Effects of message, source, and context on evaluations of employee voice behavior.

Abstract

The article contained a production-related error. In Table 5, the four values in the rows for Study 1 Prosocial motives and Study 1 Constructive voice should have been shifted one column to the right, to the Direct and Total Performance evaluations columns. All versions of this article have been corrected.] Although employee voice behavior is expected to have important organizational benefits, research indicates that employees voicing their recommendations for organizational change may be evaluated either positively or negatively by observers. A review of the literature suggests that the perceived efficacy of voice behaviors may be a function of characteristics associated with the (a) source, (b) message, and (c) context of the voice event. In this study, we manipulated variables from each of these categories based on a model designed to predict when voice will positively or negatively impact raters' evaluations of an employee's performance. To test our model, we conducted 3 laboratory studies in which we manipulated 2 source factors (voicer expertise and trustworthiness), 2 message factors (recommending a solution and positively vs. negatively framing the message), and 2 context factors (timing of the voice event and organizational norms for speaking up vs. keeping quiet). We also examined the mediating effects of liking, prosocial motives, and perceptions that the voice behavior was constructive on the relationships between the source, message, and context factors and performance evaluations. Generally speaking, we found that at least one of the variables from each category had an effect on performance evaluations for the voicer and that most of these effects were indirect, operating through one or more of the mediators. Implications for theory and future research are discussed.

Voice Behavior, Supervisor Attribution and Employee Performance Appraisal

“…In existing studies based on the social exchange theory [9], a typical viewpoint holds that because voice behavior can improve the team or organizational performance, supervisors should give a positive performance appraisal (i.e., high ratings) to employees who are willing to share their knowledge, ideas, and opinions for managerial problem solving. This viewpoint is supported by empirical studies which found that voice behavior is positively associated with the evaluation of employee performance [3,8,10,11]. In the existing literature, the voice is viewed as an aspect of citizenship behavior involving innovative suggestions that contribute toward changing existing practices and leading to improvements [12].…”

“…Not only the identification of specific motives, but also the types of attributed motives influence supervisors' evaluations of subordinates [11]. Employees with a prosocial motive are perceived as having a strong desire to help coworkers, a concern for the wellbeing of others, and a desire to build positive relationships with colleagues, creating a positive organization climate and facilitating interpersonal harmony in the organization.…”

“…Future research should compare the results of data collected from private and foreign-owned firms. Moreover, when examining the impact of different types of voice on performance appraisal in future studies, some information on voice, such as the context, source, message, and timing, should be controlled since these factors have been found to have some impact on supervisor's attribution of voice motives [11]. The future research may also consider the moderating effect of variables such as the leadership style, organization climate, on the relationship between employee voice, supervisor attribution and performance appraisal.…”

Public versus Private Voice

“…This research stream has focused on two forms of managerial reactions. First, earlier work on voice examined reactions in terms of employee outcomes including managers' evaluation of employee performance, level of competence, expertise as well as career outcomes (e.g., Seibert et al, 2001;Whiting, Maynes, Podsakoff, & Podsakoff, 2012). Second, more recent work focused on examining how managers react to the voiced idea by looking at voice endorsement (e.g., Burris, 2012;Fast et al, 2014;Sijbom et al, 2015aSijbom et al, , 2015b.…”

“…By contrast, employees who overestimate their voice volume receive worse performance evaluations. Whiting, Maynes, Podsakoff, and Podsakoff (2012), seeking to make sense of some of the mixed findings on how voice influences employee outcomes, drew from persuasion research to develop a more comprehensive model. They outlined the importance of examining how attributes of the voice source (i.e., the employee), the receiver (i.e., the manager), the message, and the context may affect performance evaluations of voicing employees.…”