Predicting voice behavior in work groups.

Abstract

This field study of 441 full-time employees in 95 work groups examined voice behavior (constructive challenge to the status quo with the intent of improving the situation rather than merely criticizing) as a function of person-centered (satisfaction with the work. group, global self-esteem) and situational factors (group size, self-managed vs. traditional style of management). Using a measure of voice with demonstrated construct validity, the study showed that these person and situation factors explained 10% of the variance in peer-rated voice assessed 6 months later. Significant Person x Situation interactions suggested that individuals with low global self-esteem or high satisfaction with their group were more responsive to the situational factors than individuals with high global self-esteem or low satisfaction. The authors discuss the importance of including personcentered characteristics, situational factors, and their interactions as predictors of voice.For over 50 years, scholars have recognized the importance of behavior that goes beyond normal role expectations or job requirements and that benefits or is intended to benefit the organization (Barnard, 1938;George & Brief, 1992;Katz & Kahn, 1978). Over the last decade research interest in these discretionary or extra-role behaviors has increased; however, the primary focus has been on affiliative behaviors (e.g., helping) associated with "organizational citizenship" (e.g., Organ, 1988) and "contextual performance" (e.g., Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994). Although this research has led to a great deal of insight, other types of extra-role behavior have received far less attention (Graham, 1991;Van Dyne, Cummings, & McLean Parks, 1995). In this study we focused on voice behavior--speaking out and challenging the status quo with the intent of improving the situation. Although scholars have acknowledged the contributions that voice and change-oriented behavior can make to organizational effectiveness (Katz & Kahn, 1978;Nemeth & Staw, 1989;Schein, 1968), voice is particularly important today given the emphasis on flexibility, innovation, and continuous improvement (Howard, 1995).Nowhere is the need for voice more important than in work groups. Work groups, or sets of interdependent Jeffrey A. LePine, Department of Management, University of Florida; Linn Van Dyne, Department of Management, Michigan State University.We thank Jason A. Colquitt for his comments on this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jeffrey A. LePine, Department of Management, University of Florida, 201 Business Building, P.O. Box 117165, Gainesville, Florida 32611-7165. Electronic mail may be sent to lepineja@ dale.cba.ufl.edu. 853individuals who share responsibility for outcomes (Sundstrom, DeMeuse, & Futrell, 1990), are increasingly being used as a means of dealing with competitive environments that demand flexibility (Ilgen, 1994). Instead of structuring work around individual-level jobs, work is assigned to groups that are expected to devise effective mea...

Proactive work behavior: Forward-thinking and change-oriented action in organizations.

“…However, these results are overall small in size, and third variables could explain the results. In this vein, in the study by LePine and Van Dyne (1998), ethnicity correlated more strongly with education than it did with proactivity (r=.15, p>.01 for education, as opposed to r=.10, p>.05 for proactivity) in that non-white employees typically also possessed lower educational qualifications. These qualifications in their own right might explain the relationship between ethnicity and the level of engagement in proactive behaviors.…”

“…(2001) found meta-analytical evidence of a positive relationship (r c =.12, p<.05) between educational background and the degree of proactive job search. In the same vein, in their research on voicing behavior in groups, LePine and Van Dyne (1998) found that individuals with a higher educational background were also more likely to speak out with suggestions for improvements (β=.13, p<.05).…”

“…To date, US-based research which included ethnicity as an antecedent for proactive behaviors at work did not reveal clear insights into these possible relationships. LePine and Van Dyne (1998) found that white employees are more likely to engage in voice (β=.09, p<.05), Kanfer and colleagues (2001), on the other hand, found that white employees are less likely to engage in proactive job search than were their non-white colleagues (r c =-.05, p<.05). However, these results are overall small in size, and third variables could explain the results.…”

Genetic and environmental factors affecting self-esteem from age 14 to 17: a longitudinal study of Finnish twins

“…High self-esteem is manifest in enhanced initiative, happiness and life satisfaction (Buhrmester et al 1988, Diener & Diener 1995, LePine & Van Dyne 1998, Furnham & Cheng 2000. Self-esteem is positively associated with better self-rated health (Glendinning 1998), and low self-esteem has been related to poor physical health outcomes (Nirkko et al 1982).…”

Big Five Factors and Employees’ Voice Behavior among Employees in Small-Medium Enterprise in Penang

“…In order to maintain the job creation and income generation, which deemed as the backbone of the Malaysian economy, we have to sustain SME development in Malaysia (June & Mahmood, 2011). LePine and van Dyne (1998) found that it is important of innovation in recent business environment situation and they encourage more researches that help to enhance our understanding of voice. In the research by Nikolaou et al (2008), they found that there is more and more important for an organization relies on employees who are willing to express their new ideas and make constructive suggestion for change in order to initiatively respond to the challenges of the business environment.…”