aphr30.pdf

Voice behavior and work engagement:the moderating role ofsupervisor-attributed motives

Jen-Wei Cheng National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan

Kuo-Ming Lu National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan

Yi-Ying Chang National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan

Steward Johnstone Loughborough University, United Kingdom

Understanding employee voice behavior is a crucial aspect of organizing for high performance. In

this paper, we extend previous studies and examine the consequences of voice behavior and boundary

conditions of supervisor-attributed motives. Data for the sample was collected from 206 supervisor–

subordinate pairs from a variety of companies in Taiwan. Hierarchal regression analysis was

performed to test our model. The results show that voice behavior was positively related to leader–

member exchange (LMX), and LMX was positively associated with work engagement. Supervisor-

attributed motives moderate the relationship between voice behavior and LMX. Specifically, voice

behavior may more strongly influence LMX when supervisors label voice behavior as being more

prosocial and less motivated by impression management.

Keywords: leader–member exchange, supervisor-attributed impression management,

supervisor-attributed prosocial motives, voice behavior, work engagement

Issues of employee voice have become central to contemporary debates in HRM and twoperspectives generally underpin these. On the one hand is the view that a business case forvoice exists. The suggestion is that successful organizations are increasingly seeking to

Correspondence: Dr Yi-Ying Chang, Assistant Professor, Department of Business Administration,National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, 43, Keelung Road, Section 4, Taipei 106,Taiwan; e-mail: [email protected]

Accepted for publication 9 February 2012.

Key points1 LMX mediates the relationship between voice behavior and work engagement.

2 Supervisor attribution of prosocial motives moderates the relationship between voice

behavior and LMX quality.

3 Supervisor attribution of impression management motives moderates the relation-

ship between voice behavior and LMX quality.

bs_bs_banner

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources (2013) 51, 81–102 doi:10.1111/j.1744-7941.2012.00030.x

© 2012 Australian Human Resources Institute

engender the commitment of the workforce rather than merely ensuring the compliance ofemployees with managerial demands and organizational procedures (Walton 1985). Thequest for increased organizational performance has led to extensive debates regarding thedevelopment of ‘high-performance’ or ‘high-commitment’ work systems. Such perspectivesoften include voice provision as a key ingredient, suggesting that authoritarian workplacerelations which afford limited voice can undermine employee motivation, commitmentand potential contribution. Effective voice provisions can mean organizations benefit fromproactive behaviors such as employees behaving proactively and voicing suggestions (Fulleret al. 2007; Morrison and Milliken 2000; Van Dyne and LePine 1998) to help improveorganizational functions and systems (Morrison and Phelps 1999; Van Dyne, Cummingsand McLean Parks 1995; Walumbwa and Schaubroeck 2009) and facilitate the establish-ment of good employee–supervisor relationships (Lam, Huang and Snape 2007). Thisestablishment of good employee-supervisor relationships can contribute to organizationaleffectiveness and enhance business survival (Detert and Burris 2007; LePine and Van Dyne1998; Morrison and Phelps 1999). Glauser (1984, 614) further posited that employeescommunicating with superiors is vital ‘in personnel and operational decisions, as well asalerts managers to areas of needed change and adjustment in organizational policy andstrategy’.

A second perspective which draws upon the industrial relations tradition has been morecritical of employer-driven forms of employee voice. This stream of research has exploredthe dynamics of both direct and indirect voice channels in union and non-union work-places, and questioned the extent to which such mechanisms benefit workers given theimbalance of power between employees and employers (Wilkinson et al. 2004). Recentdevelopments in voice are therefore contrasted with other traditional mechanisms such ascollective employee representation through trade unions, and typically driven by a socialjustice rather than business case agenda. A more recent development concerns increasedinterest in issues of employee silence (Donaghey et al. 2011). It is suggested that silence asa relational notion is fundamentally ‘a managerialist interpretation of voice about increas-ing information and communication, rather than negotiation or bargaining’ (Donagheyet al. 2011, 60).

To date, most research into voice behavior has attempted to understand the antecedentsof voice behavior as well as the mediating variables and moderating mechanisms (e.g. Averyand Quinones 2002; Detert and Burris 2007; Walumbwa and Schaubroeck 2009). Extantresearch has also indicated that improvement-oriented voice can affect organizationaleffectiveness (Detert and Burris 2007; LePine and Van Dyne 1998), and emphasized theimportance of the relationships forged between line managers and employees (Wilkinsonand Fay 2011).

Supervisor-attributed motivation theory has identified two types of supervisor-attributed motives: prosocial motives and impression management motives (Ashford andCummings 1983; Ashford and Tsui 1991; Grant 2008; Lam, Huang and Snape 2007).Supervisors rationalize employee behavior through their perceptions of employee inten-tions (Thomas and Pondy 1977), thus heightening or weakening work interaction and

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 51

© 2012 Australian Human Resources Institute82

response. For example, Johnson et al. (2002) found that employees who exhibit helpfulbehaviors but have instrumental motives according to supervisor-attributed interpreta-tion receive fewer rewards from supervisors. Moreover, Lam, Huang and Snape (2007)found that the relationship between feedback seeking and leader–member exchange(LMX) was stronger when supervisor-attributed interpreted feedback was seen as drivenmore by desire for enhanced performance. However, little is known about how thesupervisor-attributed motives affect the relationship between voice behavior and LMX(Ferris et al. 1995), and the consequences of voice behavior (Fuller et al. 2007). In lightof the above gaps, this study aims to address the consequences of voice behavior: 1)examining whether employee proactive voice behavior will improve relationships withsupervisors; 2) examining how supervisor interpretations of the motives of their subor-dinates in relation to voice behavior influence leader–member exchange; and 3) extendingknowledge of the relationship between the employee voice behavior and engagementvia LMX.

The study makes several theoretical contributions. First, this study is one of the fewpapers to have empirical evidence of the positive relationship between voice behavior andLMX In particular, this study argues that voice behavior can be described as a type ofproactive behavior (Crant 2000; Grant, Parker and Collins 2009) or a change-orientedorganizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (Bettencourt 2004; LePine and Van Dyne1998), thus emphasizing the expression of constructive challenge (Van Dyne and LePine1998). Supervisors may encourage employees to generate voice behavior based on thebelief that such behavior creates value and promotes organizational development. Accord-ing to the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner 1960), managers may provide more support andresources to maintain good exchange relationships and work cycles within an organiza-tion. Empirical research demonstrates that employee discretionary OCB can shape andmaintain effective work relationships (Lapierre and Hackett 2007). These argumentssuggest that employee voice behavior may significantly affect the LMX. Accordingly,this study responds to calls by Lepine and Van Dyne (2001) for more research on conse-quences of voice behavior especially in relation to organizational effectiveness and jobperformance.

Second, by examining the moderating role of supervisor-attributed motives on therelationship between voice behavior and LMX, this study sheds light on the supervisor-attributed motives acting as a critical trigger in relations to subordinate attitude andbehavior as urged by Ferris et al. (1995). In particular, this study indicates thatsupervisor-attributed motives may influence the perception of employee voice as drivenprimarily by either prosocial motives or impression management motives. This in turninfluences the interactions and relationship between subordinate and supervisor.

Finally, this study sheds light on the mediating role of LMX on the relationshipbetween voice behavior and engagement. As prior studies on LMX have observed, LMXis an important antecedent in relation to work outcomes (e.g. Christian, Garza, andSlaughter 2011; Janssen and Van Yperen 2004; Wayne et al. 2002). High-quality leader–member relationships are characterized by high trust, interaction, support and rewards.

Jen-Wei Cheng et al.

© 2012 Australian Human Resources Institute 83

According to social exchange theory (Blau 1964) and norm of reciprocity theory (Gould-ner 1960), employees perceive an obligation to reciprocate higher quality relationships(Dienesch and Liden 1986; Nahrgang, Morgeson and Ilies 2009) through greater workengagement. Work engagement is defined as that ‘positive, fulfilling, work-related state ofmind characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption’ (Schaufeli et al. 2002, 72).Empirical studies indicate that higher quality LMX can trigger employee work engage-ment (Atwater and Carmeli 2009; Christian, Garza and Slaughter 2011; Hassan and AlJubari 2010).

In brief, this study proposes that the relationship between voice behavior and workengagement depends on LMX quality and the moderating effect of supervisor-attributedmotives on the relationship between voice behavior and LMX quality. To develop a modeldelineating the consequences of voice behavior, Figure 1 presents the theoretical frame-work of this study. Following the studies of Lam, Huang and Snape (2007), Christian,Garza and Slaughter (2011) and Dulebohn et al. (2011), Figure 1 shows that employeebehavior (e.g. voice behavior) influences supervisor–employee relationship (e.g. LMX)depending on how supervisors interpret employee motivations in speaking up (e.g.motive) because a high-quality relationship is likely to develop between supervisor andemployee if the supervisor attributes actor behavior to performance enhancement. Thesocial exchange theory indicates that employees are more likely to become motivatedgiven a constant flow of reciprocity between two parties (supervisor and employee), andmotivated employees will have good work attitude (e.g. work engagement).

Theory and hypotheses

Voice behavior and the quality of LMXEarlier research has indicated that upward communications from employees – such asexpressing of ideas for improving a process, completing a task, or solving work-relatedissues – is a crucial determinant of organizational survival (Detert and Burris 2007; LePineand Van Dyne 1998; Morrison and Phelps 1999). Voice behavior may be related to highLMX because such behavior fosters positive exchange relationships. Moreover, employeesmay positively affect their supervisors’ evaluations and improve the quality of relationships

Voice behavior Leader–memberexchange

Workengagement

Supervisor-attributedmotives

Figure 1 Model proposed in this study



by demonstrating proactive voice behavior. In this study, we argue that social exchangeand expectancy perspectives account for a positive association between voice behavior andLMX quality.

First, according to social exchange theory (Blau 1964), when one party engages inbeneficial actions directed at another party, the first party creates an implicit obligation forthe other party to reciprocate in the future, resulting in behavior that is advantageous to theinitiating party (Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005). Prior studies have indicated how voicebehavior is viewed as an improvement action that contributes to organizational effective-ness (LePine and Van Dyne 1998; Stamper and Van Dyne 2001). Supervisors are likely toreciprocate by offering more resources, information and emotional support, which is con-ducive to maintaining good work relationships with subordinates (Graen and Uhl-Bien1995; Graen et al. 1990; Kacmar et al. 2003).

Additionally, the expectancy theory perspective suggested that individuals will act in acertain way, depending on the expectation that the behavior will be followed by a givenoutcome (Vroom 1964). Voice behavior is related to the follower’s desire to maintain apositive impression (Fuller et al. 2007) and to enhance their social interactions with super-visors. From this perspective, employees engage in voice behavior because such behavior isa means to increase supervisors’ performance evaluations of the employee (Grant, Parkerand Collins 2009). When employees expect that voice behavior may lead to higher levels ofrespect, mutual trust, and improve their working relationship with their supervisors, theycontinue to engage in this behavior, in turn nurturing the relationship between subordinateand supervisor.

Although the notion that voice behavior may potentially affect LMX quality is intuitive,surprisingly few studies have investigated this relationship. Lapierre and Hackett (2007)provided a preliminary explanation for this idea, through examination of an integrativemodel of trait conscientiousness, LMX, job satisfaction and OCB (voice behavior is animportant aspect of OCB). They found that employees display OCB as a means of enhanc-ing the quality of the LMX relationship with their immediate supervisor. Following this lineof reasoning and previous findings, we argue that employee voice behavior has a positiveeffect on the quality of LMX. We thus propose:

Hypothesis 1: Employee voice behavior is positively related to LMX quality.

The moderating role of supervisor-attributed motivesAccording to attribution theory, supervisors attempt to interpret and judge attitudes andbehaviors from the standpoint of subordinate motivation (Green and Mitchell 1979;Heider 1958; Weiner 1985). As we noted earlier, supervisors are treated as categorizingemployee motives as either prosocial or impression management motives (Ashford andTsui 1991; Grant 2008; Lam, Huang and Snape 2007). Prosocial motives are attributedwhen the supervisor interprets the behavior of the employee as beneficial to others andthe organization (Grant 2008). Impression management motives are attributed when thesupervisor sees behavior of the subordinate as ingratiating and conspicuous, and believes



the subordinate’s intention is to convey and enhance a positive public image (Lam,Huang and Snape 2007). When a supervisor labels the subordinate’s voice behavior asprosocial in motivation, the supervisor views the employee as an important human assetand is more likely to appreciate the subordinate. The supervisor will then offer moreresources to support the subordinate in order to sustain high-quality LMX. In contrast,when a supervisor perceives voice behavior as ingratiating and insincere, as in the case ofextra-role behavior performed close to performance appraisal time (Eastman 1994), thesupervisor’s suspicions that the motivation is merely impression management are trig-gered. The supervisor may thus be less likely to support the subordinate, and voice behav-ior would in turn be less likely to be related to LMX.

To date, no study has examined the moderating role of supervisor-attributed motiveson the relationship between voice behavior and LMX. Some related research may providesimilar evidence for this assertion. For example, Lam, Huang and Snape (2007) conductedtwo studies to examine how supervisor interpretations of their employees’ motives forseeking feedback of proactive behavior) affect the relationship between supervisors andsubordinates. They found that when supervisors attribute feedback seeking to strong pro-social motives and weak impression management motives, employee feedback seeking wasmore positively associated with LMX. Eastman (1994) examined supervisor-attributedmotives of subordinates’ extra-role behaviors and the response effect of the supervisor, andfound that the employees received more rewards and profits only when the supervisorlabeled the behaviors as citizenship. Based on the foregoing discussion, we propose thatsupervisor attribution interpretation may affect whether voice behavior is linked to LMXquality. Therefore, we propose:

Hypothesis 2a: Supervisor attribution of prosocial motives moderates the relation-ship between voice behavior and LMX quality such that the positive associationbetween voice behavior and LMX quality is stronger the more supervisors attributethe voice behavior to prosocial motives.

Hypothesis 2b: Supervisor attribution of impression management motives moderatesthe relationship between voice behavior and LMX quality such that the positiveassociation between voice behavior and LMX quality is weaker the more supervisorsattribute voice behavior to impression management motives.

The quality of LMX and work engagementIn the LMX literature, a considerable body of research suggests that LMX has a significantimpact on employee work attitudes and behaviors (e.g. performance, job satisfaction)(Lapierre and Hackett 2007; Wang et al. 2005). According to the social exchange theoryperspective (Blau 1964), in a high-quality LMX relationship, the leader gives more tan-gible and intangible rewards to an employee in the expectation of receiving benefits ofequivalent value from the employee in return (Blau 1964). When high-quality relation-ships with supervisors are characterized by a feeling of supportive managerial environ-ment (providing resources, support, and mutual trust), this in turn is reflected in the



actual exchange relationship (Cropanzano, Prehar and Chen 2002; Dansereau, Graen andHaga 1975; Masterson et al. 2000). High-quality LMX allows employees to contributemore fully to the organization in constructive ways (Blau 1964). Work engagement is aform of currency in the social exchange, and a means of fulfilling obligations for reci-procity. Support for this relationship was provided by Hassan and Al Jubari (2010), whosurveyed 218 employees from a middle eastern airline. They investigated the relationshipbetween organizational justice, LMX, and work engagement, and found a full mediationeffect of LMX on interactional justice and work engagement. Similarly, Atwater andCarmeli (2009) surveyed 193 employees in a variety of jobs in Israel, examining LMX,feelings of energy, and creative work involvement. The results showed that higher qualityLMX enhances employee feelings of energy, leading to a high involvement in creativetasks.

Given the foregoing discussion, we argue that under high-quality LMX, super-visors help subordinates on various tasks by offering resources and support (Graen andScandura 1987), and subordinates directly reciprocate with benefits to organizationalcommitment and performance (Gerstner and Day 1997), and work engagement. Accord-ingly, we propose that the quality of LMX will be positively related to employee workengagement.

Hypothesis 3: The quality of LMX is positively associated with work engagement.

The mediation role of LMXAccording to social exchange theory, we argue that LMX quality is a mediator linking voicebehavior and engagement, and expect that a positive relationship exists between voicebehavior and LMX quality. Voice behavior from subordinates facilitates high-quality rela-tionships between supervisor and subordinate. This is because such behavior may solvework-related problems and improve performance as a result of supervisors tending tomaintain good relationships with subordinates and providing more resources to recipro-cate the subordinates’ actions. Moreover, when subordinates perceive high supervisorsupport, the high-quality relationship will affect the subordinates’ participation and jobengagement.

Furthermore, supervisor interpretation may impact the voice behavior and engagementwhen LMX is a mediator. We argue that interpretation from an immediate supervisor maymoderate the relationship between the voice behavior and engagement. More implicitly, asubordinate’s voice behavior will be positively associated with LMX and engagement if thesupervisor interprets voice behavior as driven more by performance enhancement motivesand less by impression management motive. If the voice behavior is viewed as impressionmanagement motives by supervisor, the voice behavior may be less the voice behaviormay not influence the LMX and engagement to the same extent’. LMX relationship andengagement. As a result, we propose:

Hypothesis 4: LMX mediates the positive relationship between voice behavior andwork engagement.



Method

Research contextTaiwanese business culture is characterized as high in power distance, with an emphasis onavoiding confrontation and maintaining harmonious working relationships (Farh, Earleyand Lin 1997; Wu 2004). Interpersonal trust is also based on personal connections (quanxi)that are vital to employer–employee relations in Taiwanese companies. (Chen, Lawler andBae 2005). In addition, employees are not aggressive in organizing or actively participatingin unions in Taiwan because of the emphasis on harmony in Confucian culture. Meanwhile,under the embedded culture of high power distance, Taiwanese firms pay less attention tothe voice of employees, labor representative committees and unions (Wu 2004). Thus, amore co-operative relationship between management and labor is maintained by theirharmonious attitudes.

Participants and proceduresThe sample population initially contacted included employees and their direct supervisorsfrom organizations drawn from a variety of industries in Taiwan such as telecommunica-tions, manufacturing, financial services, and electronics. There were only financial servicesand electronics industry (the two biggest industries in Taiwan) agreeing to participate inthis study. Moreover, the two industries encouraged employees to speak up regardingsuggestions for new innovative ideas to improve and maintain their firm’s competitiveadvantages over time. The electronics industry in particular now plays a vital role inTaiwan’s economic growth. It is important to explore how to use proactive human resourcepractices through employee voice to fulfill the needs of highly skilled labor such as researchand development as well as engineering employees. In turn, meeting these needs will lead toa better supervisor–subordinate relationship as well as work engagement.

Participants included employees and their supervisors and were selected from the top20 firms in Taiwan according to their 2010 annual reports. Following Dillman’s (2000)guidelines for the Total Design Method, we explained the purpose of the study, andincluded a self-addressed stamped envelope, and guaranteed that the participants’responses would remain anonymous. We then contacted the sample firms via telephone ande-mail to confirm a contact person in each firm, and asked the contact person to ascertainsupervisors’ willingness to participate. After receiving this information, we asked thecontact person to hand out the questionnaire to employees and direct supervisors. Oncevolunteers were identified, we matched each supervisor and a volunteering subordinate. Toensure confidentiality and because of ethical considerations, we instructed the participantsto seal the return envelope and send it back to the researchers directly. We also assured allparticipants that results would not be released or shared with their supervisors or anyone intheir organizations. Participants were also informed that participants came from a numberorganizations in various industries and that we used only aggregated data.

Of the 350 pairs of questionnaires (350 went to employees and 350 to their directsupervisors) distributed, 442 questionnaires from 14 firms (including 7 electronicscompanies) were returned (219 from subordinates and 223 from supervisors, 62.57%



and 63.71%, respectively). After excluding unmatched samples, we had 206 validsubordinate–supervisor pairs for analysis.

Of the subordinates who responded, males comprised 51.5% of the sample. On average,they were 32.18 years old (SD = 6.44) and had 59.3 months organizational tenure(SD = 62.21). Most subordinates (55.3%) had a Bachelor’s degree. Of the supervisorswho responded, males comprised 60.7% of the participants, the average age was 38.4(SD = 6.34), with an average organizational tenure of 117.08 months (SD = 74.50). Of thesupervisors 46.6% had a Bachelor’s degree. Of the industrial types, 53.4% of firms were inthe financial services industry and 46.6% were in the electronics industry. To ensure thatthe data collected from two different industrial types could be combined, we use t-test totest the variables and found no significant difference between financial services and theelectronics sample, voice behavior: t(204) = 1.65, p > 0.05; LMX; t(204) = -1.38, p > 0.05;work engagement: t(204) = -1.18, p > 0.05; supervisor-attributed prosocial motives;t(204) = 0.44, p > 0.05; supervisor-attributed impression management motives: t(202) =-1.23, p > 0.05.

MeasuresBecause the original survey items were developed in English, we followed Brislin’s (1980)recommendations. All scale items were translated into Chinese and then back-translated inEnglish by two bilingual scholars in order to ensure semantic equivalency (Brislin 1980).

Voice behaviorWe measured voice behavior by adopting Van Dyne and LePine’s (1998) 6-item scale.Supervisors were asked to evaluate the subordinate’s voice behavior. Responses were madeon a 7-point Likert-scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Sample items were ‘Thisparticular co-worker develops and makes recommendations concerning issues that affectthis work group’, ‘This particular co-worker speaks up and encourages others in this groupto get involved in issues that affect the group’, and ‘This particular co-worker speaks up inthis group with ideas for new projects or changes in procedures’. Cronbach’s a for thismeasure was 0.93.

LMXWe measured LMX with a 7-item scale derived from Janssen and Van Yperen (2004). Allitems were measured using a 5-point Likert-scale with anchors from 1 (strongly disagree)to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items include, ‘My supervisor would be personally inclined tohelp me solve problems in my work,’ ‘My working relationship with my supervisor iseffective,’ ‘My supervisor and I are suited to each other.’ The Cronbach’s a for this measurewas 0.90.

Supervisor-attributed prosocial motivesTo measure supervisor-attributed prosocial motives, we used a 4-item scale developed byGrant (2008). The original scale was used to measure the employee desire to benefit others.



We slightly modify the object from ‘other’ to ‘organization’. Sample items are, ‘Desire tobenefit the organization’, ‘Desire to have positive impact upon the organization’, and ‘Desireto help the organization’. We asked the supervisor the extent to which they perceivedemployee’s voice behavior as driven by prosocial motives. All items were scored on a 7-pointrating scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s a for thismeasure was 0.94.

Supervisor-attributed impression management motivesA 6-item scale validated by Allen and Rush (1998) was used in this study. We asked thesupervisor the extent to which they perceived employee’s voice behavior as driven byimpression management motives. Participants responded to a 7-point rating scale rangingfrom 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Example items included, ‘Desire to build upfavors for a later exchange’, ‘Desire to “show-off” his or her expertise’, ‘Desire to capture myattention’. Cronbach’s a for this measure was 0.92.

Work engagementWe adopted the 17-item scale of Salanova, Agut and Peiro (2005) to measure work engage-ment, composed of vigor (6 items), dedication (5 items), and absorption (6 items). All itemswere scored on a 5-point frequency rating scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always).Examples of items include the following: for vigor, ‘In my job, I feel strong and vigorous’; fordedication, ‘I am enthusiastic about my job’; for absorption ‘Time flies when I’m working’.Previous studies indicated that work engagement is a second-order construct reflectingthese three underlying dimensions (Edwards 2001; Rich and LePine 2010; Shimazu et al.2008). Work engagement was hypothesized in this study at the construct level, and we usedcomposite score of three dimensions to represent work engagement. A higher order con-firmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted, and provides an acceptable fit (c2 = 354.21,df = 116, CFI = 0.89, GFI = 0.80, NFI = 0.83, RMSEA = 0.09). Cronbach’s a for this measurewas 0.91.

Control variablesPrevious studies have indicated that gender (e.g. Mauno et al. 2005; Rothbard 2001),education level (Farr and Ford 1990; Xanthopoulou et al. 2009) and organizational tenure(e.g. Allen, Poteet and Russell 1998), and dyadic tenure of the supervisors and subordinates(Lam, Huang and Snape 2007) were related to voice behavior and work engagement.Accordingly, in order to reduce the influence of confounding effects, we controlled for thegender (1 = male, 0 = female), education level (1 = below junior high school degree, 2 =senior high school degree, 3 = faculty degree, 4 = bachelor degree, 5 = above master degree),organizational tenure (in months) and dyadic tenure of the supervisors and subordinates asin prior research (Lam, Huang and Snape 2007).

Data analysisBefore testing our hypotheses model, we followed Anderson and Gerbing (1988) sugges-tions. First we conducted a series of confirmatory factor analyses to assess the convergent



and discriminate validity of the key variables, including voice behavior, LMX, supervisor-attributed prosocial motives, supervisor-attributed impression management motives, andwork engagement. Next, hierarchical regression analysis was performed to test our hypoth-eses. We followed Baron and Kenny’s (1986) approach to test our hypotheses. In addition,in order to minimize possible multicollinearity, the independent variable and moderatorvariables were mean-centered (Aiken and West 1991).

Results

Confirmatory factor analysesWe first performed confirmatory factor analyses to examine the construct validity of thestudied constructs (i.e. voice behavior, LMX, supervisor-attributed prosocial motives,supervisor-attributed impression management motives, and work engagement) throughconvergent and discriminate validity. In the baseline model (five-factor), the resultsprovide an acceptable model-to-data fit (c2 = 678.98, df = 289. CFI = 0.90, GFI = 0.80, NFI= 0.85, RMSEA = 0.08), and all items loaded significantly at the p < 0.01 level on theirintended latent variables, providing evidence for convergent validity. Because severalvariables were measured from the same source, we tested four alternative models to ensurethese scales were distinct. Model 1 (four-factor model) combined LMX and work engage-ment into one factor that was measured by subordinates. Model 2 (three-factor model)combined voice behavior, supervisor-attributed prosocial motives, and supervisor-attributed impression management motives to form a single factor that was rated bysupervisors. Model 3 (two-factor model) merged LMX and work engagement into onefactor, and voice behavior, supervisor-attributed prosocial motives, supervisor-attributedimpression management motives to form another a single factor. Model 4 (one-factormodel) merged all five variables into a single factor. As shown in Table 1, the fit indicesand the chi-square difference tests indicated that the baseline model provides a better fitthan the other models.

These results provided evidence for discriminate validity.

Descriptive statisticsMeans, standard deviations, intercorrelations and reliabilities for the study constructs aredisplayed in Table 2. As shown in the Table 2, the relationship between voice behavior andLMX (r = 0.25, p < 0.01), voice behavior and work engagement (r = 0.28, p < 0.01), LMX andwork engagement were significant and positive (r = 0.47, p < 0.01). These findings suggestthat employee display of voice behavior can facilitate the quality of LMX. In addition, thehigher the quality of LMX, the greater the work engagement.

Hypotheses testingTable 3 presents the results of steps regression analyses following Baron and Kenny’s(1986) approach. As can be seen in Table 3, after control demographic variables, step 1and step 2 show a significant relationship between voice behavior and LMX (b = 0.27,



p < 0.01), LMX and work engagement (b = 0.29, p < 0.01). Step 3 reveals that voicebehavior and LMX both have a positive significant relationship with work engagement(b = 0.18, p < 0.05; 0.41, p < 0.01, respectively). We find that the more willing employeeswere to display voice behavior, the greater the quality of LMX. Consistent with our pre-diction, hypothesis 1 received support as voice behavior was positively related to LMX.And hypothesis 3 was also supported, as the quality of LMX was positively associated withwork engagement.

For hypothesis 4, we proposed that LMX would mediate the relationship between voicebehavior and work engagement, and we performed Sobel test to examine the indirectrelationship. The result showed that voice behavior had a significant indirect associationwith work engagement via LMX (Z = 3.32, p < 0.05). Consistent with our prediction,hypothesis 4 received support.

In regards to hypothesis 2, we examined the proposed moderating effect of supervisor-attributed motive differentiation (i.e. prosocial and impression management) on the rela-tionship between voice behavior and LMX. As predicted, the results of model 4 in Table 4indicate that the interaction between voice behavior and supervisor-attributed motive (i.e.prosocial and impression management) significantly predicted LMX (b = 0.28, -0.20, p <0.05, respectively). We employed simple slopes to further analyze the interaction (seefigures 2 and 3). As shown in Figure 2, the positive relationship between voice behaviorand LMX was stronger when supervisors explained voice behavior as driven by strongprosocial motives, supporting hypothesis 2a. Moreover, as shown in Figure 3, the positiverelationship between voice behavior and LMX was weaker when supervisors interpretedemployee voice behavior as driven by impression management motives, supportinghypothesis 2b.

Table 1 Comparison of measurement models

Measurement models c2 df Dc2 Ddf CFI GFI NFI RMSEA

Baseline model (five-factor) 678.98 289 – – .90 .80 .85 .08

Model 1 (four-factor) 854.03 293 175.05** 4 .86 .74 .81 .10

Model 2 (three-factor) 1761.98 296 1083.00** 7 .64 .53 .60 .18

Model 3 (two-factor) 1935.14 298 1256.16** 9 .60 .51 .56 .19

Model 4 (one-factor) 2698.85 299 2019.87** 10 .41 .39 .39 .25

n = 206 ** p < 0.01.

Notes: The values of Dc2 and D df were differences between the baseline model (five-factor) and other

models.

Model 1: LMX and work engagement were combined into one factor (subordinates rated variables).

Model 2: Supervisor-attributed prosocial motives, impression management motives and voice behav-

ior were merged into one factor (supervisors rated variables).

Model 3: All of supervisor rated variables were loaded on a single factor and all of the subordinate

rated variables were loaded on another.

Model 4: All study variables were combined into one factor.



Tabl

e2

Mea

ns,

stan

dard

devi

atio

ns,

corr

elat

ion

san

dre

liabi

litie

sam

ong

stu

dyva

riab

les

Var

iabl

esM

ean

SD1

23

45

67

89

1011

12

1Su

perv

isor

s’ge

nde

r.3

9.4

9–

2Su

bord

inat

es’g

ende

r.4

9.5

0.2

1**

–

3Su

perv

isor

s’ed

uca

tion

leve

l

4.02

.84

-.04

.00

–

4Su

bord

inat

es’

edu

cati

onle

vel

4.00

.76

-.07

-.11

.47*

*–

5Su

perv

isor

s’te

nu

re11

7.08

74.5

0.0

5.0

5-.

47**

-.29

**–

6Su

bord

inat

es’t

enu

re59

.30

62.2

1-.

08.1

9**

-.33

**-.

37**

.47*

*–

7D

yadi

cte

nu

re43

.40

49.4

2-.

08.1

5*-.

33**

-.30

**.4

6**

.68*

*–

8V

oice

beh

avio

r5.

051.

08-.

12.0

3.1

4*.0

9.0

5.1

8*.1

9**

(.93

)9

LMX

3.86

.62

.07

-.02

-.03

.10

.03

.02

.09

.25*

*(.

90)

10SA

PM

5.59

.92

-.10

.03

.16*

.10

-.04

.11

.13

.75*

*.2

4**

(.94

)11

SAIM

M3.

281.

32-.

05-.

00-.

13-.

03-.

10.1

3-.

05.0

4-.

00-.

05(.

92)

12W

ork

enga

gem

ent

3.69

.51

.12

-.02

-.06

-.06

.10

.06

.19*

*.2

8**

.47*

*.2

1**

.03

(.91

)

n=

206

**p

<0.

0l*

p<

0.05

.

Cro

nba

ch’s

aco

effi

cien

tis

pres

ente

don

the

diag

onal

.



Discussion

In this study, we extend previous studies of voice behavior to investigate the relationshipbetween voice behavior, LMX, supervisor-attributed motives and work engagement. Ashypothesized, indeed, LMX mediates the relationship between voice behavior and workengagement. This finding is similar to that of prior studies (Lapierre and Hackett 2007) andsupports the notion of social exchange theory (Blau 1964). Moreover, consistent with ourinferences, this study found that the relationship between voice behavior and LMX wasstronger when supervisors judged the voice behavior as driven more by prosocial motivesand less by impression management motives. These results demonstrate the importance ofthe supervisor-attributed motives in linking voice behavior to the quality of LMX.

The present study offers two contributions to the literature. First, most voice behav-ior researchers have focused mainly on exploring the antecedents of voice behavior (e.g.,Detert and Burris 2007; LePine and Van Dyne 1998; Venkataramani and Tangirala 2010;Walumbwa and Schaubroeck 2009). Surprisingly, however, little is known about conse-quences of voice behavior, an issue which Fuller et al. (2007) identified as warrantingfurther attention. With this in mind, we undertook this study to extend the voice behaviorliterature by proposing a model detailing the consequences of voice behavior, examining therelationship between voice behavior, LMX and work engagement. The results provide newand deeper insight into the consequences of voice behavior. Second, according to attribu-tion theory (Ferris et al. 1995), subordinate behaviors are judged by supervisors. However,

Table 3 The results of mediating effect of LMX between voice behavior and work engagement

Variables LMX Work engagement Work engagement

b t b t b t

Control variables

Supervisors’ gender .10 1.33 .15 2.13* .15 2.13*

Subordinates’ gender -.04 -.52 -.07 -1.01 -.07 -1.01

Supervisors’ education -.07 -.85 .03 .31 .03 .31

Subordinates’ education .17 2.02* -.02 -.28 -.02 -.28

Supervisors’ tenure -.02 -.22 .03 .29 .03 .29

Subordinates’ tenure -.03 -.32 -.12 -1.24 -.12 -1.24

Dyadic tenure .16 1.66 .29 2.97** .29 2.97**

D R2 .04 .07* .07*

Independent variable

Voice behavior .27 3.74** .29 4.17** .18 2.76*

LMX .41 6.56**

D R2 .06** .08** .23**

Total R2 .10 .15 .30

Adjust D R2 .07 .11 .27

F value 2.83* 4.17** 9.27**

n = 206 ** p < 0.0 l * p < 0.05.



the literature on voice behavior paid little attention to supervisor-attributed motives, andwe could not determine whether the boundary condition of supervisor-attributed motivesfor employee voice behavior may influence LMX. In order to further contribute to this lineof voice behavior research, this paper investigates the moderating effect of supervisor-attributed motives on the relationship between voice behavior and LMX. The resultsprovide important insight into the context of supervisor-attributed motives, voice behaviorand the quality of LMX, showing that supervisor-attributed motives play a vital role inexplaining the relationship between voice behavior and the quality of LMX.

Practical implicationsThe practical implications of the present study are several. First, our results reveal thatvoice behavior is positively associated with work engagement through LMX. The resultshelp employers understand how voice behavior can improve the relationship between

Table 4 The results of interactive effect of employees’ voice behavior and supervisor-attributed

motives on LMX

Variables LMX

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

b t b t b t b t

Control variables

Supervisors’ gender .10 1.33 .12 1.68 .12 1.68 .09 1.28

Subordinates’ gender -.04 -.52 -.04 -.57 -.04 -.58 -.05 -.67

Supervisors’ education -.07 -.85 -.13 -1.53 -.13 -1.53 -.12 -1.34

Subordinates’ education .17 2.02** .14 1.74 .14 1.73 .13 1.68

Supervisors’ tenure -.02 -.22 -.03 -.35 -.02 -.23 -.02 -.26

Subordinates’ tenure -.03 -.32 -.07 -.72 -.07 -.71 -.06 -.62

Dyadic tenure .16 1.66 .12 1.23 .12 1.18 .08 .85

Independent variables

Voice behavior (VB) .27 3.74*** .18 1.67* .16 1.56

LMX

Moderating variables

Supervisor-attributed

prosocial motives

(SAPM)

.13 1.21 .24 2.24**

Supervisor-attributed IM

motives (SAIMM)

.00 .02 .05 .70

Interactive effects

VB ¥ SAPM .28 3.30**

VB ¥ SAIMM -.20 -2.63**

D R2 .04 .06*** .01 .06**

n = 206 *** p < 0.0l ** p < 0.05 * p < 0.10.



supervisors and subordinates, and this in turn enhances supervisors’ and sub-ordinates’ work engagement. Managers could attempt to improve the work environment byencouraging employees to speak up about work-related issues to improve organizationaleffectiveness. In addition, the findings indicate that supervisor-attributed motives mode-rate the relationship between voice behavior and LMX. This implies that supervisors’

–3.00

–2.00

–1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

Low High

Voice behavior

Low prosocial

motives

High prosocial

motives

Figure 2 Moderating effect of supervisor-attributed prosocial motives on the relationshipbetween voice behavior and LMX

–3.00

–2.00

–1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

hgiHwoL

Voice behavior

Low IM motives

High IM motives

Figure 3 Moderating effect of supervisor-attributed impression management motives onthe relationship between voice behavior and LMX



understanding of how to judge motives must be improved. Attribution biases often distortperceptions in ambiguous situations. Martinko (2002) suggested that managers shouldattempt to remove as much ambiguity from work situations as possible. We suggest trainingprograms to teach supervisors how to communicate, and how to avoid biased interpretationof the motives behind employee behavior. Of course voice behavior can also potentiallyhave negative consequences for participants. For instance, Donaghey et al. (2011, 53) indi-cated that disadvantages of employees exerting voice are to ‘suffer adverse consequences fordoing so, to have a higher turnover rate than those who remains silent, and to face risk toreputation, frequently suffering sanction or retaliation’.

Limitations and future researchThough the empirical findings of the present study support our hypotheses, the presentresearch has limitations that should be noted. First, because a cross-sectional design wasused in the current study, any inferences regarding causality are limited. Future studiesshould consider longitudinal or experimental designs using different time to collect data toprovide firm evidence of causation. Second, though we collected data from multiple sources,our study measured predictor (i.e. voice behavior) and moderator variables (i.e. supervisor-attributed prosocial motives and supervisor-attributed impression management) from thesame source (supervisors), while the mediator (i.e. LMX) and criterion variables (i.e. workengagement) are measured from another source (subordinates), thus producing a potentialfor common method variance (CMV). We are aware that potential CMV problems mayinflate the true relationships among the study variables. We employed CFA to check theseverity of CMV problems (Podsakoff et al. 2003; Podsakoff and Organ 1986). CFA analysisresults suggested that CMV did not appear to play an important role in shaping our findings.Nevertheless, we suggest that future researchers measure the research variables at differentpoints in time in order to reduce the problems of CMV (Podsakoff and Organ 1986). Third,the data was gathered only in Taiwan and that may have implications in relation to cross-cultural generalizablility. Further studies on the consequences of voice behavior are thusneeded to corroborate this study’s findings in other national and cultural settings.

Finally, we suggest two possible research directions for future study. First, in this studywe adopt prosocial voice behavior. Other types of voice behavior (e.g. acquiescent voice anddefensive voice) (Van Dyne, Ang and Botero 2003) have not yet been explored, and futureresearch could examine the various forms of voice behavior and their consequences.Second, as mentioned above, supervisors interpret subordinate voice behavior as eitherprosocial or impression management motivated. However, the process by which super-visors assess and interpret the motives of employee voice behavior remains unclear. It wouldbe interesting for future research to examine this process to enrich the attribution and voicebehavior literatures.

Jen-Wei Cheng (PhD, National Taiwan Univ) is an associate professor at the National Taiwan

University of Science and Technology. His research interests are organizational behavior, change

management, and organizational development.



Kuo-Ming Lu (PhD, National Taiwan Univ) obtained his doctorate from the National Taiwan

University of Science and Technology. His research interests are organizational behavior, change

management, and organizational development.

Yi-Ying Chang (PhD, Loughborough Univ, UK) is an assistant professor at the National Taiwan

University of Science and Technology. Her research interests are innovation management, knowledge

transfer, organizational learning, and intellectual capital both at multinational corporations and

small-and medium sized firms both in emerging and advanced economies.

Steward Johnstone (PhD, Louhborough Univ, UK) is a lecturer at the School of Business and

Economics, Loughborough University. His research interests span human resource management and

employment relations, but particular interests include employee participation and representation in

both union and non-union contexts, and HRM/employment relations in financial services.

References

Aiken LS and SG West (1991) Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage, Newbury

Park, CA.

Allen TD and MC Rush (1998) The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on performance

judgments: A field study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology 83(2),

247–260.

Allen TD, ML Poteet and JEA Russell (1998) Attitudes of managers who are more or less career

plateaued. Career Development Quarterly 47(2), 159–172.

Anderson JC and DW Gerbing (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and

recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103(3), 411–423.

Ashford SJ and LL Cummings (1983) Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies of

creating information. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 32(3), 370–398.

Ashford SJ and AS Tsui (1991) Self-regulation for managerial effectiveness: The role of active feedback

seeking. Academy of Management Journal 34(2), 251–280.

Atwater L and A Carmeli (2009) Leader–member exchange, feelings of energy, and involvement in

creative work. Leadership Quarterly 20(3), 264–275.

Avery DA and MA Quinones (2002) Disentangling the effects of voice: The incremental roles of

opportunity, behavior, and instrumentality in predicting procedural fairness. Journal of Applied

Psychology 87(1), 81–86.

Baron IL and D Kenny (1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological

research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology 51(6), 1173–1182.

Bettencourt LA (2004) Change-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors: The direct and

moderating influence of goal orientation. Journal of Retailing 80(3), 165–180.

Blau P (1964) Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Brislin RW (1980) Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In C Triandis and

JW Berry (eds) Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Methodology, 389–444. Allyn & Bacon,

Boston, MA.

Chen S, J Lawler and J Bae (2005) Convergence in human resource systems: A comparison of locally

owned and MNC subsidiaries in Taiwan. Human Resource Management 44(3), 237–256.



Christian MS, AS Garza and JE Slaughter (2011) Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of

its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology 64, 89–136.

Crant JM (2000) Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management 26(3), 435–462.

Cropanzano R and MS Mitchell (2005) Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of

Management 31(6), 874–900.

Cropanzano R, CA Prehar and PY Chen (2002) Using social exchange theory to distinguish

procedural from interactional justice. Group and Organization Management 27(3), 324–351.

Dansereau F, G Graen and WJ Haga (1975) A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership with

formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 13(1), 46–78.

Detert JR and ER Burris (2007) Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open?

Academy of Management Journal 50(4), 869–884.

Dienesch RM and RC Liden (1986) Leader–member exchange model of leadership: A critique and

further development. Academy of Management Review 11(3), 618–634.

Dillman DA (2000) Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Donaghey J, N Cullinane, T Dundon and A Wilkinson (2011) Re-conceptualising employee silence:

Problems and prognosis. Work, Employment, and Society 25(1), 51–67.

Dulebohn JH, WH Bommer, RC Liden, RL Brouer and GR Ferris (2011) A meta-analysis of

antecedents and consequences of leader–member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye

toward the future. Journal of Management 20(5), 1–45.

Eastman KK (1994) In the eyes of the beholder: An attributional approach to ingratiation and

organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal 37(5), 1379–1391.

Edwards JR (2001) Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavior research: An integrative

analytical framework. Organizational Research Methods 4(2), 144–192.

Farh JL, PC Earley and SC Lin (1997) Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and

organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly 42(3),

421–444.

Farr JL and CM Ford (1990) Individual innovation. In MA West and JL Farr (eds) Innovation and

creativity at work, 63–80. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Ferris GR, DPS Bhawuk, DF Fedor and TA Judge (1995) Organizational politics and citizenship:

Attributions of intentionality and construct definition. In MJ Martinko (ed) Advances in

attribution theory: An organizational perspective, 231–252. St Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL.

Fuller JB, T Barnett, K Hester, C Relyea and L Frey (2007) An exploratory examination of voice

behavior from an impression management perspective. Journal of Managerial Issues 19(1),

134–151.

Gerstner CR and DV Day (1997) Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates

and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology 82(6), 827–844.

Glauser MJ (1984) Upward information flow in organizations: Review and conceptual analysis.

Human Relations 37(8), 613–643.

Gouldner AW (1960) The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review

25(2), 161–178.

Graen GB and TA Scandura (1987) Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In LL Cummings and

BM Staw (eds) Research in organizational behavior, 175–208. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.

Graen GB and M Uhl-Bien (1995) Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of

leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level

multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly 6(2), 219–247.



Graen GB, M Wakabayashi, MR Graen and MG Graen (1990) International generalizability of

American hypothesis about Japanese management progress: A strong inference investigation.

Leadership Quarterly 1(1), 1–23.

Grant AM (2008) Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting

persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology 93(1), 48–58.

Grant A, S Parker and C Collins (2009) Getting credit for proactive behavior: Supervisor reactions

depend on what you value and how you feel. Personnel Psychology 62(1), 31–55.

Green SG and TR Mitchell (1979) Attributional processes of leaders in leader-member interactions.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 23(3), 429–458.

Hassan A and IHA Al Jubari (2010) Organizational justice and employee work engagement:

LMX as mediator. Journal for International Business and Entrepreneurship Development 5(2), 167–

178.

Heider F (1958) The psychology of interpersonal relations. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Janssen O and NW Van Yperen (2004) Employees’ goal orientations, the quality of leader–member

exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management

Journal 47(3), 368–384.

Johnson DE, A Erez, DS Kiker and SJ Motowidlo (2002) Liking and attributions of motives as

mediators of the relationships between individuals’ reputations, helpful behaviors, and raters’

reward decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology 87(4), 808–815.

Kacmar KM, LA Witt, S Zivnuska and SM Gully (2003) The interactive effect of leader–member

exchange and communication frequency on performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology

88(4), 764–772.

Lam W, X Huang and E Snape (2007) Feedback-seeking behavior and leader–member ex-

change: Do supervisor-attributed motives matter. Academy of Management Journal 50(2),

348–363.

Lapierre LM and RD Hackett (2007) Trait conscientiousness, leader–member exchange, job

satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior: A test of an integrative model. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology 80(3), 539–554.

LePine JA and L Van Dyne (1998) Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied

Psychology 83(6), 853–868.

LePine JA and L Van Dyne (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(2), 326–336.

Martinko MJ (2002) Thinking like a winner: A guide to high performance leadership. Gulf Coast

Publishing, Tallahassee, FL.

Masterson SS, K Lewis, BM Goldman and MS Taylor (2000) Integrating justice and social exchange:

The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment of work relationships. Academy of Manage-

ment Journal 43(4), 738–748.

Mauno S, U Kinnunen, A Makikangas and J Natti (2005) Psychological consequences offixed-term

employment and perceived job insecurity among health care staff. European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology 14, 209–237.

Morrison EW and FJ Milliken (2000) Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in

a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review 25(4), 706–731.

Morrison EW and CC Phelps (1999) Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace

change. Academy of Management Journal 42(4), 403–419.



Nahrgang JD, FP Morgeson and R Ilies (2009) The development of leader–member exchanges:

Exploring how personality and performance influence leader and member relationships over

time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 108(2), 256–266.

Podsakoff PM and DW Organ (1986) Self-report in organizational research: Problems and prospects.

Journal of Management 12(4), 531–544.

Podsakoff PM, SM Mackenzie, JY Lee and NP Podsakoff (2003) Common method biased in behavior

research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied

Psychology 88(5), 879–903.

Rich BL and JA LePine (2010) Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy

of Management Journal 53(3), 617–635.

Rothbard NP (2001) Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles.

Administrative Science Quarterly 46(4), 655–684.

Salanova M, S Agut and JM Peiro (2005) Linking organizational resources and work engagement to

employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied

Psychology 90(6), 1217–1227.

Schaufeli WB, M Salanova, V Gonzalez-Roma and AB Bakker (2002) The measurement of

engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Hap-

piness Studies 3(1), 71–92.

Shimazu A, WB Schaufeli, S Kosugi, A Suzuki, H Nashiwa and A Kato (2008) Work engagement in

Japan: Validation of the Japanese version of the Utrecht work engagement scale. Applied Psychology

57(3), 510–523.

Stamper CL and L Van Dyne (2001) Work status and organizational citizenship behavior: A field

study of restaurant employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior 22(5), 517–536.

Thomas KW and LR Pondy (1977) Toward an ‘intent’ model of conflict management among principal

parties. Human Relations 30(12), 1089–1102.

Van Dyne L and JA LePine (1998) Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and

predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal 41(1), 108–119.

Van Dyne L, LL Cummings and J McLean Parks (1995) Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct

and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). In LL Cummings and BM Staw (eds)

Research in organizational behavior, 215–285. JAI press, Greenwich, ICT.

Van Dyne L, S Ang and IC Botero (2003) Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as

multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies 40(6), 1359–1392.

Venkataramani V and S Tangirala (2010) When and why do central employees speak up?

An examination of mediating and moderating variables. Journal of Applied Psychology 95(3),

582–591.

Vroom V (1964) Work and motivation. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Walton R (1985) From control to commitment in the workplace. Harvard Business Review

(March–April), 5–12.

Walumbwa FO and J Schaubroeck (2009) Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior:

Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of Applied

Psychology 94(5), 1275–7286.

Wang H, KS Law, RD Hackett, D Wang and ZX Chen (2005) Leader–member exchange as

a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ per-

formance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal 48(3), 420–

432.



Wayne SJ, LM Shore, WH Bommer and LE Tetrick (2002) The role of fair treatment and rewards in

perceptions of organizational support and leader–member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology

87(3), 590–598.

Weiner B (1985) An attribution theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review

92(4), 548–573.

Wilkinson A, T Dundon, M Marchington and P Acker (2004) Changing patterns of employee voice:

Case studies from the UK and Republic of Ireland. Journal of Industrial Relations 46(3), 298–323.

Wilkinson A and C Fay (2011) New times for employee voice. Human Resource Management 50(1),

65–74.

Wu P (2004) HRM in Taiwan in. In PB Budwar (ed) Management human resources in Asia Pacific,

93–112. Routledge, London.

Xanthopoulou D, AB Bakker, E Demerouti and WB Schaufeli (2009) Work engagement and

financial returns: A diary study on the job and personal resources. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology 82, 183–200.



aphr30.pdf

Documents

consequences of voice

limited voice

effective voice provisions

lmx quality

leadermember exchange

taiwan email

key points1 lmx

highcommitment work