2018
DOI: 10.1177/2397002218791855
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The moderating role of message content in the formation of employee voice

Abstract: Research on employee voice has highlighted the different nature of promotive and prohibitive voice. However, only few studies have explicitly analysed the implications of this distinction for showing voice. Therefore, to enhance our knowledge regarding the formation of employee voice, our article focuses on the moderating role of the message content. In a scenario-based study, we show that employees' decision to speak up might differ depending on what the message is about. In addition, we found evidence that s… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
1
1

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 56 publications
(125 reference statements)
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…"; yes/no) to verify whether participants had read the scenario with sufficient attention and were aware of our manipulations (Stockman et al, 2017), thereby ensuring that the manipulations elicited the desired effect (Evans et al, 2015). In line with other experimental studies (e.g., Barlow et al, 2013;Stockman et al, 2017;Köllner et al, 2018) all respondents who did not answer the questions correctly were removed from the dataset, because it cannot be assumed that the manipulated factor triggered variation in the dependent variable.…”
Section: Research Design and Samplementioning
confidence: 99%
“…"; yes/no) to verify whether participants had read the scenario with sufficient attention and were aware of our manipulations (Stockman et al, 2017), thereby ensuring that the manipulations elicited the desired effect (Evans et al, 2015). In line with other experimental studies (e.g., Barlow et al, 2013;Stockman et al, 2017;Köllner et al, 2018) all respondents who did not answer the questions correctly were removed from the dataset, because it cannot be assumed that the manipulated factor triggered variation in the dependent variable.…”
Section: Research Design and Samplementioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, outside of laboratory or vignette studies (e.g. Köllner et al, 2019;Morrison et al, 2015), information about encountered events or potential input is often lacking. This is problematic because in some survey samples, up to 60 % of participants report not encountering relevant events worth sharing or withholding in the past six months (Dilba & Meyer, 2024).…”
Section: Acknowledging the Conditionality Of Voice And Silencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Voice intentions are not novel, but useful for certain study designs where behavioral measures are unavailable, as is the case in vignette studies (e.g. Köllner et al, 2019).…”
Section: From Frequency or Agreement Scores To Intentions Shared Info...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We conducted attention checks to verify whether the participants had read the case scenario diligently and with sufficient attention [84]. In line with other experimental studies [85], all participants who did not answer the questions correctly were excluded from the 6 Full vignettes are available from the authors upon request. following analysis.…”
Section: Measurementmentioning
confidence: 99%