Managing the Uncertainties Inherent in Prohibitive Voice: How Leadership Interacts With Employee Political Skill

Drawing from the uncertainty management theory, we examine how authoritarian leadership and humble leadership interact with employee political skill to predict prohibitive voice. We conducted a two-wave survey study of 43 managers and 176 subordinates in a power company in China. Our findings indicate that authoritarian leadership has a minimal negative effect on the psychological safety of employees with higher political skill, which in turn leads to a minimal negative effect on their prohibitive voice. Moreover, humble leadership is positively associated with prohibitive voice for employees with lower political skill. For employees with higher political skill, no type of leadership behavior has a significant influence on their prohibitive voice. We outline the implications of these findings for both theoretical and managerial practices.

Effect of Employee–Customer Interaction Quality on Customers’ Prohibitive Voice Behaviors: Mediating Roles of Customer Trust and Identification

Given that customer voice behaviors are confused with customer complaint behaviors in usage, this study thoroughly explains the essential differences between the two constructs. On that basis, this study investigates how employee–customer interaction (ECI) quality affects customers’ prohibitive voice behaviors, which is an crucial type of customer voice behaviors, by examining customer trust and identification as mediators. Data from 395 restaurant customers are collected and analyzed using structural equation modeling. Results show that ECI quality positively affects customers’ prohibitive voice behaviors. In this effect, customer trust and identification play direct and sequential mediating roles. This study contributes theoretically to the current knowledge by clearly distinguishing customer voice behaviors from customer complaint behaviors and by providing new insights into the mechanism of customers’ prohibitive voice behaviors from the perspectives of service interaction and relational benefit enhancement. The practical implications of this study can help pointedly foster customers’ prohibitive voice behaviors.

Psychometric Validation of the Dutch Version of the Promotive and Prohibitive Voice Scale

The aim of this three-study report was to validate the Dutch version of the promotive and prohibitive voice scale and to further embed the constructs of promotive and prohibitive voice within their nomological network. Promotive voice refers to the expression of suggestions for improving work practices, whereas prohibitive voice refers to the expression of concerns about practices and behaviors that are detrimental. In Study 1 (N = 121), confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) provided evidence for the two-factor structure, which was replicated in the other two studies. In Study 2 (NT1 = 209/NT2 = 107), we investigated the convergent and discriminant validity of the promotive and prohibitive voice scale, and tested measurement invariance across gender and time. Results provided validity evidence, partial scalar invariance for gender, and scalar invariance across time. In Study 3 (N = 149), we expanded the nomological network of the promotive and prohibitive voice scales through their relationship with personal initiative, approach temperament, and risk propensity. Taken together, our results provide strong evidence for the validity of the Dutch version of the promotive and prohibitive voice scale.

Does LMX always promote employee voice? A dark side of migrant working in Saudi Arabia

PurposeDrawing on the self-consistency theory, this study aims to test a model where employees' supervisor-based self-esteem (SBSE) is positively related to their promotive and prohibitive voice and mediate the positive relationship between leader–member exchange social comparison (LMXSC) of an employee's promotive and prohibitive voice, but only for local rather than migrant workers.Design/methodology/approachTo test the study hypotheses, multi-source data were collected from 341 matched supervisor–supervisee dyads working in a diverse range of organizations in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.FindingsAs predicted, employees' SBSE is positively related to their promotive and prohibitive voice and mediates a positive relationship between their LMXSC and their promotive and prohibitive voice, but only for local workers. The study findings support the self-consistency theory perspective on LMX and provide new insight into the “dark side” of migrant working – a lack of voice.Originality/valueThis study responds to calls for more research that explores the roles played by macro-environmental factors on employees' voice. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

Who Speaks Up?

Research on the relationship between personality traits and employee voice has predominantly focused on main effects of one or more traits and has shown equivocal results. In this study, we explore relationships between configurations (i.e., all logically possible combinations) of the Big Five traits and promotive and prohibitive voice using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis. Survey data from 171 employees from 10 organizations in the service industry revealed that none of the traits alone could induce promotive or prohibitive voice. Yet, we found three trait configurations that relate to promotive voice and four configurations that relate to prohibitive voice. We use the theory of purposeful work behavior to explain the different trait configurations for promotive and prohibitive voice.

The Inhibitory Effect of Perceived Organizational Politics on Employee Voice Behavior: A Moderated Mediation Model

Research on the mediating mechanisms and boundary conditions of perceived organizational politics’ (POP) effect on employee voice is underdeveloped. Based on conservation of resources theory, we proposed a moderated mediation model in which organizational embeddedness acts as a mediator to explain why POP inhibits promotive and prohibitive voice. Additionally, we posited sense of impact as a boundary condition affecting this relationship. A time-lagged survey of 227 employed MBA students from a university in southwestern China revealed that organizational embeddedness mediates the relationship between POP and promotive and prohibitive voice, and sense of impact moderates the relationship between POP and promotive voice, such that the relationship is stronger when sense of impact is weaker. The moderating effect was not significant for prohibitive voice. These findings have implications for theory, practice, and further organizational research.

The Relationship between Inclusion Climate and Voice Behaviors beyond Social Exchange Obligation: The Role of Psychological Needs Satisfaction

Several studies have identified a work environment that promotes inclusiveness as a significant predictor of affiliative organizational citizenship behavior or OCB (such as helping), whereas not much research has focused on inclusion and challenging OCB (i.e., voice). Moreover, no previous studies have explored the above-mentioned relationship in the light of self-determination theory (SDT), given that social exchange theory has traditionally been used as the main explanatory mechanism. Therefore, the aim of the present research was to test the mediating role of basic psychological needs satisfaction in the relationship between inclusion climate, promotive voice and prohibitive voice. Data were collected through self-report questionnaires administered to 246 employees of an international company operating in the service industry. Structural equation modelling was used to analyze the data utilizing R software. Results showed that satisfaction of the needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness partially mediated the relationship between inclusion climate and promotive and prohibitive voice, therefore supporting the idea that social exchange might not be the only determinant for employees to engage in voice behavior. Most importantly, those findings underline how a truly inclusive workplace needs to fulfil its employees’ basic needs of behaving volitionally, feeling effective and connecting meaningfully; this would motivatethe workers to voice their suggestions and concerns.