It’s not just what you say, it’s how you say it: How callings influence constructive voice delivery

Abstract

How employees communicate their ideas at work shapes how their ideas are received. When employees constructively communicate their ideas, the value of those ideas can be more readily recognized. Conversely, ideas that are not communicated constructively may be overlooked, ignored, or rejected, regardless of their potential value to an organization. This research contributes to the employee voice literature by introducing the concept of constructive voice delivery and examining its relationship with callings. In this endeavor, two field studies explored the influence of callings on constructive voice delivery. The first study examined these relationships from the employee perspective, identified organizational attachment as the mechanism driving the relationship, and highlighted the role psychological safety plays in strengthening the relationship. The second study explored the relationship between callings and constructive voice delivery from managers’ perspectives, revealing a negative relationship between callings and managerial ratings of constructive voice delivery and emphasized psychological safety’s role in strengthening this negative relationship. Furthermore, constructive voice delivery suppressed the positive effect callings have on employee performance. Taken together, the results of both studies demonstrate that constructive voice delivery is an important aspect of speaking up at work.

True meaning and due duty: examining how and when career calling promotes employee taking charge

“…In line with this presumption, we propose that employees who feel a calling attaches great importance to the meaning gained from work rather than focusing on the material benefits (Chang et al, 2021;Hirschi, 2012), which motivates them to continuously take charge as an effective way to realize work meaning (Bailey et al, 2019;Lysova et al, 2019). In addition, calling-oriented employees generally report higher commitment and obligation to the organization (Neubert and Halbesleben, 2015;Rawat and Nadavulakere, 2015;Romney, 2021), impelling them to fulfill their obligation through taking charge based on normative beliefs (Chen et al, 2022;Eisenberger et al, 2001).…”

“…employee proactivity; Cai et al, 2022). Although previous research has demonstrated the effectiveness of calling in advancing voice (Chen et al, 2022;Romney, 2021) and OCB (Xie et al, 2017), knowledge about whether career calling promotes taking charge remains scarce. Career calling is an internal psychological construct with three salient features, including goal orientation, meaning and purpose pursuit, and prosocial intention (Duffy et al, 2018).…”

“…We expect that called employees tend to take charge because this action is aligned with their calling. First, employees with a calling tend to generate a strong preoccupation with specific goals and adopt self-directed and strenuous behavior to achieve their objectives (Romney, 2021). They don't confine their exertion to attaining formally required and mandated goals and spontaneously engage in activities that exceed their role requirement (Elangovan et al, 2010), even challenging the status quo to promote functional change as a way to live their calling (Kim et al, 2023).…”

“…Previous research has demonstrated the positive association between calling and meaning-seeking efforts (i.e. constructive voice delivery; Romney, 2021). Lastly, the altruistic and prosocial element of career calling determines that individuals with a calling are driven by something beyond self-interest and consequently more likely to sacrifice resources to benefit the organization through taking charge at work (Elangovan et al, 2010;Chen et al, 2022).…”

Career Calling and Task Performance: The Moderating Role of Job Demand

“…The correlation was found to be positive and significant (r = .24). In a hospital setting, Romney (2020;Study 3) showed that the positive relation between employees' calling and manager's ratings of their performance (r = .24) was suppressed by the managers' perception of how effective employees deliver their voices regarding suggestions or comments on how work might be conducted more effectively (constructive voice delivery).…”