1

Psychological Antecedents of Promotive and Prohibitive Voice: A Two-Wave Examination

Jian Liang Antai College of Economics and Management

Shanghai Jiao Tong University Shanghai, China

Tel: (86-21) 5230-9359 Email: jianliang@sjtu.edu.cn

Crystal I Chien Farh Robert H. Smith School of Business

University of Maryland College Park, MD 20740

Tel: (510) 325-3702 Fax: (301) 314-8787

Email: cfarh@rhsmith.umd.edu

Jiing-Lih Farh Department of Management of Organizations

The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Clear Water Bay, Kowloon

Hong Kong Email: mnlfarh@ust.hk

In press, Academy of Management Journal

We would like to acknowledge Elizabeth Morrison and three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments, and Yaping Gong, Riki Takeuchi, Chun Hui, and Gary Johns for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this article. This research was jointly supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 70902046 and 71032003). An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Third Biannual Conference of the International Associate of Chinese Management Research (IACMR) in Guangzhou, China.

2

Psychological Antecedents of Promotive and Prohibitive Voice: A Two-Wave Examination

Abstract

The present study demonstrates how three psychological antecedents (psychological

safety, felt obligation for constructive change, and organization-based self-esteem) uniquely,

differentially, and interactively predict supervisory reports of promotive and prohibitive voice

behavior. Using a two-wave panel design, data were collected from a sample of 239 employees

to examine the hypothesized relationships. Our results showed that felt obligation was most

strongly related to subsequent promotive voice, psychological safety was most strongly related to

subsequent prohibitive voice, and organization-based self-esteem was reciprocally related to

promotive voice. Further, while felt obligation strengthened the positive effect of psychological

safety on both forms of voice, OBSE weakened this effect for promotive voice. Theoretical and

practical implications are discussed.

Keywords: Voice Behavior, Psychological Antecedents, Panel Design

3

A means by which employees help their organizations to innovate and successfully adapt

to dynamic business environments is through “voice” – the expression of constructive opinions,

concerns, or ideas about work-related issues (Van Dyne, Ang, & Botero, 2003). Indeed,

employees’ voice about improvements to or existing failures in the work process has been

associated with positive organizational outcomes such as team learning (Edmondson, 1999),

improved work processes and innovation (Argyris & Schon, 1978), and crisis prevention

(Schwartz & Wald, 2003). Having recognized the critical role of voice in achieving

organizational effectiveness and avoiding potential crises, researchers have attempted to

understand the individual, motivational, and contextual factors that promote or inhibit voice,

both conceptually (e.g., Kish-Gephart, Detert, Treviño, & Edmondson, 2009; Morrison &

Milliken, 2000; Van Dyne et al., 2003) and empirically (e.g., Burris, Detert, & Chiaburu, 2008;

Detert & Burris, 2007; Fuller, Marler, & Hester, 2006; LePine & Van Dyne, 2001; Morrison,

Wheeler-Smith, & Kamdar, 2011; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008; Venkataramani & Tangirala,

2010).

Despite this progress, we believe that current approaches to examining voice may be

improved in several ways. While early voice research focused on identifying individual and

contextual antecedents to voice, more recent efforts have sought to identify the psychological

mechanisms underlying these relationships (e.g., Detert & Burris, 2007; Fuller et al., 2006).

Because these investigations have examined the effect of various psychological factors in

isolation, questions relating to the unique effect of any one factor or how multiple psychological

factors may synergistically impact voice remain unanswered. This is unfortunate because

researchers readily admit that several proximal motivations are likely to co-exist in predicting

voice (Van Dyne et al., 2003).

4

Second, although the definition of voice has been broadened by Van Dyne and colleagues

(2003) to subsume both the expression of constructive suggestions as well as concerns, much of

the recent research on voice has focused more heavily on “promotive” aspects of voice, or

expressions of ways to improve existing work practices and procedures to benefit the

organization (e.g., Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). In comparison, less empirical attention has been

paid to “prohibitive” aspects of voice, or expressions of concern about existing or impending

practices, incidents, or behaviors that may harm the organization, despite early definitions of

voice that focused on voice as a means of stopping or changing objectionable state of affairs

(Rusbult, Farrell, Rogers, & Mainous, 1988; Withey & Cooper, 1989). In light of Van Dyne et

al.’s (2003) broadened definition of voice and the evolving literature on the content of voice,

there is now a need to more fully sample the promotive and prohibitive content domains of voice

simultaneously as well as to advance understanding of how psychological antecedents may differ

across the two domains.

Finally, the vast majority of existing voice models purport that psychological factors

causally precede voice (e.g., Fuller et al., 2006). However, previous empirical examinations of

these models have been exclusively cross-sectional, precluding the ability to make inferences

about causal direction. Theoretically, voice could be both a consequence and antecedent of

certain psychological factors. For instance, a reverse causation argument for the positive

relationship between psychological safety and voice might be that employees who speak up infer

from their behavior that the interpersonal context is safe to do so. Thus, time-lagged research

designs are needed to uncover the complex causal mechanisms between psychological factors

and voice behavior (Morrison & Milliken, 2000).

5

In light of the discussion above, we present a two-wave panel design study that examines

how three psychological antecedents uniquely, differentially, and interactively predict promotive

and prohibitive forms of voice. Our study seeks to contribute to the voice literature in several

ways. First, by simultaneously examining how three psychological factors relate to voice, we

advance current understanding of the unique contributions of each factor, as well as how the

proximal motivations of voice can enhance or detract from each others’ effects. Guided by the

three-pronged approach of Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior (1991), we examine the effects of

three psychological antecedents on voice – psychological safety (the belief that one is able to

show and express one’s self without fear of negative consequences; Kahn, 1990), felt obligation

for constructive change or FOCC (the belief that one is personally obligated to bring about

constructive change; Fuller et al., 2006), and organization-based self esteem or OBSE (the belief

that one is a capable, significant, and worthy organizational member; Pierce, Gardner,

Cummings, & Dunham, 1989).

Second, by including both promotive and prohibitive dimensions of voice in the criterion

space of our model, we advance understanding of how psychological factors that have been

associated with promotive aspects of voice might relate similarly or differently to prohibitive

voice. Guided by prior inductive research on prohibitive aspects of voice (e.g., Farh, Zhong, &

Organ, 2002; 2004), we introduce and pilot a measure of prohibitive voice and offer hypotheses

about how the three psychological factors in our model might differentially relate to each

dimension of voice. Third, as an improvement upon prior work that has utilized primarily cross-

sectional designs to examine the impact of the psychological antecedents of voice, we use a two-

wave panel design in our study to provide a rigorous examination of how the three psychological

factors in our model relate to temporal changes in both forms of voice, and vice versa (Finkel,

6

1995). Finally, by testing our hypotheses in a sample of subordinate and supervisor dyads in

China, we offer an empirical test of whether voice models previously supported in Western

contexts might be generalizeable to a context in which power distance is traditionally high and

speaking up may be culturally discouraged (e.g., Huang, Van de Vliert, & Van der Vegt, 2005).

THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

Voice as a Planned Behavior

Unlike other cooperative forms of citizenship behaviors that are largely discretionary but

also beneficial for organizational functioning (Organ, 1988), voice is unique in that it is

inherently challenging (Van Dyne, Cummings, & McLean Parks, 1995). Voicing constructive

ideas may result in increased visibility (Stamper & Van Dyne, 2001), favorable performance

evaluations (Thompson, 2005), and promotion opportunities (Dutton & Ashford, 1993) for the

speaker. On the other hand, voicing ideas that challenge the status quo may bring forth the risk of

being misunderstood and other undesirable social consequences (Morrison & Milliken, 2000).

Voice that was intended to benefit the organization may easily be misinterpreted as “bossiness,

unsolicited interference, and an effort to undermine the credibility” of important stakeholders

such as peer colleagues and supervisors (Tepper, Duffy, Hoobler, & Ensley, 2004: 457). Because

of the potential personal benefits and risks associated with speaking up, employees often choose

to voice only after having engaged in a cognitive calculus of costs and benefits (Dutton, Ashford,

O’Neill, Hayes, & Wierba, 1997; Kish-Gephart et al., 2009; Milliken, Morrison, & Hewlin,

2003). Thus, we consider voice behavior as an intentional “planned” behavior occurring in an

interpersonal context.

The theory of planned behavior (TPB) provides a helpful theoretical framework for

understanding how multiple psychological antecedents may contribute to the enactment of

7

“planned behaviors” (Ajzen, 1991). According to TPB, three factors influence an individual’s

motivation to perform a planned behavior. First, the individual must hold a positive evaluation of

the behavior (or positive attitude). Second, the individual must perceive the behavior to be within

the bounds of the behavioral expectations of normative pressures (or subjective norm). Third, the

individual must perceive sufficient control over the behavior (or perceived behavioral control).

According to TPB, the influence of all other antecedents on planned behavior is channeled

through these three critical psychological factors (Conner & Armitage, 1998), and although TPB

notes that these psychological forces proximally influence an individual’s intention to perform a

particular behavior, actual performance of the behavior is theorized to closely follow from the

strength of intention (Ajzen, 2001).

Three Psychological Antecedents of Voice

Because TPB as a theoretical framework has received considerable empirical support in

the literature (see meta-analysis by Armitage & Conner, 2001) and is viewed as a complete

model that explains how multiple psychological factors contribute to predicting the enactment of

planned behaviors (Ajzen, 2001), we draw on the rationale of TPB to theorize that employee

voice can be jointly explained by three psychological factors – psychological safety, felt

obligation for constructive change, and organization-based self-esteem – due to their respective

impact on employees’ positive attitudinal evaluation of voice, felt normative pressure to voice,

and perceived ease of performing the behavior.

Psychological safety as contributing to positive attitudes toward voice. An important

factor affecting employees’ attitudinal evaluation of a particular behavior is whether they believe

the outcomes of the behavior will be positive or negative (Conner & Armitage, 1998). As

discussed, voice as a form of personal initiative may be met with positive consequences (such as

8

greater visibility at work) or negative consequences (such as being misunderstood as a fault-

finder). In order to make an attitudinal evaluation of voice, employees often turn to their

immediate interpersonal network (i.e., supervisors and coworkers) to “read the wind” and

determine how favorable it is for them to express themselves at work (Dutton et al., 1997;

Milliken et al., 2003).

Psychological safety refers to the extent that individuals believe their colleagues (e.g.,

supervisors, coworkers) will not punish or misunderstand them for taking risks, such as speaking

up with suggestions or concerns (Detert & Burris, 2007). When employees are free of fears and

concerns about expressing their opinions, the perceived costs of speaking up are minimized.

Consequently, the benefits of voice outweigh the costs, leading to a more positive evaluation of

voice. In contrast, when psychological safety is lacking, employees feel that they cannot freely

express themselves, and these fears and concerns cause employees to avoid publicly expressing

their opinions and concerns (Zhao & Olivera, 2006). Consistent with this reasoning, perceptions

of psychological safety have been reasoned to facilitate voice because such perceptions increase

the ease and reduce the felt risk of presenting new ideas (Ashford, Rothbard, Piderit, & Dutton,

1998; Edmondson, 1999; Kahn, 1990). Empirical work has also shown that subordinate

perceptions of psychological safety mediate the relationship between managerial openness and

employee voice in restaurant chains (Detert & Burris, 2007) and that psychological safety

partially mediates the impact of ethical leadership on voice (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009).

Felt obligation for constructive change as contributing to normative pressures to voice.

As social agents, individuals are constantly under the influence of social norms that indicate the

established or approved ways of thinking and behaving. Examples of such norms are descriptive

norms, which refer to people’s perceptions of what is commonly done in specific situations, and

9

injunctive norms, which refer of people’s perceptions of what is commonly approved or

disapproved of within a particular culture (Schultz, Nolan, Cialdini, Goldstein, & Griskevicius,

2007). A third type of social norm is personal or moral norms (which describes personal rules of

conduct), arguably the most relevant norm for predicting planned behaviors that are intended to

benefit others (Conner & McMillan, 1999). An example of a moral norm is the norm of

reciprocity. As a culturally universal principle, the norm of reciprocity is internalized through

social learning and constitutes a strong motivational drive (Gouldner, 1960; Perugini, Gallucci,

Presaghi, & Ercolani, 2003). The anticipation of self-punishment or reward arising from

individuals’ internalized values is one of the main drivers of reciprocation (Schwartz, 1977).

Felt obligation for constructive change (or FOCC) influences the extent that employees are

committed to developing new procedures and correcting problems in the organization (Fuller et

al., 2006; Morrison & Phelps, 1999). In particular, employees experiencing higher levels of

FOCC are more likely to perceive speaking up as a positive means of caring for the organization

and thus are more likely to engage in voice as a “responsible citizen” of the organization. Doing

so constitutes one way for high FOCC employees to reciprocate the organization’s

supportiveness and maintain a high-quality exchange relationship with the organization. In

contrast, those experiencing low levels of FOCC are less likely to feel obliged to perform voice

behavior because they are less committed to helping the organization in this way. Consistent

with this reasoning, past empirical work has demonstrated support for the importance of FOCC

as a psychological state leading to the performance of voice and other discretionary, change-

oriented behaviors (Fuller et al., 2006; Morrison & Phelps, 1999; Withey & Cooper, 1989).

Organization-based self-esteem as contributing to perceptions of behavioral control over

voice. According to TPB, judgments of behavioral control – or perceived ease of performing the

10

behavior – are influenced by beliefs concerning whether one has access to the necessary

resources and opportunities to perform the behavior successfully (Ajzen, 1991). Factors

influencing these beliefs include both internal factors (e.g., information, personal skills, abilities,

and emotions) as well as external factors (e.g., opportunities, dependence on others, and barriers)

(Conner & Armitage, 1998). When people perceive that they have access to the necessary

resources and opportunities to perform the behavior, they are more likely to perceive a high

degree of control over the behavior and are more motivated to perform it.

Organization-based self-esteem (or OBSE) – defined as an individual’s beliefs about

his/her own capabilities and social worth in the workplace (Pierce et al., 1989) – is likely to

influence employees’ perceptions of behavioral control over work behaviors, particularly for

behaviors that require considerable social and political maneuvering like voice (LePine & Van

Dyne, 1998). To effectively voice, one must not only speak up about one’s ideas, but also do so

in a way that is noticeable or heard by important stakeholders (Kish-Gephart et al., 2009).

Because employees with higher OBSE believe that they are of higher value to the organization

and enjoy relatively high social status among their colleagues, they are also more likely to infer

that they have access to resources and opportunities needed to effectively voice and be heard,

especially as a lack of status is a common deterrent to speaking up (Dutton et al., 1997; Milliken

et al., 2003; Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Consistent with this logic, Van Dyne et al. (1995)

proposed that self-esteem would positively relate to voice because high self-esteem individuals

are more willing to engage with the work environment (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998), and

Venkataramni and Tangirala (2010) found that personal influence (as rated by peers) was

positively related to voice.

11

In summary, because greater psychological safety increases favorable attitudes toward

voice, FOCC increases normative pressures to voice, and OBSE increases perceptions of

behavioral control over voice, we hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 1a: Psychological safety is positively related to voice behavior.

Hypothesis 1b: FOCC is positively related to voice behavior.

Hypothesis 1c: OBSE is positively related to voice behavior.

According to Ajzen (1991), the relative importance of the three psychological components

of TPB in predicting the behavior of interest depends on the nature of the behavior and the

contextual factors surrounding it. Extending this logic, we might expect that psychological safety,

FOCC, and OBSE may relate more or less strongly to different forms of voice due to the

differences in content and implications of each form of voice.

Promotive versus Prohibitive Voice

A recent definition of voice provided by Van Dyne and her colleagues (2003) emphasized

that voice included both the speaking up for suggestions as well as concerns. This broader

conceptualization of voice was timely and necessary in order to capture the various forms of

voice occurring in practice. Accordingly, we propose two types of voice – promotive and

prohibitive – and that the three psychological antecedents will relate differentially to each form

of voice.

In line with Van Dyne and LePine’s (1998) original conceptualization of voice, we define

promotive voice as employees’ expression of new ideas or suggestions for improving the overall

functioning of the work unit or organization. Because promotive voice proposes ways of

changing the status quo, it is challenging. However, because it is accompanied with innovative

solutions and suggestions for improvement, such voice is “promotive” in the sense that it is

12

focused on a future ideal state or what could be. In contrast, prohibitive voice describes

employees’ expressions of concern about work practices, incidents, or employee behavior that is

harmful to the organization. Prohibitive voice serves an important function for organizational

health, primarily because such alarming messages place previously undetected problems on the

collective agenda to be resolved or prevent problematic initiatives from taking place. In certain

organizational settings, prohibitive voice may potentially be more impactful than promotive

voice because the process of developing innovative ideas and solutions may require substantial

amounts of time and effort – a luxury that organizations operating in high-velocity environments

may not be able to afford. In comparison, the “prohibitive” aspect of prohibitive voice calls

harmful factors to a stop, thereby preventing the negative effects of process losses in a timely

manner.

Because both forms of voice challenge the status quo and are aimed at benefiting the

organization, they fall well within Van Dyne et al.’s (2003) definition of voice. Nonetheless, we

reason that they differ from each other in several important ways (as summarized in Table 1).

First, as previously discussed, the two types of voice differ in behavioral content. The

“promotive” versus “prohibitive” distinction constitutes the conceptual boundary separating the

two forms of voice, where the former is focused on realizing ideals and possibilities, and the

latter is focused on stopping or preventing harm. The content of promotive voice is also

necessarily future-oriented in that it is focused on future ways of doing things better. In contrast,

prohibitive voice has both a past and future orientation since it can call attention to factors that

have harmed the status quo (e.g., existing problems with coordination) or factors that can

potentially cause harm to the organization (e.g., practices that could lead to process

inefficiencies).

13

Second, regarding their function, promotive voice points to ways that the organization can

function more effectively, whereas prohibitive voice points out factors that are or could be

harmful for the organization, without necessarily providing clear solutions to the concerns voiced.

Third, they have different implications in terms of their impact on others. While the innovative

aspects of promotive voice may imply inconvenient short-term changes for stakeholders (e.g.,

increased work load), such changes are expected to bring about improvements that will

ultimately benefit the whole community in the long term. In contrast, by calling attention to

harmful factors, prohibitive voice necessarily implicates the failure of those responsible. As such,

prohibitive voice may induce conflict and negative emotions among coworkers and supervisors,

upsetting the interpersonal harmony within the work unit. Because of the differing implications

that the two forms of voice have on others, promotive and prohibitive voice are likely to be

perceived quite differently by important stakeholders.

--------------------------------- Insert Table 1 about here

---------------------------------

As an additional point of clarification, we emphasize that prohibitive voice differs from

other forms of prohibitive workplace expression, such as principled organizational dissent

(Graham, 1986) and whistle blowing (Near & Miceli, 1985). Although these latter forms of

workplace expression involve calling a halt to organizational practices, prohibitive voice is

distinct in that it is born out of a desire to help the organization (e.g., by stopping or preventing

harm) rather than out of perceived violations of personal moral norms or legal principles

(Permeaux & Bedeian, 2003).

The Unique Contributions of the Psychological Factors

Consistent with Ajzen’s framework (1991), we believe that all three psychological factors

previously discussed – psychological safety, FOCC, and OBSE – are likely to positively relate to

14

both promotive and prohibitive voice. However, addressing the impact of each psychological

factor independently precludes the possibility of examining whether each factor explains unique

variance in voice. Furthermore, it remains unclear whether the three psychological factors impact

voice through the same or different pathways.

Certain distinctions between promotive and prohibitive voice give us reason to believe that

the three psychological factors may uniquely impact the two forms of voice. Promotive voice

refers to employees’ extra efforts to develop novel suggestions and solutions aimed at improving

the organizational status quo. The process of generating these ideas and solutions is not easily

accomplished without continuous cognitive effort and attentiveness to organizational affairs

(Farh, Tangirala, & Liang, 2010). Absent a strong commitment to give back to the organization,

employees are unlikely to focus their attention and energy on generating new ideas for the

organization. Of the three psychological factors, FOCC is most closely aligned with employees’

internal commitment to help transform the organization in constructive ways (Fuller et al., 2006).

As such, given their hypothesized positive relationships with voice, we further expect that

employees’ FOCC will have the strongest unique effect on promotive voice, compared to

psychological safety and OBSE.

In contrast, prohibitive voice involves expressing concern about harmful practices,

incidents, or behaviors. Compared with promotive voice, prohibitive voice carries far more

personal risk because pointing out dysfunction more directly implicates the failure of important

stakeholders in the workplace. Particularly when those implicated may be powerful others at

work, the prohibitive speaker is often at risk of facing negative social consequences. Hence, to

engage in prohibitive voice, the speaker must first “read the wind” to determine the extent that

the interpersonal environment is favorable for speaking up. The perceived absence of negative

15

consequences associated with speaking up becomes a particularly strong and salient motivator

for doing so. Of the three psychological factors, psychological safety is most closely aligned with

an employee’s perception that his or her immediate social context will not punish him or her for

speaking up. As such, given their hypothesized positive relationships with voice, we further

expect employees’ psychological safety will have the strongest unique effect on prohibitive voice,

compared to FOCC and OBSE.

Hypothesis 2a: Among the psychological antecedents of voice, FOCC will have the

strongest unique positive effect on promotive voice.

Hypothesis 2b: Among the psychological antecedents of voice, psychological safety will

have the strongest unique positive effect on prohibitive voice.

Interactive Effects between Psychological Safety, FOCC, and OBSE

Although TPB is essentially an additive model (Bagozzi, 1992) in which each

psychological factor is theorized to uniquely account for additional variance in intentions to

perform the behavior of interest, there is also good reason to expect that the simultaneous

presence of more than one psychological factor may achieve synergistic effects above and

beyond their additive impact. Particularly as each psychological factor is theorized to impact

behavior through unique mechanisms (Ajzen, 1991), exploration of how these factors may

interact amongst themselves is likely to yield a more complete, comprehensive understanding of

how these multiple factors operate collectively to impact behavior.

In the sections below, we propose several interaction hypotheses in which psychological

safety forms the baseline relationship to voice. As established in prior voice literature (Ashford

et al., 1998; Dutton, Ashford, Lawrence, & Miner-Rubino, 2002), employees will not voice

unless they perceive a sufficiently favorable environment to do so. Psychological safety provides

16

the baseline condition for voice because it creates a context that allows voice to be evaluated

positively by employees, and a positive attitudinal evaluation toward voice is an important

precondition that other psychological factors can build upon.

We reason that an employee’s psychological safety perception may relate more strongly to

voice when that employee also experiences strong normative pressure to engage in constructive

change. An employee perceiving psychological safety may not necessarily express his or her

personal views aimed at benefiting the organization unless he or she perceives that doing so is a

way of giving back to the organization. That is, without this internal motivation to initiate change

to benefit the organization, employees may not fully take advantage of the freedom that

psychological safety affords them or channel it in the form of voice. This logic may explain why

Stamper and Van Dyne (2001) found that employees with full-time work status (or employees

likely to perceive greater FOCC) were more likely to engage in voice when they also worked in

less bureaucratic organizational cultures (or organizational cultures that permitted greater

psychological safety). Thus, we hypothesize that the relationship between psychological safety

and voice will be strengthened when FOCC is also high.

Hypothesis 3: The positive relationship between psychological safety and both promotive

and prohibitive voice is significantly weaker when FOCC is lower, such that when FOCC

is low, voice will be low regardless of levels of psychological safety.

We also expect OBSE to exhibit an enhancive effect on the relationship between

psychological safety and voice. Employees with high OBSE tend to believe their viewpoints are

important and are confident in their ability to be heard (Brockner et al., 1998). This confidence in

one’s opinions increases the likelihood that high OBSE employees will further take advantage of

the freedom of expression afforded by a high psychological safety environment. In contrast,

17

because low OBSE employees lack the necessary self-confidence to speak up regardless of

whether the interpersonal context is perceived as favorable or not, employees with low OBSE

may prefer to stay in the background rather than actively find opportunities to get involved

(LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). This logic is consistent with Detert and Burris’ (2007) finding that

the positive effect of leadership openness (or higher psychological safety) on voice was stronger

for high-performing employees (or employees who were more likely to perceive themselves as

important and valuable organizational members) than low-performing employees. Thus, we

hypothesize that the relationship between psychological safety and voice will be strengthened

when OBSE is also high.

Hypothesis 4: The positive relationship between psychological safety and both promotive

and prohibitive voice is significantly weaker when OBSE is lower, such that when OBSE is

low, voice will be low regardless of levels of psychological safety.

Thus far, our arguments suggest that when psychological safety is paired with either high

levels of FOCC or OBSE, voice will be more likely to occur. A safe perception acts as a catalyst

of voice behavior for an employee who is highly motivated or holds a positive self-regard at

work. A logical extension of these arguments is that the simultaneous existence of all three

psychological factors represents the most favorable condition for employees to voice, creating a

multiplicative effect beyond the mere additive effects of each psychological factor. On the basis

of these arguments, we expect that employees will voice the most when they perceive that it is

safe to speak up, when they feel obligated to do so, and when they believe they have the personal

resources to do it well.

Hypothesis 5: There will be a three-way interaction between psychological safety, FOCC,

and OBSE in predicting both promotive and prohibitive voice. The positive relationship

18

between psychological safety and voice will be moderated by both FOCC and OBSE such

that the interaction between psychological safety and FOCC will be strongest when OBSE

is also high.

PILOT STUDY

To differentiate and validate measures of promotive and prohibitive voice, we looked to

existing measures in the voice literature and created an item pool from two major sources. The

first source of items was from items published in studies on voice (e.g., Premeaux & Bedeian,

2003; Van Dyne et al., 2003; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). The second source of items was from

inductive studies conducted by Farh and colleagues (2002; 2004) on the content of

organizational citizenship behavior in the Chinese context. The Farh et al. studies found evidence

for both promotive and prohibitive aspects of voice, where the former referred to making

constructive suggestions, and the latter referred to prohibiting factors (such as practices,

incidents, or behavior) that were or might be harmful to the organization. Farh et al. (2004)

identified 38 items that captured promotive voice and 18 items that captured prohibitive voice.

We added these items to our item pool. After deleting redundant items, 10 doctoral students in

management served as expert judges to evaluate the degree to which each item matched our

definitions of promotive and prohibitive voice. Under the supervision of a senior management

faculty, this content evaluation procedure resulted in the identification of six representative items

each for promotive and prohibitive voice, which were then used for pilot testing.

Following translation-back-translation procedures, all the English items were translated

into Chinese. A five-point scale was used ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. In

order to reduce self-report bias, all voice behaviors were assessed by direct supervisors.

Employing a sample of 291 Chinese employees, factor analysis procedures with oblimin method

19

supported a two-factor solution, demonstrating a distinction between promotive and prohibitive

voice. The promotive factor consisted of five items and explained 57.24% of the common

variance among items. All five promotive items emphasized the expression of new ideas to

improve the unit’s productivity. The prohibitive factor also consisted of five items and explained

11.37% of the common variance. All five prohibitive items emphasized the expression of doubts

or concerns about harmful practices, incidents, or behaviors. Items with heavy cross-loadings

were removed. The items measuring promotive and prohibitive dimensions of voice are listed in

Table 2.

To further establish the construct validity of our promotive and prohibitive subscales, we

examined how each subscale correlated with two other voice measures in two separate Chinese

samples. The first sample was composed of 232 employees in R&D divisions of high-technology

firms, 76% of whom were male, were 28 years old on average, and 86% held Bachelor or Master

degrees. The second sample consisted of 219 manufacturing firm employees, 52.2% of whom

were male, and 68.1% were below 30 years of age. In the first sample, we compared how our

promotive and prohibitive subscales would correlate with a four-item voice scale from Van Dyne

and LePine (1998)1. In the second sample, we compared how the subscales would correlate with

Farh, Hackett, and Liang’s (2007; α=.77) voice scale2. Since both the Van Dyne and LePine

(1998) as well as the Farh et al. (2007) voice scales described voice content focused on

prompting constructive improvement as opposed to warning against harmful practices, we

expected that both existing scales would be more strongly related to our promotive subscale than

our prohibitive subscale. Indeed, in sample 1, we found that our promotive and prohibitive

subscales were positively correlated (r = .66) and that the correlation between Van Dyne and

LePine’s scale and promotive voice (r = .83) was higher than its correlation with prohibitive

20

voice (r = .73). Employing Cohen and Cohen’s (1983: 56-57) formula for testing the difference

between correlations calculated from a single sample, we found that the difference was

significant (t = 3.48, p < .01). Also, in sample 2, we found that our promotive and prohibitive

subscales were positively correlated (r = .54) and that the correlation between the Farh et al.

(2007) voice scale and our promotive subscale was significantly higher than its correlation with

the prohibitive subscale (r = .69 vs. .52, t = 3.62, p < .01). These results together suggest that our

promotive subscale more strongly reflects suggestions and improvement-focused voice content,

compared to our prohibitive subscale.

In a third sample, we sought to establish how our promotive and prohibitive subscales

might relate differently to supervisors’ perceptions of the intention behind the voice. Specifically,

we examined how our promotive and prohibitive subscales would relate to the supervisors’

ratings of employee sportsmanship, defined as a form of citizenship behavior in which

employees are able to tolerate organizational problems and refrain from actions (such as

exaggerating problems, complaining about work, blaming others at work) that may lead to

unfavorable tension at work (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). As argued previously,

because promotive voice (based on suggestions for improvement) is more easily perceived by

important stakeholders as attempts to be helpful, whereas prohibitive voice (based on pointing

out harmful factors) may be perceived as complaining or fault-finding, we expected that

prohibitive voice would correlate more negatively with sportsmanship than promotive voice.

Sample 3 comprised of 248 employees drawn from an IT company in China, 58% of whom were

male, were 25.38 years old on average, and most held college degrees. In this sample, promotive

and prohibitive voice were correlated at .69. Reversed sample items from Podsakoff, MacKenzie,

Morrman, and Fetter’s (1990) sportsmanship subscale captured the extent that employees tended

21

to focus on “what is wrong, rather than the positive side” and “found fault with what the

organization was doing.” Indeed, we found the correlation between sportsmanship and

prohibitive voice to be significantly more negative than promotive voice (r = -.25 vs. -.03; t =

4.45, p < .01).

Taken together, the findings obtained across the three samples provided supportive

evidence of the conceptual distinction between promotive and prohibitive voice and also lent

discriminant and construct validity to our two subscales.

MAIN STUDY

Sample and Procedures

Survey data were collected from a Chinese retail company located in Shenzhen, China. A

two-wave panel design was employed to test the hypothesized relationships among variables.

Two-wave panel designs involve assessing the same set of measures on the same group of

respondents at two points in time. At Time 1, paper and pencil surveys were distributed to 341

subordinates and 114 of their matched supervisors. Given that the constructs in our theoretical

model were subject to change over time and the high turnover rate in the retailing industry

(Siebert & Zubanov, 2009), we distributed the questionnaires to the same individuals six weeks

later (Time 2), thereby increasing correspondence between the measures of psychological factors

and voice, and limiting response attrition in our sample . The responses of 239 subordinates and

106 of their matched supervisors were retained in the final sample pool, yielding a response

attrition rate of 29.9% for subordinates and 7% for supervisors. The majority of our subordinate

participants were between the ages of 21 and 30 (73.1%), male (65.7%), and college educated

(65.2%).

Measures

22

We used five-point Likert-type scales ranging from one (strongly disagree) to five

(strongly agree) for all substantive variables. We employed translation and back-translation

procedures (Brislin, 1986) to translate all English items into Chinese. A complete list of items

and their measurement properties are presented in Table 2.

--------------------------------- Insert Table 2 about here

---------------------------------

Employee voice. The ten items (five items per subscale) developed in the pilot study were

used to assess supervisor ratings of their employees’ promotive and prohibitive voice. Reliability

alphas of the promotive and prohibitive subscales were .87 and .86 at Time 1, and .90 and .90 at

Time 2, respectively.

Psychological safety. Consistent with our theorizing of psychological safety as an

individual perception, we measured psychological safety as the extent to which an individual

perceived it to be safe to express himself or herself at work. Five items were adapted from the

literature (e.g., Brown & Leigh, 1996; May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004) to match our research

context. Coefficient alphas were .72 and .75 in Time 1 and Time 2, respectively.

FOCC. We adapted Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch and Rhoades’s (2001) seven-

item felt obligation scale to reflect an employee’s desire to repay the organization by engaging in

actions toward organizational improvement and change. Eisenberger et al.’s (2001) scale

captured general felt obligation to repay the organization, whereas our adaptation captured the

extent that employees felt obligated to repay the organization through generating constructive

change. Two of the seven items were later deleted due to low factor loadings or heavy cross-

loadings with items of other scales. Coefficient alphas of the retained five items were .77 and .81

in Time 1 and Time 2, respectively.

23

OBSE. We used the ten-item OBSE scale developed by Pierce and colleagues (1989) to

measure the extent an individual believed that he or she is a capable, significant, and worthy

organizational member. This scale has been successfully validated and used in the Chinese

context (e.g., Chen & Aryee, 2007). Three items were later deleted due to low factor loadings or

heavy cross-loadings with items of other scales. Coefficient alphas of the scale were .86 and .86

in Time 1 and 2, respectively.

Control variables. We included education level, organizational tenure, position in the

organization, and job satisfaction3 as control variables because of their potential impact on voice.

For instance, employees with higher levels of education may have more ideas in general to voice

(e.g., Frese, Teng, & Wijnen, 1999), employees with longer employee tenure may be more

comfortable with speaking up (e.g., Stamper & Van Dyne, 2001), employees in higher positions

in the organization may feel more obligated to voice (e.g., Fuller et al., 2006), and more satisfied

employees tend to be more committed to helping the organization through voice (e.g., Detert &

Burris, 2007). Education level was measured using four categories: middle school or below,

college, university, and postgraduate. Organizational tenure was measured as the number of

months worked in the company. Position in the organization was measured using four categories:

employees, first-line manager, middle manager, and senior manager. Job satisfaction was

measured using three items from Hackman and Oldham (1980), with a coefficient alpha of .79.

RESULTS

Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA)

Before testing our hypotheses, we first evaluated the distinctiveness among the study

variables through a series of CFA procedures. Five variables were employed in our study:

promotive and prohibitive types of voice, psychological safety, FOCC, and OBSE. Using data

24

obtained from both Time 1 and 2, we examined five alternative models against the baseline five-

factor model (Model 1). As shown in Table 3, Model 1 fit the data well and provided substantial

improvement in fit indices over alternative models (Model 2-6). The results were relatively

robust across both points of data collection.

--------------------------------- Insert Table 3 about here

---------------------------------

Table 2 presents the standardized factor loadings of all items on their specified constructs.

All of them were significant at the .01 level, suggesting that the constructs have convergent

validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). We further established the discriminant validity among the

constructs by examining whether the squared inter-construct correlations for construct pairs were

greater than the average shared variance of each construct (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Following

the procedures recommended by Netemeyer, Johnston, and Burton (1990), the results suggested

that the average shared variance measures were greater than the squared inter-construct

correlations in all cases. In particular, the variance-extracted estimates for the promotive and

prohibitive voice were .57 and .56 (Time 1) and .65 and .61 (Time 2), respectively. All of the

estimates exceeded the square of the correlation between the latent constructs of promotive and

prohibitive voice ( 41.,64. 22121 == ϕϕ at Time 1, 48.,69. 2

2121 == ϕϕ at Time 2). Taken together,

these statistics offer supportive evidence of discriminant and convergent validity among our

study variables.

Descriptive Statistics

Table 4 presents the descriptive statistics of the variables in our study. All of our study

variables demonstrated moderate test-retest correlations, .42 for promotive voice and .44 for

prohibitive voice respectively.4

25

------------------------------- Insert Table 4 about here -------------------------------

Hypotheses Testing

A two-wave panel model was used to test the main effects of three psychological factors on

the two types of voice (Hypothesis 1-2). Paths connected the antecedent variables (i.e.,

psychological safety, FOCC, OBSE, and promotive and prohibitive voice at Time 1) with the

same set of variables at Time 2. Figure 1 illustrates the relationships we examined in the model.

Strong evidence would be provided for the predictive relationship between psychological factors

and a temporal change in voice if a significant path existed between Time 1 psychological

factors and Time 2 voice, while controlling for Time 1 voice (Finkel, 1995: 29). Considering the

nested nature of our data (i.e., a single supervisor provided behavioral assessments for two or

three subordinates), we ran our SEM analyses in Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 2007). All variables

were standardized prior to modeling, and we used the maximum likelihood algorithm with robust

standard errors to derive parameter estimates.

-------------------------------- Insert Figure 1 about here ---------------------------------

Table 5 presents the path coefficients of our two-wave structural model. As predicted,

controlling for the three demographic variables, job satisfaction, and Time 1 effect, we found

that psychological safety was positively related to temporal changes in both promotive voice (γ

= .17, p<.01) and prohibitive voice (γ = .24, p<.01) (Model 1). We also found that FOCC was

positively related to temporal changes in both the promotive (γ = .22, p<.01) and prohibitive

voice (γ = .13, p<.05) (Model 2), and OBSE was positively related to a temporal change in

promotive voice (γ=.17, p<.05) and prohibitive voice (γ=.18, p<.01) (Model 3). Furthermore, we

found a significant reverse path for the relationship between promotive voice (at Time 1) and a

26

temporal change in OBSE (γ = .35, p<.05). Taken together, these results demonstrate that the

three psychological factors were individually related to both forms of voice, therefore supporting

Hypotheses 1a, b, and c.

Next, we examined the unique effect of the three psychological factors for predicting the

two types of voice by including them simultaneously in a single model (see Model 4). Of the

three psychological factors, only FOCC was significantly related to a temporal change in

promotive voice (γ = .20, p<.01), and only psychological safety was significantly related to a

temporal change in prohibitive voice (γ = .19, p<.05). OBSE did not uniquely relate to either

promotive or prohibitive voice over and above the effects of psychological safety and FOCC.

The model showed adequate fit to the data: χ2 = 645.68, d.f. = 526; RMSEA = .032, CFI =.96,

TLI = .95. Taken together, these results are consistent with Hypotheses 2a and 2b which

predicted that FOCC would be the strongest unique predictor of promotive voice and that

psychological safety would be the strongest unique predictor of prohibitive voice. In fact, with

the three psychological factors considered simultaneously, these were the only ones to have

significant effects.

-------------------------------- Insert Table 5 about here ---------------------------------

To examine our interaction hypotheses (Hypotheses 3-5), we tested a series of random

coefficient models in which the three psychological factors at Time 1 were included as predictors

and voice behavior at Time 2 as outcomes, controlling for the effects of the three demographic

variables, job satisfaction, and voice behavior at Time 1. We first estimated two null models in

which no predictors were specified in order to test the significance level of the level 2 residual

variance of the intercept. The results indicated that the ICC1 associated with promotive voice at

27

Time 2 was .54, suggesting that 54% of the observed variance resided between supervisors The

ICC1 associated with prohibitive voice at Time 2 was .56, suggesting that 56% of its variance

resided between supervisors. All predictors were grand-mean centered in the estimation. Results

are summarized in Table 6.

We found that the interaction effect between FOCC and psychological safety was

significant for predicting promotive voice (γ = .14, p < .01, Model 2) and prohibitive voice (γ

= .08, p < .05, Model 5). To explicate these interactions, separate plots were drawn for

individuals whose scores were one standard deviation below and above the mean of FOCC

(Cohen & Cohen, 1983). Figure 2 illustrates the interaction effect of psychological safety and

FOCC on promotive voice, such that the relationship between psychological safety and

promotive voice was positive and significant for the higher FOCC group (β = .18, p<.05) but

positive and non-significant for the lower FOCC group (β = .08, n.s.). A similar pattern of results

was demonstrated for prohibitive voice: the relationship between psychological safety and

prohibitive voice was positive and significant for the higher FOCC group (β = .24, p<.05) but

positive and non-significant for the lower FOCC group (β = .08, n.s.). These results suggest that

the positive relationship between psychological safety and both forms of voice is strengthened

when FOCC is also higher, thus lending support for Hypothesis 3.

We found that the interaction between psychological safety and OBSE was significant for

promotive voice (γ=-.19, p<.01, Model 2) but not for prohibitive voice (Model 5). Surprisingly,

the gamma coefficient for the significant interaction between psychological safety and OBSE

was negative and thus inconsistent with the pattern we hypothesized. Figure 3 illustrates the

negative interaction effect of psychological safety and OBSE on promotive voice, such that the

relationship between psychological safety and promotive voice was positive and significant for

28

the lower OBSE group (β = .18, p<.05) but non-significant for the higher OBSE group (β =.00,

n.s.). Thus, our expectation (Hypothesis 4) that the psychological safety-voice relationship would

be more positive under higher levels of OBSE was not supported.

Finally, we found that the three-way interaction we predicted between psychological safety,

FOCC, and OBSE was not significant for promotive (Model 3) or prohibitive voice (Model 6).

Hence, our expectation (Hypothesis 5) that the psychological safety-voice relationship would be

most positive when FOCC and OBSE were high was not supported.

----------------------------------------------- Insert Table 6, Figures 2-3 about here

------------------------------------------------

Post Hoc Analyses

In our study, most of the effect sizes fell in between small (r=.10) and moderate (r=.30)

(Cohen, 1988). Thus, we conducted OLS regression analyses on the two types of voice to

examine the practical significance of our findings. The results show that together with our

control variables (e.g., demographic variables and job satisfaction), the three psychological

antecedents at Time 1 explained 15.6 percent of the total variance in promotive voice at Time 2

and 11 percent of variance in prohibitive voice at Time 2. The three two-way interactions further

explained an additional 9 percent of variance in promotive voice at Time 2 and 3 percent of

variance in prohibitive voice at Time 2. Furthermore, to develop a better appreciation for the

practical links between psychological states and voice behavior, we compared voice behavior for

those with the theoretically best profile in terms of engaging in voice (those scoring above the

mean in psychological safety, FOCC, and OBSE) to those with the theoretically worst profile

(those scoring below the mean in psychological safety, FOCC, and OBSE). Although voice had a

low base rate, there was a 25% increase in promotive voice for those with the theoretically best

29

profile relative to individuals with the worst profile, and a 19% increase in prohibitive voice for

those with the theoretically best profile relative to individuals with the worst profile. Altogether,

these findings point to the practical significance of our findings.

DISCUSSION

Guided by Ajzen’s (1991) TPB, we set out to examine how three psychological

antecedents – psychological safety, FOCC, and OBSE – would uniquely, differentially, and

interactively predict promotive and prohibitive forms of voice in a non-Western context. Using a

two-wave panel design, our results showed that when each factor was tested on its own, all three

psychological factors were positively related to temporal changes in promotive and prohibitive

voice, and we also found a reverse link between promotive voice and temporal change in OBSE.

When examining the unique effects of the three psychological factors on voice, we found that

FOCC was most strongly uniquely related to promotive voice, and psychological safety was

most strongly uniquely associated with prohibitive voice. All other psychological factors did not

have significant effects when these two predictors were taken into consideration. Finally, we

found that the three psychological factors had interactive effects on voice, such that FOCC

enhanced the positive relationship between psychological safety and both forms of voice,

whereas OBSE weakened the positive relationship between psychological safety and promotive

voice.

Theoretical and Managerial Implications

A key theoretical implication of our study is that the three psychological factors under

investigation here are not equal in predicting voice. Our findings that FOCC and psychological

safety differentially predicted promotive and prohibitive voice suggests that the unique and

incremental importance of a particular psychological antecedent depends on the content and

30

implications associated with the dependent variable. Our findings further suggest that of the three

psychological factors, OBSE emerged as the least robust predictor of voice. There are several

plausible explanations for this effect. The first relates to the uniqueness of our sample, given that

we tested our model in the Chinese context, in which values of interpersonal harmony and

reciprocation are strongly culturally prescribed (Bond & Hwang, 1986). Thus, psychological

safety and FOCC, respectively, may have been relatively stronger predictors in this non-western

context. It is an empirical question as to whether OBSE will play a stronger role in predicting

voice in Western contexts in which self-agency and individualism are valued. A second plausible

explanation is that the mechanisms through which OBSE exerts its impact on voice may overlap

with those of psychological safety. Self-esteem has been theorized to relate positively to voice

because high self-esteem individuals are less concerned about being negatively impacted by the

interpersonal consequences of voice (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Van Dyne et al., 1995). In

other words, employees with high OBSE may perceive greater personal psychological safety,

regardless of the level of psychological safety perceived by others. This explanation is plausible

given the positive correlation we found between psychological safety and OBSE at both Time 1

(r = .42) and Time 2 (r = .37), as well as the substitutive interaction effect we found between

psychological safety and OBSE on voice.

Despite its relatively weaker role in predicting voice, we did find an interesting reciprocal

relationship between OBSE and promotive voice that is worthy of mention. In contrast to prior

models suggesting that psychological factors precede voice, we found evidence that voice may

lead to subsequent psychological beliefs relating to personal influence. Consistent with Korman

(2001), our results suggest that the exercise of personal influence on work-related issues through

voice further enhances individuals’ self-concept in the workplace. Despite a general focus of

31

researchers to uncover primarily the antecedents to voice, future research should adopt panel

designs in order to capture other reciprocal dynamics between psychological factors and voice,

as well as explore what additional benefits may arise from voice other than increased feelings of

self-worth in the workplace.

A second key implication of our study is that psychological antecedents of voice not only

uniquely impact voice, but may also interact amongst each other. Furthermore, our findings

suggest that, while in some cases psychological antecedents may strengthen each others’

predictive power on voice, in other cases they may weaken each others’ effects. The positive

synergistic effect of high psychological safety and high FOCC on voice demonstrates that the

two psychological forces represent non-parallel and unique pathways to voice.

Contrary to our expectations, we found that the relationship between psychological safety

and voice was not strengthened by high levels of OBSE. Specifically, the pattern of the

interaction was such that the psychological safety-voice relationship was positive only for

individuals with low OBSE but not for individuals with high OBSE. One way to interpret these

results is that high OBSE individuals - being more confident of their ability to voice effectively

(i.e., high behavioral control) - may be relatively less sensitive to the perceived safety of the

interpersonal context when deciding to voice, whereas a psychologically safe environment may

be particularly important for low OBSE individuals to express their constructive suggestions

because they believe they lack the self-confidence and protection of personal credibility at work.

Indeed, prior research on the relationship between self-esteem and voice found that although

higher self-esteem was generally related to greater levels of voice, this relationship was subject

to situational boundary conditions (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). Citing behavioral plasticity

theory (Brockner, 1988), LePine and Van Dyne (1998) reasoned that low self-esteem individuals

32

would be more responsive to external or situational cues than individuals with high self-esteem.

Our findings seem to be consistent with this line of logic. Nonetheless, we caution that our

results do not necessarily disconfirm the importance of perceived behavioral control in predicting

behavior. To capture the control concept advanced by the theory of planned behavior, we

recommend that a more direct measure of perceived control should be used in future research, in

addition to a general measure like OBSE.

A final implication of our study relates to the content and operationalization of voice. We

are the first study to – based on theory and prior inductive research – generate a measure that

captures both promotive and prohibitive dimensions of voice. Introducing a measure of voice

that subsumes both content dimensions is an important advancement of voice research given the

recent broadened definition of voice (Van Dyne et al., 2003). Furthermore, our validation

analysis and finding that FOCC and psychological safety relate differentially to the two types of

voice provide evidence of not only the conceptual and empirical distinction between promotive

and prohibitive voice, but also point to how the nomological networks surrounding the two types

of voice may differ. A promising avenue for future research is to further explore how antecedents

to voice, as well as the interpersonal consequences associated with voice, may differ depending

on its contents.

Practically speaking, even though companies hoping to benefit from the suggestions and

concerns of their employees generally have the best intentions toward encouraging voice, the

unfortunate truth is that employees are often uncomfortable about voicing (Dutton et al., 1997;

Milliken et al., 2003). Our study calls managers to recognize that several psychological factors

can either facilitate or prevent employees from speaking up. Voice can be maximized to the

extent that managers are able to increase employees’ psychological safety, FOCC, and OBSE,

33

for instance, by demonstrating an attitude of openness towards employees’ ideas and providing

formal or informal mechanisms for voice (thereby increasing psychological safety), reminding

employees that they are valued members of the organization and are capable of providing

valuable input (thereby increasing OBSE), and emphasizing that employees can “give back” to

the organization by providing suggestions and pointing out ineffective processes (thereby

increasing FOCC). Additionally, given our study’s finding that voice is more likely to occur

when both psychological safety and FOCC are high, managers should be careful to act in ways

that facilitate both of these key psychological factors. Finally, by making voice a positive

experience for employees, managers can increase the likelihood that employees will engage in

future instances of voice.

Limitations and Future Directions

Our study has several limitations that should be addressed in future research. First,

although we conceptually differentiated promotive and prohibitive subdimensions of voice and

found some evidence of differences in their nomological network, much more work can be done

in this area. Future research may uncover other psychological antecedents that may differentiate

these two subdimensions. One possibility may be individual differences in regulatory focus

(Higgins, 1997). For instance, promotion-focused employees may engage in greater promotive

voice due to their propensity to think in terms of achieving ideals and possibilities, whereas

prevention-focused employees may engage in greater prohibitive voice due to their propensity to

think in terms of avoiding losses. Future research may also explore the different outcomes of

promotive and prohibitive voice. We might expect promotive voice to be more closely related to

innovation due to its function in identifying new opportunities, and prohibitive voice to be more

34

closely related to efficiency or cost reductions due to its function of stopping or preventing harm

such as process losses.

A related limitation is the wording of the items used to capture FOCC, which had a

stronger bent toward promoting constructive change through coming up with suggestions and

ideas rather than raising concerns. The explicit mention of suggestions and ideas may have

biased the strength of the relationship found between FOCC and promotive voice. Similarly, in

an attempt to capture the enhanced interpersonal risk associated with voicing concerns, the

wording of our prohibitive voice items conveyed a sense of “daring” which may have biased the

strength of the relationship found between psychological safety and prohibitive voice. Thus, we

recommend future researchers to develop a more balanced wording of the items capturing FOCC

and prohibitive voice in order to overcome these limitations.

Another limitation of our study is the manner in which we operationalized perceived

behavioral control over voice. Given the social and political implications of engaging in voice,

we felt that OBSE – a proxy for self-perceived status and access to resources in the workplace –

would increase one’s perceived ease of speaking up. Our study’s results, however, have

suggested that the mechanisms underlying the effects of OBSE may overlap with those of

psychological safety. Hence, future research may choose to operationalize perceived behavioral

control over voice in a more specific manner. A likely candidate, for instance, is the recently

introduced construct “voice self-efficacy,” defined as how confident an employee is about his or

her skills as well as ability to speak up with suggestions for improvement (Kish-Gephart et al.,

2009). Including both voice self-efficacy and OBSE may capture more fully an employee’s

perceived access to both internal and external resources to effectively speak up.

35

Finally, although our intention was not to conduct a cross-cultural comparison study,

testing our model in the Chinese context may have influenced our results nonetheless.

Traditional Chinese values on high power distance may make voice a particularly risky behavior

(Huang et al., 2005). Furthermore, the Chinese cultural emphasis on maintaining harmonious

interpersonal relationships and reciprocation over individual agency may have increased the

relative importance of psychological safety and FOCC over OBSE in predicting voice in our

sample. We recommend that future research more systematically examine the effects of culture

on our model and determine whether the pattern of our findings is unique to our research context.

Conclusion

Employee voice is a complex phenomenon to predict. Nevertheless, because of its

functionality in promoting organizational health, we urge researchers to continue to pursue

understanding of the many factors that may facilitate or inhibit its expression. Our efforts here to

identify two content domains of voice and examine the multiple psychological factors leading to

them represents a first step to achieving a more nuanced and complete understanding of why and

how employees speak up. We hope that our work serves as a launching pad for future research

along these lines.

36

References

Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50: 179-211.

Ajzen, I. 2001. Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52: 27-58.

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. 1978. Organizational learning: A theory of action approach. Reading, MA: Addision Wesley.

Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. 2001. Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40: 471-499.

Ashford, S. J., Rothbard, N. P., Piderit, S. K., & Dutton, J. E. 1998. Out on a limb: the role of context and impression management in selling gender-equity issues. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 23-57.

Bagozzi, R. P. 1992. The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55: 178-204.

Bond, M. H., & Hwang, K.K. 1986. The social psychology of Chinese people. In M. H. Bond (Eds.), The psychology of Chinese people: 213-66. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Brislin, R. W. 1986. The wording and translation of research instrument. In W. Lonner & J. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research: 137-164. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Brockner, J. 1988. Self-esteem at work: Research, theory, and practice. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Brockner, J., Heuer, L., Siegel, P. A., Wiesenfeld, B., Martin, C., Grover, S., Reed, T. & Bjorgvinsson, S. 1998. The moderating effect of self-esteem in reaction to voice: Converging evidence from five studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75: 394-407.

Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. 1996. A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 358-368.

Burris, E. R., Detert, J. R. & Chiaburu, D. S. 2008. Quitting before leaving: The mediating effects of psychological attachment and detachment on voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 912-922.

Chen, Z. X., & Aryee, S. 2007. Delegation and employee work outcomes: An examination of the cultural context of mediating process in China. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 226-238.

Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. 1983. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum Associates.

Conner, M., & Armitage, C. J. 1998. Extending the theory of planned behavior: A review and avenues for further research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28: 1429-1464.

Conner, M., & McMillan, B. 1999. Interaction effects in the theory of planned behavior: Studying cannabis use. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38: 195-222

37

Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. 2007. Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50: 869-884.

Dutton, J. E., & Ashford, S. J. 1993. Selling issues to top management. Academy of Management Review, 18: 397-428.

Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., Lawrence, K. A., & Miner-Rubino, K. 2002. Red light, green light: Making sense of the organizational context for issue selling. Organization Science, 13: 355-369.

Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., O’Neill, R. M., Hayes, E., & Wierba, E. E. 1997. Reading the wind: How middle managers assess the context for selling issues to top managers. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 407-425.

Edmondson, A. C. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 350-383.

Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. 2001. Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 42-51.

Farh, C. I. C., Tangirala, S., & Liang, J. 2010. Thinking before speaking: Employee cognitive engagement in change as a precursor to voice. Paper presented at the Annual National Meeting of Academy of Management, Montreal Canada.

Farh, J. L., Hackett, R., & Liang, J. 2007. Individual-level cultural values as moderators of perceived organizational support-employee outcome relationships in China: Comparing the effects of power distance and traditionality. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 715-729.

Farh, J. L., Zhong, C. B., & Organ, D. W. 2002. An inductive analysis of the construct domain of organizational citizenship behavior in the PRC. In A. S. Tsui & C. M. Lau (Eds): The management of enterprises in the People’s Republic of China: 445-470. Kluwer Academic Press, Boston, MA.

Farh, J. L., Zhong, C. B., & Organ, D. W. 2004. Organizational citizenship behavior in the People’s Republic of China. Organization Science, 15: 241-253.

Finkel, S. E. 1995. Causal analysis with panel data. Sage Publications.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18: 39-50.

Frese, M., Teng, E., & Wijnen, C. J. D. 1999. Helping to improve suggestion systems: Predictors of giving suggestions in companies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20: 1139-1155.

Fuller, J. B., Marler, L. E., & Hester, K. 2006. Promoting felt responsibility for constructive change and proactive behavior: Exploring aspects of an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27: 1089-1120.

Gouldner, A.W. 1960. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25: 161-178.

Graham, J. W. 1986. Principled organizational dissent: A theoretical essay. In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds), Research in organizational behavior, 8: 1-52. Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1980. Work redesign. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

38

Higgins, E. T. 1997. Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52: 1280-1300.

Huang, X., Van de Vliert, E., & Van der Vegt, G. 2005. Breaking the silence culture: Stimulation of participation and employee opinion withholding cross-nationally. Management and Organization Review, 1: 459-482

Kahn, W. A. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33: 692-724.

Kish-Gephart, J. J., Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Edmondson, A. C. 2009. Silenced by fear: The nature, sources, and consequences of fear at work. In B. M. Staw & A. P. Brief (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 29: 163-193. Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Korman, A. K. 2001. Self-enhancement and self-protection: Towards a theory of work motivation. In M. Erez, U. Kleinbeck, & H. Thierry (Eds.), Work motivation in the context of a globalizing economy: 121-130. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. 1998. Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 853-868.

LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. 2001. Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with big five personality characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 326-336.

May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. 2004. The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77: 11-37.

Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. 2003. An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why. Journal of Management Studies, 40: 1453-1476.

Moorman, R. H. 1993. The influence of cognitive and affective based job satisfaction measures on the relationship between satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior. Human Relations, 46: 759-776.

Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. 2000. Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25: 706-725.

Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. 1999. Taking charge at work: Extra-role efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 403-419.

Morrison, E. W., Wheeler-Smith, S. L., & Kamdar, D. 2011. Speaking up in groups: a cross-level study of group voice climate and voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96:183-191.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. 2007. Mplus user’s guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Author.

Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. 1985. Organizational dissidence: The case of whistle-blowing. Journal of Business Ethics, 4: l-16.

Netemeyer, R. G., Johnston, M. W., & Burton, S. 1990. Analysis of role conflict and role ambiguity in a structural equation framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 148-157.

Organ, D. W. 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.

39

Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. A. 1989. A cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 157-164.

Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. 2006. Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Perugini, M., Gallucci, M., Presaghi, F., & Ercolani, A. P. 2003. The personal norm of reciprocity. European Journal of Personality, 17: 251-283.

Pierce, J., Gardner, D., Cummings, L., & Dunham, R. 1989. Organization-based self-esteem: construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 622-648.

Podsakoff, P. M., McKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. 1990. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1: 107-142.

Premeaux, S. F., & Bedeian, A.G. 2003. Breaking the silence: The moderating effects of self-monitoring in predicting speaking up in the workplace. Journal of Management Studies, 40: 1537-1562.

Rusbult, C. E., Farrell, D., Rogers, G., & Mainous, A. G., III. 1988. Impact of ex-change variables on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: An integrative model of responses to declining job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 31: 599-627.

Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J. & Griskevicius, V. 2007. The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18: 429-434.

Schwartz, J., & Wald, M. L. 2003. The Nation: NASA‘s curse?: Groupthink is 30 years old, and still going strong. New York Times, March 9, 5.

Schwartz, S. H. 1977. Normative influence on altruism. Advances in experimental social psychology, 10: 222-275.

Siebert, W. S., & Zubanov, N. 2009. Searching for the optimal level of employee turnover: A study of large U.K. retail organization. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 294-313.

Stamper, C. L., & Van Dyne, L. 2001. Work status and organizational citizenship behavior: A field study of restaurant employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22: 517-536.

Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. 2008. Exploring non-linearity in employee voice: The effects of personal control and organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 1189-1203.

Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Hoobler, J., & Ensley, M. D. 2004. Moderators of the relationships between coworkers’ organizational citizenship behavior and fellow employees’ attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 455-465.

Thompson, J. A. 2005. Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 1011-1017.

Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. 2003. Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40: 1359-1392.

Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean Parks, J. 1995. Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of

40

construct and definitional clarity. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior,17: 215-285. Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. 1998. Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 108-119.

Venkataramani, V., & Tangirala, S. 2010. When and why do central employees speak up? An examination of mediating and moderating variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95: 582-591.

Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. 2009. Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 1275-1286.

Withey, M. J., & Cooper, W. H. 1989. Predicting exit, voice, loyalty and neglect. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34: 521-539.

Zhao, B., & Olivera, F. 2006. Error reporting in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 31: 1012-1030.

41

Footnotes

1 Based on comments advanced by other researchers (e.g., Burris et al. 2008; Organ et

al., 2006), we elected to adapt Van Dyne and LePine’s (1998) items to solely reflect verbal

communication about the improvement of organizational affairs. The four items included,

“Develops and makes recommendations concerning issues that affect this work group,”

“Speaks up and encourages others in this group to get involved in issues that affect the

group,” “Communicates his/her opinions about work issues to others in this group even if

his/her opinion is different and others in the group disagree with him/her,” and “Speaks up in

this group with ideas for new projects or changes in procedures.”

2 Items from Farh, Hackett, and Liang (2007) included, “This employee actively raises

suggestions to improve work procedures or processes,” and “This employee actively brings

forward suggestions that may help the organization run more efficiently or effectively.”

3 Because the potential conceptual overlap between job satisfaction and FOCC would

partial out some of the variance in voice explained by FOCC, we re-analyzed our data

without including job satisfaction as a control variable. The results remained unchanged. We

elected to retain job satisfaction as a control variable because of the cognitive and affective

impact it may have on voice, based on prior research demonstrating its relationship to OCBs

in general (e.g., Moorman, 1993; Organ & Konovsky, 1989).

4 The modest test-retest correlations among the voice measures at Time 1 and Time 2

deserve some explanation. Based on our interviews with managers from the sample

organization, we believe that the relatively low correlations were partially due to the sample

context. Our study was conducted in a retail company that at the time of data collection was

undergoing tremendous change, resulting in high turnover and an unstable workforce that we

believe led to low test-retest correlations. However, extant research in other study contexts

examining constructs akin to the predictors in our study have found strong correlations with

42

voice when measured at the same time. For instance, Walumbwa and Schaubroeck (2009)

found a positive correlation of r = .49 between psychological safety and voice; Fuller, Marler,

and Hester (2006) found a positive correlation of r = .26 between felt responsibility for

change and voice; and Venkataramani and Tangirala (2010) reported a positive relationship

(γ = .24) between personal influence (as rated by peers) and voice. Thus, although our sample

organization was not necessarily the most ideal setting for testing our hypotheses, the fact

that we were still able to find support for our proposed relationships suggests that our study

was a conservative demonstration of the underlying relationships that otherwise might have

been shown to be more robust elsewhere.

43

TABLE 1

A Comparison of Promotive versus Prohibitive Voice Promotive Voice Prohibitive Voice

Commonalities

• Is not specified in formal job descriptions (save for particular jobs such as auditing) and thus is “extra-role.”

• Is helpful to the functioning of the work unit or the organization and thus is “constructive.”

• Is motivated by a desire to help the work unit or organization and thus reflects an employee’s sense of responsibility and constructive attitude towards the organization.

Distinctions

1. Behavioral content

• Expresses new ideas or solutions for how to improve the status quo.

• Future-oriented; points to possibilities of how to do things better in the future.

• Expresses concern about existing or impending factors (i.e., incidents, practices, or behaviors) that are harmful to the organization.

• Past or future-oriented; points out harmful factors that have negatively affected the status quo or could have a harmful effect in the future.

2. Function • Points out ways that the organization can be better.

• Points out factors that are harmful to the organization.

3. Implications for others

• Suggests improvements that may bring forth changes that inconvenience others in the short run, but the improvements can potentially eventually benefit the entire community.

• The good intention behind suggested improvements is easily recognized and interpreted as positive.

• Calls attention to harmful factors and consequently implicates the failure of those responsible.

• The good intention behind pointing out harmful factors may not be easily recognized nor interpreted as positive because of the potential negative emotion and defensiveness invoked in the process.

44

TABLE 2 Factor Loadings for Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Study Variables

Measurement Items Loadings

Promotive voice Proactively develop and make suggestions for issues that may influence the unit. .81(.80) Proactively suggest new projects which are beneficial to the work unit. .79(.76) Raise suggestions to improve the unit’s working procedure. .74(.83) Proactively voice out constructive suggestions that help the unit reach its goals. .71(.81) Make constructive suggestions to improve the unit’s operation. .71(.83)

Prohibitive voice Advise other colleagues against undesirable behaviors that would hamper job

performance. .87(.84)

Speak up honestly with problems that might cause serious loss to the work unit, even when/though dissenting opinions exist. .77(.77)

Dare to voice out opinions on things that might affect efficiency in the work unit, even if that would embarrass others. .72(.81)

Dare to point out problems when they appear in the unit, even if that would hamper relationships with other colleagues. .70(.79)

Proactively report coordination problems in the workplace to the management. .66(.68)

Psychological safety In my work unit, I can express my true feelings regarding my job. .74(.80) In my work unit, I can freely express my thoughts. .72(.72) In my work unit, expressing your true feelings is welcomed. .65(.65) Nobody in my unit will pick on me even if I have different opinions. .55(.62) I’m worried that expressing true thoughts in my workplace would do harm to myself (R). .54(.46)

FOCC

I owe it to the organization to do whatever I can to come up with ideas/solutions to achieve its goal. .86(.86)

I have an obligation to the organization to voice out my own opinions .78(.77) I feel a personal obligation to produce constructive suggestions to help the organization

achieve its goals. .64(.78)

I owe it to the organization to do what I can to come up with brilliant ideas, to ensure that our customers are well served and satisfied. .62(.67)

I would feel an obligation to take time from my personal schedule to generate ideas/solutions for the organization if it is needed. .57(.64)

OBSE

I am helpful around here. .89(.86) I am valuable around here. .85(.87) I count around here. .80(.73) There is faith in me around here. .62(.55) I am efficient around here. .49(.43) I am trusted around here. .47(.41) I am taken seriously around here. .46(.46)

Notes: Standardized factor loadings are reported. Loadings from Time 2 are reported in parentheses. FOCC = Felt obligation for constructive change. OBSE = organization-based self-esteem.

45

TABLE 3 Comparison of Measurement Models in the Main Study

Models Factors χ2 d.f. Δ χ2 RMSEA CFI IFI NNFI

1 Five factors: Two types of voice, FOCC, psychological safety, OBSE.

593.61 (537.52) 314 . 066

(.059) .94 (.95) .94 (.95) .93 (.94)

2 Four factors: Two types of voice combined into one factor.

874.06 (913.38) 318 280.45**

(375.86**) . .092 (.095) .90 (.92) .90 (.92) .89 (.91)

3 Four factors: FOCC and psychological safety combined into one factor.

820.18 (901.16) 318 226.57**

(363.64**) .088

(.094) .91 (.91) .91 (.92) .90 (.91)

4 Four factors: Psychological safety and OBSE combined into one factor.

953.48 (932.13) 318 359.87**

(394.61**) .099

(.096) .89 (.91) .89 (.92) .88 (.91)

5 Four factors: FOCC and OBSE combined into one factor.

1076.37 (1129.98) 318 482.76**

(592.46**) .110

(.110) .88 (.89) .88 (.89) .86 (.88)

6

Two factors: Supervisor ratings (e.g., voice) combined into one factor; subordinate ratings (e.g., psychological states) combined into one factor.

1617.05 (1734.51) 323 1023.44**

(1196.99**) .140

(.140) .81 (.82) .81 (.82) .79 (.81)

Notes: Model fit indices from Time 2 are reported in parentheses. * p <.05. ** p < .01. FOCC = Felt obligation for constructive change. OBSE = organization-based self-esteem.

46

TABLE 4 Means, Standard Deviations, and Inter-Correlations among Variables in the Main Study

Mean S.D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1. Promotive voice-T1 2.50 0.78 (.87)

2. Prohibitive voice-T1 2.70 0.82 .61** (.86)

3. Psychological safety-T1 3.53 0.59 .18* .04 (.72)

4. FOCC-T1 3.94 0.55 .13* .17* .37** (.77)

5. OBSE-T1 3.47 0.54 .14* .12 .42** .28** (.86)

6. Promotive voice-T2 2.72 0.83 .42** .35** .20* .26** .23** (.90)

7. Prohibitive voice-T2 2.78 0.83 .40** .44** .18* .15* .23** .62** (.90)

8. Psychological safety-T2 3.61 0.52 .08 -.03 .27** .11 .17** .27** .13 (.75)

9. FOCC-T2 3.86 0.53 .10 .09 .11 .22** .06 .22** .18* .31** (.81)

10. OBSE-T2 3.50 0.50 .15* .05 .20** .15* .29** .22** .13 .37** .35** (.86)

11. Job satisfaction-T2 3.73 0.65 .09 .07 .16* .14* .24** .18* .08 .39** .40** .40** (.79)

12. Education 1.68 0.49 .01 -.06 -.08 .03 .02 .03 .02 -.03 .01 .07 .14* -

13. Position 1.22 0.47 .07 .13* -.05 .08 .05 .16* .13* .02 .08 .05 .07 .04 -

14. Org. Tenure 28.67 24.75 .06 .04 .04 .07 .13* .14* .15* .00 .16* .03 .12 .04 .21**

Notes. N = 220-239, List-wise deletion. Internal reliabilities (coefficient alphas) appear in parentheses on the diagonal. FOCC = felt obligation for constructive change. OBSE = organization-based self-esteem. Organizational tenure was operationalized in months. Education level was measured using four categories: 1 = middle school or below, 2 = college, 3 = university, and 4 = postgraduate. Position in the organization was measured using four categories: 1 = employees, 2 = first-line manager, 3 = middle manager, and 4 = senior manager. * p <.05. ** p < .01.

47

47

TABLE 5 Results of Two-Wave Structural Equation Models

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Controls

Education Promotive(t2)

.02(.07) -.01(.06) -.01(.07) -.04(.07) Position Promotive(t2)

.10(.06) .09(.07) .10(.06) .07(.06) Tenure Promotive(t2)

.06(.06) .04(.07) .03(.06) .08(.07) Satisfaction Promotive(t2)

.04(.09) .10(.08) .13(.08) -.02(.09) Education Prohibitive(t2)

.05(.05) .02(.06) .02(.09) -.06(.06) Position Prohibitive(t2)

.03(.06) .01(.07) .01(.07) .08(.05) Tenure Prohibitive(t2)

.09(.07) .07(.07) .07(.07) .12*(.07) Satisfaction Prohibitive(t2)

-.05(.08) -.01(.08) .03(.09) -.11(.08) Stability

Safety (t1) Safety(t2)

.30**(.11) .31**(.10) FOCC(t1) FOCC(t2)

.26**(.08) .26**(.12) OBSE(t1) OBSE(t2) .29**(.09) .29**(.08) Promotive (t1) Promotive(t2)

.43**(.06) .41**(.06) .42**(.09) .43**(.09) Prohibitive(t1) Prohibitive(t2)

.49**(.09) .47**(.06) .47**(.10) .47**(.10) Predicted Paths

Safety(t1) Promotive(t2)

.17**(.08) -.02(.11) FOCC(t1) Promotive(t2)

.22**(.07) .20**(.10) OBSE(t1) Promotive(t2) .17*(.10) .11(.12) Safety(t1) Prohibitive(t2)

.24**(.08) .19*(.10) FOCC(t1) Prohibitive(t2)

.13*(.07) -.02(.12) OBSE(t1) Prohibitive(t2) .18**(.09) .10(.12)

Reversed Paths Promotive(t1) Safety(t2)

.21(.19) .13(.17) Promotive(t1) FOCC(t2)

.13(.13) .11(.16) Promotive(t1) OBSE(t2) .35*(.19) .30*(.18) Prohibitive(t1) Safety(t2)

-.23(.18) -.13(.16) Prohibitive(t1) FOCC(t2)

-.05(.12) -.02(.16) Prohibitive(t1) OBSE(t2) -.24(.17) -.19(.17)

Notes: N=231, FOCC = felt obligation for constructive change. OBSE = organization-based self-esteem. The standard errors in the estimations are reported in parentheses. *p < .05; ** p < .01, One-tailed tests.

48

48

TABLE 6 Results of Random Coefficient Modeling Analyses on Voice Behavior

Promotive Voice - T2 Prohibitive Voice – T2

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

Intercept 2.73**(.06) 2.76**(.06) 2.76**(.06) 2.81**(.06) 2.82**(.06) 2.79**(.06) Education -.06(.04) -.07*(.03) -.05(.03) -.02(.04) -.03(.03) -.01(.04)

Position .01(.03) .02(.03) .02(.03) .04(.03) .03(.03) .06(.04)

Organizational tenure .01(.04) .01(.03) .04(.03) .05(.04) .07*(.03) .06(.04)

Job satisfaction-T2 .04(.04) .02(.03) .01(.03) -.04(.04) -.05(.03) -.05(.04)

Promotive voice-T1 .32**(.05) .32**(.04) .35**(.04)

Prohibitive voice-T1 .37**(.05) .36**(.05) .36**(.05)

Psy. Safety-T1 .03(.04) .02(.03) .01(.05) .08†(.05) .04(.04) .06(.04)

FOCC-T1 .13**(.04) .06(.04) .11*(.04) .02(.04) .03(.05) .03(.04)

OBSE-T1 .06(.04) .03(.04) .07†(.04) .09†(.05) .03(.04) .08†*(.05)

Psy. Safety × FOCC .14**(.04) .15*(.05) .08*(.04) .14**(.05)

Psy. Safety × OBSE -.19**(.04) -.21*(.05) -.02(.04) -.04(.04)

OBSE × FOCC -.01(.04) -.02(.04)

Psy. Safety × FOCC × OBSE -.02(.02) .03(.02)

△-2log-likelihoodd.f. 41.452** 11.674* 21.992** .23

-2 log-likelihood 493.09 451.54 481.42 478.95 456.96 478.72 Notes: N=232, FOCC = felt obligation for constructive change. OBSE = organization-based self-esteem. The standard errors in the estimations are reported in parentheses. † p < .10, * p< .05; ** p < .01, two-tailed tests.

49

49

FIGURE 1 A Two-Wave Structural Model of Psychological Antecedents and Voice

Notes:

Psychological Antecedents

(T1)

β2

β3

β5

Ф3

Promotive Voice (T1)

Promotive Voice (T2)

Prohibitive Voice (T1)

Prohibitive Voice (T2)

β7

Psychological Antecedents

(T2)

β1

Ф2

Ф1

β4

β6

The test-retest correlations of study variables over time (β1, β2, and β3);

The path coefficients examined for the hypothesized effect of psychological antecedents on voice (β5 and β7);

The path coefficient may suggest reverse causality (β4 and β6).

50

50

FIGURE 2 Psychological Safety X FOCC Interaction on Promotive Voice

Note. FOCC = Felt obligation for constructive change.

4.12 2.93 Psychological safety

3.10

3.00

2.90

2.80

2.70

2.60

2.50

2.40

Prom

otiv

e vo

ice

High FOCC group

Low FOCC group

51

51

FIGURE 3 Psychological Safety X OBSE Interaction on Promotive Voice

Note. OBSE = organization-based self-esteem.

4.12 2.93 Psychological safety

3.00

2.90

2.80

2.70

2.60

2.50

2.40

Prom

otiv

e V

oice

High OBSE group

Low OBSE group

52

52

Jian Liang (jianliang@sjtu.edu.cn) is an associate professor at Antai College of Economics and Management at Shanghai Jiao Tong University. He obtained his Ph.D. in Management from the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. His research interests include employee proactive behaviors, cultural values, leadership, and business ethics. Crystal I. C. Farh (cfarh@rhsmith.umd.edu) is a doctoral candidate in organizational behavior at the University of Maryland's Robert H. Smith School of Business. Her research interests include managing cross-cultural interfaces, employee proactive behaviors, and team and leadership processes. Jiing-Lih (Larry) Farh (mnlfarh@ust.hk) is the Chair Professor of Management at the School of Business and Management at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. He received his Ph.D. in business administration from Indiana University at Bloomington. His research interests primarily focus on the study of organizational behavior in Chinese contexts (such as cultural values, guanxi, leadership, and organizational citizenship behavior)