychological forces represent non-parallel and unique pathways to voice. Contrary to our expectations, we found that the relationship between psychological safety and voice was not strengthened by high levels of OBSE. Specifically, the pattern of the interaction was such that the psychological safety-voice relationship was positive only for individuals with low OBSE but not for individuals with high OBSE. One way to interpret these results is that high OBSE individuals - being more confident of their ability to voice effectively (i.e., high behavioral control) - may be relatively less sensitive to the perceived safety of the interpersonal context when deciding to voice, whereas a psychologically safe environment may be particularly important for low OBSE individuals to express their constructive suggestions because they believe they lack the self-confidence and protection of personal credibility at work. Indeed, prior research on the relationship between self-esteem and voice found that although higher self-esteem was generally related to greater levels of voice, this relationship was subject to situational boundary conditions (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). Citing behavioral plasticity theory (Brockner, 1988), LePine and Van Dyne (1998) reasoned that low self-esteem individuals 32 would be more responsive to external or situational cues than individuals with high self-esteem. Our findings seem to be consistent with this line of logic. Nonetheless, we caution that our results do not necessarily disconfirm the importance of perceived behavioral control in predicting behavior. To capture the control concept advanced by the theory of planned behavior, we recommend that a more direct measure of perceived control should be used in future research, in addition to a general measure like OBSE. A final implication of our study relates to the content and operationalization of voice. We are the first study to based on theory and prior inductive research generate a measure that captures both promotive and prohibitive dimensions of voice. Introducing a measure of voice that subsumes both content dimensions is an important advancement of voice research given the recent broadened definition of voice (Van Dyne et al., 2003). Furthermore, our validation analysis and finding that FOCC and psychological safety relate differentially to the two types of voice provide evidence of not only the conceptual and empirical distinction between promotive and prohibitive voice, but also point to how the nomological networks surrounding the two types of voice may differ. A promising avenue for future research is to further explore how antecedents to voice, as well as the interpersonal consequences associated with voice, may differ depending on its contents. Practically speaking, even though companies hoping to benefit from the suggestions and concerns of their employees generally have the best intentions toward encouraging voice, the unfortunate truth is that employees are often uncomfortable about voicing (Dutton et al., 1997; Milliken et al., 2003). Our study calls managers to recognize that several psychological factors can either facilitate or prevent employees from speaking up. Voice can be maximized to the extent that managers are able to increase employees psychological safety, FOCC, and OBSE, 33 for instance, by demonstrating an attitude of openness towards employees ideas and providing formal or informal mechanisms for voice (thereby increasing psychological safety), reminding employees that they are valued members of the organization and are capable of providing valuable input (thereby increasing OBSE), and emphasizing that employees can give back to the organization by providing suggestions and pointing out ineffective processes (thereby increasing FOCC). Additionally, given our studys finding that voice is more likely to occur when both psychological safety and FOCC are high, managers should be careful to act in ways that facilitate both of these key psychological factors. Finally, by making voice a positive experience for employees, managers can increase the likelihood that employees will engage in future instances of voice. Limitations and Future Directions Our study has several limitations that should be addressed in future research. First, although we conceptually differentiated promotive and prohibitive subdimensions of voice and found some evidence of differences in their nomological network, much more work can be done in this area. Future research may uncover other psychological antecedents that may differentiate these two subdimensions. One possibility may be individual differences in regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997). For instance, promotion-focused employees may engage in greater promotive voice due to their propensity to think in terms of achieving ideals and possibilities, whereas prevention-focused employees may engage in greater prohibitive voice due to their propensity to think in terms of avoiding losses. Future research may also explore the different outcomes of promotive and prohibitive voice. We might expect promotive voice to be more closely related to innovation due to its function in identifying new opportunities, and prohibitive voice to be more 34 closely related to efficiency or cost reductions due to its function of stopping or preventing harm such as process losses. A related limitation is the wording of the items used to capture FOCC, which had a stronger bent toward promoting constructive change through coming up with suggestions and ideas rather than raising concerns. The explicit mention of suggestions and ideas may have biased the strength of the relationship found between FOCC and promotive voice. Similarly, in an attempt to capture the enhanced interpersonal risk associated with voicing concerns, the wording of our prohibitive voice items conveyed a sense of daring which may have biased the strength of the relationship found between psychological safety and prohibitive voice. Thus, we recommend future researchers to develop a more balanced wording of the items capturing FOCC and prohibitive voice in order to overcome these limitations. Another limitation of our study is the manner in which we operationalized perceived behavioral control over voice. Given the social and political implications of engaging in voice, we felt that OBSE a proxy for self-perceived status and access to resources in the workplace would increase ones perceived ease of speaking up. Our studys results, however, have suggested that the mechanisms underlying the effects of OBSE may overlap with those of psychological safety. Hence, future research may choose to operationalize perceived behavioral control over voice in a more specific manner. A likely candidate, for instance, is the recently introduced construct voice self-efficacy, defined as how confident an employee is about his or her skills as well as ability to speak up with suggestions for improvement (Kish-Gephart et al., 2009). Including both voice self-efficacy and OBSE may capture more fully an employees perceived access to both internal and external resources to effectively speak up. 35 Finally, although our intention was not to conduct a cross-cultural comparison study, testing our model in the Chinese context may have influenced our results nonetheless. Traditional Chinese values on high power distance may make voice a particularly risky behavior (Huang et al., 2005). Furthermore, the Chinese cultural emphasis on maintaining harmonious interpersonal relationships and reciprocation over individual agency may have increased the relative importance of psychological safety and FOCC over OBSE in predicting voice in our sample. We recommend that future research more systematically examine the effects of culture on our model and determine whether the pattern of our findings is unique to our research context. Conclusion Employee voice is a complex phenomenon to predict. Nevertheless, because of its functionality in promoting organizational health, we urge researchers to continue to pursue understanding of the many factors that may facilitate or inhibit its expression. Our efforts here to identify two content domains of voice and examine the multiple psychological factors leading to them represents a first step to achieving a more nuanced and complete understanding of why and how employees speak up. We hope that our work serves as a launching pad for future research along these lines. 36 References Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50: 179-211. Ajzen, I. 2001. Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52: 27-58. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. 1978. Organizational learning: A theory of action approach. Reading, MA: Addision Wesley. Armitage, C. J ., & Conner, M. 2001. Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40: 471-499. 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: 23-57. Bagozzi, R. P. 1992. The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55: 178-204. Bond, M. H., & Hwang, K.K. 1986. The social psychology of Chinese people. In M. H. Bond (Eds.), The psychology of Chinese people: 213-66. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Brislin, R. W. 1986. The wording and translation of research instrument. In W. Lonner & J . Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research: 137-164. Beverly Hills: Sage. Brockner, J . 1988. Self-esteem at work: Research, theory, and practice. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Brockner, J ., Heuer, L., Siegel, P. A., Wiesenfeld, B., Martin, C., Grover, S., Reed, T. & Bjorgvinsson, S. 1998. The moderating effect of self-esteem in reaction to voice: Converging evidence from five studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75: 394-407. Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. 1996. A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 358-368. Burris, E. R., Detert, J . R. & Chiaburu, D. S. 2008. Quitting before leaving: The mediating effects of psychological attachment and detachment on voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 912-922. Chen, Z. X., & Aryee, S. 2007. Delegation and employee work outcomes: An examination of the cultural context of mediating process in China. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 226- 238. Cohen, J . 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum. Cohen, J ., & Cohen, P. 1983. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, N.J .: Erlbaum Associates. Conner, M., & Armitage, C. J . 1998. Extending the theory of planned behavior: A review and avenues for further research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28: 1429-1464. Conner, M., & McMillan, B. 1999. Interaction effects in the theory of planned behavior: Studying cannabis use. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38: 195-222 37 Detert, J . R., & Burris, E. R. 2007. Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50: 869-884. Dutton, J . E., & Ashford, S. J . 1993. Selling issues to top management. Academy of Management Review, 18: 397-428. Dutton, J . E., Ashford, S. J ., Lawrence, K. A., & Miner-Rubino, K. 2002. Red light, green light: Making sense of the organizational context for issue selling. Organization Science, 13: 355- 369. Dutton, J . E., Ashford, S. J ., ONeill, R. M., Hayes, E., & Wierba, E. E. 1997. Reading the wind: How middle managers assess the context for selling issues to top managers. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 407-425. Edmondson, A. C. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 350-383. Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. 2001. Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 42-51. Farh, C. I. C., Tangirala, S., & Liang, J . 2010. Thinking before speaking: Employee cognitive engagement in change as a precursor to voice. Paper presented at the Annual National Meeting of Academy of Management, Montreal Canada. Farh, J . L., Hackett, R., & Liang, J . 2007. Individual-level cultural values as moderators of perceived organizational support-employee outcome relationships in China: Comparing the effects of power distance and traditionality. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 715-729. Farh, J . L., Zhong, C. B., & Organ, D. W. 2002. An inductive analysis of the construct domain of organizational citizenship behavior in the PRC. In A. S. Tsui & C. M. Lau (Eds): The management of enterprises in the Peoples Republic of China: 445-470. Kluwer Academic Press, Boston, MA. Farh, J . L., Zhong, C. B., & Organ, D. W. 2004. Organizational citizenship behavior in the Peoples Republic of China. Organization Science, 15: 241-253. Finkel, S. E. 1995. Causal analysis with panel data. Sage Publications. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18: 39-50. Frese, M., Teng, E., & Wijnen, C. J . D. 1999. Helping to improve suggestion systems: Predictors of giving suggestions in companies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20: 1139-1155. Fuller, J . B., Marler, L. E., & 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. Gouldner, A.W. 1960. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25: 161-178. Graham, J . W. 1986. Principled organizational dissent: A theoretical essay. In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds), Research in organizational behavior, 8: 1-52. Greenwich, CT: J AI. Hackman, J . R., & Oldham, G. R. 1980. Work redesign. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. 38 Higgins, E. T. 1997. Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52: 1280-1300. Huang, X., Van de Vliert, E., & Van der Vegt, G. 2005. Breaking the silence culture: Stimulation of participation and employee opinion withholding cross-nationally. Management and Organization Review, 1: 459-482 Kahn, W. A. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33: 692-724. Kish-Gephart, J . J ., Detert, J . R., Trevio, L. K., & Edmondson, A. C. 2009. Silenced by fear: The nature, sources, and consequences of fear at work. In B. M. Staw & A. P. Brief (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 29: 163-193. Greenwich, CT: J AI. Korman, A. K. 2001. Self-enhancement and self-protection: Towards a theory of work motivation. In M. Erez, U. Kleinbeck, & H. Thierry (Eds.), Work motivation in the context of a globalizing economy: 121-130. Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. LePine, J . A., & Van Dyne, L. 1998. Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 853-868. 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. May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. 2004. The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77: 11-37. Milliken, F. J ., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. 2003. An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees dont communicate upward and why. Journal of Management Studies, 40: 1453-1476. Moorman, R. H. 1993. The influence of cognitive and affective based job satisfaction measures on the relationship between satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior. Human Relations, 46: 759-776. Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J . 2000. Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25: 706-725. Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. 1999. Taking charge at work: Extra-role efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 403-419. Morrison, E. W., Wheeler-Smith, S. L., & Kamdar, D. 2011. Speaking up in groups: a cross- level study of group voice climate and voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96:183-191. Muthn, L. K., & Muthn, B. O. 2007. Mplus users guide (5 th ed.). Los Angeles: Author. Near, J . P., & Miceli, M. P. 1985. Organizational dissidence: The case of whistle-blowing. Journal of Business Ethics, 4: l-16. Netemeyer, R. G., J ohnston, M. W., & Burton, S. 1990. Analysis of role conflict and role ambiguity in a structural equation framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 148-157. Organ, D. W. 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA. 39 Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. A. 1989. A cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 157-164. Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. 2006. Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Perugini, M., Gallucci, M., Presaghi, F., & Ercolani, A. P. 2003. The personal norm of reciprocity. European Journal of Personality, 17: 251-283. Pierce, J ., Gardner, D., Cummings, L., & Dunham, R. 1989. Organization-based self-esteem: construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 622-648. Podsakoff, P. M., McKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. 1990. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1: 107-142. 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: 1537-1562. Rusbult, C. E., Farrell, D., Rogers, G., & Mainous, A. G., III. 1988. Impact of ex-change variables on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: An integrative model of responses to declining job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 31: 599-627. Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J . M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J . & Griskevicius, V. 2007. The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18: 429-434. Schwartz, J ., & Wald, M. L. 2003. The Nation: NASAs curse?: Groupthink is 30 years old, and still going strong. New York Times, March 9, 5. Schwartz, S. H. 1977. Normative influence on altruism. Advances in experimental social psychology, 10: 222-275. Siebert, W. S., & Zubanov, N. 2009. Searching for the optimal level of employee turnover: A study of large U.K. retail organization. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 294-313. Stamper, C. L., & Van Dyne, L. 2001. Work status and organizational citizenship behavior: A field study of restaurant employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22: 517-536. Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. 2008. Exploring non-linearity in employee voice: The effects of personal control and organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 1189-1203. Tepper, B. J ., Duffy, M. K., Hoobler, J ., & Ensley, M. D. 2004. Moderators of the relationships between coworkers organizational citizenship behavior and fellow employees attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 455-465. Thompson, J . A. 2005. Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 1011-1017. Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. 2003. Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40: 1359-1392. Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean Parks, J . 1995. Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of 40 construct and definitional clarity. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior,17: 215-285. Greenwich, CT: J AI. Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J . A. 1998. Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 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, 95: 582-591. Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J . 2009. Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 1275-1286. Withey, M. J ., & Cooper, W. H. 1989. Predicting exit, voice, loyalty and neglect. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34: 521-539. Zhao, B., & Olivera, F. 2006. Error reporting in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 31: 1012-1030. 41 Footnotes 1 Based on comments advanced by other researchers (e.g., Burris et al. 2008; Organ et al., 2006), we elected to adapt Van Dyne and LePines (1998) items to solely reflect verbal communication about the improvement of organizational affairs. The four items included, Develops and makes recommendations concerning issues that affect this work group, Speaks up and encourages others in this group to get involved in issues that affect the group, Communicates his/her opinions about work issues to others in this group even if his/her opinion is different and others in the group disagree with him/her, and Speaks up in this group with ideas for new projects or changes in procedures. 2 Items from Farh, Hackett, and Liang (2007) included, This employee actively raises suggestions to improve work procedures or processes, and This employee actively brings forward suggestions that may help the organization run more efficiently or effectively. 3 Because the potential conceptual overlap between job satisfaction and FOCC would partial out some of the variance in voice explained by FOCC, we re-analyzed our data without including job satisfaction as a control variable. The results remained unchanged. We elected to retain job satisfaction as a control variable because of the cognitive and affective impact it may have on voice, based on prior research demonstrating its relationship to OCBs in general (e.g., Moorman, 1993; Organ & Konovsky, 1989). 4 The modest test-retest correlations among the voice measures at Time 1 and Time 2 deserve some explanation. Based on our interviews with managers from the sample organization, we believe that the relatively low correlations were partially due to the sample context. Our study was conducted in a retail company that at the time of data collection was undergoing tremendous change, resulting in high turnover and an unstable workforce that we believe led to low test-retest correlations. However, extant research in other study contexts examining constructs akin to the predictors in our study have found strong correlations with 42 voice when measured at the same time. For instance, Walumbwa and Schaubroeck (2009) found a positive correlation of r =.49 between psychological safety and voice; Fuller, Marler, and Hester (2006) found a positive correlation of r =.26 between felt responsibility for change and voice; and Venkataramani and Tangirala (2010) reported a positive relationship ( = .24) between personal influence (as rated by peers) and voice. Thus, although our sample organization was not necessarily the most ideal setting for testing our hypotheses, the fact that we were still able to find support for our proposed relationships suggests that our study was a conservative demonstration of the underlying relationships that otherwise might have been shown to be more robust elsewhere.
43 TABLE 1 A Comparison of Promotive versus Prohibitive Voice
Promotive Voice Prohibitive Voice Commonalities Is not specified in formal job descriptions (save for particular jobs such as auditing) and thus is extra-role. Is helpful to the functioning of the work unit or the organization and thus is constructive. Is motivated by a desire to help the work unit or organization and thus reflects an employees sense of responsibility and constructive attitude towards the organization. Distinctions
1. Behavioral content Expresses new ideas or solutions for how to improve the status quo. Future-oriented; points to possibilities of how to do things better in the future. Expresses concern about existing or impending factors (i.e., incidents, practices, or behaviors) that are harmful to the organization. Past or future-oriented; points out harmful factors that have negatively affected the status quo or could have a harmful effect in the future. 2. Function Points out ways that the organization can be better. Points out factors that are harmful to the organization. 3. Implications for others Suggests improvements that may bring forth changes that inconvenience others in the short run, but the improvements can potentially eventually benefit the entire community. The good intention behind suggested improvements is easily recognized and interpreted as positive. Calls attention to harmful factors and consequently implicates the failure of those responsible. The good intention behind pointing out harmful factors may not be easily recognized nor interpreted as positive because of the potential negative emotion and defensiveness invoked in the process.
44 TABLE 2 Factor Loadings for Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Study Variables Measurement Items Loadings Promotive voice
Proactively develop and make suggestions for issues that may influence the unit. .81(.80) Proactively suggest new projects which are beneficial to the work unit. .79(.76) Raise suggestions to improve the units working procedure. .74(.83) Proactively voice out constructive suggestions that help the unit reach its goals. .71(.81) Make constructive suggestions to improve the units operation. .71(.83) Prohibitive voice Advise other colleagues against undesirable behaviors that would hamper job performance. .87(.84) Speak up honestly with problems that might cause serious loss to the work unit, even when/though dissenting opinions exist. .77(.77) Dare to voice out opinions on things that might affect efficiency in the work unit, even if that would embarrass others. .72(.81) Dare to point out problems when they appear in the unit, even if that would hamper relationships with other colleagues. .70(.79) Proactively report coordination problems in the workplace to the management. .66(.68) Psychological safety
In my work unit, I can express my true feelings regarding my job. .74(.80) In my work unit, I can freely express my thoughts. .72(.72) In my work unit, expressing your true feelings is welcomed. .65(.65) Nobody in my unit will pick on me even if I have different opinions. .55(.62) Im worried that expressing true thoughts in my workplace would do harm to myself (R). .54(.46) FOCC
I owe it to the organization to do whatever I can to come up with ideas/solutions to achieve its goal. .86(.86) I have an obligation to the organization to voice out my own opinions .78(.77) I feel a personal obligation to produce constructive suggestions to help the organization achieve its goals. .64(.78) I owe it to the organization to do what I can to come up with brilliant ideas, to ensure that our customers are well served and satisfied. .62(.67) I would feel an obligation to take time from my personal schedule to generate ideas/solutions for the organization if it is needed. .57(.64) OBSE
I am helpful around here. .89(.86) I am valuablearound here. .85(.87) I count around here. .80(.73) There is faith in me around here. .62(.55) I am efficient around here. .49(.43) I am trusted around here. .47(.41) I am taken seriously around here. .46(.46) Notes: Standardized factor loadings are reported. Loadings from Time 2 are reported in parentheses. FOCC =Felt obligation for constructive change. OBSE =organization-based self-esteem. 45 TABLE 3 Comparison of Measurement Models in the Main Study
Models Factors 2 d.f. 2 RMSEA CFI IFI NNFI 1 Five factors: Two types of voice, FOCC, psychological safety, OBSE. 593.61 (537.52) 314 . 066 (.059) .94 (.95) .94 (.95) .93 (.94) 2 Four factors: Two types of voice combined into one factor. 874.06 (913.38) 318 280.45** (375.86**) . .092 (.095) .90 (.92) .90 (.92) .89 (.91) 3 Four factors: FOCC and psychological safety combined into one factor. 820.18 (901.16) 318 226.57** (363.64**) .088 (.094) .91 (.91) .91 (.92) .90 (.91) 4 Four factors: Psychological safety and OBSE combined into one factor. 953.48 (932.13) 318 359.87** (394.61**) .099 (.096) .89 (.91) .89 (.92) .88 (.91) 5 Four factors: FOCC and OBSE combined into one factor. 1076.37 (1129.98) 318 482.76** (592.46**) .110 (.110) .88 (.89) .88 (.89) .86 (.88) 6 Two factors: Supervisor ratings (e.g., voice) combined into one factor; subordinate ratings (e.g., psychological states) combined into one factor. 1617.05 (1734.51) 323 1023.44** (1196.99**) .140 (.140) .81 (.82) .81 (.82) .79 (.81)
Notes: Model fit indices fromTime 2 are reported in parentheses. * p <.05. ** p <.01. FOCC =Felt obligation for constructive change. OBSE =organization-based self-esteem.
46 TABLE 4 Means, Standard Deviations, and Inter-Correlations among Variables in the Main Study Mean S.D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1. Promotive voice-T1 2.50 0.78 (.87)
Notes: N=232, FOCC =felt obligation for constructive change. OBSE =organization-based self-esteem. The standard errors in the estimations are reported in parentheses. p <.10, * p<.05; ** p <.01, two-tailed tests.
49
49 FIGURE 1 A Two-Wave Structural Model of Psychological Antecedents and Voice
Notes:
Psychological Antecedents (T1) 2
3
5
3
Promotive Voice (T1)
Promotive Voice (T2)
Prohibitive Voice (T1)
Prohibitive Voice (T2)
7
Psychological Antecedents (T2)
1
2 1
4 6 The test-retest correlations of study variables over time( 1 , 2, and 3 ); The path coefficients examined for the hypothesized effect of psychological antecedents on voice ( 5 and 7 ); The path coefficient may suggest reverse causality ( 4 and 6 ).
50
50 FIGURE 2 Psychological Safety X FOCC Interaction on Promotive Voice
Note. FOCC =Felt obligation for constructive change. 4.12 2.93 Psychological safety 3.10 3.00 2.90 2.80 2.70 2.60 2.50 2.40 P r o m o t i v e
v o i c e
High FOCC group Low FOCC group 51
51 FIGURE 3 Psychological Safety X OBSE Interaction on Promotive Voice
Note. OBSE =organization-based self-esteem.
4.12 2.93 Psychological safety 3.00 2.90 2.80 2.70 2.60 2.50 2.40 P r o m o t i v e
V o i c e
High OBSE group Low OBSE group 52
52 Jian Liang (jianliang@sjtu.edu.cn) is an associate professor at Antai College of Economics and Management at Shanghai J iao Tong University. He obtained his Ph.D. in Management from the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. His research interests include employee proactive behaviors, cultural values, leadership, and business ethics.
Crystal I. C. Farh (cfarh@rhsmith.umd.edu) is a doctoral candidate in organizational behavior at the University of Maryland's Robert H. Smith School of Business. Her research interests include managing cross-cultural interfaces, employee proactive behaviors, and team and leadership processes.
Jiing-Lih (Larry) Farh (mnlfarh@ust.hk) is the Chair Professor of Management at the School of Business and Management at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. He received his Ph.D. in business administration from Indiana University at Bloomington. His research interests primarily focus on the study of organizational behavior in Chinese contexts (such as cultural values, guanxi, leadership, and organizational citizenship behavior)