Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Employee voice plays a crucial role in driving constructive change within organizations. However, there is a lack of understanding regarding the distinct antecedents of different types of voice behaviors, namely promotive and prohibitive voice. This study aims to address this gap by examining the influence of interpersonal factors, such as leader-member exchange (LMX), and individual factors, specifically regulatory focus, on both types of voice behavior. By focusing on LMX and regulatory focus, we explore how these factors uniquely and interactively affect promotive and prohibitive voice. The study collected data from 167 Chinese employees in Guangdong province and Hong Kong. Our findings reveal a positive linear relationship between LMX and promotive voice, indicating that a strong leader-member relationship enhances employees’ willingness to contribute proactive ideas and suggestions. In contrast, we observed a curvilinear relationship between LMX and prohibitive voice, consistent with the “too-much-of-a-good-thing” effect. Furthermore, our study examines the unique effects of promotion and prevention focus on promotive and prohibitive voice, respectively. However, we did not find significant interaction effects between LMX and regulatory focus on voice behavior. These results suggest that the impact of LMX and regulatory focus on voice behavior operates independently rather than in combination. Theoretical implications of our findings contribute to the understanding of voice behavior, leadership, and regulatory focus literature.

Plain Language Summary

Exploring How LMX and Regulatory Focus Shape Promotive and Prohibitive Voice Differently

Employee voice is vital for positive change in companies, but we don’t fully understand what drives different types of employee voice behavior, especially promotive voice or prohibitive voice. This study aims to address this knowledge gap by looking at how relationships between leader-member exchange (LMX) and individual factors, specifically regulatory focus, influence both types of voice behavior. We gathered data from 167 employees in China, specifically in Guangdong Province and Hong Kong. Our findings show a positive linear relationship between LMX and promotive voice, indicating that a strong leader-member relationship enhances employees’ willingness to contribute proactive ideas and suggestions. However, we observed a curvilinear relationship between LMX and prohibitive voice, consistent with the ‘too-much-of-a-good-thing’ effect. We also examined the unique effects of promotion and prevention focus on promotive and prohibitive voice, respectively. However, we did not find significant interaction effects between LMX and regulatory focus on voice behavior. Our study helps to better understand how employee voice behavior, leadership, and regulatory focus are related.

Keywords

promotive voice prohibitive voice LMX regulatory focus moderating effects

Introduction

In today’s dynamic business environment, employee voice plays a crucial role in organizational effectiveness (Burris, 2012; Farh et al., 2020). However, there exists a paradox within organizations, as employees often withhold their ideas and remain silent due to fear and futility, despite knowing that their ideas could contribute to positive change (Milliken et al., 2003; Morrison, 2014; Morrison & Milliken, 2000). While previous research has broadened the definition of voice, most studies have predominantly focused on the “promotive” aspects of voice without distinguishing it from “prohibitive” voice (Van Dyne et al., 2003). Promotive voice involves expressing suggestions to improve the status quo, while prohibitive voice focuses on highlighting current problems or concerns to prevent harm (Liang et al., 2012). Understanding the distinction between these two types of voice behavior can shed light on why voice behavior elicits different managerial responses and advance the voice literature (Burris, 2012; Liang et al., 2012; Lin & Johnson, 2015). Supervisors typically perceive promotive voice behavior as positive, while prohibitive voice behavior can trigger negative emotions and defensiveness (Van Dyne et al., 2003). Despite its crucial role in preventing harm, prohibitive voice is more likely to be met with hostility and risk. Therefore, our study aims to explore the antecedents of these distinct voice behaviors proposed by Liang et al. (2012).

Firstly, we specifically examine the relationship between leader-member exchange (LMX) and employee voice behavior. While the importance of promotive and prohibitive voice is well recognized, we still have limited understanding of the interpersonal factors that influence voice behaviors. Employee voice is a target-sensitive behavior (Liu et al., 2010), and the social relationships employees are embedded in can influence their motives and implementation of voice. Previous research has primarily focused on the effect of leaders on voice behavior (e.g., [Burris, 2012; Carnevale et al., 2020; Howell et al., 2015; Islam et al., 2018]), given that employee voice is an upward communication where leaders are the recipients with the power to implement change and control over employees’ career development (Davidson et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2019; Tiantian et al., 2021).

However, previous studies on the LMX-voice relationship have mostly examined the positive effect of LMX on voice without differentiating between promotive and prohibitive voice (Botero & Van Dyne, 2009). While both types of voice behaviors are helpful for organizations, they serve different purposes based on their distinct aspects (Liang et al., 2012). Therefore, it is necessary to revisit this relationship and distinguish between different sub-dimensions of voice. We expect that LMX will be positively related to promotive voice, which aligns with prior research (Botero & Van Dyne, 2009). However, regarding prohibitive voice, we hypothesize a curvilinear effect of LMX based on the “too-much-of-a-good-thing (TMGT)” effect. Employees with very high LMX with their leaders may be less likely to raise concerns because they perceive their leaders as highly competent and reliable (Gao et al., 2011). Additionally, they may take fewer risks in raising dissent or making bold warnings to avoid jeopardizing their good relationship with supervisors (Waldron, 1999). Thus, when LMX exceeds a moderate level, a countervailing effect may inhibit prohibitive voice, resulting in a curvilinear relationship.

Secondly, we explore how individual orientations, based on regulatory focus theory, influence different types of voice behaviors. Building upon Liang et al.’s (2012) research, we emphasize the role of dispositional factors in driving different voices. While both forms of voice aim to enhance organizational effectiveness, they differ in their behavioral content and impact on others (Liang et al., 2012). To voice their opinions, employees need the ability and willingness to take a stand (Staw & Boettger, 1990). While several studies have explored individual differences in relation to voice behavior, limited attention has been given to how individual orientations influence voice behaviors (Lanaj et al., 2012; Lin & Johnson, 2015). Regulatory focus theory suggests that individuals adopt two distinct self-regulation strategies: promotion and prevention (Higgins, 1997, 1998). Promotion focus is associated with eagerness strategies and ideal goals, while prevention focus is linked to vigilance strategies to avoid undesired states and attain ought goals (Higgins, 1997, 1998; Lin & Johnson, 2015). Drawing on actor-centric approaches to regulatory focus theory, we hypothesize that promotion-focused employees are more likely to engage in promotive voice, while prevention-focused employees are more inclined towards prohibitive voice.

Thirdly, to gain a deeper understanding of the effects of LMX and regulatory focus on employee voice behaviors, our study examines the joint impact of these two antecedents on promotive and prohibitive voice. Prior research suggests that personality traits can interact with environmental factors to influence behavioral outcomes (Cesario et al., 2008; Kakkar et al., 2016). Building upon trait activation theory, we explore the interaction effect between individual antecedents (regulatory focus) and interpersonal antecedents (LMX) on voice behavior. Trait activation theory posits that individual traits become more salient when they are relevant to the outcomes under consideration (Tett & Burnett, 2003). However, the expression of these traits may be suppressed when there is a mismatch between the traits and contextual factors. In our model, we predict that regulatory focus, when congruent with the subsequent voice type, will strengthen the relationship between LMX and voice, and vice versa. This examination of the interaction effect between LMX and regulatory focus contributes to a deeper understanding of employee voice behavior.

Lastly, our study contributes to the existing voice literature in several ways. Firstly, we expand the understanding of the relationship between LMX and voice behaviors, particularly by differentiating between promotive and prohibitive voice. Secondly, we provide insights into how employees’ self-regulatory strategies influence their decision to speak up in the workplace. Thirdly, by examining the interaction effects of interpersonal and individual antecedents on voice behavior, our study enriches our understanding of how social relationships and personal characteristics shape voice behaviors in a complex interplay. Overall, given the importance of LMX and regulatory focus in predicting employees’ voice behavior, our study offers valuable insights for both researchers and practitioners.

Theories and Hypotheses

Employee Voice Behavior: Promotive Versus Prohibitive Voice

Employee voice is defined as the expressions of concerns or constructive suggestions intended to improve the development of an organization (Morrison, 2011; Van Dyne et al., 2003). Previous research has argued that voice behavior is important for improving organizational efficiency and accelerating organizational learning (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Van Dyne et al., 2003). Individuals often express their concerns and suggestions to demonstrate their active contributions to the organization. However, voice behavior can sometimes be misunderstood or interpreted as negative by others, leading to undesirable consequences (Burris, 2012; Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Individuals may feel reluctant to express their voice for fear that they will be labeled as incompetent or troublemakers and may risk damaging social relationships (e.g., Chamberlin et al., 2017; Morrison & Milliken, 2000).

Recent studies have investigated different antecedents and consequences of two types of voice (e.g., Burris, 2012; Liang et al., 2012; Lin & Johnson, 2015). Following Liang et al. (2012), promotive voice is defined as employees’ expressions of suggestions or ideas related to work issues aimed at improving the overall functioning of their organizations, and is future-oriented. Employees need to invest substantial time and energy because it requires greater effort during the process of developing creative ideas and constructive solutions. Promotive voice behavior can be easily identified and interpreted by supervisors as positive behavior (Van Dyne et al., 2003).

On the contrary, prohibitive voice is defined as employees’ expressions of concerns about existing or impending factors that are detrimental to the organization, and it is past or future-oriented. It challenges the status quo and calls for stopping the current harm which can implicate the failure of those responsible. Compared to promotive voice, prohibitive voice is more likely to invoke potential negative emotion and defensiveness. Due to the “mum effect” (Rosen & Tesser, 1970), employees may be more reluctant to engage in prohibitive voice because they don’t want to be viewed as the conveyer of bad news. Additionally, raising concerns about the problems only without coming up with a solution can be taken as complaints rather than contributions from the manager’s perspective. Owing to managers’ fear of negative feedback and their implicit managerial beliefs that dissent is bad and management knows the best (Morrison & Milliken, 2000), prohibitive voice is more likely to incur resentment and danger regardless of its important role to stop the harm.

Though both types of voice are aimed at improving organizational process and effectiveness, the two types of voice may be differently interpreted and functioned (Liang et al., 2012). Because of the differing motivation and function of voice behaviors, employees are likely to trigger to promotive and prohibitive voice differently by social context and individual orientations. Therefore, this study shed light on interpersonal-and individual-based antecedents such as LMX and regulatory focus on two types of voice behaviors.

LMX and Voice Behavior

Employee voice behavior is a social phenomenon, as it involves target-sensitive behavior. Individuals clearly distinguish between speaking up and speaking out based on psychological mechanisms (Edmondson, 1999; Liang et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2010; Sherf et al., 2021). From the perspective of the supervisors, they may perceive employee voice positively, viewing it as a display of loyalty and contribution, and consequently reward those employees. On the other hand, they may consider employee voice as a threat to their authority and take it negatively (Burris, 2012). The varying motives of employees expressing their voice, along with the disparate responses of supervisors, underscore the need to examine the multifaceted nature of voice itself.

Based on LMX theory, leaders do not treat every employee equally but instead, tend to divide employees into in-groups and out-groups. In-group members tend to have a high-quality relationship with their leaders, characterized by mutual respect, trust, psychological safety, loyalty, and a sense of obligation based on social exchange (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Islam et al., 2013; Liden et al., 1997). On the contrary, out-group members are in low LMX, with less mutual trust, limited support, and fewer rewards. Their relationships with leaders are more formal, restricted, and based on economic exchange (Fairhurst & Chandler, 1989). In the context of voice context, employees with high-LMX have more chances to voice, get more support and positive feedback from the supervisors. However, employees with low-LMX may have fewer opportunities to speak up to their leaders, get less support, and are more likely to receive negative feedback given from their supervisors. The quality of relationships with supervisors influences how employees communicate with them and the type of responses they receive.

Promotive voice requires extra effort from the employees to raise constructive ideas, as it is not easy to generate new ideas and solutions without continuous effort and attention to organizational issues (Farh et al., 2010). Employees with high LMX tend to receive support, information, and valuable resources from the leader (Wilson et al., 2010). For example, employees can acquire greater job knowledge (Hsiung & Tsai, 2009) and perceive higher level of psychological empowerment (Liden et al., 2000). Additionally, their voice is more likely to be perceived as valuable efforts to collective interests of the workgroup due to ingroup favoritism (Huang et al., 2018). Employees who engage in promotive voice are always considered as more committed and loyal, thus feeling a sense of responsibility and obligation to accomplish challenging tasks to reciprocate their supervisors (Carnevale et al., 2020; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). We, therefore, propose that a higher quality leader-member relationship will lead to a promotive voice.

Hypothesis 1: LMX is positively associated with promotive voice.

Contrary to promotive voice, prohibitive voice is more concern-oriented and requires greater risk-taking, as it points out the harms or dysfunctions aspects of behaviors, practices, or incidents (Liang et al., 2012). Prohibitive voice aims to change the status quo and prevent harm, which may challenge the authority. Previous studies have shown that prohibitive voice is more likely to incur negative managerial responses (Bain et al., 2021; Burris, 2012; Chamberlin et al., 2017). Managers tend to view employees who engage in the prohibitive voice as threats or trouble-makers, and respond with negative feedbacks such as lower job performance ratings or fewer promotion opportunities.

Research has suggested that psychological safety is one of the important antecedents for employees to take personal risks to speak up (Edmondson, 1999; Liang et al., 2012). Employees with high LMX often tend to feel a sense of psychological safety, as they share mutual trust and respect, which enable them to voice their concerns. They also receive more social supports from their supervisors, which provides them with the resources to take risks and point out problems. Because of in-group favoritism, supervisors may take the prohibitive voice of the in-group members less negatively compared with out-group members. Thus, LMX could lead to more prohibitive voice, aligning with previous research findings. On the contrary, out-group members, receiving fewer resources from their leaders, may be less inclined to take risks in speaking up.

However, despite the intuitive notion that high-quality LMX facilitates risk-taking behaviors, we predict that when LMX reaches a certain level, it can have counterproductive effects that inhibit employee prohibitive voice. Based on a “too-much-of-a-good-thing” effect, becoming too close with the supervisor can sometimes cause counterproductive effects and inhibit employee prohibitive voice behavior. Employees with very high LMX hardly recognize the need to raise their concerns because they perceive their leaders as highly competent and reliable (Gao et al., 2011).

Moreover, employees who trust their leaders may avoid creating impressions of trust violation and, thus, refrain from voice behavior that could be interpreted or seen as negative and defensive (Gao et al., 2011). Employees with very high LMX relationships might act as trusted assistant to their supervisors without disrupting the leader’s expectations (Dansereau et al., 1975). They are also likely to take fewer risks in expressing dissents and making suggestions because they want to maintain a good relationship with their supervisors (Waldron, 1999). In light of these observations, we suggest that there exists a curvilinear relationship between LMX and prohibitive voice.

Hypothesis 2: There is a curvilinear relationship between LMX and prohibitive voice, such that the positive relationship between LMX and prohibitive voice becomes negative when LMX is beyond a certain level.

Regulatory Focus and Voice Behavior

Voice behavior is likely influenced not just by the contextual environment, but also by personal factors. Although both types of voice are intended to enhance organizational effectiveness, they differ in behavioral content and implications for others (Liang et al., 2012). Therefore, we investigate how individual orientations impact different types of voice behaviors, using the lens of regulatory focus theory. This theory suggests that people can adopt two kinds of different self-regulation strategies—promotion and prevention (Higgins, 1997, 1998). According to meta-analysis study on regulatory focus, promotion and prevention foci are two independent constructs rather than two ends of a single dimension (Gorman et al., 2012; Higgins, 1997). In other words, employees can score high in both or neither foci, or high in one focus while low in the other (Lin & Johnson, 2015). Consequently, it is necessary to measure both promotion and prevention foci as separate variables rather than combining them into one single dimension. And that’s why we used two sets of questions to measure promotion and prevention focus respectively.

Promotion focus differs from prevention focus in terms of characteristics, such as goals and strategies. Firstly, people with promotion focus tend to strive towards a desired state, contrasting those with a prevention focus, who aim to avoid an undesired state. Secondly, those high in promotion focus adopt eagerness strategies to realize ideal goals and states, whereas those high in prevention focus are more likely to adopt vigilance strategies in order to avoid undesired states and attain ought goals (Higgins, 1997, 1998; Lin & Johnson, 2015).

Therefore, based on Higgins’s (1998) regulatory focus theory, we investigate how individual orientations influence two types of voice. As mentioned, promotive voice refers to employees’ expressions of new ideas or constructive suggestions, considered a vital precursor for individuals to advance their state by seeking new opportunities for ideal goals and states (Kakkar et al., 2016; Lin & Johnson, 2015; Morrison & Rothman, 2009). Employee who uses an eagerness strategy via a promotion focus are sensitive to gains and non-gains, and therefore suggest ideas to develop chances to generate positive outcomes for achieving gains (Lin & Johnson, 2015). Therefore, employees who score high in promotion focus may be more likely to engage in promotive voice, to express their opinions and suggestions to improve the status quo and reach ideal states.

Conversely, prohibitive voice refers to employees’ expressions of concerns about existing harmful factors within the organization and aims to prevent the current and future harm. This aligns with a prevention focus that represents individuals’ disposition to prevent undesired states by recognizing potential threats in organizations (Carver, 2006; Kakkar et al., 2016; Lin & Johnson, 2015). Prevention-focused employees tend to care more about losses and non-losses and thus take vigilance strategies to avoid losses and harm, which aligns with a prohibitive voice—to point out the failures and problems in order to prevent further damage (Lin & Johnson, 2015).

To sum up, we propose that employees with a high level of promotion focus are more likely to engage in promotive voice, expressing their opinions and offering constructive suggestions to achieve the ideal state, while employees who have a high level of prevention focus are more likely to engage in prohibitive voice, raising their concerns and criticisms to stop the current harm and avoid losses.

Hypothesis 3a: Promotion focus is positively associated with promotive voice.

Hypothesis 3b: Prevention focus is positively associated with prohibitive voice.

The Moderating Effect of Regulatory Focus on LMX-Voice Relationship

Until now we have examined both interpersonal and individual antecedents and their distinct effects on promotive and prohibitive voice. We are also interested to observe the interaction between effects of LMX and regulatory focus on different voice. Previous research has indicated that dispositional traits can interact with situational factors to influence behavioral outcomes (Barrick et al., 2001; Kakkar et al., 2016). According to trait activation theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003), individual traits become salient when they are relevant to outcomes that are being considered, while traits expression is inhibited when there is a lack of congruence between traits and contextual factors. Applying this theory to our model, we predict that regulatory focus will either amplify or weaken the relationship between LMX and voice, depending on its compatibility with voice content.

To be more specific, employees with a high LMX relationship, which generally creates a favorable context for voicing opinions, are more likely to express a promotive voice if they have a high promotion focus, compared to those who score low in promotion focus. As previously proposed, promotion focus is positively correlates with promotive voice, and when LMX is high, the favorable contexts will enhance the traits expression, leading to more promotive voice. By contrast, for prevention-focused employees, their attention to threats and dangers might impair their ability to recognize opportunities and rewards (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; Simon, 1994). Thus, even if employee have good relationships with their supervisor, those with prevention strategies may be unmotivated to suggest promotive voice behavior. We predict for employees with high prevention focus, the positive relationship between LMX and promotive voice will be weakened.

Next, we predict that regulatory focus will enhance the curvilinear relationship between LMX and prohibitive voice relationship when the regulatory focus aligns with voice content. Specifically, the curvilinear relationship between LMX and prohibitive voice will be strengthened when prevention focus is high. By contrast, promotion-focused employees, since their focus is on opportunities and rewards, can interfere their attention on threats and dangers (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). As a result, we predict that promotion focus will weaken the curvilinear relationship between LMX and prohibitive voice (Figure 1).

Therefore, we anticipate that when regulatory focus is compatible with voice content, regulatory focus will strengthen the LMX—voice relationship, and when regulatory focus is not congruent with voice content, regulatory focus will weaken the LMX—voice relationship.

Hypothesis 4a: Promotion focus moderates the positive relationship between LMX and promotive voice, such that the positive effects of LMX on promotive voice are strengthened when promotion focus is high.

Hypothesis 4b: Prevention focus moderates the positive relationship between LMX and promotive voice, such that the positive effects of LMX on promotive voice are weakened when prevention focus is high.

Hypothesis 4c: Promotion focus moderates the curvilinear relationship between LMX and prohibitive voice, such that the curvilinear effects of LMX on prohibitive voice are weakened when promotion focus is high.

Hypothesis 4d: Prevention focus moderates the curvilinear relationship between LMX and prohibitive voice, such that the curvilinear effects of LMX on prohibitive voice are strengthened when prevention focus is high.

The overall research model of this study is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Research model.

Methods

Sample and Procedures

We collected data from Chinese companies located in Guangdong province of China and Hong Kong. The industries represented by the respondents included IT, finance, manufacturing, service, and other industries. Our original sample consisted of 219 employees working in organizations, among which 52 of the answers were removed due to insufficient responses or missing data, yielding a valid response rate of 76%. After this reduction, our final sample consisted of 167 employees and their matched supervisors. To reduce the common method bias (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986), we asked the employees’ direct supervisor to assess their voice behavior. Before we conducted the survey, we obtained organizational charts and department/team roasters either from the HR department or directly from the managers. Using the department/team chart, we matched the employees with their direct supervisor. We ensured that the questionnaires filled by the employees and the supervisors could match well according to the assigned number given to the employees beforehand. We did not ask the respondents to provide their real names as many were reluctant to do so and may not answer the questions honestly as a result. We clearly informed all the respondents that all the research results would be used for academic purposes only and strict confidentiality was guaranteed. The majority of our participants were female (68.9%), under 30 years old (79%), bachelor’s degree (73.1%), non-managers (83.8%) and working in the service industry (58.7%). The average team tenure was 28.54 months, and the average team size was 9.69.

Measures

We translated the original questionnaires into Chinese and made sure all the items were translated properly. We adopted a five-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strong agree” for most of the items.

LMX

To assess the quality of the leader-member exchange relationship, we used Graen and Uhl-Bien’s (1995) seven-item scale. Employees were asked to rate their agreement with the following items using a five-point Likert scale: “I usually know how satisfied my leader is with what I do,”“My leader understands my job problems and needs very well,”“My leader recognizes my potential very well,”“Regardless of how much formal authority he/she has built into his/her position, my leader would use his/her power to help me solve problems in my work,”“Regardless of the amount of formal authority my leader has, he/she would ‘bail me out’, at his/her expense,”“I have enough confidence in my leader that I would defend and justify his/her decision if he/she were not present to do so,” and “My working relationship with my leader is very effective.”

Employee Voice

To measure promotive and prohibitive voice, we used Liang et al.’s (2012) 10-item voice scale using a five-point Likert scale. To prevent common method bias (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986), we asked employees’ direct supervisors to rate their voice behavior. The scale included five items for each voice type. For promotive voice, the items were: “This employee proactively develops and makes suggestions for issues that may influence the unit,”“This employee raises suggestions to improve the unit’s working procedure,”“This employee proactively suggests new projects which are beneficial to the work unit,”“This employee makes constructive suggestions to improve the unit’s operation,” and “This employee proactively voices out constructive suggestions that help the unit reach it goals.”

For prohibitive voice, the items were: “This employee advises other colleagues against undesirable behaviors that would hamper job performance,”“This employee dares to voice out opinions on things that might affect efficiency in the work unit, even if that would embarrass others,”“This employee speaks up honestly with problems that might cause serious loss to the work unit, even when/though dissenting opinions exist,”“This employee dares to point out problems when they appear in the unit, even if that would hamper relationships with other colleagues,” and “This employee proactively reports coordination problems in the workplace to the management.”

Regulatory Focus

To assess regulatory focus, we used an adapted version of Lockwood et al.’s (2002) 18-item scale using a five-point Likert scale. The scale was modified to refer specifically to the workplace. For promotion focus, we used items such as: “I frequently imagine how I will achieve my hopes and aspirations,”“I often think about the person I would ideally like to be in the future,”“I typically focus on the success I hope to achieve in the future,”“I often think about how I will achieve career success,”“My major goal at work right now is to achieve my career ambitions,”“I see myself as someone who is primarily striving to reach my ‘ideal self’—to fulfill my hopes, wishes, and aspirations,”“In general, I am focused on achieving positive outcomes at work,”“I often imagine myself experiencing good things that I hope will happen to me,” and “Overall, I am more oriented toward achieving success than preventing failure.”

For prevention focus, we used items such as: “In general, I am focused on preventing negative events at work,”“I am anxious that I will fall short of my responsibilities and obligations,”“I often think about the person I am afraid I might become in the future,”“I often worry that I will fail to accomplish my career goals,”“I often imagine myself experiencing bad things that I fear might happen to me,”“I frequently think about how I can prevent failures in my life,”“I am more oriented toward preventing losses than I am toward achieving gains,”“My major goal at work right now is to avoid becoming a low performer,” and “I see myself as someone who is primarily striving to become the self I ‘ought’ to be to fulfill my duties, responsibilities, and obligations.”

Control Variables

We included gender, age, education, team tenure, position in the organization, psychological safety, job satisfaction, team size, the industry as control variables due to their potential impacts on voice. For example, employee with longer team tenure may feel more committed and obligated and comfortable to voice compared with newcomers. Those who have higher positions may have more power to voice and feel more obligated to engage in voice behaviors. Those who feel psychologically safe tend to speak up more often as it takes the interpersonal risk to voice. For psychological safety, we used Liang et al.’s (2012) adapted five-item from prior researchers. Items included “In my work unit, I can express my true feelings regarding my job,”“I’m worried that expressing true thoughts in my workplace would do harm to myself” (reverse term), and so on. For job satisfaction, we used the single-item global measure by asking one question—“Overall, I am satisfied with my current job” (Highhouse & Becker, 1993). The Cronbach’s α of each factor was >.7. In all models, the highest variation inflation factor (VIF) of the variables was <2, which is noted as having been much lower than the cut-off point of 10, indicating no multicollinearity in our dataset.

Results

The descriptive statistics of each variable was presented in Table 1. Correlation analysis indicated that LMX was positively related to promotive voice (r = .37, p < .01) and prohibitive voice (r = .25, p < .01). Promotion focus was positively correlated to promotive voice (r = .26, p < .01) and prohibitive voice (r = .29, p < .01). Prevention focus showed a positive correlation with promotive voice (r = .21, p < .01) and prohibitive voice (r = .17, p < .05).

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Variables.

Variables	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
1. Gender	0.31	0.46
2. Age	1.26	0.54	.09
3. Education	0.73	0.45	.00	−.24**
4. Tenure	28.54	35.2	−.03	.48**	−.03
5. Team size	9.69	5.28	−.08	.14	−.07	.29**
6. Position	0.16	0.37	.06	.31**	.05	.25**	.18*
7. Industry	3.6	0.95	.11	−.10	−.06	.02	.01	−.02
8. Job satisfaction	3.54	0.74	−.07	−.03	−.01	.00	.12	.10	−.03
9. Psychological safety	3.56	0.65	.06	.04	.05	.08	−.11	.06	.06	.45**	(.76)
10. LMX	3.71	0.69	.18*	−.03	.14	−.05	−.06	.01	−.01	.40**	.63**	(.88)
11. Promotion focus	3.67	0.56	.04	−.09	.13	−.08	−.07	.06	−.01	.48**	.48**	.42**	(.90)
12. Prevention focus	3.14	0.69	−.11	−.02	.00	−.10	.00	−.10	.13	.11	.21**	.27**	.17*	(.82)
13. Promotive voice	3.51	0.59	−.08	−.05	.21**	.02	.00	.13	−.01	.04	.23**	.37**	.26**	.21**	(.81)
14. Prohibitive voice	3.52	0.76	−.11	−.06	.12	.05	−.10	.10	−.23**	.11	.23**	.25**	.29**	.17*	.50**	(.74)

Note. N = 167. Cronbach’s α appear in parentheses on the diagonal.

Gender (1 = male, 0 = female); age (1 = ≤30, 2 = 31–40, 3 = 41–50, 4 = ≥51); education (1 = bachelor’s degree, 0 = non-bachelor’s degree); position (1 = manager, 0 = no manager); industry (1 = IT, 2 = finance, 3 = manufacturing, 4 = service, 5 = other).

p < .05. **p < .01.

To test hypotheses, we employed hierarchical regression analysis using SPSS 24.0. Firstly, we tested the main effects of LMX on promotive and prohibitive voice respectively (H1, H2). Secondly, we investigated the main effects of regulatory focus on voice (H3a, H3b). Finally, we investigated the interaction effects of LMX and regulatory focus on voice (H4a–H4d). The results of regression analysis are presented in two different tables. Table 2 displays the regression analysis results on promotive voice, and Table 3 displays the regression analysis results on prohibitive voice.

Table 2.

Results of Regression Analysis on Promotive Voice.

Variables	Promotive voice
Variables	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5
Intercept	2.80*** (0.37)	2.42*** (0.36)	2.13*** (0.42)	2.42*** (0.36)	1.92*** (0.40)
Gender	−0.14 (0.10)	−0.23* (0.09)	−0.12 (0.10)	−0.24 (0.10)	−0.22* (0.10)
Age	−0.05 (0.10)	−0.05 (0.10)	−0.07 (0.10)	−0.05 (0.10)	−0.06 (0.10)
Education	0.23* (0.10)	0.17 (0.10)	0.20 (0.10)	0.17 (0.10)	0.15 (0.10)
Tenure	0.00 (0.00)	0.00 (0.00)	0.00 (0.00)	0.00 (0.00)	0.00 (0.00)
Team size	0.00 (0.01)	0.00 (0.01)	0.00 (0.01)	0.00 (0.01)	0.00 (0.01)
Position	0.22 (0.13)	0.25* (0.12)	0.23 (0.13)	0.25* (0.12)	0.24 (0.12)
Industry	−0.01 (0.05)	0.01 (0.05)	−0.02 (0.05)	0.01 (0.05)	0.00 (0.05)
Job satisfaction	−0.09 (0.07)	−0.15* (0.07)	−0.15* (0.07)	−0.14* (0.07)	−0.19** (0.07)
Psychological safety	0.26* (0.08)	0.03 (0.09)	0.16 (0.08)	0.04 (0.09)	0.00 (0.09)
LMX		0.38*** (0.08)		0.37*** (0.09)	0.32*** (0.09)
Promotion focus (PMF)			0.23* (0.10)		0.21* (0.09)
Prevention focus (PVF)			0.14* (0.07)		0.09 (0.07)
LMX × PMF				−0.02 (0.10)	−0.05 (0.10)
LMX × PVF				−0.05 (0.09)	−0.06 (0.09)
R ²	0.13	0.23	0.18	0.23	0.27
F	2.50*	4.63***	3.17**	3.87***	3.97***
ΔR²		0.10	0.05	0.00	0.14
ΔF		20.93***	5.53**	0.28	5.91***

Note. N = 167. Unstandardized regression weights with standard errors in parentheses.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 3.

Results of Regression Analysis on Prohibitive Voice.

Variables	Prohibitive voice
Variables	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6
Intercept	3.58*** (.47)	3.35*** (.48)	.71 (1.13)	2.66*** (.52)	1.34 (1.27)	−.39 (1.38)
Gender	−.16 (.12)	−.21 (.12)	−.22 (.12)	−.14 (.12)	−.22 (.12)	−.20 (.12)
Age	−.20 (.13)	−.21 (.13)	−.22 (.13)	−.22 (.12)	−.23 (.13)	−.23 (.12)
Education	.08 (.13)	.04 (.13)	.05 (.13)	.03 (.13)	.03 (.13)	.01 (.13)
Tenure	.00 (.00)	.00 (.00)	.00 (.00)	.00 (.00)	.00 (.00)	.00 (.00)
Team size	−.02 (.01)	−.02 (.01)	−.02 (.01)	−.02 (.01)	−.02 (.01)	−.02 (.01)
Position	.24 (.16)	.26 (.16)	.22 (.16)	.26 (.16)	.24 (.16)	.24 (.16)
Industry	−.19** (.06)	−.18** (.06)	−.18** (.06)	−.21** (.06)	−.18** (.06)	−.19** (.06)
Job satisfaction	−.02 (.09)	−.05 (.09)	−.04 (.09)	−.10 (.09)	−.06 (.09)	−.11 (.09)
Psychological safety	.28** (.10)	.14 (.12)	.16 (.12)	.15 (.10)	.13 (.12)	.08 (.12)
LMX		.22* (.11)	1.70** (.59)		1.52* (.63)	1.74** (.62)
LMX²			−.21* (.08)		−.19* (.08)	−.22* (.08)
Promotion focus				.32** (.12)		.30 (.16)
Prevention focus				.18* (.08)		.19 (.10)
LMX² × PMF					.17 (.11)	.01 (.14)
LMX² × PVF					−.01 (.10)	−.09 (.11)
R ²	.16	.18	.21	.22	.23	.27
F	3.29**	3.44***	3.84***	4.07***	3.47***	3.67***
ΔR²		.02	.03	.06	.02	.11
ΔF		4.22*	6.62*	6.53**	1.34	3.74**

Note. N = 167. Unstandardized regression weights with standard errors in parentheses.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

As can be seen Table 2 (model 2), LMX was positively associated with promotive voice (b = .38, p < .001), which showed that hypothesis 1 (main effect of LMX on promotive voice) was supported. Next, we examined the curvilinear effect of LMX on prohibitive voice. In Table 3 (model 2), LMX was also positively associated with prohibitive voice (b = .22, p < .05). In Table 3 (model 3), LMX squared was significantly negatively related to prohibitive voice (b = −.21, p < .05). To be specific, we calculated the inflection point to see when the positive relationship between LMX and prohibitive voice became negative. The regression equation of LMX on prohibitive voice is: y = −0.22*x2 + 1.83*x−0.21 (a = −0.22, b = 1.83). The inflection point is when x = −b/2a, that is, when the level of LMX reaches 4.16 (3.71 as mean, 0.69 as standard deviation, 5 as the highest), the positive effect of LMX on prohibitive voice becomes negative. Therefore, the curvilinear relationship between LMX and prohibitive voice (H2) was supported. LMX squared explained 3% more of the overall variance in prohibitive voice than LMX, suggesting that a nonlinear relationship better explained the relationship between LMX and prohibitive voice than a linear relationship. The curvilinear relationship between LMX and prohibitive voice is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

The relationship between LMX and prohibitive voice.

Next, we examined the main relationships between regulatory focus and voice. We first tested the impact of promotion focus on promotive voice (H3a). As can be seen from Table 2 (model 3), promotion focus was positively related to promotive voice (b = .23, p < .05) and thus hypothesis 3a was supported. Contrary to our expectation, prevention focus was also positively associated with promotive voice (b = .14, p < .05). However, in Table 2 (model 5), when we entered all the variables including the interactive terms, the positive relationship between prevention focus and promotive voice became insignificant (b = .09, ns), but the positive relationship between promotion focus and promotive voice was still significant (b = .21, p < .05), which further gave supports to hypothesis 3a—that promotion focus is positively associated with promotive voice.

We then investigated the relationship between prevention focus and prohibitive voice (H3b). As shown in Table 3 (model 4), prevention focus was positively associated with prohibitive voice (b = .18, p < .05), and thus hypothesis 3b was supported. Contrary to our expectation, promotion focus (b = .32, p < .01) was also positively related to prohibitive voice and had a stronger association with prohibitive voice compared with prevention focus (b = .18, p < .05). Furthermore, in Table 3 (model 6), when we entered all the variables including the interactive terms, the relationship between prevention focus and prohibitive voice became insignificant (b = .19, ns). Therefore, we concluded that hypothesis 3b was partially supported.

Lastly, we examined the interaction effects of LMX and regulatory focus on the different voice behavior. First, we examined the moderating effects of promotion focus and prevention focus on the positive relationship between LMX and promotive voice (H4a, H4b). We computed interaction terms using the mean centering method and entered them into the model. As can be seen from Table 2 (model 4), no significant relationship could be found. Promotion focus had a negative moderating effect on LMX—promotive voice relationship which was not statistically significant (b = −.02, ns) and the moderating direction was different from what we expected. Therefore, hypothesis 4a, that promotion focus has a positive moderating effect on LMX—promotive voice relationship was not supported. Also, in Table 2 (model 4), prevention focus showed a negative moderating effect on LMX—promotive voice but unluckily, it was not significant (b = −.05, ns). Therefore, hypothesis 4b, that prevention focus has a negative moderating effect on LMX—promotive voice relationship was not supported.

Next, we examined the moderating effects of promotion focus and prevention focus on the curvilinear relationship between LMX and prohibitive voice (H4c, H4d). As we can see from Table 3 (model 5), promotion focus had a positive moderating effect on LMX—prohibitive voice relationship which was not significant (b = .17, ns). Therefore, hypothesis 4c, that promotion focus has a negative moderating effect on the curvilinear relationship between LMX and prohibitive voice was not supported. As for prevention focus, there was no evidence to show that prevention focus had a moderating effect on LMX—prohibitive voice relationship (b = −.01, ns). Therefore, hypothesis 4d, that prevention focus has a positive moderating effect on the curvilinear relationship between LMX and prohibitive voice was not supported.

Discussion

The results of our study indicated differential effects between LMX and the two types of voice, as predicted in our hypotheses. To be specific, while the relationship between LMX and promotive voice was linear-positive, the relationship between LMX and prohibitive voice was curvilinear. Regarding the unique effect of regulatory focus on different voice, our study presented that promotion focus was positively associated with promotive voice, and prevention focus was positively associated with prohibitive voice. Interestingly, we also discovered a positive relationship between promotion focus and prohibitive voice. Regrettably, we found no evidence of the moderating effects of regulatory focus on the LMX-voice relationship.

We will further discuss the hypotheses related to regulatory focus here, including the main effects of regulatory focus and the interaction effects of regulatory focus and LMX on promotive and prohibitive voice. Our results showed a positive relationship between promotion focus and prohibitive voice, consistent with one prior research (Lin & Johnson, 2015). A plausible explanation could be that employees who score high in promotion focus are more open to take risks and thus engage in a greater prohibitive voice which is risky. Another explanation is related to the construct of regulatory focus. As mentioned previously (Gorman et al., 2012; Higgins, 1997), these two regulatory foci are two independent constructs rather than two poles of one dimension. Employees can be either be high or low in both promotion and prevention foci, or be high in one and low in the other. Therefore, we lack robust evidence showing the separate effects of specific regulatory focuses on specific voices. For example, an employee who scores high in both promotion and prevention foci may engage in high levels of both promotive and prohibitive voice. Hence, it becomes challenging for us to judge to which extent promotive/prohibitive voice is caused by promotion/prevention focus since we can only observe the interaction effects of two foci on voice.

Next, despite our expectation of the moderating role of regulatory focus in the relationship between LMX and voice behavior, we found no significant moderating effect of regulatory focus. We believe that this result may be influenced by the characteristics of our sample, consisting of Chinese employees. Previous studies have highlighted the influence of cultural factors and social dynamics in shaping voice behavior (Greenberg & Edwards, 2009; Yum, 1988). Eastern cultures, such as China, adopt a holistic thinking approach influenced by Confucian and Taoist philosophies, which can result in different voice behaviors compared to the more individualistic Western cultures (Nisbett et al., 2001). In Chinese culture, individuals tend to consider the overall impact of their voice on relationships, influenced by concepts such as “zhong-yong thinking,” which emphasizes avoiding extremes and maintaining harmonious interpersonal relationships (Ji et al., 2010). Moreover, the leader-member relationship in Chinese culture is often based on “guanxi,” which emphasizes affective connections and hierarchical nature (Chen et al., 2013; Davidson et al., 2017). These cultural values and traditional influences may be strong in the minds of Chinese individuals, making the moderating effect of regulatory focus less salient. Additionally, the high-power distance culture further magnifies the influence of relational factors such as LMX, potentially overshadowing the moderating effect of individual regulatory focus. These cultural and contextual factors help explain why we did not find a significant moderating effect of regulatory focus on the LMX-voice relationship in our study.

Theoretical Implications

The findings of this study contribute to the theoretical understanding of voice behavior in several ways. Firstly, by examining the effects of LMX on different types of voice behavior, this study adds to the voice research literature. We distinguish between promotive and prohibitive voice and demonstrate the differential effects of LMX on these two types of voice. The significant finding of this study is the identification of a curvilinear relationship between LMX and prohibitive voice, challenging the prevailing notion of a solely positive linear relationship between LMX and organizational behavior. Our study highlights the “too-much-of-a-good-thing” effect, indicating that an excessively high level of LMX may have counterproductive consequences and inhibit employee voice behavior, particularly prohibitive voice. This finding contributes to a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between LMX and voice behavior.

Secondly, this study underscores the importance of individual orientations in predicting voice behaviors. Drawing on Higgins’s (1998) regulatory focus theory, we demonstrate that employees with promotion-focused and prevention-focused orientations are inclined towards engaging in promotive and prohibitive voice, respectively. This highlights the role of individual characteristics in shaping voice behaviors and adds to our understanding of the dispositional factors that contribute to distinct voices.

Thirdly, by investigating the combined impact of individual (regulatory focus) and interpersonal (LMX) antecedents on promotive and prohibitive voice, this study offers a comprehensive examination of voice behavior. Although our results did not show a significant joint effect, it underscores the importance of considering cultural context in interpreting these relationships. This highlights the need for further research that accounts for cultural differences in the effects of individual and interpersonal factors on voice behavior.

Managerial Implications

Our study provides practical implications for managers seeking to promote employee voice in the workplace. Firstly, our findings suggest that managers should strive to maintain an optimal distance in their relationships with subordinates. While a positive relationship with subordinates can encourage employee voice, an excessively close relationship may inhibit prohibitive voice. Therefore, managers should aim to develop good relationships with subordinates while simultaneously avoiding becoming too familiar, as this may impede the expression of prohibitive voice.

Secondly, recognizing that different regulatory foci lead to different types of voice, managers can leverage this understanding in team composition and employee selection. Managers can consider the regulatory focus of employees when assembling teams, selecting individuals with promotion-focused orientation for tasks that require creative ideas and employees with prevention-focused orientation for roles that prioritize safety and avoiding failures. Furthermore, understanding employees’ regulatory focus can guide managers in providing effective feedback and conducting performance appraisals. For promotion-focused individuals, constructive feedback that promotes learning and growth, including highlighting missed opportunities and suggesting new approaches, can be beneficial. In contrast, prevention-focused individuals may benefit from feedback that emphasizes mistakes and ways to avoid them in the future. Moreover, managers can also influence and enhance specific regulatory foci in employees by emphasizing either promotive or prohibitive aspects, as regulatory focus is malleable and can be influenced by situational cues. This understanding can inform managers’ efforts to shape employees’ regulatory focus and align it with organizational goals and needs.

Additionally, it is crucial for managers to develop training and development programs that help leaders understand the intricacies of managing professional relationships and fostering an open communication climate. This could involve training in emotional intelligence, active listening, providing constructive feedback, and conflict resolution. By equipping managers with these skills, organizations can create an environment that encourages and supports employee voice.

Overall, our study provides actionable insights for managers aiming to cultivate a culture of employee voice, enabling organizations to benefit from the valuable ideas and contributions of their employees.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Our current study acknowledges several limitations that require attention. Firstly, while our research demonstrated the discriminant validity of promotive and prohibitive voice, these two kinds of voice can still overlap as they share some common characteristics. Future researchers should strive to develop more measurements that can encapsulate both promotive and prohibitive aspects of voice. Secondly, we did not find any significant moderating effects of regulatory focus on the LMX-voice relationship. We provide several explanations for this finding, including the characteristics of promotion and prevention focus, the complex interactions between contextual factors and regulatory focus, and the influence of the Chinese sample. Yum (1988) has highlighted the focus on communication-related to social relationships in East Asian cultures compared to North American cultures. Within the Chinese cultural context, where power distance is high and the value of interpersonal harmony is deeply rooted, these cultural factors may have influenced our hypothesis testing results. This suggests that the effects of LMX on voice, based on social exchange arguments commonly observed in Western cultural contexts, may be displayed differently in Eastern cultures. Additionally, previous research has shown the relevance of “guanxi” in non-Chinese cultural contexts such as Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Turkey (Smith et al., 2014). These cultural nuances may limit the generalizability of our study to different cultural contexts. Therefore, we acknowledge the need for future research with similar designs in individualistic cultures to enhance the applicability and generalizability of our findings.

Footnotes

This paper is based on Chaoyu Wang’s master dissertation. We would like to express our gratitude to all the committee Professor Hye-Ryunn Kang and Professor Ji-Young Ahn for their advice for developing this thesis.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Approval

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards. We clearly also informed all the respondents that all the research results would be used for academic purposes only and strict confidentiality was guaranteed.

ORCID iDs

Jeeyoung Kim

Myung-Ho Chung

Data Availability Statement

The data of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

Bain

Kreps

T. A.

Meikle

N. L.

Tenney

E. R.

(2021). Amplifying voice in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 64(4), 1288–1312. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.0621

Barrick

M. R.

Mount

M. K.

Judge

T. A.

(2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next?. International Journal of Selection and assessment, 9(1–2), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00160

Botero

I. C.

Van Dyne

(2009). Employee voice behavior: Interactive effects of LMX and power distance in the United States and Colombia. Management Communication Quarterly, 23(1), 84–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318909335415

Burris

E. R.

(2012). The risks and rewards of speaking up: Managerial responses to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 851–875. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0562

Carnevale

J. B.

Huang

Uhl-Bien

Harris

(2020). Feeling obligated yet hesitant to speak up: Investigating the curvilinear relationship between LMX and employee promotive voice. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 93(3), 505–529. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12302

Carver

C. S.

(2006). Approach, avoidance, and the self-regulation of affect and action. Motivation and Emotion, 30(2), 105–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9044-7

Cesario

Higgins

E. T.

Scholer

A. A.

(2008). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Basic principles and remaining questions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 444–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00055.x

Chamberlin

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. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12185

Chen

C. C.

Chen

X. P.

Huang

(2013). Chinese guanxi: An integrative review and new directions for future research. Management and Organization Review, 9(1), 167–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/more.12010

10.

Cropanzano

Mitchell

M. S.

(2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602

11.

Dansereau

Jr. Graen

Haga

W. J.

(1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13(1), 46–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(75)90005-7

12.

Davidson

Van Dyne

Lin

(2017). Too attached to speak up? It depends: How supervisor–subordinate guanxi and perceived job control influence upward constructive voice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 143, 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.07.002

13.

Edmondson

(1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

14.

Elliot

A. J.

Harackiewicz

J. M.

(1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 461. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.461

15.

Fairhurst

G. T.

Chandler

T. A.

(1989). Social structure in leader-member interaction. Communications Monographs, 56(3), 215–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758909390261

16.

Farh

C. I. C.

J. K.

Hollenbeck

J. R.

Lee

S. M.

King

D. D.

(2020). Token female voice enactment in traditionally male-dominated teams: Facilitating conditions and consequences for performance. Academy of Management Journal, 63(3), 832–856. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.0778

17.

Farh

C. I. C.

Tangirala

Liang

(2010). Thinking before speaking: Employee cognitive engagement in change as a precursor to voice [Symposium]. Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Montreal, Canada.

18.

Gao

Janssen

Shi

(2011). Leader trust and employee voice: The moderating role of empowering leader behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(4), 787–798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.05.015

19.

Gorman

C. A.

Meriac

J. P.

Overstreet

B. L.

Apodaca

McIntyre

A. L.

Park

Godbey

J. N.

(2012). A meta-analysis of the regulatory focus nomological network: Work-related antecedents and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.07.005

20.

Graen

G. B.

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. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5

21.

Greenberg

Edwards

M. S.

(Eds.). (2009). Voice and silence in organizations. Emerald Group Publishing.

22.

Higgins

E. T.

(1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280

23.

Higgins

E. T.

(1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1–46.

24.

Highhouse

Becker

A. S.

(1993). Facet measures and global job satisfaction. Journal of Business and Psychology, 8, 117–127.

25.

Howell

T. M.

Harrison

D. A.

Burris

E. R.

Detert

J. R.

(2015). Who gets credit for input? Demographic and structural status cues in voice recognition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(6), 1765–1784. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000025

26.

Hsiung

H. H.

Tsai

W. C.

(2009). Job definition discrepancy between supervisors and subordinates: The antecedent role of LMX and outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(1), 89–112. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317908X292374

27.

Huang

Liu

(2018). Nonlinear consequences of promotive and prohibitive voice for managers’ responses: The roles of voice frequency and LMX. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(10), 1101–1120. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000326

28.

Islam

Ahmad

U. N. U. B.

Ahmed

(2013). Organizational learning culture and leader-member exchange quality: The way to enhance organizational commitment and reduce turnover intentions. The Learning Organization, 20(4/5), 322–227. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-12-2012-0079

29.

Islam

Ahmed

Ali

(2018). Effects of ethical leadership on bullying and voice behavior among nurses: Mediating role of organizational identification, poor working condition and workload. Leadership in Health Services, 32(1), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHS-02-2017-0006

30.

L.-J.

Lee

Guo

(2010). The thinking styles of Chinese people. In Bond

M. H.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 155–167). Oxford University Press.

31.

Kakkar

Tangirala

Srivastava

N. K.

Kamdar

(2016). The dispositional antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(9), 1342–1351. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000130

32.

Kim

H. K.

Baik

Kim

(2019). How Korean leadership style cultivates employees’ creativity and voice in hierarchical organizations. SAGE Open, 9(3), 2158244019876281. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019876281

33.

Lanaj

Chang

C. H.

Johnson

R. E.

(2012). Regulatory focus and work-related outcomes: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(5), 998–1034. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027723

34.

LePine

Van Dyne

(1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 853–868. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.6.853

35.

Liang

Farh

C. I.

Farh

J. L.

(2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0176

36.

Liden

R. C.

Sparrowe

R. T.

Wayne

S. J.

(1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. In Ferris

G. R.

(Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 15, pp. 47–119). Elsevier Science/JAI Press.

37.

Liden

R. C.

Wayne

S. J.

Sparrowe

R. T.

(2000). An examination of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 407–416. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.407

38.

Lin

S. H. J.

Johnson

R. E.

(2015). A suggestion to improve a day keeps your depletion away: Examining promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors within a regulatory focus and ego depletion framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1381–1397. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000018

39.

Liu

Zhu

Yang

(2010). I warn you because I like you: Voice behavior, employee identifications, and transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.10.014

40.

Lockwood

Jordan

C. H.

Kunda

(2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 854. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.854

41.

Milliken

F. J.

Morrison

E. W.

Hewlin

P. F.

(2003). An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1453–1476. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00387

42.

Morrison

E. W.

(2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373–412. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2011.574506

43.

Morrison

E. W.

(2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 173–197. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091328

44.

Morrison

E. W.

Milliken

F. J.

(2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706–725. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.3707697

45.

Morrison

E. W.

Rothman

N. B.

(2009). Silence and the dynamics of power. In Greenberg

Edwards

M. J.

(Eds.), Voice and silence in organizations (pp. 111–134). Emerald.

46.

Nisbett

R. E.

Peng

Choi

Norenzayan

(2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.291

47.

Podsakoff

P. M.

Organ

D. W.

(1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200408

48.

Rosen

Tesser

(1970). On reluctance to communicate undesirable information: The MUM effect. Sociometry, 33(3), 253–263. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786156

49.

Sherf

E. N.

Parke

M. R.

Isaakyan

(2021). Distinguishing voice and silence at work: Unique relationships with perceived impact, psychological safety, and burnout. Academy of Management Journal, 64(1), 114–148. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.1428

50.

Simon

H. A.

(1994). The bottleneck of attention: Connecting thought with motivation. In Spaulding

W. D.

Simon

H. A.

(Eds.), Integrative views of motivation, cognition, and emotion (pp. 1–21). University of Nebraska Press.

51.

Smith

P. B.

Wasti

S. A.

Grigoryan

Achoui

Bedford

Budhwar

Lebedeva

Leong

C. H.

Torres

(2014). Are guanxi-type supervisor–subordinate relationships culture-general? An eight-nation test of measurement invariance. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(6), 921–938. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022114530496

52.

Staw

B. M.

Boettger

R. D.

(1990). Task revision: A neglected form of work performance. Academy of Management Journal, 33(3), 534–559. https://doi.org/10.5465/256580

53.

Tett

R. P.

Burnett

D. D.

(2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 500–517. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.500

54.

Tiantian

Zhenduo

Huan

Jing

Wentong

(2021). The curvilinear relationship between job control and voice: Role of emotional resistance to change and supervisor developmental feedback. SAGE Open, 11(2), 21582440211027846. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211027960

55.

Van Dyne

Ang

Botero

I. C.

(2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1359–1392. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00384

56.

Waldron

V. R.

(1999). Communication practices of followers, members, and protégés: The case of upward influence tactics. Annals of the International Communication Association, 22(1), 251–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1999.11678964

57.

Wilson

K. S.

Sin

H. P.

Conlon

D. E.

(2010). What about the leader in leader-member exchange? The impact of resource exchanges and substitutability on the leader. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 358–372. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.35.3.zok358

58.

Yum

J. O.

(1988). The impact of Confucianism on interpersonal relationships and communication patterns in East Asia. Communication Monographs, 55, 374–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758809376178

The Differential Effects of LMX and Regulatory Focus on Promotive and Prohibitive Voice

Abstract

Plain Language Summary

Keywords

Introduction

Theories and Hypotheses

Employee Voice Behavior: Promotive Versus Prohibitive Voice

LMX and Voice Behavior

Regulatory Focus and Voice Behavior

The Moderating Effect of Regulatory Focus on LMX-Voice Relationship

Methods

Sample and Procedures

Measures

LMX

Employee Voice

Regulatory Focus

Control Variables

Results

Discussion

Theoretical Implications

Managerial Implications

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Ethical Approval

ORCID iDs

Data Availability Statement

References