Employee voice behavior:A meta‐analytic test of
the conrvation of resources framework
THOMAS W.H.NG1*AND DANIEL C.FELDMAN2
1The University of Hong Kong,School of Business and Economics,Pok Fu Lam,Hong Kong
窗户用英语怎么写
云空2University of Georgia,Terry College of Business,Athens,Georgia,USA
Summary Although pressing change‐oriented ideas and suggestions)has frequently been investigated as a way for workers to reciprocate to their employers for the positive treatment they receive,much less is known
about how workers u voice to deal with stress.This study takes a conrvation of resources perspective to
examine the relationships among workplace stress,voice behavior,and job performance.Wefirst examined
黄精枸杞泡水喝的功效
the strength of relationships of three major groups of workplace stressors and strains(job bad,social bad,
and organization bad)with voice behavior.We then examined the relationships of voice behavior with
performance in‐role performance and creativity)to investigate how voice may help workers
prerve or accumulate resources to enhance their performance.The meta‐analyticfindings prented here
provide support for a negative relationship between workplace stress and voice and a positive relationship
between voice behavior and performance outcomes.Copyright#2011John Wiley&Sons,Ltd.
Keywords:employee voice;performance;conrvation of resources;stress
什么是因特网
Rearchers have examined how voice can empower and engage employees more fully in their jobs
(Bowen& Lawler,1992;Conger&Kanungo,1988;Ford&Fottler,1995).Within this rearch stream,scholars have generally focud on“positive voice,”that is,expressing change‐oriented ideas,opinions,and suggestions intended to improve the situation at work(LePine&Van Dyne,1998).By and large,this rearch has found that exercising voice in the workplace is related to positive attitudes toward jobs and organizations(Fre,Teng,&Wijnen,1999; Spencer,1986;Van Dyne&LePine,1998).
Most rearch on voice behavior has been grounded in social exchange theory(Blau,1964)in general and the norm for reciprocity in particular(Cropanzano&Mitchell,2005).This perspective suggests that individuals who experience their work environments as positive are likely to reciprocate by using voice more frequently or more intenly.For example,Stamper,Masterson,and Knapp(2009)suggest that when individuals develop high quality social exchanges with their employers,they are more likely to behave in pro‐organizational ways that are consistent with tho perceptions.However,this perspective assumes that employees largely u voice as a means of regulating the quality of their social exchanges with others.It has largely ignored the possibility that employees u voice to regulate personal resources as well.
The purpo of the current study is to examine individuals’u of voice as a respon to workplace s
tress,as a means of protecting resources,and as a way of accumulating additional resources for the future.To that end, conrvation of resources(COR)theory is particularly relevant(Hobfoll,1989).In brief,COR theory suggests that individuals have limited personal ime,physical energy,emotional energy,attention).Moreover, individuals are highly motivated to protect tho limited resources,take care not to deplete tho resources too *Correspondence to:Thomas W.H.Ng,The University of Hong Kong,School of Business and Economics,Pok Fu Lam,Hong Kong.
E‐mail:tng@business.hku.hk
Copyright#2011John Wiley&Sons,Ltd.
Received7November2009 Revid25January2011,Accepted1February2011
Journal of Organizational Behavior,J.Organiz.Behav.33,216–234(2012)
Published online16May2011in Wiley Online )DOI:10.1002/job.754
EMPLOYEE VOICE217 deeply,and engage in behaviors to accumulate additional resources for the future.Voice can be instrumental in achieving the goals.At the same time,though,engaging in voice behavior itlf consumes time and energy and, as such,can only be performed lectively and strate
gically.The two key tenets of COR theory(resource conrvation and resource acquisition)form the basis of our investigation of how workplace stress relates to employees’u of voice and how using voice relates to job performance.
The stress–voice relationship is important to examine becau there are reasons to expect both positive and negative relationships between the two variables.On the one hand,individuals who are under stress may limit their u of voice in order to conrve resources,becau making suggestions and attempting to change the status quo is socially risky and costs time and energy(Bolino&Turnley,2005;Detert&Burris,2007;Organ,1988).On the other hand,individuals who face high levels of stress may u voice more frequently becau it can be instrumental in obtaining additional resources to deal with tho stressors(Dundon&Gollan,2007).Becau two countervailing arguments can legitimately be made about the stress–voice relationship,it is important to clarify the theoretical nature and empirical strength of this link.
The voice–performance relationship is also important to examine becau there are reasons to expect both positive and negative relationships between the two constructs.Indeed,although voice has certainly received attention as a behavioral dependent variable in its own right(Van Dyne&LePine,1998),little rearch has been conducted on the relationship between voice and other
performance outcomes.On the one hand,voice behavior might be instrumental in acquiring additional resources that could be ud to accelerate job performance and advance careers(Fuller,Barnett,Hester,Relyea,&Frey,2007;Seibert,Kraimer,&Crant,2001).On the other hand,a high level of voice behavior might detract individuals from focusing on work activities that more directly and immediately contribute to organizational productivity(Bolino&Turnley,2005;Bolino,Turnley,&Niehoff, 2004).Here,too,becau two countervailing arguments can legitimately be made about the voice–performance relationship,it is important to clarify the theoretical nature and empirical strength of this link.
We summarized the propod relationships in Figure1.As shown in Figure1,job stressors and strains,social stressors and strains,and organizational stressors and strains are posited to be associated with voice behavior.As noted earlier,becau both positive and negative relationships are possible between the variables,we do not specify the sign(positive or negative)of the relationships but instead test competing hypothes.For similar reasons,the propod model also suggests that there are empirical relationships between voice behavior and job performance but does not specify the sign of tho relationships.Here,too,we test competing hypothes.We ud the meta‐analytic data gathered here to test the relationships.
带的网名
Construct of Voice
In the organizational sciences,employee voice is conceptualized as a behavior rather than as a perception or an attitude.Following LePine and Van Dyne(2001),voice is defined in this study as“constructive change‐oriented communication intended to improve the situation”(p.326).Examples of voice behaviors include bringing potential problems to a supervisor’s attention and making cost-saving suggestions to managers(Withey&Cooper,1989). In fact,Van Dyne and LePine(1998)view voice as a form of organizational citizenship behavior(OCB).OCB encompass behavior that promotes the organization through strengthening and maintaining its social system (Organ,1988).Although there are other forms of helping,sportsmanship,compliance),voice is often considered the most risky and costly and,in some ways,the most noble type(Organ,1988).By making their opinions and ideas heard,employees risk being en as troublemakers who disrupt the current status quo.Even constructive suggestions are likely to upt the status quo in some way or put stress on existing interpersonal relationships(LePine&Van Dyne,1998).
Voice is distinct from veral related constructs.First,it is different from the construct of participation in decision making.Although organizations may involve employees in decision‐making hrough meetings with Copyright#2011John Wiley&Sons,Ltd.J.Organiz.Behav.33,216
–234(2012)
DOI:10.1002/job
218T.W.H.NG AND D.C.FELDMAN
Figure1.The propod theoretical relationships
nior leadership),it is the managers,not the employees themlves,who initiate employee involvement in such ttings.In contrast,with voice,employees initiate communications with superiors themlves.
Voice is also theoretically distinct from civic virtue.Civic virtue is a form of OCB that refers to keeping up‐to‐date and participating in organizational activities as requested(Van Dyne,Graham,&Dienesch,1994).Voice goes beyond merely participating in the activities to include making one’s own opinions and ideas known by others.Its purpo is to help organizations identify operational problems overlooked by supervisors and generate specific innovations in how organizations function(Axtell,Holman,&Wall,2006;Dundon&Gollan,2007;Graham&Van Dyne,2006; Van Dyne&LePine,1998).
Last here,voice is not the same as“taking charge,”that is,voluntarily initiating constructive changes in the workplace(Grant,Parker,&Collins,2009).Although voice and taking charge are both behaviors intended to promote positive change,voice specifically focus on the communication act rather than on other behaviors.
Theoretical Background
In this ction,we discuss two theoretical perspectives that can be ud to understand the motives underlying employees’voice behaviors.Thefirst perspective we consider here is social exchange theory(Blau,1964),as it is the theoretical lens that has been most frequently ud in voice Stamper&Van Dyne,2001;Turnley &Feldman,1999).The cond perspective we introduce here is COR theory(Hobfoll,1989).Although this perspective has been frequently discusd in the stress and well‐being literature,we propo it will prove uful in understanding what motivates voice behaviors as well.
Copyright#2011John Wiley&Sons,Ltd.J.Organiz.Behav.33,216–234(2012)
炒地瓜DOI:10.1002/job
EMPLOYEE VOICE219 Social exchange theory
Social exchange theory(Blau,1964)suggests that relationships evolve over time.How a relationship develops depends on the extent to which parties abide by the rules of their exchange.Among the many exchange rules, rearchers have dedicated the most attention to the rule of reciprocity(Cropa
nzano&Mitchell,2005;Gouldner, 1960).Individuals who feel respected reciprocate with the same amount of respect in turn.Over time,the norm of reciprocity leads the social exchange to be characterized by trust and by emotional engagement.Bad on this norm of reciprocity,social exchange theorists have argued that employees who are satisfied with their jobs or who are emotionally committed to their employers are more motivated to provide constructive change‐oriented suggestions. They do so as a way of reciprocating for the positive treatment they have received in their employment relationships (Burris,Detert,&Chiaburu,2008;Choi,2007;Fuller,Marler,&Hester,2006;Raub,2008;Withey&Cooper,1989). The prent conceptualization of voice as a form of OCB(Van Dyne&LePine,1998)is also premid,in part, on the reciprocity norm of social exchanges.That is,employees are more likely to go the extra mile to u voice behavior when they are in exchange relationships characterized by trust,respect,and satisfaction(Turnley& Feldman,1999).
By and large,social exchange theory suggests that the u of voice is largely other‐directed.That is,one does good deeds for the other party becau he or she receives favorable treatment from the other party in turn (Cropanzano&Mitchell,2005).
However,there is an alternative perspective on the u of voice,which is also important to consider h
ere.It is quite likely that the decision to u voice could be lf‐directed,too(Bolino et al.,2004).Individuals might u voice not only to advance the interests of others but also to protect or acquire valued resources to rve their own interests.Van Dyne,Ang,and Botero(2003)also emphasize that voice can be either other‐directed or lf‐directed. The other‐directed and lf‐directed perspectives on voice are complementary with each other,though.The social exchange approach suggests that voice is ud as a means to regulate theflow of resources with others,whereas the cond perspective—guided by COR theory—suggests that voice is ud as a means to regulate personal resources. Conrvation of resources theory
Hobfoll(1989,2002)propod COR theory to explain the nature of stress and the coping respons individuals u when confronted by stressors.His theory suggests that people are motivated to acquire,protect,and retain resources (including time,physical energy,emotional energy,and attention)to deal with stressful situations as they ari. COR theory assumes that individuals are hedonistic and,as such,are motivated to acquire and retain resources.That is,individuals want to create situations that are pleasurable for themlves and avoid situations that might lead to the loss of any valued resources.
Both perceived and actual loss of resources can cau psychological stress(Brotheridge&Lee,200
2).Hobfoll (1989)emphasizes that resources often have symbolic value over and above their tangible worth.Conquently,any loss of resources—even if they do not materially affect standard of living or job curity—are likely to deflate individuals’n of worth.Becau losing resources is such an aversive psychological state,individuals work hard to accrue additional resources to offt any future loss that might occur(Wright&Hobfoll,2004).Following Hobfoll’s (1989,2002)theory,we propo that individuals who are in stressful situations are likely to u voice strategically as a means to protect and acquire resources.COR theory consists of both a“resource conrvation”tenet and a“resource accumulation”tenet,and the tenets prent two competing predictions regarding the u of voice in the workplace. The“resource conrvation”tenet(Hobfoll,1989)argues that individuals under stress might u less voice becau exercising voice consumes resources.As Bolino and Turnley(2005)found,employees who took more initiative in the workplace experienced higher personal costs including role overload,job stress,and work‐to‐family conflict.In order to make one’s opinion heard,an employee needs to put forth time and energy to conceptualize an idea,articulate it to others,defend it from counterarguments,and deal with any ensuing conflicts that changing the Copyright#2011John Wiley&Sons,Ltd.J.Organiz.Behav.33,216–234(2012)
DOI:10.1002/job
220T.W.H.NG AND D.C.FELDMAN
status quo might generate(Luria,Gal,&Yagil,2009).Thus,when employees are confronted with stressful situations,they may be less willing to take additional time and energy necessary to engage in voice behavior,too. On the other hand,the“resource acquisition”tenet of COR theory(Hobfoll,1989)would argue that individuals under stress might u more voice becau such behavior is en as instrumental in acquiring additional resources to buffer stress.By speaking up to supervisors or team members,employees might be able to convince others to grant them additional resources to alleviate their problems.This perspective is consistent with previous rearch suggesting that individuals u voice to define problems in lf‐rving ways(Salancik&Pfeffer,1974),to manage impressions in lf‐rving ways(Fuller et al.,2007),and to make targeted colleagues or superiors look bad(Bolino et al.,2004).The“resource acquisition”motive of voice is different from the“resource conrvation”motive in that its underlying intention is to gain new or additional resources,not merely to protect existing resources. Stressors and strains
Stressors are conditions that require sustained cognitive,emotional,or physical effort(De Jonge&Dormann,2006). Strains,on the other hand,are the adver reactions to stressors(Jex,Blie,Buzzell,&Primeau,2001).Previous studies have largely focud on health outco
mes as indicators of Podsakoff,LePine,&LePine,2007). Here,though,we focus on poor job job dissatisfaction)instead,becau our goal is to identify the factors in the work domain that relate to voice behaviors,although health is a function of both work and non‐work factors.It is important to note that,even though we group stressor variables and strain variables together to facilitate our meta‐analysis,it is logical to believe that the effects of job,social,and organizational stressors on voice behaviors are likely to be transmitted through job,social,and organizational strains(Jex et al.,2001).
There are three major groups of workplace stressors and strains that are frequently discusd in the stress literature. Typically,workplace stressors and strains are categorized by source;the most frequent groupings examine stressors arising from the work itlf,social relationships in the workplace,and the organizational environment in general.This tripartite typology mirrors the three categories ud by Tett and Burnett(2003)in their personality−situation interactionist model of job performance.Tett and Burnett(2003)suggest that employees interact with three levels of their work environments on a daily basis:the task level,the social level,and the organizational level.Each of the ts of stressors is defined and explained in more detail below.We provided the definition of each stressor and strain in Table1. Job stressors and strains
河北教师教育网登录
Job stressors are attributes of the work itlf that require sustained cognitive,emotional,or physical effort on the part of employees(De Jonge&Dormann,2006).Drawing upon previous empirical studies on voice,in this paper, we particularly investigate perceptions of lack of job autonomy and perceptions of lack of job challenge as job stressors.Job autonomy and job challenge are often perceived as desirable job characteristics(Oldham& Cummings,1996),whereas jobs lacking autonomy or challenge are often stressful becau they are perceived as boring,meaningless,or underutilization.Moreover,jobs lacking autonomy or challenge provide employees with very few opportunities to generate further status,respect),which in turn is stress inducing(Hobfoll, 1989).Job strains are adver reactions to job stressors.In the current study,we investigated global job dissatisfaction,dissatisfaction with work conditions,dissatisfaction with pay,and dissatisfaction with promotions. Hypothes1a and1b prent competing hypothes.On the one hand,COR theory’s resource conrvation tenet suggests that job stressors that absorb or consume employees’energy(such as lack of job challenge)lead to incread job strains(Bolino&Turnley,2005).As Hypothesis1a suggests,then,both job stressors and strains will be related to less u of voice,becau using voice depletes individuals’resources even further.Consistent with this approach,Binnewies,Sonnentag,and Mojza(2010)found that individuals who were exhausted by their jobs but were not able to recover their energy during weekends were le
高考成绩查询入口ss likely to engage in work behaviors beyond their core duties.On the other hand,Hypothesis1b(bad on COR theory’s resource acquisition tenet)suggests that job stressors will be associated with greater u of voice.Becau job stressors considerably deplete employees’Copyright#2011John Wiley&Sons,Ltd.J.Organiz.Behav.33,216–234(2012)
DOI:10.1002/job
