A Meta-Analysis of Voice and Its Promotive and Prohibitive Forms: Identification of Key Associations, Distinctions, and Future Research Directions

Thumbnail Image
Date
2016-08-08
Authors
Chamberlin, Melissa
Newton, Daniel W.
LePine, Jeffery A.
Major Professor
Advisor
Committee Member
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Wiley Online
Authors
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Organizational Unit
Management and Entrepreneurship

The Department of Management and Entrepreneurship seeks to provide students with the knowledge of organizations and management functions within organizations. Graduates will be able to understand work-related behavior, competitive strategy and advantage, strategies of international business, and human-resource management practices.

History
The Department of Management was formed in 1984 in the College of Business Administration (later College of Business).

Dates of Existence
1984 - present

Related Units

Journal Issue
Is Version Of
Versions
Series
Abstract
This article reports meta-analyses intended to clarify and enhance our understanding of voice and its promotive and prohibitive forms. We find that undifferentiated constructive voice is associated with a wide range of antecedents that fit in Morrison's (2014) five categories: (a) dispositions, (b) job and organizational attitudes and perceptions, (c) emotions, beliefs, and schemas, (d) supervisor and leader behavior, and (e) contextual factors. However, relative weight analyses reveal a highly dominant variable within each category (personal initiative, felt responsibility, engagement, leader–member exchange, and positive workplace climate). We also find that undifferentiated constructive voice has a moderate zero-order association with job performance that is nonsignificant when task performance and organizational citizenship behavior are also considered. Finally, we explore how associations vary as a function of whether voice is promotive or prohibitive. First, there are significant differences in associations with over a third of the antecedents (core self-evaluations, felt responsibility, organizational commitment, detachment, psychological safety, ethical leadership, and leader openness). Second, although promotive voice has a positive association with job performance, the opposite is true for prohibitive voice. We conclude with suggestions to enhance our understanding of voice, especially with respect to efforts needed to clarify and distinguish promotive and prohibitive voice.
Comments
This accepted article is published as Chamberlin, M., Newton, D. W., & LePine, J. A. (2017). A meta-analysis of voice and its promotive and prohibitive forms: Identification of key associations, distinctions, and future research directions. Personnel Psychology 70(1), 11-71. doi: 10.1111/peps.12185. Posted with permission.
Description
Keywords
Citation
DOI
Copyright
Collections