Employee voice behavior: A meta‐analytic test of the conservation of resources framework

Ng, Thomas W. H.; Feldman, Daniel C.

doi:10.1002/job.754

Cited by 573 publications

(605 citation statements)

References 91 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

556

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Further to this, specific job, social and organizational stressors and strains have been presented by Ng and Feldman (2011) as negatively affecting voice in the workplace and we can expect these to be magnified in an economic crisis period. Job stressors include lack of job autonomy and dissatisfaction with work conditions, pay and promotions.…”

Section: Factors Inhibiting Voice In An Economic Crisis Contextmentioning

confidence: 95%

Do not say a word! Conceptualizing employee silence in a long-term crisis context

Prouska

Psychogios

2016

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Factors Inhibiting Voice In An Economic Crisis Contextmentioning

confidence: 95%

Do not say a word! Conceptualizing employee silence in a long-term crisis context

Prouska

Psychogios

2016

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Challenging means that its focus is changing the status quo, while promotive means that its intention is constructive. Therefore, compared with other forms of OCB (e.g., helping others), voice is often viewed as a risky and costly behavior [6,7,28]. Though employee voice is not recognized by the formal reward system, it is likely to influence the supervisor perceptions, recognition, and rewards over time [28].…”

Section: Motives Of Employee Voicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, employee voice could potentially damage interpersonal relationships, especially the relationship between a supervisor and an employee [2,[5][6][7]. This raises an important and interesting question: how does the employee voice influence employee performance appraisal?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although the contributions of employee voice to group or organizational performance are widely recognized, it is still not clear whether and how this recognition is reflected in employee performance evaluations [7]. 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.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Voice Behavior, Supervisor Attribution and Employee Performance Appraisal

Liu

Hanson-Rasmussen

2017

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Employees contribute to the sustainability of organizations in many ways, yet the specific impact of employee voice on employee performance appraisal, as an element of organization sustainability, is not clear. Based on the attribution theory, we present a model to investigate the relationship between employee voice and employee performance appraisal. Using the PLS (Partial Least Squares) method, we test our model's hypotheses with 273 dyads of supervisor-employee questionnaires administered on a branch of a state-owned enterprise in China. The results show that promotive voice is positively attributed to prosocial motives and constructive motives, while prohibitive voice is not significantly attributed to prosocial motives and constructive motives. The attribution of prosocial motives and constructive motives has a significant and positive effect on employees' performance appraisal. Moreover, the attribution of prosocial motives and constructive motives fully mediates the relationship between promotive voice and performance appraisal, but has no mediating effects on the relationship between prohibitive voice and performance appraisal.

show abstract

“…On the other hand, research on career planning has shown that people who score high on a measure of authenticity choose their employment with care (White & Tracey, 2011). Employment that is carefully chosen should (at least to some extent) offer a good fit for employees' needs and thereby provide resources that employees may want to conserve (Ng & Feldman, 2012). Drawing on this logic, we expect that the need to conserve these resources will weaken the tendency to leave the organization (i.e., exit).…”

Section: Study 1: Authenticity and Responses To Problematic Events -Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

Authenticity, employee silence, prohibitive voice, and the moderating effect of organizational identification

Knoll

Dick

2013

The Journal of Positive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Authenticity is an important concept in positive psychology and has been shown to be related to well-being, health, and leadership effectiveness. The present paper introduces employee authenticity as a predictor of relevant workplace behaviors, namely, employee silence and prohibitive voice. Converging evidence across two studies using cross-sectional and longitudinal designs demonstrates that when responding to hypothetical problematic workplace events (Study 1) or actual workplace experiences (Study 2), individual differences in employees' authenticity predicted more self-reported voice behaviors and less silence that emanated from various motivations. Furthermore, authenticity scores consistently yielded predictive utility over and above the contribution of a broad set of individual and organization-based characteristics. Finally, organizational identification moderated the relation between authenticity and silence, such that for employees with high levels of identification, the relation between authenticity and silence was stronger.Keywords: authenticity, character strengths, employee silence, organizational identification, positive organizational behavior, positive organizational scholarship, voice Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 2 Authenticity, employee silence, prohibitive voice, and the moderating effect of organizational identification Authenticity, one of the key concepts in positive psychology research (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, p. 12), "involves owning one's personal experiences, be they thoughts, emotions, needs, wants, preferences, or beliefs" and "expressing oneself in ways that are consistent with inner thoughts and feelings" (Harter, 2002, p.382). Although practitioners and researchers agree that authenticity is important for psychological well-being (e.g., Rogers, 1961;Schlegel & Hicks, 2011), they question the appropriateness of authenticity at work. Studies have revealed that employees are often required to act in specific ways (e.g., Grandey, 2003;Hewlin, 2009;Hochschild, 1983) and that adjusting to others' expectations might be advantageous with regard to supervisor evaluations (Blickle et al., 2011 We think that the potential benefits of authenticity may lie dormant because in some situations, employees who are true to themselves could be beneficial for organizations. One such situation is when employees face problematic situations at work (e.g., transgressions, ineffectiveness). If employees engage in prohibitive voice ...

show abstract

Employee voice behavior: A meta‐analytic test of the conservation of resources framework

Cited by 573 publications

References 91 publications

Do not say a word! Conceptualizing employee silence in a long-term crisis context

Do not say a word! Conceptualizing employee silence in a long-term crisis context

Voice Behavior, Supervisor Attribution and Employee Performance Appraisal

Authenticity, employee silence, prohibitive voice, and the moderating effect of organizational identification

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About