546192

research-article2014
JOMXXX10.1177/0149206314546192Journal of Management / Month XXXXAryee et al. / Core Self-Evaluations and Voice Behavior

Journal of Management
Vol. 43 No. 3, March 2017 946­–966
DOI: 10.1177/0149206314546192
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Core Self-Evaluations and Employee Voice

Behavior: Test of a Dual-Motivational Pathway
Samuel Aryee
King’s College London
Fred O. Walumbwa
Florida International University
Reuben Mondejar
City University of Hong Kong
Chris W. L. Chu
University of Surrey

We used data obtained from customer contact employees in the People’s Republic of China to
test a moderated mediation model of the processes through which core self-evaluations (CSE)
influence voice behavior. Specifically, we examined personal control and approach/avoidance
motivation as psychological pathways and procedural justice perceptions as a moderator of the
CSE–voice behavior relationship. As predicted, our results revealed that CSE related to
employee voice behavior indirectly through personal control and approach motivation but not
avoidance motivation. Furthermore, and consistent with our prediction, results showed that
procedural justice perceptions moderated the mediated influence of both personal control and
approach motivation on the CSE–voice behavior relationship such that this relationship is
stronger when procedural justice perceptions are high but not low. We discuss the implications
of these findings in terms of explanatory frameworks for understanding the documented effects
of CSE on employee work outcomes.

Keywords: core self-evaluations; approach/avoidance framework; personal control; proce-

dural justice perceptions; voice behavior

Acknowledgments: This article was accepted under the editorship of Deborah E. Rupp. Funding for data collection
for this article was provided by grants from University of Surrey and City University of Hong Kong. We are grate-
ful to our action editor, Michelle Duffy, and two anonymous reviewers for their encouragement and constructive
feedback.
Corresponding author: Samuel Aryee, Department of Management, King’s College London, 150 Stamford St., Lon-
don SE1 9NH, UK.
E-mail: samuel.aryee@kcl.ac.uk

946
 Aryee et al. / Core Self-Evaluations and Voice Behavior   947

The increasingly dynamic global business environment has underscored the criticality of
employee proactive behaviors to organizational adaptation and survival (Crant, 2000; Griffin,
Neal, & Parker, 2007; Parker & Collins, 2010). One such proactive behavior that has enjoyed
much research attention is voice behavior defined as “discretionary communication of ideas,
suggestions, concerns, or opinions about work-related issues with the intent to improve orga-
nizational or unit functioning” (Morrison, 2011: 375). The recognition that the knowledge
and ideas necessary to improve organizational processes and decision-making quality do not
necessarily reside in the top echelons of the organization (Senge, 1990: 4) has since received
much empirical validation. Specifically, research has shown voice behavior to relate to pre-
vention of crises (Schwartz & Wald, 2003), improvement in organizational processes and
innovation (Argyris & Schon, 1978), and more recently, to organizational performance (Lam
& Mayer, in press).
Given the much demonstrated positive consequences of voice behavior, research has
focused on understanding its antecedents (Detert & Burris, 2007; Frazier & Bowler, 2015;
Janssen & Gao, 2015; LePine & Van Dyne, 2001; Liang, Farh, & Farh, 2012; Morrison,
Wheeler-Smith, & Kamdar, 2011; Tangirala, Kamdar, Venkataramani, & Parke, 2013;
Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008a; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Underpinning this research is
the notion that since voice behavior is change oriented and, therefore, challenges the status
quo, it entails benefits and risks. Thus, the motivation to engage in voice behavior entails an
employee’s assessment of the risks and benefits or the expectancy of success in engaging in
this behavior. Consequently, research has focused on contextual factors such as leadership,
psychological safety, and voice climate because they shape a facilitative context in which to
engage in voice behavior (Klaas, Olson-Buchanan, & Ward, 2012; Morrison, 2011). However,
since not all employees in such a context speak up or engage in voice behavior, research has
also examined motivational and individual/personality factors (LePine & Van Dyne; Liang et
al.; Tangirala et al.). LePine and Van Dyne, for example, examined the Big Five personality
traits and reported conscientiousness and extraversion positively relate to voice while agree-
ableness and neuroticism negatively relate to voice.
While research on the individual/personality antecedents of voice behavior has illumi-
nated our understanding of the construct, Morrison observed that “it lacks a coherent theo-
retical framework for integrating various empirical findings related to individual-level
predictors” (2011: 393). Given the sense of agency that underpins voice behavior, prior
research has alluded to the potential role of control in explicating this construct (Parker &
Collins, 2010; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008a). Although Tangirala and Ramanujam spe-
cifically adopted a control-based explanation of voice behavior, they did not examine the
dispositional basis of personal control in predicting the construct. One such personality attri-
bute that may underpin personal control is core self-evaluations (CSE), which describes a
positive self-concept or bottom-line evaluations that individuals hold about themselves
(Judge, Erez, & Bono, 1998). Understanding the influence of CSE on employee work behav-
iors is particularly critical in view of the changed organizational context and the potential
influence of CSE on the proactive behaviors that may enhance organizational survival in the
contemporary dynamic marketplace. As Judge and Kammeyer-Mueller observed,

There is a stronger need than ever for organizations to seek out individuals who are confident in
their own abilities and who believe that they can control their own fates than ever. Individuals
who are higher in core self-evaluations may be especially valuable in the less hierarchical, more
flexible organization of the future. (2011: 339)
948   Journal of Management / March 2017

Although Judge and colleagues’ (Judge, Bono, & Locke, 2000; Judge, Locke, Durham, &
Kluger, 1998; Judge, Van Vianen, & De Pater, 2004) initial formulation was meant to account
for the dispositional sources of job satisfaction (Chang, Ferris, Johnson, Rosen, & Tan, 2012;
Ferris, Johnson, Rosen, Djurdjevic, Chang, & Tan, 2013), CSE have since been shown to
relate to performance defined in terms of task, citizenship, and deviant behaviors (Chang et
al.; Ferris, Rosen, Johnson, Brown, Risavy, & Heller, 2011; Grant & Wrzesniewski, 2010;
Kacmar, Collins, Harris, & Judge, 2009). While this is encouraging, there is a need to broaden
the performance construct to include those that have become important in light of the dynamic
environment in which organizations operate and that have made employee proactive behav-
iors, such as voice, particularly critical. Furthermore, until the recent call to theoretically
ground this stream of research in the approach/avoidance framework (Chang et al.; Ferris et
al., 2011; Ferris et al., 2013), it has largely proceeded without much theoretical grounding.
Given that a control-based explanation (Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008a) and an approach/
avoidance framework are both underpinned by a sense of agency, they constitute potential
psychological pathways through which CSE may relate to voice behavior.
While much is now known about the psychological pathways through which its anteced-
ents influence voice behavior, and despite the observation that the complexity of proactive
behaviors, such as voice, are better understood in terms of its facilitating boundary condi-
tions, only a minority of research has examined such boundary conditions (Tangirala &
Ramanujam, 2008a; Venkataramani & Tangirala, 2010). Additionally, Ferris and colleagues’
(2011) suggestion that research should examine contingencies that activate approach tenden-
cies has yet to be addressed particularly in the context of voice research. To address these
concerns, we proposed and tested a moderated mediation model in which we posit CSE to
indirectly influence voice behavior through the dual psychological pathways of personal
control and approach/avoidance frameworks. Additionally, we examine perceptions of pro-
cedural justice as a boundary condition of the influence of these psychological pathways on
the relationship between CSE and voice behavior. By pursuing these objectives, our study
contributes to the literature in three significant ways. First, our study not only examines voice
behavior as a performance outcome of CSE but also proposes and tests a dual psychological
pathway through which CSE relate to voice behavior. As prior research has examined a con-
trol-based explanation (Tangirala & Ramanujam), our focus on the approach/avoidance
framework extends this framework to voice research and provides an opportunity to test the
utility of these competing perspectives in demonstrating the sense of agency that provides the
motivational underpinning of voice behavior.
Second, by examining perceptions of procedural justice as a boundary condition of the
role of psychological pathways in the CSE–voice behavior relationships, we not only extend
prior research that has examined organizational (work group) identification (Tangirala &
Ramanujam, 2008a; Venkataramani & Tangirala, 2010) but also respond to Ferris and col-
leagues’ (2011) call that research should examine the contingencies that activate approach
tendencies. As procedural justice perceptions suggest an environment in which managers are
constrained from the arbitrary use of power to punish employees who engage in voice behav-
ior, it provides a facilitative context that enhances the expectancy of success in engaging in
this behavior. Lastly, the high power distance that characterizes a Chinese society can poten-
tially undermine an employee’s sense of agency or expectancy of success in engaging in
voice behavior (Liang et al., 2012). Although previous research has shown CSE to have a
bivariate relationship with creativity (Zhang, Kwan, Zhang, & Wu, 2014) and organization-
 Aryee et al. / Core Self-Evaluations and Voice Behavior   949

based self-esteem (a constituent CSE trait) to relate to voice behavior (Liang

et al.), the motivational pathways that CSE engender that lead to voice behavior in a Chinese
context have yet to be examined. In view of the potential influence of culture on cognition
and motivation (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), our study provides an opportunity to empiri-
cally ascertain the generalizability of Western-inspired theories to explaining voice behavior
in the high power distance Chinese context (Liang et al.).

Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses Development

Control-Based Theory
At the heart of a control-based explanation of employee performance is a sense of human
agency. Control theorists (e.g., DeCharms, 1968; Greenberger & Strasser, 1986; Greenberger,
Strasser, Cummings, & Dunham, 1989; White, 1959) consider the desire to affect the envi-
ronment as a fundamental motivational propensity. Following the work of Rothbaum, Weisz,
and Snyder (1982), control theorists distinguish between primary and secondary control.
While primary control is externally oriented and describes an attempt to change the world in
order to fit in, secondary control, in contrast, describes an attempt to fit in with the world.
These forms of control are usefully illustrated by the distinction between problem-focused
(primary control) and emotion-focused (secondary control) coping (Folkman, 1984; Ganster,
Fox, & Dwyer, 2001). The control-based explanation adopted in this study draws on primary
control and, therefore, reflects an individual’s motivation to engage with his or her environ-
ment and the expectancy of successfully initiating actions to achieve this objective.

Approach/Avoidance Framework
The approach/avoidance motivational framework draws its conceptual heritage from
Greek ethical hedonism that emphasized the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain.
This notion constitutes a motivational foundation in psychology that views pleasure and pain
as drivers of human behavior (Elliot, 1999; Elliot & Thrash, 2002; Higgins, 1998). Although
the distinction between approach and avoidance is considered an individual difference in
sensitivity to positive or negative outcomes, or what Elliot and Thrash labelled approach or
avoidance temperaments, our use of the constructs in this context focuses on their motiva-
tional implications. Elliot defined approach motivation “as the energization of behavior by,
or the direction of behavior toward, positive stimuli . . . whereas avoidance motivation may
be defined as the energization of behavior by, or the direction of behavior away from, nega-
tive stimuli” (2006: 112). Research has since shown approach and avoidance motivation to
be relatively independent such that individuals high in approach motivation, for example, are
not necessarily low in avoidance motivation and vice versa (Elliot & Thrash).
As shown in Figure 1 and following the view that personality traits constitute distal ante-
cedents of behavior (Barrick & Mount, 2005; Li, Barrick, Zimmerman, & Chiaburu, 2014),
we posit CSE to influence voice behavior through the dual motivational pathways of per-
sonal control and approach/avoidance. We also posit that while these motivational pathways
enhance the probability of successfully engaging in voice behavior, there is still an element
of uncertainty involved. Thus, we posit procedural justice perceptions as a boundary condi-
tion of the role of these pathways in the CSE–voice behavior relationship, consistent with the
950   Journal of Management / March 2017

Figure 1
Hypothesized Model

uncertainty reduction function of justice (Lind & van den Bos, 2002; Takeuchi, Chen, &
Cheung, 2012; van den Bos & Lind, 2002).

CSE and Personal Control

As bottom-line evaluations that individuals hold about themselves, CSE reflect a higher-
order construct comprising the four lower-order traits of self-esteem (worthy of respect and
regard), generalized self-efficacy (belief in one’s capability of solving problems), locus of
control (responsible for what happens to oneself), and emotional stability or low neuroticism
(optimistic and free from doubts and worries). We followed previous research (e.g., Brockner,
Spreitzer, Mishra, Hochwarter, Pepper, & Weinberg, 2004; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008a)
and conceptualized personal control as an additive construct comprising the autonomy and
impact dimensions of psychological empowerment. Autonomy describes the extent to which
employees perceive themselves as having control over their work behavior, while impact
refers to the extent to which employees believe they have control over important outcomes
(Spreitzer, 1995). According to Brockner and colleagues, high personal control exists when
autonomy and impact are both high, suggesting that employees have discretion over their
work behaviors and influence over important work outcomes. The constituent traits of CSE,
such as generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, emotional stability, and self-esteem, reflect
human agency or a predisposition to interact with the environment. This predisposition
enables high-CSE individuals to persist in the face of difficulties or setbacks, feel they can
control their environment or at least outcomes, believe in their capabilities, and feel less
threatened by new or challenging situations (Judge & Hurst, 2007). Since high-CSE indi-
viduals consider themselves as efficacious and are self-confident, they perceive themselves
as having control over their work environment.
Much research has examined personal control as an outcome of organizational practices
designed to give employees opportunities to experience discretion at work, such as job
 Aryee et al. / Core Self-Evaluations and Voice Behavior   951

redesign, (Spreitzer, 1995) or leadership behaviors, such as transformational leadership

(Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003). However, as a perceptual construct, personal control does not
necessarily reflect objective features of the work environment and may have a dispositional
source (Greenberger & Strasser, 1986). We posit that the constituent elements of CSE sug-
gest that high-CSE individuals will have an internal drive to exert control over their work
environment, leading to high levels of personal control. Although we are not aware of
research that has shown CSE to relate to personal control, there is evidence linking CSE to
perceived job complexity (Judge et al., 2000), which entails personal control. Consequently,
we expect CSE to influence personal control.

Hypothesis 1a: CSE will positively relate to personal control.

CSE and Approach/Avoidance Motivation

The sense of agency that defines high-CSE individuals will lead them to demonstrate both
approach and avoidance motives, albeit through different processes. As high-CSE individu-
als are confident in themselves and in their capabilities, they will be energized to take proac-
tive steps to act upon their environment. These attitudinal tendencies will lead high-CSE
individuals to adopt an approach orientation because such an orientation engenders the set-
ting of ambitious goals and, therefore, constitutes a form of self-verification (Elliot, 1999;
Higgins, Friedman, Harlow, Idson, Ayduk, & Taylor, 2001). Furthermore, because high-CSE
individuals are said to focus on the positive features of the work environment, they will per-
ceive more intrinsic job attributes, which dovetails with the autonomy and accomplishment
goals that define an approach motivation (Ferris et al., 2011). Thus, we expect CSE to posi-
tively relate to approach motivation.
In contrast, we expect CSE to negatively relate to avoidance motivation. This is because
while the sense of agency inherent in CSE leads high-CSE individuals to emphasize accom-
plishments and, therefore, the pursuit of positive outcomes (Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller,
2011), avoidance motivation entails security concerns and by implication, a preoccupation
with avoiding negative outcomes. Such an orientation (avoidance motivation) is inconsistent
with the self-verification information that high-CSE individuals desire. In support of our
arguments, Ferris and colleagues (Ferris et al., 2011; Ferris et al., 2013) reported CSE to
relate positively to approach motivation and negatively to avoidance motivation. Thus, we
propose the following:

Hypothesis 1b: CSE will positively relate to approach motivation.

Hypothesis 1c: CSE will negatively relate to avoidance motivation.

Mediating Influence of Personal Control

Although much research has now shown CSE to relate to employee performance (Chang
et al., 2012; Ferris et al., 2011; Judge, Erez, & Bono, 1998), as previously noted, it (perfor-
mance) has been defined primarily in terms of task performance, global organizational citi-
zenship behavior (which combines interpersonally and organizationally directed
organizational citizenship behavior), counterproductive work behavior (Chang et al.), and
overall performance (Kacmar et al., 2009). As a “promotive behavior that emphasizes
952   Journal of Management / March 2017

expression of constructive challenge intended to improve rather than merely criticize” the
status quo (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998: 109), voice behavior implies a change-oriented
behavior that aims at suggesting improvements and, therefore, constitutes a form of assertive
nonconformance that can often disrupt or alter an organization’s status quo (Morrison et al.,
2011). Tangirala and Ramanujam (2008a) observed that the challenge-oriented nature of
voice behavior requires that individuals who engage in voice behavior must have a motiva-
tion to exercise control. High-CSE individuals are characterized by a sense of agency, which
should motivate them to engage in voice behavior. However, following the view of disposi-
tions as distal antecedents of behavior (Barrick & Mount, 2005; Li et al., 2014), we posit
CSE as relating to voice behavior indirectly through personal control.
Personal control has been shown to relate to employee performance (Greenberger,
Strasser, & Lee, 1988; Spector, 1986) and to voice behavior (Tangirala & Ramanujam,
2008a). As a constructive challenge to the status quo, voice behavior involves risk taking
(LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Takeuchi et al, 2012; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2012) because it
entails pointing out areas for improvement to those who may have devised, be responsible
for, or feel personally attached to the status quo regarding the program or policy at hand
(Detert & Burris, 2007). For this reason, the decision to engage in voice behavior may be
considered a planned behavior (Liang et al., 2012) requiring employees to cognitively assess
the costs and benefits of engaging in such a behavior. Accordingly, employees will be moti-
vated to engage in voice behavior only when they are confident of the expectancy of success-
fully engaging in this behavior (Ashford, Rothbard, Piderit, & Dutton, 1998; Morrison,
2011). Inherent in this expectancy of successfully engaging in voice behavior is the personal
control that individuals believe themselves to possess, which motivates them to initiate
action. Furthermore, because personal control fosters a sense of self-determination and
autonomy, individuals high in personal control will initiate action to craft their jobs more
broadly, which may encompass voice behavior. As a result, engaging in voice behavior
enables such individuals to ensure consistency between their self-concept as having auton-
omy and making an impact at work and their actual behavior (Korman, 1970).
From a control-based perspective, personal control enables high-CSE employees to imple-
ment their self-concept in terms of making suggestions for improvement. Although personal
control has been shown to have a curvilinear relationship with voice behavior (Tangirala &
Ramanujam, 2008a), we treated CSE as a distal antecedent (Barrick & Mount, 2005; Li et al.,
2014) that operates through the underlying psychological mechanism of personal control to
influence voice behavior.

Hypothesis 2: Personal control will mediate the CSE–voice behavior relationship.

Mediating Influence of Approach/Avoidance Motivation

Consistent with personality theorists’ view that personality relates to performance out-
comes through proximal motivational pathways (Barrick & Mount, 2005; Higgins, 2005;
Lanaj, Chang, & Johnson, 2012; Li et al., 2014) is our assertion that approach/avoidance
motivation constitutes a framework for accounting for the influence of CSE on voice behavior
(Ferris et al., 2011). However, we posit that the CSE–voice behavior relationship will be
accounted for by an approach rather than an avoidance motivation. As voice behavior entails
challenging the status quo and, therefore, is oriented toward improving organizational
 Aryee et al. / Core Self-Evaluations and Voice Behavior   953

processes, engaging in this form of workplace behavior requires employees who are focused
on positive outcomes, such as engendered by approach motivation. Furthermore, employees
high in approach motivation are likely to be open-minded and will explore ways to improve
organizational processes, leading them to engage in voice behavior as a way of seeking growth
(cf. Neubert, Kacmar, Carlson, Chonko, & Roberts, 2008). In contrast, because avoidance
motivation entails a focus on security needs and prevention of negative outcomes, individuals
high in this motive will tend to work diligently to accomplish their prescribed roles and duties.
As voice behavior challenges the status quo, individuals high in avoidance motivation
who by definition have a tendency to act cautiously will be discouraged from engaging in
voice behavior because of the threat to their job security and other potentially negative out-
comes. Furthermore, such individuals may have internalized organizational behavioral
expectations and are therefore unlikely to challenge the status quo (Lanaj et al., 2012). As
Lanaj and colleagues observed, individuals high in prevention focus (which is conceptually
similar to avoidance motivation) tend to be risk averse and more comfortable with following
established rules and standards (2012: 1025). Thus, we expect avoidance motivation to be
unrelated (or negatively related) to voice behavior. Although research has yet to examine the
influence of approach and avoidance motivation on voice behavior, there is evidence that
approach and not avoidance motivation relates to extrarole behaviors such as innovative
performance and organizational citizenship behavior (Lanaj et al.) as well as creative behav-
ior (Neubert et al., 2008).
In summary, consistent with the extant research relating CSE to employee performance
(Chang et al., 2012; Ferris et al., 2011; Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2011; Neubert et al.,
2008), the expectation is for CSE to relate to voice behavior. However, as a personality con-
struct, CSE represent a distal antecedent and, therefore, influence voice behavior indirectly
through approach rather than avoidance motivation.

Hypothesis 3: Approach motivation will mediate the CSE–voice behavior relationship.

Moderating Influence of Procedural Justice Perceptions

Procedural justice perceptions describe the fairness of the policies and procedures used in
the allocation process to achieve work outcomes (Lind & Tyler, 1988). Thibaut and Walker
(1975) distinguished between decision control (amount of control over an outcome) and
process control (amount of control over procedures used to settle a grievance) and empha-
sized the importance of the latter. Building on this initial formulation, Leventhal (1980) high-
lighted the importance of process control in allocation contexts and noted that procedures
that ensure consistency of decisions, bias suppression, and correctability contribute to proce-
dural justice perceptions. Grounded in a self-interest view, the process control inherent in
procedural justice perceptions suggests that employees prefer procedures that maximize their
personal outcomes, and control constitutes a vehicle for attaining this objective (Lind &
Tyler). Indeed, Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, and Rupp (2001) posit that justice matters
because it serves the human need for control. This view dovetails with uncertainty manage-
ment theory’s proposition that justice helps to manage uncertainty, including the feeling of
not being in control (Lind & van den Bos, 2002; van den Bos & Lind, 2002).
As shown in Figure 1, we posit that the effect of CSE on voice behavior is mediated
through the interaction of personal control and procedural justice perceptions, which is
954   Journal of Management / March 2017

consistent with a control-based explanation of voice behavior. A high level of procedural

justice perceptions suggests that one has control over decisional processes and enhances
one’s expectancy of success in engaging in voice behavior. This is because voice behavior
entails a fair amount of risk as it involves challenging the status quo, engendering the possi-
bility of reprisals from authority figures who might have designed and, therefore, have a
vested interest in maintaining the status quo (Burris, 2012). The augmenting influence of
procedural justice perceptions on the influence of personal control will be particularly critical
in assuring employees that there will be no reprisals and, therefore, enhancing the expectancy
of successfully executing voice behavior. In such a context, the personal control engendered
by CSE will motivate employees high in personal control to engage in voice behavior. In
contrast, low procedural justice perceptions signal adverse consequences when employees
engage in voice behavior. In such a nonfacilitative context, the personal control engendered
by CSE will not motivate employees to engage in voice behavior. In support of the preceding
argument, researchers have demonstrated a moderating influence of procedural justice per-
ceptions (Takeuchi et al., 2012) as well as procedural justice climate (Tangirala & Ramanujam,
2008b) in voice behavior research.

Hypothesis 4a: Procedural justice perceptions will moderate the strength of the mediated relation-
ship between CSE and voice behavior through personal control such that the mediated relation-
ship is stronger when procedural justice perceptions are high but not low.

Similarly, we expect the indirect influence of CSE on voice behavior through approach
motivation to be moderated by procedural justice perceptions. In accounting for the inability
of approach motivation to explain the influence of CSE on the performance outcomes they
examined, Ferris and colleagues speculated that the “beneficial effects of approach con-
structs are contingent upon incentives or rewards that activate approach tendencies” (2011:
156). One such contingency examined in this study is procedural justice perceptions.
Perceptions of procedural justice signal to employees that engaging in voice behavior will
not result in their being unfairly penalized or will not have adverse consequences. Thus,
while approach motivation engendered by CSE will lead employees to engage in voice
behavior, this is conditional on procedural justice perceptions. Given the inherently risky
nature of engaging in voice behavior, when procedural justice perceptions are high, they
signal an assurance that engaging in voice behavior will not have adverse personal conse-
quences, thereby leading individuals high in approach motivation to engage in voice behav-
ior. In contrast, low procedural justice perceptions suggest a possibility of adverse personal
consequences for engaging in voice behavior. Thus, in such a nonfacilitative context, the
approach motivation engendered by CSE will not lead to voice behavior.

Hypothesis 4b: Procedural justice perceptions will moderate the strength of the mediated relation-
ship between CSE and voice behavior through approach motivation such that the mediated rela-
tionship is stronger when procedural justice perceptions are high but not low.

Method
Sample and Data Collection
We obtained data for this study from supervisor-subordinate dyads in 15 organizations in
two northeastern provinces in the People’s Republic of China. Of these organizations, 10
 Aryee et al. / Core Self-Evaluations and Voice Behavior   955

were in the service sector while the remaining 5 were in manufacturing. Respondents were
employed in customer contact roles. A human resource officer in each of the participating
organizations who served as a research coordinator prepared a list of employees in customer
contact roles from which we randomly selected respondents. Two research assistants work-
ing with one of the authors distributed questionnaires to respondents during working hours,
and completed questionnaires were directly returned to the research team. Respondents were
then asked to indicate the names of their supervisors to whom separate questionnaires were
sent requesting them to provide their demographic details and rate the performance (voice
behavior) of their subordinate. Each supervisor rated the voice behavior of a single subordi-
nate. Supervisors sent their completed questionnaires to the human resource officer coordi-
nating the survey in their respective organizations.
Of the 350 questionnaires distributed, 276 usable subordinate-supervisor dyads were
returned yielding an approximately 79% response rate. Of the subordinates, 49% were
female, with a mean age of 34.42 years (SD = 9.71) and a mean level of education of 13.58
years (SD = 2.78). Of the supervisors, 63% were male, with a mean age of 42.03 years (SD =
9.71) and a mean level of education of 13.19 years (SD = 2.50).

Measures
Questionnaires were administered in Chinese using Brislin’s (1980) back-translation pro-
cedure to translate the original English-language version. We subsequently pilot tested the
Chinese version using 30 employees of one of the participating organizations who were not
involved in the study. On the basis of the feedback from the pilot study, we reworded a few
items to ensure clarity. Unless otherwise indicated, response options ranged from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

CSE.  We used Judge, Erez, Bono, and Thoresen’s (2003) 12-item scale to measure CSE.
Sample items are “I am capable of coping with most problems,” “I have confidence in my
competence or ability,” and “I rarely feel depressed.” The scale’s alpha reliability in this
study is .79.

Personal control. We used a six-item scale that combines the impact and autonomy
dimensions of Spreitzer’s (1995) psychological empowerment scale and that was used by
Tangirala and Ramanujam (2008a) to measure personal control. Sample items are “I have
significant autonomy or control in determining how I do my job” and “My impact on what
happens in my department is large.” The scale’s alpha reliability in this study is .85.

Approach/avoidance motives.  We used Johnson, Chang, Meyer, Lanaj, and Way’s (2013)
12-item scale to measure approach/avoidance motivation. Sample items are “My goal at
work is to fulfill my potential to the fullest in my job” and “I am focused on failure experi-
ences that occur at work while working.” The alpha reliabilities for the 6-item approach
motivation scale and the 6-item avoidance motivation scale are .82 and .86, respectively.

Procedural justice perceptions.  We used a six-item abbreviated version of Niehoff and

Moorman’s (1993) scale to measure procedural justice perceptions. Sample items are “My
present organization has procedures designed to provide opportunities to appeal or challenge
956   Journal of Management / March 2017

a decision” and “My present organization has procedures to provide useful feedback regard-
ing a decision and its implementation.” The scale’s alpha reliability in this study is .87.

Voice behavior.  We used Liang and colleagues’ (2012) five-item promotive voice scale
to measure voice behavior. Supervisors rated the frequency with which their subordinate
engaged in each of these behaviors. Response options ranged from 1 (almost never) to 5
(almost always). Following the stem “This particular subordinate . . . ,” supervisors indicated
the frequency with which a respondent “develops and makes suggestions for issues that may
influence the work group” and “makes suggestions to improve this work unit’s working pro-
cedures.” The scale’s alpha reliability in this study is .91.

Control.  We controlled for work engagement, which we measured with a six-item scale
adapted from Rich, LePine, and Crawford’s (2010) measure of work engagement. We used
two items from each of the three dimensions (physical, emotional, and cognitive) of the con-
struct. The scale’s alpha reliability in this study is .88.

Analytic Strategy
We used structural equation modeling with AMOS maximum likelihood procedure
(Byrne, 2010) to test Hypotheses 1 through 3. To test for mediation, we first examined the
significance and direction of all paths in the best-fitting structural model and then followed
the Rmediation procedure developed by Tofighi and MacKinnon (2011) that computes con-
fidence intervals (CIs) for mediated effects to confirm whether the indirect effects reported
are indeed significant. To test the moderated mediation proposed in Hypothesis 4 (Muller,
Judd, & Yzerbyt, 2005; Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007), we examined four situations: (a)
significant effect of CSE on voice behavior; (b) significant interaction between CSE and
procedural justice perceptions in predicting the psychological pathways of personal control
and approach motivation, and significant interactions between these psychological pathways
and procedural justice perceptions in predicting voice behavior; (c) significant effect of per-
sonal control and approach motivation on voice behavior; and (d) different conditional indi-
rect effect of CSE on voice behavior through personal control and approach motivation
across low and high levels of procedural justice perceptions. The last situation, which is the
core of moderated mediation, establishes whether the strength of the mediation through per-
sonal control and approach motivation differs across the two levels of the moderator (Preacher
et al.). We used Preacher and colleagues’ MODMED program to test the moderated indirect
effects and operationalized high and low levels of procedural justice perceptions as 1 SD
above and below the mean score.

Results
Table 1 shows the correlations and descriptive statistics among the study variables.

Confirmatory Factor Analyses

We conducted a series of confirmatory factor analyses using AMOS maximum likelihood
to examine whether CSE, personal control, approach motivation, avoidance motivation, and
perceptions of procedural justice (we included the control variable of work engagement in all
 Aryee et al. / Core Self-Evaluations and Voice Behavior   957

Table 1
Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 M SD

1.  Work engagement .88 4.07 0.58

2.  Personal control .41** .85 3.41 0.66
3.  Core self-evaluations .50** .53** .79 3.52 0.43
4.  Procedural justice perceptions .47** .42** .44** .87 3.47 0.58
5.  Approach motivation .01 .18** .32** .24** .82 3.20 0.85
6.  Avoidance motivation −.59** −.40** −.52** −.54** −.32** .86 2.85 0.79
7.  Voice behavior .26** .29** .23** .10 .30** −.23** .91 3.00 0.78

Note: N = 276. The internal reliability (alpha) coefficients are shown on the diagonal.
**p < .01 (two-tailed).

the analyses), all of which were collected from the same source (direct reports), captured
distinct constructs. To do this, we randomly created four parcels of items for CSE and two
parcels of items each for work engagement, procedural justice perceptions, personal control,
approach motivation, avoidance motivation, and voice behavior. We used this procedure
because it minimizes the extent to which the indicators of each construct share variance and
because it has the ability to generate more stable parameter estimates (Robert, Probst,
Martocchio, Drasgow, & Lawler, 2000).
Results show that the seven-factor model fit the data well (χ2 = 180.90, df = 83, p < .01,
Tucker-Lewis index [TLI] = .95, comparative fit index [CFI] = .96, root mean residual
[RMR] = .022, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .065). As shown in
Table 2, relative to the hypothesized seven-factor model, all alternative models fit the data
significantly worse. For example, relative to the seven-factor model, a one-factor model,
where all indicators load onto one factor, showed a poor fit to the data (χ2 = 1,481.45, df =
104, Δχ2 = 1,300.55[21], p < .01, TLI = .42, CFI = .509, RMR = .079, RMSEA = .219).
Similarly, a six-factor model where CSE and avoidance motivation indicators are combined
to load onto one factor showed a poor fit to the data (χ2 = 376.53, df = 89, Δχ2 = 195.63[6],
p < .01, TLI = .86, CFI = .90, RMR = .029, RMSEA = .108). Taken together, these results
support the distinctiveness of the measures of CSE, procedural justice perceptions, personal
control, approach motivation, and avoidance motivation as well as voice behavior.

Hypothesis Testing
Hypotheses 1a, 1b, and 1c suggested that CSE would be positively related to personal
control (Hypothesis 1a) and approach motivation (Hypothesis 1b) but negatively related to
avoidance approach (Hypothesis 1c). Hypothesis 2 posited that personal control would medi-
ate the CSE–voice behavior relationship, whereas Hypothesis 3 posited that approach moti-
vation would mediate the CSE–voice behavior relationship. Before testing these hypotheses,
we first compared two competing models. The first model was our hypothesized parsimoni-
ous structural mediated model. This model was compared to a fully saturated model in which
we added a direct path from CSE to voice behavior. We used the same parcels used in the
measurement model above and with work engagement as a control variable.
958   Journal of Management / March 2017

Table 2
Comparison of Measurement Models

Models χ2 df Δχ2 TLI CFI RMR RMSEA

7-factor model (including work engagement 180.90 83 .95 .96 .02 .07
as control)
6-factor Model 1 (combining PC & APM) 517.46 89 336.56** .79 .84 .06 .13
6-factor Model 2 (combining PC & AVM) 442.87 89 261.97** .83 .87 .04 .12
6-factor Model 3 (combining PC & CSE) 336.77 89 155.87** .88 .91 .03 .10
6-factor Model 4 (combining APM & AVM) 414.85 89 233.95** .84 .88 .06 .12
6-factor Model 5 (combining CSE & APM) 407.62 89 226.72** .84 .88 .05 .11
6-factor Model 6 (combining CSE & AVM) 376.53 89 195.63** .86 .90 .03 .11
5-factor Model 1 (combining CSE, PC, & 566.46 94 385.76** .78 .83 .06 .14
APM)
5-factor Model 2 (combining CSE, APM, 601.95 94 421.05** .76 .82 .06 .14
& AVM)
4-factor model (combining CSE, PC, APM, 774.03 98 593.03** .70 .75 .06 .16
& AVM)
2-factor model (combining CSE, PC, PJP, 1,165.04 103 984.14** .55 .61 .07 .19
APM, AVM, & WE)
1-factor model (combining CSE, PC, PJP, 1,481.45 104 1,300.55** .42 .50 .08 .22
APM, AVM, WE, & VB)

Note: N = 276. TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMR = root mean residual; RMSEA =
root mean square error of approximation; PC = personal control; APM = approach motivation; AVM = avoidance
motivation; CSE = core self-evaluations; PJP = procedural justice perceptions; WE = work engagement; VB = voice
behavior.
**p < .01.

Results shown in Figure 2 suggest that the more parsimonious structural mediated model
provided a good fit to the data (χ2 = 238.56, df = 69, p < .01, TLI = .90, CFI = .93, RMR =
.039, RMSEA = .095). Compared to the second model shown in Figure 3, where we added a
direct path from CSE to voice behavior, we found that the fit statistics were almost identical
to that of the model shown in Figure 2 (χ2 = 237.88, df = 68, p < .01, TLI = .90, CFI = .93,
RMR = .039, RMSEA = .095), with the difference in fit nonsignificant (χ2[1] = 0.68).
However, the added direct path from CSE to voice behavior was nonsignificant (β = −0.12,
n.s.). Under rules of model parsimony, we retained the model shown in Figure 2 because it is
more parsimonious and used it to test Hypotheses 1 through 3.
Results shown in Figure 2 indicate that CSE significantly positively relate to personal
control (β = 0.65, p < .01) and approach motivation (β = 0.40, p < .01) but negatively to
avoidance motivation (β = −0.70, p < .01). These results provide support for Hypotheses 1a,
1b, and 1c. Results shown in Figure 2 also suggest that both personal control (β = 0.17, p <
.05) and approach motivation (β = 0.27, p < .01) significantly relate to voice behavior. Taken
together, with results reported for Hypotheses 1a and 1b, these results suggested a mediated
relationship.
Using the Rmediation procedure (Tofighi & MacKinnon, 2011) to test for mediation pro-
posed in Hypotheses 2 and 3, we found that the 95% CI for personal control in the CSE–voice
behavior relationship lies between 0.03 and 0.41, whereas the 95% CI for approach motiva-
tion in the CSE–voice behavior relationship lies between 0.09 and 0.35. Because 0 is not
 Aryee et al. / Core Self-Evaluations and Voice Behavior   959

Figure 2
Structural Equation Modeling Results

Note: N = 276. Work engagement is a control variable.

*p < .05 (two-tailed test).
**p < .01 (two-tailed test).

Figure 3
Alternative Model: One Path Added

Note: N = 276. Work engagement is a control variable.

*p < .05 (two-tailed test).
**p < .01 (two-tailed test).

contained in the 95% CI, we concluded that the indirect effects reported in Figure 2 are
indeed significantly different from 0 (p < .01, two-tailed). These results provide support for
Hypotheses 2 and 3.
Hypothesis 4a posited that procedural justice perceptions would moderate the indirect
effect between CSE and voice behavior through personal control, such that the indirect effect
would be stronger when procedural justice perceptions are high but not low, whereas
Hypothesis 4b posited that procedural justice perceptions would moderate the indirect effect
between CSE and voice behavior through approach motivation, such that the indirect effect
960   Journal of Management / March 2017

Table 3
Moderated Mediated Results for Core Self-Evaluations Across Levels of Procedural
Justice Perceptions

Conditional
Mediator Level Indirect Effects SE z p LLCI ULCI

Personal Control Low 0.15 0.07 2.25 .02 .02 .28

High 0.22 0.08 2.80 .00 .07 .38
Approach Motivation Low 0.06 0.07 0.90 .37 −.08 .20
High 0.32 0.08 4.18 .00 .17 .46

Note: N = 276. Effect size estimates are unstandardized coefficients. Moderator values are the mean and ±1 SD.
LLCI = bias corrected lower limit 95% confidence interval; ULCI = bias corrected upper limit 95% confidence
interval.

would be stronger when procedural justice perceptions are high but not low. As already dis-
cussed above, moderated mediation would be demonstrated when the conditional indirect
effect of CSE on voice behavior through personal control and approach motivation differs in
strength across high and low levels of procedural justice perceptions.
Our correlation table shows that CSE are significantly related to voice behavior, providing
support for Condition 1 for moderated mediation. To test for Condition 2, we first examined
whether the interaction of CSE with procedural justice perceptions was significant in predict-
ing personal control and approach motivation, respectively. We mean centered the product
terms (Aiken & West, 1991) and controlled for work engagement. Results of the moderated
regressions showed that the interaction term was significantly related to personal control
(β = 0.14, p < .01) and approach motivation (β = 0.16, p < .01). We then tested whether the
interaction of personal control and approach motivation, respectively, with procedural justice
perceptions were significantly related to voice behavior controlling for work engagement
and CSE. Moderated regression results showed that the interaction term of approach motiva-
tion and procedural justice perceptions in predicting voice behavior was significant (β = 0.16,
p < .01), whereas the interaction term of personal control and procedural justice perceptions
was nonsignificant (β = −0.00, n.s.). Taken together, Condition 2 was satisfied for approach
motivation with procedural justice perceptions but not entirely for personal control because
procedural justice perceptions did not interact with personal control to affect voice behavior.
Condition 3 was supported by our results shown in Figure 2, where we show that both per-
sonal control and approach motivation are positively related to voice behavior.
To verify whether moderated mediation relationships indeed are present, we examined
Condition 4, which requires the magnitude of the conditional indirect effect of CSE through
personal control and approach motivation, respectively, to be different across high and low
levels of procedural justice perceptions, using Preacher and colleagues’ (2007) MODMED
program. Table 3 shows the results.
In testing Condition 4 for Hypothesis 4a, we found that the indirect effect of CSE via
personal control on voice behavior is stronger when procedural justice perceptions are high
(b = 0.22, SE = 0.08, p < .01; indirect effect range: 0.07 to 0.38) than when procedural justice
perceptions are low (b = 0.15, SE = 0.07, n.s.; indirect effect range: 0.02 to 0.28). These
results suggest that although we did not find evidence for the interaction term of personal
 Aryee et al. / Core Self-Evaluations and Voice Behavior   961

control and procedural justice perceptions in predicting voice behavior, the statistical signifi-
cance tests appear to indicate that procedural justice perceptions moderate the strength of the
mediated relationship between CSE via personal control such that the mediated relationship
is stronger under high procedural justice perceptions than under low procedural justice per-
ceptions. Regarding Hypothesis 4b, we also found that the indirect effect of CSE via approach
motivation on voice behavior is stronger when procedural justice perceptions are high (b =
0.32, SE = 0.08, p < .01; indirect effect range: 0.16 to 0.46) than when procedural justice
perceptions are low (b = 0.06, SE = 0.07, n.s.; indirect effect range: –0.08 to 0.20). These
results provided support for Hypothesis 4b.

Discussion
We proposed and examined a moderated mediation model of the processes through which
CSE influence voice behavior. As predicted, our findings revealed that CSE indirectly related
to voice behavior through personal control and approach motivation but not through avoid-
ance motivation. Furthermore, and consistent with our predictions, results showed that pro-
cedural justice perceptions enhanced the strength of the indirect influence of CSE on voice
behavior through both personal control and approach motivation such that these relationships
are stronger when procedural justice perceptions are high but not low. Support for our moder-
ated mediation model suggests a number of implications, which we discuss below.

Theoretical Implications
Although personality has been shown to influence proactive behaviors, such as voice,
(LePine & Van Dyne, 2001; Morrison, 2011), research has yet to examine CSE, a disposi-
tional construct that underpins an employee’s sense of agency, as an antecedent of voice
behavior. Grounded in a control-based explanation and an approach/avoidance framework,
we examined not only the relationship between CSE and voice behavior but also the utility
of these psychological pathways in accounting for this relationship. The indirect influence of
CSE on voice behavior that we demonstrated underscores the utility of these explanations.
Given that a control-based explanation has previously been shown to influence the personal
control–voice relationship, albeit in a curvilinear fashion (Tangirala & Ramunajam, 2008a),
our finding that the influence of CSE on voice behavior can also be explained in terms of the
approach motivation component of the approach/avoidance framework extends our under-
standing of why CSE relate to work-related behaviors. Support for the two psychological
pathways underpins the expectation of success that a sense of agency engenders in influenc-
ing a proactive behavior such as voice. Our findings pertaining to the utility of the approach
component of the approach/avoidance framework in accounting for voice behavior validates
Ferris and colleagues’ (2011) call for research on the work outcomes of CSE to be grounded
in this framework.
Our results revealed that CSE related positively to approach motivation but negatively to
avoidance motivation (Ferris et al., 2011) and positively to personal control. Much of the
research on personal control has focused on leadership and task antecedents of the construct
(Greenberger et al., 1989; Greenberger & Strasser, 1986; Spector, 1986). Consequently, our
focus on an individual or dispositional antecedent of personal control adds to our understand-
ing of the sources of the construct. This finding extends Tangirala and Ramanujam’s (2008a)
962   Journal of Management / March 2017

finding by highlighting a personality antecedent of personal control and, therefore, under-

scores the importance of an internally driven sense of personal agency in shaping one’s sense
of being impactful and self-determining in the context of work. Our replication of Ferris and
colleagues’ finding regarding the relationship between CSE and approach/avoidance motiva-
tion in a Chinese context provides initial evidence of the generalizability of the sense of
agency inherent in this construct and the resulting motivational implications.
Our findings further revealed that procedural justice perceptions enhanced the mediated
influence of both personal control and approach motivation on the CSE–voice behavior rela-
tionship. The moderating influence of procedural justice perceptions suggests that fair
decision-making structures augment high–personal control employees’ sense of being
impactful and self-determining as well as high–approach motivation employees’ focus on
positive outcomes, thereby enhancing the expectancy of successfully engaging in voice
behavior. While previous research has examined procedural justice perceptions as a modera-
tor of the other facets of justice on voice behavior (Takeuchi et al., 2012), this finding high-
lights the tantalizing possibility that procedural justice perceptions operate in a way akin to
psychological safety perceptions, at least for employees high in personal control and approach
motivation. This is because both constructs lower employee concerns about the adverse con-
sequences of voice behavior, thereby enhancing the expectancy of successfully engaging in
voice behavior. The moderating role of procedural justice perceptions in the mediated influ-
ence of approach motivation in the CSE–voice behavior relationship reinforces Ferris and
colleagues’ (2011: 156) suggestion that research should incorporate situational/contextual
contingencies into the approach/avoidance framework, as these contingencies activate
approach tendencies.

Practical Implications
Our findings provide actionable knowledge that organizations can leverage to promote
voice behavior. First, while much research has examined situational or contextual anteced-
ents of personal control (Greenberger et al., 1989), our finding that CSE influence percep-
tions of personal control and, as in prior research (e.g., Ferris et al., 2011), approach
motivation, suggests a dispositional basis to these motivational pathways. Although we
encourage organizations to foster the development of personal control (and potentially
approach motivation) through job redesign, leadership development, and empowerment pro-
grams, our findings suggest a role for selection based on CSE as a source of personal control
and approach motivation. The increasingly dynamic business conditions and the need to
source improvement-oriented ideas from all levels of the organization make CSE a particu-
larly valuable personality trait. Second, the moderating influence of procedural justice per-
ceptions on the mediated influence of CSE on voice behavior through the psychological
pathways of personal control and approach motivation suggests a need for organizations to
foster facilitative conditions that enhance employees’ sense of agency and, thereby, the
expectancy of successfully engaging in voice behavior. This is necessary if organizations are
to tap into employee suggestions, concerns, and ideas about work-related issues and leverage
them to promote improvement opportunities. Although we examined only procedural justice
perceptions (Takeuchi et al., 2012), organizations must focus on promoting a procedural
justice climate because as an important feature of the social context, it provides cues about
the behaviors expected of employees (Naumann & Bennett, 2000; Tangirala & Ramanujam,
 Aryee et al. / Core Self-Evaluations and Voice Behavior   963

2008b). This can be done through training of leaders in procedural justice rules and ensuring
human resource policies and practices meet the conditions of bias suppression, correctability,
and consistency (Leventhal, 1980).

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Our findings must be interpreted against a background of the study’s limitations. First, the
cross-sectional research design precludes any inferences of causality. Future research that
adopts a longitudinal design may be better placed to ascertain the causal basis of the relation-
ships we reported. Second, although our study provides initial evidence regarding voice
behavior as a performance outcome of CSE, we examined promotive and not prohibitive
voice (expression of concern about existing work-related issues), which has been shown to
exist in China (Liang et al., 2012). Future research should examine the processes linking CSE
to these two forms of voice behavior. Third, we did not examine the boundary conditions of
the influence of CSE on personal control and approach/avoidance motivation. Future research
should examine the influence of theoretically informed contextual variables, such as empow-
ering leadership and organizational structure, that augment the influence of CSE on personal
control as well as approach/avoidance motivation. Fourth, we did not address the issue of
construct validity, which has emerged as one stream of CSE research (Johnson, Rosen, &
Levy, 2008; Judge et al., 2004). Future research, particularly in a Chinese context, should
ascertain the validity of the construct. Lastly, our study examined an individual-level model
of the processes through which CSE relate to voice behavior. Given that this behavior takes
place in an organizational context, future research should examine a cross-level model in
which unit/organizational-level factors activate approach (personal control) tendencies lead-
ing to voice behavior and its personal and organizational outcomes.

Conclusion
We sought to examine the processes through which CSE influence voice behavior of
employees in customer contact roles. Our findings revealed that CSE related to voice behav-
ior directly and indirectly through the motivational pathways of personal control and approach
motivation but not avoidance motivation. Furthermore, procedural justice perceptions
enhanced the mediated influence of personal control and approach motivation on the CSE–
voice behavior relationship such that these relationships are stronger when procedural justice
perceptions are high but not low. In general, our findings revealed support for our proposed
moderated mediation model, thereby reinforcing the notion that personality traits matter at
work. Consequently, efforts to understand work-related behaviors, particularly of the proac-
tive type, should focus on investigating theoretically grounded mediators (as well as modera-
tors) of the personality–work-related behavior relationship.

References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. 1978. Organizational learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ashford, S. J., Rothbard, N. P., Piderit, S. K., & Dutton, J. E. 1998. Out on a limb: The role of context and impres-
sion management in selling gender-equity issues. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 23-57.
964   Journal of Management / March 2017

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. 2005. Yes, personality matters: Moving on to more important matters. Human
Performance, 18: 359-372.
Brislin, R. W. 1980. Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry
(Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: 389-444. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Brockner, J., Spreitzer, G., Mishra, A., Hochwarter, W., Pepper, L., & Weinberg, J. 2004. Perceived control as
an antidote to the negative effects of layoffs on survivors’ organizational commitment and job performance.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 49: 76-88.
Burris, E. R. 2012. The risks and rewards of speaking up: Managerial responses to employee voice. Academy of
Management Journal, 55: 851-875.
Byrne, B. M. 2010. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd
ed.). New York: Routledge.
Chang, C. H., Ferris, D. L., Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Tan, J. A. 2012. Core self-evaluations: A review and
evaluation of the literature. Journal of Management, 38: 81-128. doi:10.1177/0149206311419661
Crant, J. M. 2000. Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26: 435-462.
Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. 2001. Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities,
and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58: 164-209.
DeCharms, R. 1968. Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of behavior. New York: Academic
Press.
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. 2007. Leadership influences on employee voice behavior: Is the door really open?
Academy of Management Journal, 50: 869-884.
Elliot, A. J. 1999. Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34:
149-169.
Elliot, A. J. 2006. The hierarchical model of approach-avoidance motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 30: 111-116.
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. 2002. Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: Approach and avoidance tem-
peraments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76: 628-644.
Ferris, D. L., Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., Djurdjevic, E., Chang, C. H., & Tan, J. A. 2013. When is success not
satisfying? Integrating regulatory focus and approach/avoidance motivation theories to explain the relation
between core self-evaluation and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98: 342-353. doi:10.1037/
a0029776
Ferris, D. L., Rosen, C. R., Johnson, R. E., Brown, D. J., Risavy, S. D., & Heller, D. 2011. Approach or avoidance
(or both)? Integrating core self-evaluations within an approach/avoidance framework. Personnel Psychology,
64: 137-161.
Folkman, S. 1984. Personal control and stress and coping processes: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 46: 839-852.
Frazier, L. M., & Bowler, W. M. 2015. Voice climate, supervisor undermining, and work outcomes: A group-level
examination. Journal of Management, 41: 841-863.
Ganster, D. C., Fox, M. L., & Dwyer, D. J. 2001. Explaining employee health care costs: A prospective examina-
tion of stressful job demands, personal control, and physiological reactivity. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86: 954-964.
Grant, A. M., & Wrzesniewski, A. 2010. I won’t let you down . . . or will I? Core self-evaluations, other-orientation,
anticipated guilt and gratitude, and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95: 108-121.
Greenberger, D. B., & Strasser, S. 1986. The development and application of a model of personal control in organi-
zations. Academy of Management Review, 11: 164-177.
Greenberger, D. B., Strasser, S., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. 1989. The impact of personal control on per-
formance and satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43: 29-51.
Greenberger, D. B., Strasser, S., & Lee, S. 1988. Personal control as a mediator between perceptions of supervisory
behaviors and employee reactions. Academy of Management Journal, 31: 405-417.
Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. 2007. A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncer-
tain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 327-347.
Higgins, E. T. 1998. Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 30: 1-46. New York: Academic Press.
Higgins, E. T. 2005. Value from regulatory fit. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14: 209-213.
Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., & Taylor, A. 2001. Achievement ori-
entations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 31: 3-23.
 Aryee et al. / Core Self-Evaluations and Voice Behavior   965

Janssen, O., & Gao, L. 2015. Supervisory responsiveness and employee self-perceived status and voice behavior.
Journal of Management, 41: 1854-1872.
Johnson, R. E., Chang, C. H., Meyer, T., Lanaj, K., & Way, J. 2013. Approaching success or avoiding failure?
Approach and avoidance motives in the work domain. European Journal of Personality, 27: 424-441.
Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Levy, P. E. 2008. Getting to the core of core self-evaluations: A review and recom-
mendation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29: 391-413.
Judge, T. A, Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. 2000. Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of job character-
istics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 237-249.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., & Bono, J. E. 1998. The power of being positive: The relationship between positive self-
concept and job performance. Human Performance, 11: 167-187.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. 2003. The Core Self-Evaluations Scale (CSES): Development
of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56: 303-331.
Judge, T. A., & Hurst, C. 2007. Capitalizing on one’s advantages: Role of core self-evaluations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92: 1212-1227.
Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. 2011. Implications of core self-evaluations for a changing organizational
context. Human Resource Management Review, 21: 331-341.
Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. 1998. Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction:
The role of core self-evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 17-34.
Judge, T. A., Van Vianen, A. E. M., & De Pater, I. E. 2004. Emotional stability, core self-evaluations, and job
outcomes: A review of the evidence and an agenda for future research. Human Performance, 17: 325-346.
Kacmar, K. M., Collins, B. J., Harris, K. J., & Judge, T. A. 2009. Core self-evaluations and job performance: The
role of the perceived work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 1572-1580.
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. 2003. Two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 246-255.
Klaas, B. S., Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & Ward, A. K. 2012. The determinants of alternative forms of workplace voice:
An integrative perspective. Journal of Management, 38: 314-345. doi:10.1177/0149206311423823
Korman, A. K. 1970. Toward an hypothesis of work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54: 31-41.
Lam, C. F., & Mayer, D. M. in press. When do employees speak up for their customers? A model of voice in a
customer service context. Personnel Psychology. doi:10.111/peps.12050
Lanaj, K., Chang, C. H., & Johnson, R. E. 2012. Regulatory focus and work-related outcomes: A review and meta-
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138: 998-1034.
LePine, J., & 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 perfor-
mance: Evidence of differential relationships with Big Five personality characteristics and cognitive ability.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 326-336.
Leventhal, G. S. 1980. What should be done with equity theory? In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis
(Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research: 27-55. New York: Plenum Press.
Li, N., Barrick, M., Zimmerman, R. D., & Chiaburu, D. S. 2014. Retaining the productive employee. Academy of
Management Annals, 8: 347-395. doi:10.1080/19416520.2014.890368
Liang, J., Farh, C. I. C., & Farh, J. L. 2012. Psychological antecedents of promotion and prohibitive voice behavior:
A two-wave longitudinal examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55: 71-92.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. 1988. The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.
Lind, E. A., & van den Bos, K. 2002. When fairness works: Toward a general theory of uncertainty management.
In B. W. Staw & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 24: 181-233. Boston, MA:
Elsevier.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. 1991. Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation.
Psychological Review, 98: 224-253.
Morrison, E. W. 2011. Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. Academy of
Management Annals, 5: 373-412.
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.
Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. 2005. When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 89: 852-863.
966   Journal of Management / March 2017

Naumann, S. W., & Bennett, B. 2000. A case for procedural justice climate: Development and test of a multi-level
model. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 881-889.
Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. 2008. Regulatory focus as a media-
tor of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on employee behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93: 1220-1233.
Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. 1993. Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring
and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 527-556.
Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. 2010. Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviours.
Journal of Management, 36: 633-662.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. 2007. Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods,
and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42: 185-227.
Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. 2010. Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 53: 617-635.
Robert, C., Probst, T. M., Martocchio, J. J., Drasgow, F., & Lawler, J. J. 2000. Empowerment and continuous
improvement in the United States, Mexico, Poland, and India: Predicting fit on the basis of dimensions of
power distance and individualism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 643-658.
Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J. R., & Snyder, S. S. 1982. Changing the world and changing the self: A two-process model
of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42: 5-37.
Schwartz, J., & Wald, M. L. 2003. The nation: NASA’s curse? “Groupthink” is 30 years old, and still going strong.
New York Times, March 9: 5.
Senge, P. M. 1990. The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
Spector, P. E. 1986. Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies concerning autonomy and partici-
pation at work. Human Relations, 39: 1005-1016.
Spreitzer, G. M. 1995. Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation.
Academy of Management Journal, 38: 1442-1465.
Takeuchi, R., Chen, Z., & Cheung, S. Y. 2012. Applying uncertainty management theory to employee voice behav-
ior: An integrative investigation. Personnel Psychology, 65: 283-323.
Tangirala, S., Kamdar, D., Venkataramani, V., & Parke, M. R. 2013. Doing right versus getting ahead: The effects
of duty and achievement orientations on employees’ voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98: 1040-1050.
doi:10.1037/a0033855
Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. 2008a. Exploring non-linearity in employee voice: The effects of personal control
and organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 1189-1203.
Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. 2008b. Employee silence on critical work issues: The cross-level effects of proce-
dural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 61: 37-68.
Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. 2012. Ask and you shall hear (but not always): Examining the relationship between
manager consultation and employee voice. Personnel Psychology, 65: 251-282.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. 1975. Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tofighi, D., & MacKinnon, D. P. 2011. RMediation: An R package for mediation analysis confidence intervals.
Behavior Research Methods, 43: 692-700.
van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. 2002. Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. In M. P. Zanna
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 77: 324-336. New York: Academic Press.
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 medi-
ating and moderating variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95: 582-591. doi:10.1037/a0018315
White, R. W. 1959. Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66: 297-333.
Zhang, H., Kwan, H. K., Zhang, X., & Wu, L. Z. 2014. High core self-evaluators maintain creativity: A motivational
model of abusive supervision. Journal of Management, 40: 1151-1174. doi:10.1177/0149206312460681