Scholarly interest in employee voice behavior has increased dramatically over the past 15 years. Although this research has produced valuable knowledge, it has focused almost exclusively on voice as a positively intended challenge to the status quo, even though some scholars have argued that it need not challenge the status quo or be well intentioned. Thus, in this paper, we create an expanded view of voice; one that extends beyond voice as a positively intended challenge to the status quo to include voice that supports how things are being done in organizations as well as voice that may not be well intentioned. We construct a framework based on this expanded view that identifies 4 different types of voice behavior (supportive, constructive, defensive, and destructive). We then develop and validate survey measures for each of these. Evidence from 5 studies across 4 samples provides strong support for our new measures in that (a) a 4-factor confirmatory factor analysis model fit the data significantly better than 1-, 2-, or 3-factor models; (b) the voice measures converged with and yet remained distinct from conceptually related comparison constructs; (c) personality predictors exhibited unique patterns of relationships with the different types of voice; (d) variations in actual voice behaviors had a direct causal impact on responses to the survey items; and (e) each type of voice significantly impacted important outcomes for voicing employees (e.g., likelihood of relying on a voicing employee's opinions and evaluations of a voicing employee's overall performance). Implications of our findings are discussed.

Summary During the past 30 years, interest in organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) has grown substantially. Although much of the early empirical research in this domain was directed at the individual level of analysis, more recently, researchers have focused their attention on identifying the outcomes of group‐level or unit‐level OCBs, as well as the mediating mechanisms and boundary conditions of the relationships between OCBs and unit‐level outcomes. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to provide a summary of the extant literature in this area. First, we discuss the applicability of the types of OCB to the unit level of analysis. Following this, we provide a summary of the literature examining outcomes of unit‐level OCBs, with particular attention paid to the mediators and moderators of the relationship between OCBs and unit effectiveness. Next, we examine the methodological characteristics of studies conducted in this research domain. Finally, we make a series of conceptual and methodological recommendations regarding future research on the consequences of unit‐level OCBs. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The article contained a production-related error. In Table 5, the four values in the rows for Study 1 Prosocial motives and Study 1 Constructive voice should have been shifted one column to the right, to the Direct and Total Performance evaluations columns. All versions of this article have been corrected.] Although employee voice behavior is expected to have important organizational benefits, research indicates that employees voicing their recommendations for organizational change may be evaluated either positively or negatively by observers. A review of the literature suggests that the perceived efficacy of voice behaviors may be a function of characteristics associated with the (a) source, (b) message, and (c) context of the voice event. In this study, we manipulated variables from each of these categories based on a model designed to predict when voice will positively or negatively impact raters' evaluations of an employee's performance. To test our model, we conducted 3 laboratory studies in which we manipulated 2 source factors (voicer expertise and trustworthiness), 2 message factors (recommending a solution and positively vs. negatively framing the message), and 2 context factors (timing of the voice event and organizational norms for speaking up vs. keeping quiet). We also examined the mediating effects of liking, prosocial motives, and perceptions that the voice behavior was constructive on the relationships between the source, message, and context factors and performance evaluations. Generally speaking, we found that at least one of the variables from each category had an effect on performance evaluations for the voicer and that most of these effects were indirect, operating through one or more of the mediators. Implications for theory and future research are discussed.

No abstract

This article reports an investigation into how individuals form perceptions of overall voice behavior in group contexts. More specifically, the authors examine the effect of the proportion of group members exhibiting voice behavior in the group, the frequency of voice events in the group, and the measurement item referent (group vs. individual) on an individual's ratings of group voice behavior. In addition, the authors examine the effect that measurement item referent has on the magnitude of the relationship observed between an individual's ratings of group voice behavior and perceptions of group performance. Consistent with hypotheses, the results from 1 field study (N = 220) and 1 laboratory experiment (N = 366) indicate that: (a) When group referents were used, raters relied on the frequency of voice events (and not the proportion of group members exhibiting voice) to inform their ratings of voice behavior, whereas the opposite was true when individual-referent items were used, and (b) the magnitude of the relationship between observers' ratings of group voice behavior and their perceptions of group performance was higher when raters used group-referent, as opposed to an individual-referent, items. The authors discuss the implications of their findings for scholars interested in studying behavioral phenomena occurring in teams, groups, and work units in organizational behavior research.