Temporary employment and voice behavior: the role of self‐efficacy and political savvy

Abstract

This study examines whether and how different employment arrangements (temporary versus regular employment) may affect employees' voice behaviors (promotive and prohibitive voice). Using a twowave panel design, we collected data from a sample of 355 employees from 66 teams in four Chinese organizations. The results show that temporary employees engage in fewer promotive voice behaviors than their regular counterparts, but there is no difference between the two groups when it comes to prohibitive voice. Moreover, self-efficacy is a mediator between employment status and voice behaviors, and political savvy acts as a moderator. For employees with high political savvy, the negative relationships between temporary employment status and promotive and prohibitive voice is attenuated.

Leader Humility, and Subordinates’ Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Withdrawal Behavior: Exploring the Mediating Mechanisms of Subordinates’ Psychological Capital

“…This means that subordinates' PsyCap may play a mediating role in the relationship between leader humility and subordinates' OCB/withdrawal behavior. First, several previous studies support the promoting effect of positive PsyCap on employees' extra-role behaviors [10,41,42,[46][47][48]. For example, Qian et al [46] found that employees with higher self-efficacy are less reluctant to speak up; Norman et al's [10] research demonstrated that positive PsyCap can promote employees to engage in more OCB and fewer deviance behaviors; and Avey et al's [48] meta-analysis supported the idea that PsyCap is positively related to desirable OCB behaviors, and negatively related to undesirable behaviors (turnover and deviance).…”

“…First, several previous studies support the promoting effect of positive PsyCap on employees' extra-role behaviors [10,41,42,[46][47][48]. For example, Qian et al [46] found that employees with higher self-efficacy are less reluctant to speak up; Norman et al's [10] research demonstrated that positive PsyCap can promote employees to engage in more OCB and fewer deviance behaviors; and Avey et al's [48] meta-analysis supported the idea that PsyCap is positively related to desirable OCB behaviors, and negatively related to undesirable behaviors (turnover and deviance). Consistent with these arguments, we propose the idea that subordinates' perceptions of leader humility may create positive work conditions necessary for subordinates' PsyCap to flourish, which, in turn, will promote subordinates to engage in more OCB [10,48] and fewer withdrawal behaviors [48].…”

The determinants of project worker voice in project‐based organisations: An initial conceptualisation and research agenda

“…The proportion of project work in advanced economies equates to roughly a third of all business activities and 22% of the world's gross domestic product (Schoper, Wald, Ingason, & Fridgeirsson, 2018) in the fields of construction, defence, aerospace, and engineering and expanding into sectors such as power, pharmaceuticals, Information & Communications Technology, Research & Development, art/culture and creative industries, and service industries (Lundin et al, 2015). The normalisation of temporary work modes creates new employment relationships and changes the design of human resource management (HRM) systems and processes as emphasised in several publications in HRM journals (e.g., Bredin & Söderlund, 2007, 2011; Bredin & Söderlund, 2011; Qian, Li, Song, & Wang, 2019).

…”

“…Yet, PBOs face a challenge in this area because they do not have integrative coordination systems for employee voice (Matthews, Stanley, & Davidson, 2018). Studies examine aspects of voice in project settings in a disconnected manner (e.g., Dainty, Raidén, & Neale, 2009; Ekrot, Rank, & Gemünden, 2016; Gemünden, Lehner, & Kock, 2018; Kaufmann, Kock, & Gemünden, 2020; Liang, Shu, & Farh, 2019; Qian et al, 2019) or indirectly study voice (e.g., Aaltonen, 2013; D'Armagnac, 2015; Keegan & Den Hartog, 2018; Love, Teo, Davidson, Cumming, & Morrison, 2016). However, it is our view that the study of voice in PBOs is important for the following four challenges that PBOs face.…”

“…On the other hand, the OB perspective argues that voice is a discretionary, prosocial behaviour targeted at benefiting the organisation (Wilkinson et al, 2014). Studies looking at aspects of voice in project settings support voice dimensions regarding its form (direct/indirect, formal/informal and internal/external, see Daymond & Rooney, 2018; Detert & Treviño, 2010; prohibitive/promotive, see Liang et al, 2019; Qian et al, 2019). There is also a discussion about the power/influence in feedback, communication and interaction between project leaders, the team members and the PBO in both the HRM and the PBO governance studies (e.g., Aaltonen, 2013; Ahern et al, 2014; D'Armagnac, 2015; Dainty et al, 2009; Keegan & Den Hartog, 2018; Love et al, 2016).…”