Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2024-5
Ideas endorsed,credit claimed: Managerial credit claiming weakens the benefits of voice endorsement on future voice behavior through respect and work group identification
Does endorsement of employees’ constructive voice always result in more voice behavior in the future? Although it is often assumed that endorsement is a critical predictor of future voice behavior, we argue that this effect is contingent on whether managers claim credit for their employees’ voice. Drawing from the group engagement model, we first predict that endorsement will be positively associated with voicing employees’ perceived respect within the group, while managers’ credit-claiming behaviors will be negatively associated with such respect. We then further predict that credit-claiming behaviors serve as a boundary condition to the positive association between endorsement and respect, such that when levels of credit claiming by managers are higher, the positive association between endorsement and respect will be weakened. Higher levels of respect, in turn, are associated with higher levels of work group identification and then higher levels of future voice behavior. Results from a multi-wave survey field study in China and a scenario experiment in the United States offer support for our model. Our findings suggest an important but neglected form of managerial response to voice – credit claiming – and highlight its detrimental effect on motivating future voice behavior despite voice endorsement.
AmesDRKammrathLK (2004) Mind-reading and metacognition: Narcissism, not actual competence, predicts self-estimated ability. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior28(3): 187–209.
2.
BennettRJRobinsonSL (2000) Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology85(3): 349–360.
3.
BhagatRSKediaBLHarvestonPD, et al. (2002) Cultural variations in the cross-border transfer of organizational knowledge: An integrative framework. Academy of Management Review27(2): 204–221.
4.
BladerSLTylerTR (2009) Testing and extending the group engagement model: Linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extrarole behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology94(2): 445–464.
5.
BrislinRW (1986) The wording and translation of research instruments. In: LohnerWJBerryJW (eds) Field Methods in Cross-Cultural Research. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 137–164.
6.
BurrisER (2012) The risks and rewards of speaking up: Managerial responses to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal55(4): 851–875.
7.
BurrisERRockmannKWKimmonsYS (2017) The value of voice to managers: Employee identification and the content of voice. Academy of Management Journal60(6): 2099–2125.
8.
CampbellWKReederGDSedikidesC, et al. (2000) Narcissism and comparative self-enhancement strategies. Journal of Research in Personality34(3): 329–347.
9.
De CremerDVan DijkE (2005) When and why leaders put themselves first: Leader behaviour in resource allocations as a function of feeling entitled. European Journal of Social Psychology35(4): 553–563.
10.
EllisAPJWestBJRyanAM, et al. (2002) The use of impression management tactics in structured interviews: A function of question type?Journal of Applied Psychology87(6): 1200–1208.
11.
EllisLM (2022) The interpersonal consequences of stealing ideas: Worse character judgments and less co-worker support for an idea (vs. money) thief. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes171: 104165.
12.
EndersCKTofighiD (2007) Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods12(2): 121–138.
13.
FastNJBurrisERBartelCA (2014) Managing to stay in the dark: Managerial self-efficacy, ego defensiveness, and the aversion to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal57(4): 1013–1034.
14.
FullerBMarlerLEHesterK, et al. (2015) Leader reactions to follower proactive behavior: Giving credit when credit is due. Human Relations68(6): 879–898.
15.
GraenGBUhl-BienM (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. Leadership Quarterly6(2): 219–247.
16.
HeWHanYHuX, et al. (2020) From idea endorsement to idea implementation: A multilevel social network approach toward managerial voice implementation. Human Relations73(11): 1563–1582.
17.
HeckRH (2001) Multilevel modeling with SEM. In: MarcoulidesGASchumackerRE (eds) New Developments and Techniques in Structural Equation Modeling. Mahwak, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 89–127.
18.
HochwarterWAFerrisGRZinkoR, et al. (2007). Reputation as a moderator of political behavior–work outcomes relationships: A two-study investigation with convergent results. Journal of Applied Psychology92(2): 567–576.
19.
HofstedeG (1980) Culture and organizations. International Studies of Management & Organization10(4): 15–41.
20.
HoggMATerryDJ (2000) Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review25(1): 121–140.
21.
HollanderEP (1958) Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit. Psychological Review65(2): 117–127.
22.
JanssenOGaoL (2015) Supervisory responsiveness and employee self-perceived status and voice behavior. Journal of Management41(7): 1854–1872.
23.
KimYJLamCFOhJ, et al. (2023) Employee constructive voice: An integrative review and a dyadic approach. Journal of Management49(1): 430–473.
24.
KingDDRyanAMVan DyneL (2019) Voice resilience: Fostering future voice after non-endorsement of suggestions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology92(3): 535–565.
25.
LamCFJohnsonHHSongJ, et al. (2022) More depleted, speak up more? A daily examination of the benefit and cost of depletion for voice behavior and voice endorsement. Journal of Organizational Behavior43(6): 983–1000.
26.
LamCFLeeCSuiY (2019) Say it as it is: Consequences of voice directness, voice politeness, and voicer credibility on voice endorsement. Journal of Applied Psychology104(5): 642–658.
27.
LamCFReesLLevesqueLL, et al. (2018) Shooting from the hip: A habit perspective of voice. Academy of Management Review43(3): 470–486.
28.
LandauJ (2009) When employee voice is met by deaf ears. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal74(1): 4–12.
29.
LiANTangiralaS (2021) How voice emerges and develops in newly formed supervisor–employee dyads. Academy of Management Journal64(2): 614–642.
30.
LiLZhengXZhangQ (2022) Does leaders’ adoption of employee voice influence employee work engagement?Personnel Review51(2): 683–698.
31.
LiuWZhuRYangY (2010) I warn you because I like you: Voice behavior, employee identifications, and transformational leadership. Leadership Quarterly21(1): 189–202.
32.
LloydKJBoerDKellerJW, et al. (2015) Is my boss really listening to me? The impact of perceived supervisor listening on emotional exhaustion, turnover intention, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business Ethics130(3): 509–524.
33.
LloydKJBoerDVoelpelSC (2017) From listening to leading: Toward an understanding of supervisor listening within the framework of leader–member exchange theory. International Journal of Business Communication54(4): 431–451.
34.
LobdellCLSonodaKTArnoldWE (1993) The influence of perceived supervisor listening behavior on employee commitment. Journal of the International Listening Association7(1): 92–110.
35.
MaelFAshforthBE (1992) Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior13(2): 103–123.
36.
MathieuJEFarrJL (1991) Further evidence for the discriminant validity of measures of organizational commitment, job involvement, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology76(1): 127–133.
37.
MorrisonEW (2014) Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior1(1): 173–197.
38.
MorrisonEW (2023) Employee voice and silence: Taking stock a decade later. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior10(1): 79–107.
39.
MuthénB (1997) Latent variable modeling of longitudinal and multilevel data. Sociological Methodology27(1): 453–480.
NgTWHShaoYKoopmannJ, et al. (2022) The effects of idea rejection on creative self-efficacy and idea generation: Intention to remain and perceived innovation importance as moderators. Journal of Organizational Behavior43(1): 146–163.
42.
ParkHTangiralaSHussainI, et al. (2022) How and when managers reward employees’ voice: The role of proactivity attributions. Journal of Applied Psychology107(12): 2269–2284.
43.
PaulhusDL (1991) Measurement and control of response bias. In: RobinsonJPShaverPRWrightsmanLS (eds) Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 17–59.
44.
PhillipsKWRothbardNPDumasTL (2009) To disclose or not to disclose? Status distance and self-disclosure in diverse environments. Academy of Management Review34(4): 710–732.
45.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBLeeJY, et al. (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology88(5): 879–903.
46.
PreacherKJZyphurMJZhangZ (2010) A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods15(3): 209–233.
47.
ProellCASauerSRodgersMS (2016) Credit where credit is due: A field survey of the interactive effects of credit expectations and leaders’ credit allocation on employee turnover. Human Resource Management55(2): 341–355.
48.
R Core Team (2013) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: http://www.R-project.org/ (accessed August 2019).
49.
RodgersMSSauerSJProellCA (2013) The lion’s share: The impact of credit expectations and credit allocations on commitment to leaders. Leadership Quarterly24(1): 80–93.
50.
SatterstromPKerrisseyMDiBenignoJ (2021) The voice cultivation process: How team members can help upward voice live on to implementation. Administrative Science Quarterly66(2): 380–425.
51.
SchaubroeckJPengAHannahS (2016) The role of peer respect in linking abusive supervision to follower outcomes: Dual moderation of group potency. Journal of Applied Psychology101(2): 267–278.
52.
SchmidEAPircher VerdorferAPeusC (2019) Shedding light on leaders’ self-interest: Theory and measurement of exploitative leadership. Journal of Management45(4): 1401–1433.
53.
SchmittMGollwitzerMMaesJ, et al. (2005) Justice sensitivity. European Journal of Psychological Assessment21(3): 202–211.
54.
ShapiroDLBossADSalasS, et al. (2011) When are transgressing leaders punitively judged? An empirical test. Journal of Applied Psychology96(2): 412–422.
55.
SnijdersTABoskerRJ (1999) Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling. London: SAGE.
56.
StapletonLM (2006) An assessment of practical solutions for structural equation modeling with complex sample data. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal13(1): 28–58.
57.
StoutenJTrippTM (2009) Claiming more than equality: Should leaders ask for forgiveness?Leadership Quarterly20(3): 287–298.
58.
SunYYangHQianC, et al. (2022) Voice endorsement and employee safety voice behavior in construction projects: The mediating role of leader–member exchange. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health19(6): 3374.
59.
TangiralaSRamanujamR (2008) Exploring nonlinearity in employee voice: The effects of personal control and organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal51(6): 1189–1203.
60.
TangiralaSRamanujamR (2012) Ask and you shall hear (but not always): Examining the relationship between manager consultation and employee voice. Personnel Psychology65(2): 251–282.
61.
TaylorSGGriffithMDVaderaAK, et al. (2019) Breaking the cycle of abusive supervision: How disidentification and moral identity help the trickle-down change course. Journal of Applied Psychology104(1): 164–182.
62.
TepperBJ (2007) Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management33(3): 261–289.
63.
TriandisHC (1998) Vertical and horizontal individualism and collectivism: Theory and research implications for international comparative management. Advances in International Comparative Management12: 7–36.
64.
TylerTDegoeyPSmithH (1996) Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology70(5): 913–930.
65.
TylerTR (1989) The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology57(5): 830–838.
66.
TylerTRBladerSL (2002) Autonomous vs. comparative status: Must we be better than others to feel good about ourselves?Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes89(1): 813–838.
67.
TylerTRBladerSL (2003) The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review7(4): 349–361.
68.
Van DyneLLePineJA (1998) Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal41(1): 108–119.
69.
Van DyneLKamdarDJoiremanJ (2008) In-role perceptions buffer the negative impact of low LMX on helping and enhance the positive impact of high LMX on voice. Journal of Applied Psychology93(6): 1195–1207.
70.
WuSKeeDMHLiD, et al. (2021) Thanks for your recognition, boss! An empirical study on how and when voice endorsement promotes task performance and voice. Frontiers in Psychology12: 706501.
71.
ZhangLLiangJLiuF (2022) I spoke up, did you hear? The impact of voice (in)congruence on employee-initiated constructive changes. Human Relations. Epub ahead of print 22June2022. DOI: 10.1177/00187267221110781.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
