Participative Opportunities and Employees Speak Up - Thesis Proposal Example

Thesis Proposal- Human Resources (HR) When and why offering participative opportunities facilitate speak up (Voice Behavior) Lecturer’s name Institution Date Abstract Offering managerial consultation opportunities to employees is important to facilitate employees speak up in an organization. Managers and organizations play a major role in facilitating employees speak up. Some scholars even go ahead to argue that managers behaviors such as increased consultation among the employee and employers or organization is crucial in helping increase the employees organizational voice behaviors. From the social exchange theory, other scholars found that perceived organizational support has negative implications on the opportunities of facilitating speak up within the organization. On the other hand, studies on implicit voice theories conclude that prevalence of implicit voice theories is significant in explaining the extent of workplace silence. Therefore, the paper discusses in details the link between leadership characteristics and employee voice behaviors as well as the effect on employee speak up during manager’s consultation by combining the implicit and social exchange theory. The research paper further explores the conditions under which these employees choose not to offer their suggestions and how these instances are affected by leadership including abusive leadership, LMX, and leader’s openness. The paper strives to these conditions in organization that either result to prohibitive or formative organizational voice behaviors and the results that they have on the organization. Keywords: self- perceived esteem, voice behavior, participation, employee’s silence, consultations, self-efficacy for voice, employer’s abuse, LMX When and why offering participative opportunities facilitate speak up (Voice Behavior) 1.1. Introduction 1.1.1. The importance of voice behavior for the organization and for the individual Consultation is important in an organization as the management and the employees are able to engage in a dialog and exchange ideas for the benefit of the organization (Detert & Burris, 2007). An organization may choose to consult with its employees for a variety of reasons that may range from a its corporate belief that certain human relations practices will lead to better employee performance or as a measure of attempting to get the employees to accept change during times of economic turbulence in the organization (Adler-Milstein, Singer & Toffel, 2010). Thus, the organizational management will be very willing to welcome the employee’s participation if their participation contributes to the goals, profitability, competitiveness, and efficiency of the organization (Kupperschmidt, 2000). From a trade union point of view “employees have the right to contribute to decisions that affect their working conditions and effective employees voices needs to address the imbalances of powers that are inherent in the employment relationship” (Janssen & Gao, 2013). However, consultation is very difficult to attain for collective bargaining as the employees voices can provoke very different and contradictory interpretations (Smeenk, Eisinga, Teelken & Doorewaard, 2006). For such reasons, it is important to understand all the aspects related to voice behavior for the organization and for the individual in order to have the correct interpretation and provide appropriate response. Some of the aspects to consider include managerial attitude and behaviors, organizational regulations, employee’s expectation as well as the organizational pressures (Lambert, 2000). 1.1.2. Literature review on leadership characteristics and its effects on voice behavior Previous research findings indicate that participation involvement schemes have primarily been designed for enhancing performance in businesses as well as collective bargaining that is very essential for organizational growth (Detert & Edmondson, 2007). Scholars go ahead to argue that managers behaviors such as offering consultation opportunities with the employees is paramount in increasing the employees voice behaviors (Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2012; Janssen & Gao, 2013). Managerial consultation has been positively related to enhancing employee’s voice behaviors in an organization through enhancement of the organizational self-esteem (Rochette, Korner-Bitensky & Levasseur, 2006). Additionally the study by Walubwa and Schaubroeck (2009), leader personality traits of agreeableness and conscientiousness were found to directly influence voice behaviors. 1.1.3. Mixed result from previous research about the relationship between the Managerial consultation and voice from the theories Employee’s voice in human resource has not been always aligned with managerial consultation according to the social exchange and implicit voice theories. This notion has been emphasized in several reviews and research articles. Scholars go ahead to argue that managers behaviors such as offering consultation opportunities with the employees is paramount in increasing the employees voice behaviors (Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2012; Janssen & Gao, 2013). A study by Edmondson (2009) “suggests that individuals take to the workplace specific, measurable beliefs about speaking up, and that these implicit theories powerfully affect voice behavior and operate largely independently of current leader behaviors and other current work experiences.” Other study findings indicate that implicit theories on hierarchy explain employee’s reluctance to speak up (Edmondson and Detert, 2011). The study concludes that prevalence of implicit voice theories is significant to explaining the extent of workplace silence. However, researchers from the social exchange theory have found perceived organization support to have negative effects on employee’s voice behaviors (Lambert, 2000). A central component of the employee’s voice is information although it is often restricted to the management authority (Arnold, Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008). Consultation is important in an organization as the management and the employees are able to engage in a dialog and exchange ideas for the benefit of the organization (Detert & Burris, 2007). Managerial consultation has been positively related to enhancing employee’s voice behaviors in an organization through enhancement of the organizational self-esteem as well as the loyalty (Rochette, Korner-Bitensky & Levasseur, 2006). Therefore, it is important to have more research studies to determine the relationship between participative opportunities such as managerial consultation and its effects on employee’s voice behaviors. This study attempts to push forward further and explore the relationship existing between employee’s participative opportunities in organizations and the perceived voice behaviors that are expected to result and looks as to whether these opportunities are of any benefit to an organization. 1.2. Research Objectives: A. Investigate on the factors that affect employee voice during manager consultations B. Examine how implicit voice theories and social exchange theories relate to employee’s speak up when giving suggestions or making decisions C. Identify under which conditions these employees choose not to offer suggestions and how those conditions are affected by leadership including abusive leadership, LMX and leader’s openness, and team cohesion. 1.3. Research Questions: To achieve the research objectives, the study will seek to answer the following questions. 1. When and why does manager’s consultation not facilitate employee voice? Using implicit voice theories and social exchange theories, we look at 2. Why and when do employees have the opportunity to speak up, and why they decide not to give suggestions? 3. Under which conditions do these employees choose not to offer suggestions and how are those conditions affected by leadership including abusive leadership, LMX, and leader’s openness? 4. Which of these behaviors fit into either formative or prohibitive voice behavior categories? 1.4. Theoretical Contribution: The study will focus on two theoretical contributions implicit voice theories and social exchange theories. Some of the study findings argue that manager’ behaviors such as increased consultation among the employee and employers or organization is crucial in helping increase the employees’ organizational voice behaviors. A study by Edmondson (2009) “suggests that individuals take to the workplace specific, measurable beliefs about speaking up, and that these implicit theories powerfully affect voice behavior and operate largely independently of current leader behaviors and other current work experiences.” Other study findings indicate that implicit theories on hierarchy explain employee’s reluctance to speak up (Edmondson and Detert, 2011). The study concludes that prevalence of implicit voice theories is significant to explaining the extent of workplace silence. From the social exchange theory, other scholars found that perceived organizational support has negative implications on the opportunities of facilitating speak up within the organization. Therefore, leadership social exchange with employees has a significant influence on employee voice, as does implicit voice factors such as hierarchy, which also influences their social behavior or process. 2.0. Literature Review and Hypothesis In the past decades, researchers have examined how organizations achieve their goals through the utilization of human resource appropriately i.e. the managers and the employees. However, despite this progress in human resource management critical substantive issues has not received much attention historically in understanding when and how offering employees participative opportunities is essential in facilitating their speak up. However, recently an increasing number of studies of studies have started to investigate the mechanism. From the studies it is clear that provision of participative opportunities to the employees is important in facilitating their speak up that is beneficial to the organization as the management and the employees are able to exchange ideas in a constructive manner (Sarwar & Khalid, 2011). Thus, it is important for the organization to facilitate the employee’s participative opportunities in the organization. The study will explain the relationship between managerial consultation and how organization-based self-esteem (OBSE) and implicit voice theory – ‘Don’t embarrass the boss’ affect employees’ voice and how the organization benefits. Figure 1: The overall research model to be used. Figure 1: Theoretical model 2.1 Managerial consultation There is a gap between employers and managers regarding manager’s consultation with their employees. Manager’s act as link between human resource departments and their employees and it is thus important for them to involve their employee’s in matters that regards the organization. The employee’s need to be active members of the organization rather than passive organization members. A review of studies by Van Dyne, Ang, Botero & Dyne (2003), indicates that managerial consultation is important in improving the enterprises outcomes if it is really considered as a serious matter that can will lead to either formative or prohibitive voice approaches. However, as the businesses imperatives ought to result to more employees’ voice with consultation initiatives, the initiatives are embedded in the concepts of industrial citizenship and organizational democracy (Kahn, 2013). The concepts are grounded in fundamental notions of human dignity and free speech for which supporting arguments are expressed in moral, religious, and political terms (Pateman, 2003). However, the evidence on the effects of managerial consultation is however mixed. The breakdown of mass production era and pressures questing high work practice performance generated widespread experimentation methods for consulting and sharing information with the employees, their involvement in decision making process and soliciting feedback. The experiences of work and work life are affected by the type and extent of the workplace consultation. Workplace consultation is linked to a broader concept of employee voice as well as their participation in decision-making. According to A.B. Bakker (2009), the employee’s workplace consultation is linked in a broader concept of employee’s voice and participation thus a formative voice approach. In the organizational decision-making process Saks (2011) identifies three dimensions involved in employee voice i.e. the provision of useful information to the managers, their willingness to listen and their preparedness and determination of discussing and addressing the related concerns (Li, Liang, & Crant, 2010). Organizational support is essential for building an effective consultation and trustworthy machinery that is important for sustaining a good relationship between the two parties. According to Bakker & Demerouti (2008), individuals will rate a procedure to be fair if they had a chance of contributing and making a decision rather than if they were not engaged (Dalal, 2005). Therefore, it is similarly true to suggest that effective managerial consultation is an important function of workplace culture. Poor consultation process within an organization will lead to the delivery of poor results (McCabe, Heath, Burns & Priebe, 2002). Managerial consultation and employee’s voice need to be refined in ways that go beyond the voice that focus on the employee’s organizational dissatisfaction (Emamgholizadeh, Matin & Razavi, 2011). Hypothesis 1: managerial consultation is positively related to the employee’s voice behavioral practices thus positively related to Formative voice behavior 2.2 Moderators of managerial consultation and employees use voice 2.2.1 Supervisor abuse The voice of the employees can be considered as the expression of constructive and challenging concerns, suggestions and opinions of the work-related issues and concerns (Janssen & Gao, 2013). The voice of the employees is widely considered essential for the early detection of serious problems in an organization to enhance for the creation of serious innovations and improvements opportunities (Lambert, 2000). Therefore, employee’s participation through airing their concerns is important for the growth of organizations (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). Employers and organizations need to create voice supportive environments where the employees feel safe and encouraged to raise their concerns and ideas (Lambert, 2000). Managers need to bridge the authority gap and get closer to the employees and be friendly rather that abusive. According to research conducted by Detert & Burris (2007), four voice manifestations of employees were identified that are important for the organization. The first voice is considered as the employee’s individual dissatisfaction aimed at articulating specific problems that the employee is facing therefore, it is important for the manager to consult with the employee to determine them problems for the benefit of the organization. The second employee’s voice can be articulated as collective organizational voice that counters the management powers. Thirdly, is the employee’s voice contributing to management decision making concerned primarily with efficiency and organizational productivity improvement? Another voice that is expressed through mutuality of interest between an employer and employee partnership is aimed at securing long-term sustainability and variability for the employee and the organization. Therefore, employee’s voice participation at the workplace can be used on moral, ethical and economic pragmatic grounds for the organization if appropriate managerial consultation is applied (Klaas, Olson-Buchanan & Ward, 2012). Therefore, providing a conducive environment for the employees is important for the organization that can be achieved through protecting the employee’s from their supervisors abuse (Conchie, Moon, & Duncan, 2013). Hypothesis 2: Supervisors’ abuse is negatively related to managerial consultation, employee’s use of voice and positively related to prohibitive voice behavior practices. 2.2.2 Leader-member exchange as moderator (LMX) Managers influence the employees attitude, behaviors and perceptions through their consultation practices influencing the employer’s consultation perceptions as well as their speak up. Research has suggested that the way the managers take this responsibility has greatly affected their relationship with their subordinates. It is important for an organization to take employee consultation seriously and organizations should not employ a one-way communication process rather it needs to be two-way communication such as an up and down communication (Freeman & Kleiner, 2000). In line with the stream research, I consider LMX as a moderator the employee’s consultation and employee’s voice practices. According to leadership literature, this variable is widely studied to reflect the dynamic relationships between managers and employees (Jha, 2013). It can influence the quality of communication and information exchange between managers and employees. LMX is defined as the social exchange process between a leader and his or her individual followers. The construct of LMX is rooted in the social exchange theory and the norm of reciprocity which suggest that both leaders and subordinates are willing to an extra effort that goes beyond the formal job requirement for the benefit of the other party (Stewart & Johnson, 2009). It has been increasingly recognized that workforce messages are considerable significant for an organization. It is essential for conveying the organization mission, vision objectives, as well as the general ethos and cultures (Mahajan, Bishop & Scott, 2012). Effective managerial consultation enables the feelings, thoughts of the workplace to be expressed and be dealt with equal significance. However, even the simplest messages between employees and the managers can be misunderstood that results due to the complex influences that act on the communication process. This results when employers regard the employee views as useless and never gives them an opportunity to raise their concerns (Smidts, Pruyn & Van Riel, 2001). At such instances, the employee’s self-confidence in expressing their views becomes impaired, and this can affect the organization negatively. It is thus important to develop good relationships between employees and the authority. Hypothesis 3: If leader member exchange is high, the relationship between managers’ consultation and employees’ speak up will be strong thus facilitating formative voice behavioral practice. 2.2.3. Leadership For leaders to be trusted, they need to demonstrate benevolence, integrity, ability and create confidence among the people (Law, Dollard, Tuckey & Dormann, 2011). According to Huxford (2005), big organizations have to work smarter than their competitors to build and retain trust on their employees and the employees will demand for openness, as they want their ideas to be heard and incorporated in the organization without any fear of punishment. Thus, it is important for organizations to enhance organizational cohesion in running of the organization through employees’ incorporation on organizational matters (Wahyu Ariani, 2013). A productive relationship between leader and the team lie on the extent at which the employee trust their management, believe that the management also respects their concerns, and are fairly treated that is generally based on collectiveness between the employer and the employees (Reio & Sanders-Reio, 2011). If an employee’s and employers relationship is managed appropriately, it will help in reinforcing a positive workplace culture, in which the employees believe is the backbone of the communication process creating a confidence of responding (Goncalo & Staw, 2006). Wildermuth & Pauken (2008), in their article further suggested that the relationship is bound to deepen in both sides creating trust and confident in each other that is important for the organizational success. Hypothesis 4: Leadership is positively related to the managerial consultation and formative voice behavioral practices. 2.2.4. Power distance The employee develops their status from the supervisory responsiveness whether fair and trustworthy treatment is accorded to the issues they raise (Pyszczynski, Greenberg, Solomon, Arndt & Schimel, 2004). If the authority is abusive, then power distance results between the two and the employees will be discouraged from airing their concerns. In line with the stream research, I consider power distance between the managers and the employees as a moderator the employee’s participation involvement and voice practices. If the authority distances itself from the employees, then a strained relationship is developed in the organization (Lammers, Galinsky, Gordijn, & Otten, 2012). The subordinates will not be able to communicate with their authorities creating a prohibitive voice behavior on the employees. On the other hand, if there is no distance in power been the authority and the employee’s then a Formative voice behavior between the managers and their subordinates (Magee & Smith, 2013). I propose that power distance will moderate the relationship between provision of participative opportunities and employees speak up. Hypothesis 5: power distance is negatively related to the employee’s use of voice and Formative voice behavior practices. Hypothesis 6: Power distance is negatively related to the employee’s use of voice but positively related to prohibitive voice behavioral practices. 2.2.5. Leader’s openness According to the study by Detert and Burris (2007), they found that leader’s openness positively influenced voice. In their study they found that psychological safety of employee strongly relied on the leader’s openness, thus a positive correlation between employee voice and psychological safety also required leader’s openness as a key factor. Prior to their findings, Detert and Burris (2007) conceptualized various theoretical concepts to come up with the conclusion that “behaviors that indicate openness to change and willingness to act on input from below may be necessary to overcome employee restraint”. In other studies, Edmondson (2003) found that leaders, who show openness and consistently communicated need for change with subordinates, portrayed an environment that would encourage subordinate input. Ashford (1998) earlier proved that leader’s openness was behavior that motivated subordinates speak up. In his conclusion, Ashford (1998) clarifies that managerial openness is a sign to subordinates’ showing that their leaders listen to them, and they are ready to consider their ideas. Hypothesis 7: leader’s openness is positively related to the employee’s use of voice and Formative voice behavior practices. 2.3 Mediators of employees’ use of voice and organization outcome relationship Finally, I propose positive relationship between managerial consultation and employee use of voice by moderating effect of organization-based self-esteem and implicit voice theory – “Don’t embarrass the boss”. 2.3.1 Mediating effect of organizational based self-esteem (OBSE) Self-perceived status and esteem are important in an individual as it determines the confidence that the individual will feel valued and respected by others after raising their concerns (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). When an employee experiences a high level of group-based status, they feel valued by others and will tend to be more participative and contribute more for the benefit of the organization. Therefore, it is important for the management to examine when, how and whether self-perceived status encourages the employees in engaging in the challenge, promote behaviors that are intended to improve the organization growth. Self-efficacy for articulating views is important to strengthen the relationship between self-perceived status and the supervisory responsiveness of the employee’s. Koole, Tjew Sin & Schneider (2014), conducted a study to investigate the role of the employee’s status appraisal in their work group in relation to their challenging promotive voice behaviors. From the study results, it was evident that respectful and fair treatment of voice input by the authority enhanced the employees self-perceived status thus, motivating them in engaging in subsequent voice behavior. Thus, the status by which an employee perceives himself or herself to have within a group may act as a hindrance or promotion on their expression of ideas on work related issues in their work (Liang, Farh, & Farh, 2012). Hypothesis 8: managerial consultation use is positively related to perceived Organization based self-esteem Hypothesis 9: Organization based self-esteem mediates positive relationship with formative voice behavioral practice Implicit voice theories – ‘Do not embarrass the boss in public’ Upward communication is very important for any modern organization. Giving suggestions or employees voicing their concerns or suggestions to those in higher hierarchical positions can help address several organizational problems such as mistreatment, injustice, immoral, and illegal behavior (Detert & Edmondson, 2011). Contrary to this expectation, most employees chose to remain silent rather than voice their concerns to their superiors. Such behavior has been confirmed to be detrimental to the organizations well-being, both at individual and organizational level (Detert & Trevino, 2010). When carrying out studies on implicit voice theories, Detert and Edmondson (2011) noted that there are five implicit voice construct items, with one of them being ‘Don’t embarrass boss in public’, which we are going to explore widely on in this study. Other studies have found that pointing out workplace issues or inefficiencies is likely to embarrass the boss especially when done in front of others. Another important suggestion given is that surprising your boss in front of other is likely to embarrass them; rather an employee should always consult with the boss in private first, before coming up with any public suggestion (Burris, Detert, Chiaburu, 2008). Hypothesis 10: managerial consultation use is positively related to ‘do not embarrass the boss’ implicit voice theory construct 3.0. Methodology 3.1. Participants and procedures Hypothesis will be tested using data from a survey to be conducted from employees and their managers at Aramco Company fully integrated, global petroleum, and chemicals enterprise. Two surveys will be used in the study one for subordinates and the other is for the supervisor. The surveys will be taken to understand managerial consultation, as well as employees voicing their problems. Suggestions and improvements are paramount to ensure effective use and organizational success. The sample will be comprised of 300 subordinates and supervisors. This will be further into teams so that they can participate in the study at intervals that will not disrupt the normal operation. The teams in the study will be grouped by taking individuals from each department as their representatives. Team meetings will be organized to inform members on the research procedures. Specific survey questionnaires will also be administered to the subordinates and supervisors accordingly in an effort of gathering self-reports on situational factors on managerial consultation and employees’ voice behavior. 3.2. Measurement of variables Managerial consultation: A six items of the seven-item questionnaire developed by Saunders et al. (1992) to assess employee perceptions of managerial consultation and supervisory responsiveness will be used. All ratings will be on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree). Sample items are “My employer has the willingness of supporting me if my issues are valid” and “My manager and superiors take action to the concerns I speak to him or her about.” Implicit voice theories: A common technique for assessing implicit voice is the self-report survey measure acknowledged in the study by Detert and Edmondson (2011). The survey involves general questions that inquire about upward communication. The questions are to be answered using a 5-point agreement scale. Leader-member exchange: LMX will be measured with a seven-item scale (LMX-7) developed by Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995). Sample items include “My working relationship with my manager is effective” and “My manager consults with me in my job”. Supervisor abuse: A three-item status scale that was constituted by Tangirala and Ramanujam (2008) to measure manager’s abusive status was used. Items used are “I do not have any status within the team” and “My managers dis-respect’s me in high regard.” All ratings were on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree) with the statement. Organization-based self-esteem: A ten-item scale developed by Pierce et al. (1989) will be used to measure OBSE. Sample items are “I feel useful around here” and “I feel confident when I am doing my work.” Collectivism: a six-measure goal alignment will be employed that is essential for providing a good measure to the information (Jap, 1999). The sample item will be “the managers and employees work in had” and “our goals and attitudes are congruent.” Power distance: A six-item employee voice questionnaire developed and validated by Van Dyne and LePine (1998). The employees will indicate how frequently each statement fitted focal managerial type behavior. The response scale ranged from 1 = never to 7 = always. It used are “my employer never communicates with me” and “I never consult with them they are not available.” Control of variables: four demographic control variables will be used in the study: gender (0 = female, 1 = male), age (months and years), educational level (1 = middle school, 2 = high school/secondary school, 3 = associate’s degree, 4 = bachelor’s degree, 5 = master’s or doctoral degree) position and organizational tenure (months and years). 4. Research Schedule: The progress of this research will be monitored and communicated with the Supervisor from time to time so that it will be possible to keep project on track. The tentative time schedule has been presented in the table below: Table-1: Time schedule of the study Number Activity Start Finish Duration (months) 1 Research proposal development 2 Literature review 2 3 Data collection 2 4 Data sorting and managing 2 5 Analysis and interpretation of data 2 6 First thesis draft preparation 3 7 Revision and submission of thesis 2 8 Final defense 3 9 2 10 Total 18 months References Adler-Milstein, J., Singer, S. J., & Toffel, M. W. (2010). Speaking Up Constructively: Managerial Practices That Elicit Solutions from Front-Line Employees. SSRN eLibrary. Bakker, A. B. (2009). Buildin engagement in the workplace. In The Peak Performing Organization (pp. 50–72). doi:10.4324 Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Positive organizational behavior: Engaged employees in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior. doi:10.1002/job.515 Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, Evangelia. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International. doi:10.1108/13620430810870476 Burris E. R., Detert J. R., Chiaburu D. S. 2008. Quitting before leaving: The mediating effects of psychological attachment and detachment on voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 912–922 Conchie, S. M., Moon, S., & Duncan, M. (2013). Supervisors’ engagement in safety leadership: Factors that help and hinder. Safety Science, 51, 109–117. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2012.05.020 Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 869–884. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.26279183 Detert, J. R., and Amy C. Edmondson. "Implicit Voice Theories: Taken-for-granted Rules of Self-censorship at Work." Academy of Management Journal 54, no. 3 (June 2011): 461–488. Detert J. R., Trevino L. 2010. Speaking up to higher ups: How supervisors and skip-level leaders influence employee voice. Organization Science, 21: 249–270. Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. (2007). Why employees are afraid to speak. Harvard Business Review, 85, 23–25. Dundon, T., Wilkinson *, A., Marchington, M., & Ackers, P. (2004). The meanings and purpose of employee voice. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. doi:10.1080/095851904100016773359 Elele, J., & Fields, D. (2010). Participative decision making and organizational commitment: Comparing Nigerian and American employees. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal. Emamgholizadeh, S., Matin, H. Z., & Razavi, H. R. (2011). Is participation in decision making related to employee’s empowerment? African Journal of Business Management, 5, 3504–3510. Freeman, R. B., & Kleiner, M. M. (2000). Who benefits most from employee involvement: Firms or workers? American Economic Review, 90, 219–223. doi:10.1257/aer.90.2.219 Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (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. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2): 219-247. Goncalo, J. A., & Staw, B. M. (2006). Individualism-collectivism and group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 96–109. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.11.003 Han, T.-S., Chiang, H.-H., & Chang, A. (2010). Employee participation in decision making, psychological ownership and knowledge sharing: mediating role of organizational commitment in Taiwanese high-tech organizations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. doi:10.1080/09585192.2010.509625 Huxford, R. (2005). Citizen engagement and public services consultation. PROCEEDINGS OF THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS-MUNICIPAL ENGINEER, 158, 79–82. Janssen, O., & Gao, L. (2013). Supervisory Responsiveness and Employee Self-Perceived Status and Voice Behavior. Journal of Management, XX, 1–19. doi:10.1177/0149206312471386 Jap Sandy D. (1999), Pie-expansion efforts: collaboration processes in buyer–supplier relationships. Journal of Marketing Research; 36(4):461–75. Jha, S. S. (2013). Leader-Member Exchange: A Critique of Theory & Practice. Journal of Management & Public Policy, 4, 42–53. Kahn, W. A. . B. U. S. of M. B. M. Usf. S. B. U. S. of M. B. M. U. (2013). Purpose and meaning in the workplace. Purpose and meaning in the workplace. Dik (pp. 105–126. Washington). doi:10.1037/14183-000 Klaas, B. S., Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & Ward, A.-K. (2012). The Determinants of Alternative Forms of Workplace Voice: An Integrative Perspective. Journal of Management. Koole, S. L., Tjew A Sin, M., & Schneider, I. K. (2014). Embodied terror management: interpersonal touch alleviates existential concerns among individuals with low self-esteem. Psychological Science, 25, 30–7. doi:10.1177/0956797613483478 Kupperschmidt, B. R. (2000). Multigeneration employees: strategies for effective management. The Health Care Manager, 19, 65–76. Lambert, S. J. (2000). Added benefits: The link between work-life benefits and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 801–815. Lammers, J., Galinsky, A. D., Gordijn, E. H., & Otten, S. (2012). Power Increases Social Distance. Social Psychological and Personality Science. doi:10.1177/1948550611418679 Law, R., Dollard, M. F., Tuckey, M. R., & Dormann, C. (2011). Psychosocial safety climate as a lead indicator of workplace bullying and harassment, job resources, psychological health and employee engagement. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43, 1782–1793. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2011.04.010 LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998a). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.6.853 LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998b). Predicting voice vehavior in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 853–868. Li, N., Liang, J., & Crant, J. M. (2010). The role of proactive personality in job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior: a relational perspective. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 395–404. Liang, J., Farh, C. I. C., & Farh, J. L. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive Voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 71–92. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0176 Magee, J. C., & Smith, P. K. (2013). The social distance theory of power. Personality and Social Psychology Review : An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 17, 158–86. doi:10.1177/1088868312472732 Mahajan, A., Bishop, J. W., & Scott, D. (2012). Does Trust in Top Management Mediate Top Management Communication , Employee Involvement and Organizational Commitment Relationships? Journal of Managerial Issues, 24, 173–190. McCabe, R., Heath, C., Burns, T., & Priebe, S. (2002). Engagement of patients with psychosis in the consultation: conversation analytic study. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 325, 1148–1151. Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A quasi-field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 123–136. Pateman, C. (2003). Participation and Democratic Theory. The Democracy Sourcebook, 40–48. doi:10.2307/2613634 Pierce, J. L, Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1989). Organization-based self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 622-648. Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Arndt, J., & Schimel, J. (2004). Why do people need self-esteem? A theoretical and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 435–468. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.435 Reio, T. G., & Sanders-Reio, J. (2011). Thinking About Workplace Engagement: Does Supervisor and Coworker Incivility Really Matter? Advances in Developing Human Resources. Rochette, A., Korner-Bitensky, N., & Levasseur, M. (2006). “Optimal” participation: a reflective look. Disability and Rehabilitation, 28, 1231–1235. doi:10.1080/09638280600554827 Rosenbaum , M. S., Ostrom , Amy L. , & Kuntze , Ronald . (2005). Loyalty programs and a sense of community. Journal of Services Marketing. doi:10.1108/08876040510605253 Saunders, D. M., Sheppard, B. H., Knight, V., & Roth, J. 1992. Employee voice to supervisors. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 5: 241-259. Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: the mediation of service climate. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1217–1227. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1217 Saks, A. M. (2011). Workplace spirituality and employee engagement. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion. doi:10.1080/14766086.2011.630170 Sarwar, A., & Khalid, A. (2011). Impact of Employee Empowerment on Employee’s Job Satisfaction and Commitment with the Organization. Interdiscliplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3, 664–684. Schroeder, C. E., & Lakatos, P. (2012). The Signs of Silence. Neuron. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2012.05.012 Smeenk, S. G. A., Eisinga, R. N., Teelken, J. C., & Doorewaard, J. A. C. M. (2006). The effects of HRM practices and antecedents on organizational commitment among university employees. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. doi:10.1080/09585190600965449 Smidts, A., Pruyn, A. T. H., & Van Riel, C. B. M. (2001). The impact of employee communication and perceived external prestige on organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1051–1062. Stewart, M. M., & Johnson, O. E. (2009). Leader--Member Exchange as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Work Group Diversity and Team Performance. Group & Organization Management. doi:10.1177/1059601108331220 Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. 2008. Employee silence on critical work issues: The cross level effects of proce­dural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 61: 37-68. Thomas, G. F., Zolin, R., & Hartman, J. L. (2009). The Central Role of Communication in Developing Trust and Its Effect On Employee Involvement. Journal of Business Communication. doi:10.1177/0021943609333522 Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., Botero, I. C., & Dyne, L. Van. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1359–1392. Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. 1998. Helping and voice extra-role behavior: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 108-119. Wahyu Ariani, D. (2013). The Relationship between Employee Engagement, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, and Counterproductive Work Behavior. International Journal of Business Administration, 4, 46–57. Whiteside, D. B., & Barclay, L. J. (2013). Echoes of Silence: Employee Silence as a Mediator Between Overall Justice and Employee Outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 116, 251–266. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1467-3 Wildermuth, C. de M. e S., & Pauken, Patrick David. (2008). A perfect match: decoding employee engagement – Part I: Engaging cultures and leaders. Industrial and Commercial Training. Zeigler-Hill, V., Besser, A., Myers, E. M., Southard, A. C., & Malkin, M. L. (2013). The Status-Signaling Property of Self-Esteem: The Role of Self-Reported Self-Esteem and Perceived Self-Esteem in Personality Judgments. Journal of Personality, 81, 209–220. Read More