Promotive Voice, Leader-member Exchange, and Creativity Endorsement: The Role of Supervisor-Attributed Motives

Israr Ahmad; Ramayah Thurasamy; Ahmad Adeel; Bushra Alam

doi:10.36923/jicc.v23i3.121

Open Access Article

Israr Ahmad ⁽¹⁾ , Ramayah Thurasamy ⁽²⁾ , Ahmad Adeel ⁽³⁾ , Bushra Alam ⁽⁴⁾

(1) School of Managememt, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang Malaysia , Pakistan

(2) School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Minden, Penang, Malaysia , Malaysia

(3) Department of Business Education, The University of Chenab, Pakistan , Pakistan

(4) School of Business Management, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok , Pakistan

https://doi.org/10.36923/jicc.v23i3.121

Issue
Vol. 23 No. 3 (2023)

Submitted
December 13, 2022

Published
September 10, 2023

Keywords:

Promotive Voice, Leader-Member Exchange, Creativity Endorsement, Impression Management Motives, Performance Enhancement Motives, Voice Behaviour

PDF PDF with Cover XML HTML

Abstract

Employee voice is perceived as an approach with both significant advantages and disadvantages. The current study aims to analyse the behaviours of supervisors when endorsing the ideas of employees who raise promotive voices and consider the employees positively for the development of quality relationships. Specifically, 970 employees were recruited from various small and medium enterprises (SMEs), including manufacturing and electronics companies, in Pakistan for the current study participation. Data collection was conducted in two stages through two sources (supervisors and subordinates) before examining the collected data on the Mplus software for random coefficient regression analyses. Subordinates’ promotive voice was significantly and positively correlated to the Leader-Member-Exchange (LMX) quality and creative idea endorsement when supervisors interpreted the voice as driven more by performance enhancement motives instead of impression management motives. The findings suggested that performance enhancement motives and impression management motives would produce contrasting material consequences for subordinates. The present study limitations and future research directions were also discussed.

Full text article

Generated from XML file

References

Afsar, B., Shahjehan, A., Shah, S. I., & Wajid, A. (2019). The mediating role of transformational leadership in the relationship between cultural intelligence and employee voice behavior: A case of hotel employees. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 69, 66-75. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2019.01.001

Ahmad, A., Samreen, B., Kee Mui Hung, D., Zain-ul-Abdeen, M., & Muhammad Kamran, K. (2022). Leader-member exchange and creative idea validation: The role of helping and bullying. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 27(2), 107–134. doi:10.21315/aamj2022.27.2.6

Ahmed, K., Adeel, A., Ali, R., & Rehman, R. U. (2019). Organizational democracy and employee outcomes: The mediating role of organizational justice. Business Strategy & Development, 2(3), 204-219. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.55

Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions: sage.

Algoe, S. B., & Haidt, J. (2009). Witnessing excellence in action: the ‘other-praising’ emotions of elevation, gratitude, and admiration. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(2), 105-127. doi:10.1080/17439760802650519

Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. (1998). The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on performance judgments: a field study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 247-260. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.247

Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies of creating information. Organizational behavior and human performance, 32(3), 370-398. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(83)90156-3

Ashford, S. J., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Christianson, M. K. (2009). Speaking up and speaking out: The leadership dynamics of voice in organizations. Voice and silence in organizations, 175-202.

Ashford, S. J., & Tsui, A. S. (1991). Self-regulation for managerial effectiveness: The role of active feedback seeking. Academy of management journal, 34(2), 251-280. doi:https://doi.org/10.5465/256442

Ashforth, B. E., Gioia, D. A., Robinson, S. L., & Trevino, L. K. (2008). Re-viewing organizational corruption. Academy of Management review, 33(3), 670-684. doi:https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.32465714

Azevedo, M. C. d., Schlosser, F., & McPhee, D. (2021). Building organizational innovation through HRM, employee voice and engagement. Personnel Review, 50(2), 751-769. doi:10.1108/PR-12-2019-0687

Bauer, D. J., & Curran, P. J. (2003). Distributional assumptions of growth mixture models: implications for overextraction of latent trajectory classes. Psychological methods, 8(3), 338–363. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.8.3.338

Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of management journal, 39(6), 1538-1567. doi:https://doi.org/10.5465/257068

Benedek, M., Bruckdorfer, R., & Jauk, E. (2020). Motives for Creativity: Exploring the What and Why of Everyday Creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 54(3), 610-625. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.396

Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1974). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human communication research, 1(2), 99-112. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x

Bowler, W. M., Paul, J. B., & Halbesleben, J. R. (2019). LMX and Attributions of Organizational Citizenship Behavior Motives: When is Citizenship Perceived as Brownnosing? Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(2), 139-152. doi:10.1007/s10869-017-9526-5

Burris, E. R. (2012). The risks and rewards of speaking up: Managerial responses to employee voice. Academy of management journal, 55(4), 851-875. doi:https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0562

Burris, E. R., Detert, J. R., & Chiaburu, D. S. (2008). Quitting before leaving: the mediating effects of psychological attachment and detachment on voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 912-922. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.912

Chamberlin, M., 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. doi:10.1111/peps.12185

Chen, A., & Trevino, L. K. (2022). Promotive and prohibitive ethical voice: Coworker emotions and support for the voice. Journal of Applied Psychology. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001003

Cheng, J.-W., Lu, K.-M., Chang, Y.-Y., & Johnstone, S. (2013). Voice behavior and work engagement: the moderating role of supervisor-attributed motives. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 51(1), 81-102. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7941.2012.00030.x

Crant, J. M. (1996). The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions. Management, 29(3), 62-74.

Culiberg, B., & Mihelič, K. K. (2017). The Evolution of Whistleblowing Studies: A Critical Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 146(4), 787-803. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3237-0

Detert, J. R., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Speaking up to higher-ups: How supervisors and skip-level leaders influence employee voice. Organization Science, 21(1), 249-270. doi:https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0405

Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management review, 11(3), 618-634. doi:https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1986.4306242

Dockery, T. M., & Steiner, D. D. (1990). The Role of the Initial Interaction in Leader-Member Exchange. Group & Organization Studies, 15(4), 395-413. doi:10.1177/105960119001500405

Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management review, 20(1), 65-91. doi:https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9503271992

Duan, J., Lapointe, É., Xu, Y., & Brooks, S. (2019). Why do employees speak up? Examining the roles of LMX, perceived risk and perceived leader power in predicting voice behavior. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 34(8), 560-572. doi:10.1108/JMP-11-2018-0534

Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of management, 38(6), 1715-1759. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/014920631141528

Dutton, J. E., & Ashford, S. J. (1993). Selling issues to top management. Academy of Management review, 18(3), 397-428. doi:https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1993.9309035145

Eastman, K. K. (1994). In the eyes of the beholder: An attributional approach to ingratiation and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of management journal, 37(5), 1379-1391. doi:https://doi.org/10.5465/256678

Erdogan, B., Bauer, T. N., & Walter, J. (2015). Deeds that Help and Words that Hurt: Helping and Gossip as Moderators of the Relationship Between Leader–Member Exchange and Advice Network Centrality. Personnel Psychology, 68(1), 185-214. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12075

Farh, C. I. C., & Chen, Z. J. (2014). Beyond the Individual Victim: Multilevel Consequences of Abusive Supervision in Teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1074-1095. doi:10.1037/a0037636

Fast, N. J., Burris, E. R., & Bartel, C. A. (2014). Managing to stay in the dark: Managerial self-efficacy, ego defensiveness, and the aversion to employee voice. Academy of management journal, 57(4), 1013-1034. doi:https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0393

FISEK, G. O. (1991). A Cross-Cultural Examination of Proximity and Hierarchy as Dimensions of Family Structure. Family Process, 30(1), 121-133. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1991.00121.x

Fuller, J. B., Barnett, T., Hester, K., Relyea, C., & Frey, L. (2007). An exploratory examination of voice behavior from an impression management perspective. Journal of Managerial Issues, 134-151.

Gentile, M. C. (2010). New Haven: Yale University Press.

Gorden, W. I. (1988). Range of employee voice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 1(4), 283-299. doi:10.1007/BF01556937

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5

Graham, A. C. (1986). Yin-Yang and the nature of correlative thinking (Vol. 6): Institute of East Asian Philosophies Singapore.

Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 48. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.48

Green, S. G., & Mitchell, T. R. (1979). Attributional processes of leaders in leader—member interactions. Organizational behavior and human performance, 23(3), 429-458. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(79)90008-4

He, J., Morrison, A. M., & Zhang, H. (2021). How High-Performance HR Practices and LMX Affect Employee Engagement and Creativity in Hospitality. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 45(8), 1360-1382. doi:10.1177/1096348021996800

Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states (Vol. 25): Harvard university press.

Huang, X., Xu, E., Huang, L., & Liu, W. (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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000326

Johnson, M. E., & Whang, S. (2002). E-BUSINESS AND SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT: AN OVERVIEW AND FRAMEWORK*. Production and Operations Management, 11(4), 413-423. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2002.tb00469.x

Kacmar, K. M., Witt, L., Zivnuska, S., & Gully, S. M. (2003). The interactive effect of leader-member exchange and communication frequency on performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 764–772. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.764

Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. Paper presented at the Nebraska symposium on motivation.

Khalili, A. (2018). Creativity and innovation through LMX and personal initiative. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 31(2), 323-333. doi:10.1108/JOCM-09-2016-0183

Kish-Gephart, J. J., Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Edmondson, A. C. (2009). Silenced by fear:: The nature, sources, and consequences of fear at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 163-193. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2009.07.002

Klaas, B. S., & DeNisi, A. S. (1989). Managerial reactions to employee dissent: The impact of grievance activity on performance rating. Academy of management journal, 32(4), 705-717. doi:https://doi.org/10.5465/256565

Lam, W., Huang, X., & Snape, E. (2007). Feedback-seeking behavior and leader-member exchange: Do supervisor-attributed motives matter? Academy of management journal, 50(2), 348-363. doi:https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24634440

LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 853-868. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.6.853

LI, F., & ZHONG, X. (2020). The distinction between promotive and prohibitive voice. Advances in Psychological Science, 28(11), 1939-1952. doi:https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2020.01939

Liang, H.-L., & Yeh, T.-K. (2020). The effects of employee voice on workplace bullying and job satisfaction. Management decision, 58(3), 569-582. doi:10.1108/MD-01-2019-0112

Liang, J., 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. doi:https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0176

Liang, J., Shu, R., & Farh, C. I. (2019a). Differential implications of team member promotive and prohibitive voice on innovation performance in research and development project teams: A dialectic perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(1), 91-104.

Liang, J., Shu, R., & Farh, C. I. C. (2019b). Differential implications of team member promotive and prohibitive voice on innovation performance in research and development project teams: A dialectic perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(1), 91-104. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2325

Liao, S., Zhou, X., Guo, Z., & Li, Z. (2019). How does leader narcissism influence employee voice: The attribution of leader impression management and leader-member exchange. International journal of environmental research and public health, 16(10), 1819. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16101819

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 662-674. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.662

Liu, R., Chen, X., & Wen, X. (2020, 4-8 May 2020). Voice Conversion with Transformer Network. Paper presented at the ICASSP 2020 - 2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP).

Martin, R., Guillaume, Y., Thomas, G., Lee, A., & Epitropaki, O. (2016). Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) and Performance: A Meta-Analytic Review. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 67-121. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12100

Maslyn, J. M., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leader–member exchange and its dimensions: Effects of self-effort and other's effort on relationship quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 697-708. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.697

Maynes, T. D., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2014). Speaking more broadly: an examination of the nature, antecedents, and consequences of an expanded set of employee voice behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(1), 87-112. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034284

McClean, J. R., Boixo, S., Smelyanskiy, V. N., Babbush, R., & Neven, H. (2018). Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes. Nature Communications, 9(1), 4812. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-07090-4

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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00387

Morrison, E. W. (1993). Newcomer information seeking: Exploring types, modes, sources, and outcomes. Academy of management journal, 36(3), 557-589. doi:https://doi.org/10.5465/256592

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

Morrison, E. W., & Bies, R. J. (1991). Impression management in the feedback-seeking process: A literaturereview and research agenda. Academy of Management review, 16(3), 522-541. doi:https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1991.4279472

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. doi:https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.3707697

Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of personality and social psychology, 89(6), 852-863. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.852

Mulligan, R., Ramos, J., Martín, P., & Zornoza, A. (2021). Inspiriting innovation: The effects of leader-member exchange (LMX) on innovative behavior as mediated by mindfulness and work engagement. Sustainability, 13(10), 5409. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105409

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. (2010). Growth modeling with latent variables using Mplus: Introductory and intermediate growth models. Mplus Short Course Topic, 3.

Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1995). Effective-whistle blowing. Academy of Management review, 20(3), 679-708. doi:https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080334

Ng, S. B., Buckingham, K. J., Lee, C., Bigham, A. W., Tabor, H. K., Dent, K. M., . . . Bamshad, M. J. (2010). Exome sequencing identifies the cause of a mendelian disorder. Nature Genetics, 42(1), 30-35. doi:10.1038/ng.499

Premru, M., Černe, M., & Batistič, S. (2022). The Road to the Future: A Multi-Technique Bibliometric Review and Development Projections of the Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) Research. SAGE Open, 12(2), 21582440221097688. doi:10.1177/21582440221097688

Rosen, J. M., & Jordan, C. T. (2009). The increasing complexity of the cancer stem cell paradigm. science, 324(5935), 1670-1673. doi:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1171837

Scherbaum, C. A., & Ferreter, J. M. (2009). Estimating Statistical Power and Required Sample Sizes for Organizational Research Using Multilevel Modeling. Organizational Research Methods, 12(2), 347-367. doi:10.1177/1094428107308906

Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Song, J., Gu, J., Wu, J., & Xu, S. (2019). Differential promotive voice–prohibitive voice relationships with employee performance: Power distance orientation as a moderator. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 36(4), 1053-1077. doi:10.1007/s10490-019-09644-6

Soomro, B. A., Memon, M., & Shah, N. (2021). Paternalistic leadership style, employee voice and creativity among entrepreneurs: empirical evidence from SMEs of a developing country. Management decision, 59(2), 285-305. doi:10.1108/MD-11-2018-1207

Thomas, K. W., & Pondy, L. R. (1977). Toward an "Intent" Model of Conflict Management Among Principal Parties. Human Relations, 30(12), 1089-1102. doi:10.1177/001872677703001203

Urbach, T., & Fay, D. (2021). Leader Member Exchange in Leaders’ Support for Voice: Good Relationships Matter in Situations of Power Threat. Applied Psychology, 70(2), 674-708. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12245

van Dijk, H., van Engen, M. L., & van Knippenberg, D. (2012). Defying conventional wisdom: A meta-analytical examination of the differences between demographic and job-related diversity relationships with performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119(1), 38-53. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.06.003

Vandewalle, D., Van Dyne, L., & Kostova, T. (1995). Psychological Ownership: An Empirical Examination of its Consequences. Group & Organization Management, 20(2), 210-226. doi:10.1177/1059601195202008

Venkataramani, V., & Tangirala, S. (2010). When and why do central employees speak up? An examination of mediating and moderating variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 582-591. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018315

Vila-Vázquez, G., Castro-Casal, C., & Álvarez-Pérez, D. (2020). From LMX to individual creativity: Interactive effect of engagement and job complexity. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(8), 1-18. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17082626

Wang, C.-C., Hsieh, H.-H., & Wang, Y.-D. (2020). Abusive supervision and employee engagement and satisfaction: the mediating role of employee silence. Personnel Review, 49(9), 1845-1858. doi:10.1108/PR-04-2019-0147

Wayne, S. J., & Liden, R. C. (1995). Effects of impression management on performance ratings: A longitudinal study. Academy of management journal, 38(1), 232-260. doi:https://doi.org/10.5465/256734

Weiss, M., Weiss, D., & Zacher, H. (2022). All set in stone? How essentialist beliefs about aging affect older workers' motivation to continue working beyond retirement age. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43(8), 1446-1461. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2647

Wellman, N., Mayer, D. M., Ong, M., & DeRue, D. S. (2016). When are do-gooders treated badly? Legitimate power, role expectations, and reactions to moral objection in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(6), 793-814. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000094

Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Pierce, J. R. (2008). Effects of task performance, helping, voice, and organizational loyalty on performance appraisal ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 125-139. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.125

Wulani, F., Handoko, T. H., & Purwanto, B. M. (2022). Supervisor-directed OCB and deviant behaviors: the role of LMX and impression management motives. Personnel Review, 51(4), 1410-1426. doi:10.1108/PR-06-2020-0406

Xie, Z., Wu, N., Yue, T., Jie, J., Hou, G., & Fu, A. (2020). How Leader-Member Exchange Affects Creative Performance: An Examination From the Perspective of Self-Determination Theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.573793

Zare, M., & Flinchbaugh, C. (2019). Voice, creativity, and big five personality traits: A meta-analysis. Human Performance, 32(1), 30-51. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2018.1550782

Zhang, P., Jiang, M., Adeel, A., & Yaseen, A. (2018). The Effects of Social Relationships and the Justice Environment on Creative Idea Endorsement. IEEE Access, 6, 44340-44350. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2840099

Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of management journal, 44(4), 682-696. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069410

Zhou, J., Oldham, G. R., Chuang, A., & Hsu, R. S. (2022). Enhancing employee creativity: Effects of choice, rewards and personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107, 503-513. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000900

Authors

Israr Ahmad

School of Managememt, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang Malaysia

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5521-0732

chaudhryisrar@gmail.com (Primary Contact)

Ramayah Thurasamy

School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Minden, Penang, Malaysia

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7580-7058

Ahmad Adeel

Department of Business Education, The University of Chenab, Pakistan

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1853-9982

Bushra Alam

School of Business Management, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok

https://orcid.org/0009-0002-8648-3009

Author Biographies

Israr Ahmad, School of Managememt, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang Malaysia

Dr. Israr Ahmad: Currently, he is serving as a Post-Doctoral Fellow at the School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia. He received his doctorate in management from Universiti Utara Malaysia. A seasoned professional and dedicated academician, he excels in both fields. His area of interest includes management, strategic management, business studies, organizational behavior, human capital, and organizational development. His research and teaching endeavors have left a positive impact on both students and colleagues alike. He is a motivated and diligent man who would relish the opportunity to exhibit his worth in a challenging setting. He continues to contribute significantly to academia and research.

Ramayah Thurasamy, School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Minden, Penang, Malaysia

Ramayah, is currently a Professor of Technology Management, School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Visiting ProfessorMinjiang University (China), Daffodil International University (DIU) Bangladesh, Fakulti Ekonomi dan Pengurusan, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS), Fakulti Pengurusan dan Perniagaan, Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) and Adjunct Professorat University Center for Research & Development (UCRD), Chandigarh University (CU), India, Sunway University, Azman Hashim International Business School, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR) and Universiti Tenaga Nasional (UNITEN), Malaysia. He was also a Visiting Professor at King Saud University (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) and an Adjunct Professor at Multimedia University previously. He has an h-index of 111 and a citation of 48,229 in Google Scholar and an i-10 index of 527; his h-index in SCOPUS is 64, with 14,840 citations, while his h-index in ISI/Clarivate is 50 with 9,979 citations. His full profile can be accessed from www.ramayah.com

Ahmad Adeel, Department of Business Education, The University of Chenab, Pakistan

Ahmad (Given Name) Adeel (Family Name) is an associate professor of Management at the Department of Business Education, The University of Chenab, Gujrat, Punjab, Pakistan. He received his PhD in Business Administration from Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. His research interests are conflict management, motivation, and creativity.

Ahmad, I., Thurasamy, R., Adeel, A., & Alam, B. (2023). Promotive Voice, Leader-member Exchange, and Creativity Endorsement: The Role of Supervisor-Attributed Motives. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 23(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.36923/jicc.v23i3.121

Download Citation

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright / Open Access Policy: This journal provides immediate free open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of ideas and is distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). But the copyright was retained by the authors. Articles are free for personal use but are protected by copyright in the sense that they may not be used for purposes other than personal use without permission.

Smart Citations via scite_

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Introduction

Promotive voice refers to an individual’s discretionary expressions of personal ideas intended to positively influence the workplace, which is recognised as a key driver of organisational innovation and effectiveness (Chamberlin, Newton & Lepine, 2017; Liang, Shu & Farh, 2019a; Soomro, Memon & Shah, 2021). Most past studies investigating employee voice revealed that organisations are increasingly proactive in encouraging employees to express personal ideas (Afsar, Shahjehan, Shah & Wajid, 2019; Wang, Hsieh & Wang, 2020). Past scholars also reported that organisational innovation could be significantly enhanced by frequent and diverse employee voices (Azevedo, Schlosser & McPhee, 2021; Farh & Chen, 2014; Liang, Shu & Farh, 2019b) when respective supervisors validated and endorsed the expressed ideas (Ahmad, Samreen, Kee, Zain-ul-Abdeen & Muhammad Kamran, 2022; Zhang, Jiang, Adeel & Yaseen, 2018). Subsequently, enterprises would thrive on employees’ creative ideas and suggestions (Ahmad et al., 2022; Zhou, Oldham, Chuang & Hsu, 2022), with employees constantly voicing personal perspectives regarded as active contributors .

Prior researchers emphasised that managers, who play a significant role in the employee voice process, possess the authority to consider different expressed opinions . As such, employee input is highly dependent on managerial behaviours, with managers determining the appropriateness of employees’ contributions and social interactions to the respective work unit . Employees would also be required to understand that personal notions are occasionally rejected with a potential risk involved when raising a promotive voice (Li & Zhong, 2020; Liang & Yeh, 2020; Milliken, Morrison & Hewlin, 2003). Accordingly, employees would be more willing to provide input when perceiving sufficient supervisor support (Ashford et al., 2009; Burris, 2012; Burris, Detert & Chiaburu, 2008), as employees wish to provide promotive voices regarding work environments while avoiding social risks when personal ideas are not endorsed. Hence, managerial responses and attributions are pivotal to developing an environment conducive to employee voice, social interactions, and work performance.

Investigating managerial reactions and the relevant underlying mechanism to employee promotive voice attributed by supervisors is crucial to determine the behaviours of supervisors when endorsing the ideas of employees who raise promotive voices and perceiving the employees positively for the development of optimal relationships.

A promotive voice is a constructive approach seeking to advance other employees’ ideas or suggestions to improve the work unit . Previous academicians demonstrated two different types of motives associated with employee voice, namely prosocial motives and impression management motives (Ashford & Cummings, 1983; Grant, 2008; Lam, Huang & Snape, 2007). A supervisor would rationalise subordinates’ behaviours through the attribution of subordinates’ intentions , which would either positively or negatively influence subsequent social interactions and evaluations . When attributing employee behaviour to prosocial motives, supervisors would exhibit specific behaviours that positively influence employee performance reviews . Contrarily, employee behaviour ascribed to impression management motives would diminish the relationship between employees’ feedback-seeking behaviour and the leader-member exchange (LMX) quality : defined as the development of dyadic relationship between a supervisor and his/her subordinate based on mutual trust, respect, and mutual obligation (Graen & Scandura, 1987; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). The present study aimed to examine both motives attributed by a supervisor to employees’ promotive voices, which would assist in determining the influence of supervisors’ attribution on the relationship between employee promotive voice and the LMX quality.

Past researchers demonstrated that subordinates with high-quality LMX relationships would receive more positive organisational outcomes, such as social support, resource access, higher creativity evaluation scores, and personal idea endorsement by supervisors (Ahmad et al., 2022; Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer & Ferris, 2012; Khalili, 2018; Urbach & Fay, 2021; Zhang et al., 2018). Furthermore, a promotive voice could be conducive to the endorsement of ideas, as workplace behaviour might improve the LMX quality. Accordingly, the current study investigated the mediating role of the LMX quality in the relationship between subordinates’ promotive voice and supervisors’ endorsement of subordinates’ ideas. Summarily, this study sought to fulfil three research objectives. Specifically, the current study explored the relationship between subordinates’ promotive voice and LMX quality and the influence of supervisors’ attributions of subordinates’ motives on the association between promotive voice and LMX quality. This study also appraised the mediating role of LMX quality in the correlation between promotive voice and idea endorsement. The findings contributed practical and theoretical significance in delineating the effects of promotive voice on creative idea endorsement.

Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

Managerial Responses to Employee Voice

Employees may convey different types of voices within a firm, such as whistleblowing (revealing information about illegal activities), ethical championing (escalating an issue to support an ethical decision), moral objection (proactive moral complaints), and prosocial voice (a change-oriented expression of ideas, information, and opinions). Nonetheless, past empirical research did not prioritise the informal voice communicated in workgroups . A promotive voice commences with an ethical voice, wherein employees express concerns to colleagues and supervisors . Employee promotive voice is associated with two major managerial response types. Managerial endorsement of subordinates’ ideas would be triggered when employees convey a promotive voice.

The endorsement is demonstrated through managerial confidence to implement transformations , managerial channelling of valuable resources, managerial cultivation of a conducive environment for creativity , and managerial support and validation of creative ideas (Ahmad et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2018). Therefore, persuading managers to endorse personal ideas would be a desirable outcome for subordinates’ promotive voices . Meanwhile, managers evaluate employees who express concerns for others and categorise which subordinates are trustworthy and respectful (Martin, Guillaume, Thomas, Lee & Epitropaki, 2016; Premru, Černe & Batistič, 2022). Previous scholars discovered that subordinates expressing concerns for peers or colleagues received positive evaluations from managers with an improved LMX quality . The finding posited that endorsing employees’ ideas would contribute to LMX quality improvement (Ahmad et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2018).

Promotive Voice and Idea Endorsement

The employee promotive voice would affect the quality of relationship building between an employee and a supervisor, with managerial evaluations of the employee’s ideas simultaneously influenced. Past academicians continuously emphasised the importance of promotive voice (Ashforth, Gioia, Robinson & Trevino, 2008; Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Gentile, 2010; Near & Miceli, 1995) as a discretionary workplace behaviour. Initially, the voice was conceptualised as an individual expressing concerns about ethical issues at work . Subsequently, researchers propounded that employees might constructively express opinions on an issue or individual or challenge peers’ or colleagues’ ideas (Kish-Gephart, Detert, Treviño & Edmondson, 2009; Liang & Yeh, 2020). defined promotive voice as employees voicing an issue to protect and improve other colleagues’ welfare.

Promotive voice specifically involves the intention to communicate other individuals’ concerns constructively (Kish-Gephart et al., 2009; H.-L. Liang & Yeh, 2020). Nevertheless, the voice might challenge the contemporary situation and demand a change in the current policies, practices, and decisions . Employees engage in a promotive voice to provide alternative approaches for goal achievement and the improvement of organisational effectiveness . Concurrently, a promotive voice actively explores future opportunities by pinpointing the current dissatisfaction areas (Chamberlin et al., 2017; Gorden, 1988; Graham, 1986; Vandewalle, Van Dyne, & Kostova, 1995). Managers would interpret promotive voice as positive messages when the received communication messages are embedded with constructive intentions for the general welfare . Managers would be more receptive to improvement-oriented behaviours and endorse the ideas of employees exhibiting improvement-oriented behaviours . Thus, the following hypothesis was proposed:

H1: Managers endorse the ideas of employees who engage in a promotive voice.

Promotive Voice and the LMX Quality

Promotive voice involves conveying ideas and suggestions in an upward communication channel to improve organisational functioning (Chamberlin et al., 2017; LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Liang & Yeh, 2020). Employees with promotive voices signal a higher personal effort to the respective managers in driving positive changes at work and occasionally challenging the status quo for organisational improvements compared to counterparts with less promotive voices (Chamberlin et al., 2017; Huang, Xu, Huang, & Liu, 2018). The workplace demeanour would enhance employees’ quality relationships with managers . Past research revealed that employees who are frequently involved in promotive voice behaviours would receive more positive managerial responses and perceptions . The finding is owing to employees who express personal opinions for positive change and improvements are considered to possess constructive and positive intentions for the organisation , which would enhance quality relationships or LMXs with managers (Chamberlin et al., 2017; McClean, Boixo, Smelyanskiy, Babbush & Neven, 2018). As promotive voices clarify role expectations and create a positive impression , leaders or managers support and reward the employees with higher respect levels. Resultantly, high-quality LMXs are facilitated between supervisors and subordinates . Correspondingly, the present study hypothesised as follows:

H2: Promotive voice is positively cor related to the LMX quality .

The Moderating Role of Supervisor-Attributed Motives for Promotive Voice

Prior scholars demonstrated that supervisors’ reactions toward subordinates are affected by personal attributions of specific subordinates’ demeanours (Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Green & Mitchell, 1979; Kelley, 1967; Lam et al., 2007). Supervisors categorise two different subordinates’ motives, namely impression management and performance enhancement motives . Performance enhancement motives are attributed when supervisors interpret subordinates’ specific behaviours as achievement-focused. Conversely, supervisors who regarded a behaviour as ingratiating and suspicious driven by the intention to manifest a positive personal image would ascribe the motive as impression management . Hence, supervisors appreciate and reward subordinates’ performance-focused behaviour by reciprocating with social support, career development opportunities, positive performance evaluations, and trust development (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Kacmar, Witt, Zivnuska, & Gully, 2003). The positive process is conducive to the development of quality LMXs .

Supervisors would perceive the behaviour as manipulative and tend to develop a negative attitude toward the subordinates when employees attempt to impress the respective supervisors. Similarly, a negative perception of untruthful, unreliable, and calculating actions would be established when employees discern other colleagues’ ingratiating and insincere demeanours. Simultaneously, the respective voices of negatively-perceived employees would be considered and evaluated as manipulative. Supervisors would be less inclined to support and reward employees with unscrupulous intentions . The current study posited that supervisors’ attribution of employees’ motives would influence the relationship between subordinates’ promotive voice and the LMX quality. Two relevant hypotheses were propounded as follows:

H 3 : T he positive association between promotive voice and the LMX quality is stronger when supervisors interpret employee behavio u r as driven by performance enhancement motives.

H4: The positive association between promotive voice and the LMX quality is weaker when supervisors interpret employee behavio u r as driven by impression management motives.

The Mediating Role of the LMX Quality

Previous studies assessing promotive voice revealed that employees communicating constructive and creative ideas to ensure organisational improvements would be beneficial for corporate development . Constructive behaviour allows employees to evaluate personal workplace demeanours and encourages supervisors to provide more organisational resources and positive treatments (Cheng et al., 2013; He, Morrison & Zhang, 2021; Weiss, Weiss & Zacher, 2022). Subordinates with higher resource accessibility would possess comprehensive control of job executions, which boosts work performance evaluations. Several researchers also discovered that employees who assisted in expressing other colleagues’ concerns constructively would accurately evaluate personal performance and the work environment (Cheng et al., 2013; J. Liang et al., 2012). The employees would also obtain higher ratings for task performance from peers or superiors .

According to the social exchange theory, the LMX quality significantly mediated the relationship between promotive voice and creative idea endorsement. The significant mediation could be contributed by promotive voice behaviours in clarifying role expectations for leaders and subordinates, which would be beneficial for organizations and quality relationships between leaders and employees with adequate promotive voices (Cheng et al., 2013; Liang et al., 2012; Morrison, 1993). Concurrently, promotive voice demeanours could maintain a positive image of subordinates for respective superiors . Additionally, subordinates who maintain quality relationships or LMXs with supervisors would enhance personal creative performance on assigned tasks (Vila-Vázquez, Castro-Casal & Álvarez-Pérez, 2020; Xie et al., 2020), with higher job evaluations from supervisors . Prior studies manifested improved creative performance and higher evaluation scores for employees possessing quality LMXs with superiors. Quality LMXs stimulate leaders in providing additional support, valuable resources, and opportunities for employee growth and development (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Kacmar et al., 2003; Mulligan, Ramos, Martín & Zornoza, 2021; Zhang et al., 2018).

While promotive voice is consistently demonstrated to positively impact employees’ creative performance (Liang et al., 2019b; Liu et al., 2020), promotive voice is also disclosed to moderately influence work-related performance . The influence is significant when supervisors interpret subordinates’ work behaviours as driven by impression management motives . Accordingly, the present study posited that supervisors’ attribution of subordinates’ motives would influence the relationship between promotive voice and creative idea endorsement. Supervisors’ attribution of employees’ motives in raising promotive voices would influence the social interaction process between superiors and subordinates. A promotive voice would be more positively correlated to creative idea endorsement and higher LMX quality when supervisors attributed employees’ motives in conveying promotive voice as performance enhancement. Contrarily, when employees’ promotive voice was ascribed with impression management motives, a detrimental effect would be posed to quality LMX development and creative idea endorsement by supervisors. Two corresponding hypotheses were postulated as follows:

Hypothesis 5: The LMX quality mediates the interactive effect between promotive voice and performance enhancement motives on creative idea endorsement .

Hypo the sis 6: The LMX quality mediates the interactive effect between promotive voice and impression management motives on creative idea endorsement .

Figure 1.Research Model

Research Methodology

Participants and Procedure

The current study collected data from 970 employees in various small and medium enterprises (SMEs), including manufacturing and electronics companies, in Pakistan. All participants were full-time employees with personal contacts. With formal approval from the organisational management, the employees were recruited for voluntary participation after explaining the research objectives. The present study also approached senior managers from the aforementioned industries and discussed the study significance and objectives for voluntary participation. Data collection was conducted in two stages through two sources (supervisors and subordinates). Promotive voice data were collected from supervisors, while subordinates responded to the LMX and control variables. After two fortnights of the initial data collection phase, follow-up data were collected from the same participants (Ng et al., 2010; Rosen & Jordan, 2009). Supervisors responded to the variables of employees’ creative idea endorsement, impression management motives, and performance enhancement motives. Initially, 970 surveys were distributed to subordinates and the respective 80 supervisors for self-completion. The average number of employees in a work unit was 7.15.

A total of 751 subordinates (77.4% response rate) and 80 supervisors completed the surveys at the first data collection stage. In the second stage, the same supervisors responded to 631 subordinates (65.05% response rate). After excluding inconsistent and incomplete data, our final qualified samples consisted of 572 subordinates (58.96% response rate) and 80 supervisors. The final sample consisted of 43 % female and 57% male, with 38.5% possessing a Bachelor’s degree and 61.5% with a Master’s degree. The average respondent age was 31.64 years old, with an average working experience of 9.55 years, average experience with the current organisation of 6.18 years, and average experience with the current position of 2.32 years. Before analysing the collected data, ensuring the potential integration of the data collected from different organisations was essential. A t-test was performed to validate the variables, in which the results demonstrated no significant difference between different enterprises (promotive voice: t(572) = 1.71, p ˃ 0.05; LMX: t(572) = 1.63, p ˃ 0.05; idea endorsement: t(572) = - 1.38, p ˃ 0.05; impression management motives: t(572) = - 1.19, p ˃ 0.05; performance enhancement motives: t(572) = - 1.36, p ˃ 0.05).

Measures

The five-item promotive voice variable was rated by supervisors on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 as “never” to 7 as “very often” with high reliability . A sample item is “This subordinate raises suggestions to improve the unit’s working procedure”. The seven-item LMX variable rated by subordinates was measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 as “extremely ineffective” to 7 “extremely effective” with adequate reliability . A sample item is “How would you characterise your working relationship with your leader?”. The five-item creative idea endorsement variable rated by supervisors was assessed on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 as “very unlikely” to 5 as “very likely” with high reliability (α = 0.76;. A scale item is “How likely is it that you will support this person’s creative ideas when talking with your supervisors?”.

The 5-item impression management motive variable was rated by supervisors on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 as “strongly disagree” to 5 as “strongly agree” with sufficient reliability (α = 0.87;. Supervisors were asked about the extent of perceiving subordinates’ promotive voice as driven by impression management motives. A scale item for impression management motive is the “Desire to enhance his or her image”. The two-item performance enhancement motive rated by supervisors was appraised on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 as “strongly disagree” to 5 as “strongly agree” with high reliability (α = 0.82;. Supervisors were asked about the extent to which they perceived subordinates’ promotive voice as driven by performance enhancement motives. A scale item is the “Desire to discover what his or her responsibilities are”. Different demographic and contextual variables might influence quality relationship development between supervisors and subordinates (Bauer & Green, 1996; Liden, Wayne & Stilwell, 1993; Maslyn & Uhl-Bien, 2001) and employees’ creative idea endorsement by supervisors . Thus, this study controlled the control variables of gender, age, education, experience year with the current organisation, experience year with the current position, and the total year of working experience.

Data Analysis

The Mplus version 7.0 software was employed for all data analyses. Employees were nested into different workgroups with multiple reporting lines based on respective assignments and projects. Simple regression could underestimate the standard error due to the potential interdependence among study variables . Therefore, random coefficient regression analyses are recommended for a study with potential interdependence between variables with MLR. The analysis was performed on the Mplus software to account for the current samples with similar characteristics (Ahmad et al., 2022; Erdogan, Bauer & Walter, 2015). Furthermore, the output produced by the software for random coefficient models could not be applied to model fit indicators. Instead, the Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-square test employing the log-likelihood method would be more suitable . Before conducting any analysis, mean centring was performed for all study variables and relevant interactions .

Results

Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations among study variables are depicted in Table 1. Hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted for random coefficient models, hypothesis testing, and mediation effects . Specifically, the creative idea endorsement variable was regressed on the promotive voice variables in the presence of all control variables (gender, age, education, the experience year with the current organisation, the experience year with the current position, and the total year of working experience). The significant coefficient (β = 0.149, p ≤ .01) confirmed the positive effect of promotive voice on creative idea endorsement, thus supporting H1. Simultaneously, the LMX variable was regressed on the promotive voice variable with all control variables. The significant coefficient (β = 0.148, p ≤ .01) corroborated the positive effect of promotive voice on the LMX quality, hence supporting H2.

Table 1.Means, Standard Deviation, and Correlation among study variables. Source: Calculated by the author
Variable	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Gender	0.58	0.49
2. Age	31.64	7.92	0.101 *
3. Education	2.56	0.50	0.073	0.025
4. Experience Year with the Current Organisation	6.18	2.68	- 0.003	0.236 **	- 0.127 **
5. Experience Year with the Current Position	2.32	0.67	0.009	- 0.108 **	- 0.038	0.147 **
6. Total Year of Working Experience	9.55	4.94	- 0.123 **	0.473 **	- 0.053	0.513 **	- 0.065
7. Promotive Voice	3.73	1.25	- 0.104 *	- 0.040	0.128 **	0.002	0.008	0.078
8. Performance Enhancement Motive	3.97	1.05	- 0.0030	- 0.048	0.081	- 0.058	0.028	- 0.027	0.135 **
9. Impression Management Motive	3.44	1.17	0.003	0.054	0.074	- 0.031	- 0.074	0.026	0.372 **	0.208 **
10. Leader-Member Exchange	3.60	1.27	0.018	0.005	- 0.070	0.001	- 0.017	0.007	0.128 **	0.141 **	0.051
11. Creative Idea Endorsement	4.04	1.05	- 0.085 *	- 0.110 **	0.039	- 0.092 *	0.002	- 0.018	0.193 **	0.185 **	0.187 **	- 0.055
Notes. Observations= 374; Clusters = 37; Average Cluster Size = 7.150; Gender was coded as 0 = Female, 1 = Male; Education was coded as 1 = College Graduate, 2 = Bachelor’s Degree, 3 = Master’s Degree, 4 = Doctoral Degree; Professional Experience was measured in years. S.E. = standard error. ^aExperience with the Current Organisation; * p < .10; p < .05; * p < .01.

The idea endorsement variable was regressed on promotive voice in the presence of the interaction between promotive voice and performance enhancement motive and all control variables. The significant coefficient (β = -0.114, p ≤ .01) demonstrated the negative effect of performance enhancement motive on the relationship between promotive voice and idea endorsement, although a relevant hypothesis was not proposed. Meanwhile, Figure 2 portrays through the interaction plot the positive mediation effect of low performance enhancement motives on the association between promotive voice and idea endorsement, with a contrary mediation result in the presence of high-performance enhancement motives. Additionally, the significant coefficient (β = - 0.089, p ≤ .01) revealed the negative effect of impression management motives on the relationship between promotive voice and idea endorsement. Figure 3 depicts through the interaction plot the negative mediation effect of high impression management motives on the correlation between promotive voice and idea endorsement. Conversely, low impression management motives positively influence the relationship. Both findings suggested that supervisors would be less predisposed to endorse subordinates’ ideas when attributing subordinates’ promotive voice as manipulative or with impression management motives.

Figure 2.Interaction of Promotive Voice and Performance Enhancement Motive for Idea Endorsement

Figure 3. Interaction of Promotive Voice and Impression Management Motive for Idea Endorsement

The LMX variable was regressed on the promotive voice variable in the presence of the interaction between promotive voice and performance enhancement motives and all control variables. The significant coefficient (β = 0.158, p ≤ .05) confirmed the positive effect of performance enhancement motives on the relationship between promotive voice and the LMX quality. Figure 4 illustrates through the interaction plot the positive mediation effect of high performance management motives on the relationship between promotive voice and the LMX quality. Supervisors would ascribe employees’ behaviour as performance-driven when the behaviour was highly motivated by performance enhancement motives. The significant coefficient (β = - 0.107, p ≤ .05) corroborated the negative effect of impression management motives on the relationship between promotive voice and the LMX quality. Meanwhile, Figure 5 demonstrates the positive mediation effect of low impression management motives on the association between promotive voice and LMX quality through the interaction plot. Supervisors would interpret subordinates’ behaviour as manipulative when the behaviour was driven by strong impression management motives. Resultantly, H3 and H4 were supported.

Figure 4.Interaction of Promotive Voice and Performance Enhancement Motive for Leader-Member Exchange

Figure 5.Interaction of Promotive Voice and Impression Management Motive for Leader-Member Exchange

The mediation effects were discovered through the hierarchical regression analysis results . Table 2 displays that the interaction between performance enhances motives (β = - 0.114, p≤ .01) and impression management motives (β = - 0.089, p≤ .01) significantly impacted idea endorsement, which supported Model 1 by fulfilling the first mediation requirement. Similarly, Model 2 was supported by the significant coefficient (β = 0.148, p≤ .01) affirming the positive effect of promotive voice on LMX quality, which satisfied the second requirement. Model 3 was also supported with the fulfilment of the third mediation requirement by the significant coefficient (β = 0.104, p≤ .05) of the LMX variable on idea endorsement. As the interaction between performance enhancement motives (β = - 0.079, insignificant) and impression management motives (β = - 0.061, insignificant) was insignificant, the fourth requirement for mediation was also fulfilled.

Table 2.Summary of Hierarchical Random Coefficient Regression Analysis ResultsSource: Calculated by the author
Predictor	Model 1: Creative Idea Endorsement			Model 2: Leader-Member Exchange		Model 3: Creative Idea Endorsement
	Estimate	SE		Estimate	SE	Estimate	SE
Control Variables
Gender	- 0.106		0.098	0.097	0.117	- 0.100		0.095
Age	- 0.014 *		0.006	0.002	0.007	- 0.014 **		0.005
Education	0.028		0.108	- 0.239	0.131	-0.014		0.098
Experience Year with the Current Organisation	- 0.039		0.021	- 0.003	0.027	-0.035		0.020
Experience Year with the Current Position	0.014		0.062	- 0.039	0.088	0.015		0.060
Total Working Experience	0.014		0.010	- 0.002	0.012	0.014		0.010
Independent Variable
Promotive Voice	0.149 *		0.061	0.148*	0.072	0.108		0.056
Moderators
Performance Enhancement Motive						0.147 **		0.055
Impression Management Motive						- 0.081		0.043
Mediator
Leader-Member-Exchange						0.104 **		0.039
Δ χ 2 (Δdf)	5706.63 (6) ***			3925.99 (6) ***		7153.97 (9) ***
Δ R²	0.113			0.044		0.179
Independent Variable
Promotive Voice	0.572 **		0.196	- 0.475 *	0.220	0.609 **		0.213
Moderator
Performance Enhancement Motive	0.580 **		0.203	- 0.429 *	0.190	0.440 *		0.198
Interactive Effect
Promotive Voice X Performance Enhancement Motive	- 0.114 *		0.046	0.158 **	0.052	-0.079		0.041
Δ χ 2 (Δdf)	3181.147 (8) ***			3550.73 (8) ***
Δ R²	0.698			0.067
Independent Variable
Promotive Voice	0.389 *	0.155		0.493 **	0.187	0.609 **	0.213
Moderator
Impression Management Motive	0.459 **	0.165		0.400 *	0.201	0.367 *	0.157
Interactive Effect
Promotive Voice X Impression Management Motive	- 0.089 *	0.040		-0.107 *	0.054	- 0.061	0.034
Δ χ 2 (Δdf)	2545.34 (8) ***			2809.49 (8)
Δ R²	0.179			0.022
Mediator
Leader-Member-Exchange						0.015 ***		0.005
Interactive Effects
Leader-Member-Exchange X Performance Enhancement Motive						0.010		0.038
Leader-Member-Exchange X Impression Management Motive						- 0.028		0.030
Δ χ 2 (Δdf)						2132.196 (11) ***
Δ R²						0.188
Notes. Observations= 572; Clusters = 80; Gender was coded as 0 = Female, 1 = Male; Education was coded as 1= College Graduate, 2 = Bachelor’s Degree, 3=Master’s Degree, 4=Doctoral Degree; Professional Experience was measured in years. S.E. = standard error; * p < .10; p < .05; * p < .01; Δ χ 2 refers to Satorra–Bentler scaled chi-square difference test: Muth´en and Muth´en (1998–2010):Δdf is change in degrees of freedom. R² is the proportional reduction in error variance (Snijders & Bosker, 2012).

Discussion

Subordinates’ promotive voice was significantly and positively correlated to the LMX quality and creative idea endorsement by supervisors who interpreted the behaviour as driven by performance enhancement motives rather than impression management motives. The findings suggested that performance enhancement motives and impression management motives produced contrasting material consequences for subordinates. Subordinates’ promotive voice driven by impression management motives would lead to lower levels of creative idea endorsement and LMX quality development compared to the counterparts with promotive voice attributed to performance enhancement motives. Hence, supervisors would focus on the promotive voice of subordinates and the underlying motives of constructive behaviour.

Theoretical Contributions

The current study contributed to management literature by expanding research on promotive voice behaviour. Specifically, this study investigated the influence of promotive voice on LMX development and creative idea endorsement. The current study discovered that promotive voice would lead to both positive and negative outcomes when the motives for the behaviour were attributed differently by supervisors. Several past studies examined managerial reactions and reported positive outcomes (Liang & Yeh, 2020; McClean et al., 2018; Venkataramani & Tangirala, 2010; Whiting, Podsakof & Pierce, 2008), while other scholars revealed mixed or negative findings . Hence, the present study addresses the inconsistency by discovering that managerial reactions toward subordinates’ promotive voice depend on supervisors’ attribution of motives. Impression management motives would elicit an unfavourable reaction from the managers, whereas the attribution of performance enhancement motives would result in positive outcomes.

The present results provided a deeper understanding of the outcomes involving subordinates’ promotive voice behaviours. Previous studies demonstrated the benefits of subordinates’ promotive voice with constructive motives to organisations, which would enhance employees’ perceived value to the organisations . The positive effects of a promotive voice should also be simultaneously considered with the LMX quality and creativity endorsement in the presence of subordinates’ motives. Past LMX findings suggested that impression management motives might be negatively associated with LMX quality . Employee motives might also be significantly associated with employee creativity . Nevertheless, supervisors’ attribution of subordinates’ motives was scarcely examined in LMX and creativity research (Benedek et al., 2020; Bowler, Paul & Halbesleben, 2019; Wulani, Handoko & Purwanto, 2022). As such, the present study contributed to the existing literature by disclosing that a supervisor’s attribution of employee motives would significantly determine subsequent reactions toward subordinates’ promotive voice. Supervisors’ attribution of employee motives is integral to LMX development and the subsequent creative approaches applied by employees in work. Summarily, supervisors’ attribution of subordinates’ motives is crucial to the development of quality relationships and the process of creative idea endorsement.

Practical Implications

Employees who suggest constructive ideas to work environments perceivably reflect more career advancement opportunities . Nonetheless, rewarding and encouraging employees’ promotive voice does not consider managerial reactions towards the development of quality LMX and the creative ideas of subordinates. Prior researchers discovered that supervisors might exhibit demeanours and express words impeding upward communications . As such, employees might prefer not to provide beneficial suggestions to the organisations. Organizational initiatives in facilitating employees’ promotive voice would be ineffective when employees believe that the organisational context is unfavourable to personal input. The current findings could assist employees in understanding that supervisors appreciate work-related efforts compared to impression management behaviours. Organisations should also develop personality and leadership development programmes for both supervisors and subordinates. The programmes should be designed to enhance the communication level between subordinates and supervisors. Furthermore, specific leadership development programmes should focus on training leaders to be open and receptive to surbodinates’ ideas. Negative managerial reactions could be reduced by training managers or supervisors to regard employees’ promotive voice as a growth opportunity. Thus, organisations should reward subordinates who provide constructive suggestions while training managers to comprehend the importance of employees’ suggestions. The training will shift managers’ focus from the communication approaches employed by subordinates by concentrating on the conveyed ideas.

Study Limitations

Several study limitations exist, especially in the data collection method. The data were collected from employees after obtaining formal approval from the management, with the management subsequently communicating to the employees about the current study. Although data were collected at two stages from two different sources, bias could be present in the study results. The employees might provide inaccurate data, which would decrease finding generalisability while increasing error-related variances for the observed relationships between the study variables. Therefore, a replication of this study is recommended with an experimental design in a more homogenous sample to ensure sufficient outcome generalisability. Meanwhile, data collection is also recommended from other sources, such as collecting data from colleagues, to provide a comprehensive understanding of employee promotive voice and relevant consequences.

Acknowledgement Statement: This research is being conducted to fulfill the requirements for a post-doctoral fellow at the School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia, and we thank JICC for accepting this article as open access with no charge.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Author contribution statements: Supervision (T. Ramayah), Conceptualization (Israr Ahmad), Methodology (Israr Ahmad), Software and Analysis (Ahmad Adeel); Investigation (Israr Ahmad and Ahmad Adeel), Writing—original draft (Israr Ahmad); writing—review & editing (Israr Ahmad, Ahmad Adeel, and Bushra Alam). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding: There is no funding.

Ethical Consideration statement: Not applicable. This study did not involve human and animal studies.

Data Availability Statement: The data is not publicly available.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and contributor(s) and do not necessarily reflect JICC's or editors' official policy or position. All liability for harm done to individuals or property as a result of any ideas, methods, instructions, or products mentioned in the content is expressly disclaimed.

Read Counter : 187 Download : 138

Share Now

Promotive Voice, Leader-member Exchange, and Creativity Endorsement: The Role of Supervisor-Attributed Motives

Abstract

Full text article

References

Authors

Israr Ahmad, School of Managememt, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang Malaysia

Ramayah Thurasamy, School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Minden, Penang, Malaysia

Ahmad Adeel, Department of Business Education, The University of Chenab, Pakistan

Indexed

ISSN & Website Link

Contact Info

Article Sidebar

Abstract

Full text article

References

Authors

Israr Ahmad, School of Managememt, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang Malaysia

Ramayah Thurasamy, School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Minden, Penang, Malaysia

Ahmad Adeel, Department of Business Education, The University of Chenab, Pakistan

Article Details

Indexed

ISSN & Website Link

Contact Info