Does It Matter Why I Do (Put Effort Into) This Job? Examining the Impact of Community College Employees’ Work Motivations on Their Voice Behaviors

Abstract

Research Question:

Employees join or work for higher education organizations for various reasons or motivations. How do these employees’ work motivations impact their propensity to speak up about various problems or ways to improve these organizations? Guided by self-determination theory, this study considers that question by examining the relationships between employee work motivations and their voice behaviors.

Methods:

To answer the research questions, data was collected via an online survey from 811 employees from a community college in the southwest of the US.

Results:

Regression analyses of data from those 811 community college employees show that employees’ work motivations do indeed matter when it comes to their voice behaviors. However, not all types of work motivations equally matter. Indeed, of the six work motivation dimensions that were examined, only intrinsic motivation was significantly related to prohibitive voice behaviors, and only intrinsic and identified regulation motivation were significantly related to promotive voice behaviors.

Contributions:

This study makes several contributions to the community college literature by identifying key antecedents to community college employees’ voice behaviors, and by shedding light on the role of community college employees’ work motivations in shaping their work behaviors. It also provides specific implications for community college leaders regarding how to increase their employees’ voice behaviors.

Keywords

work motivation employee voice survey regression organizational behavior

Introduction

Employee voice has been defined as the voluntary provision of information to improve organizational functions (Detert & Burris, 2007; Detert et al., 2013; Mowbray et al., 2015; Oyetunde et al., 2022). It generally consists of change-oriented communication behaviors that employees engage in to improve the organizational status quo (LePine & Van Dyne, 2001; Morrison, 2014). As such, employee voice is a powerful asset to organizations as it can serve to enhance organizational development or success and prevent organizational harm or failure (Detert & Burris, 2007; Detert & Treviño, 2010; Oyetunde et al., 2022). Due to the potentially beneficial role of employee voice behaviors in the growth and effectiveness of organizations, research on the antecedents or the factors and conditions that influence employee voice behaviors has considerably increased over the past three or four decades (Morrison, 2014; Wilkinson et al., 2020). Indeed, the organizational literature is replete with books and articles examining various individual and contextual antecedents of employee voice and outlining various strategies to increase employees’ propensity to speak up about their ideas or problems to witness or experience (Morrison, 2014).

However, much of the literature on employee voice has generally focused on the business context or corporations, thus neglecting other organizational contexts or environments such as higher education, where organizational goals, resources, structures, modes of governance, and stakeholders are often quite different. Additionally, and quite surprisingly, one important factor that has not received sufficient attention or consideration as an antecedent to or driver of voice behavior is employee work motivation. As such, although it is well established that employees join organizations, do their jobs, and/or engage in work behaviors for various motivations, attention to or research on the links between employee work motivations and employee voice behaviors is quite scarce. This study aims to address these two limitations of the research on employee voice behaviors by examining how work motivations impact voice behaviors among community college employees.

Thus, the purpose of this study is to examine the role of community college employees’ work motivations in predicting their voice behaviors. Specifically, this study investigates whether different employee work motivations are differentially related to voice behaviors. This study is important because it can help us determine whether different community college employee motivations equally matter (or not) when it comes to influencing their voice behaviors. Essentially this research can help us determine which type of motivated employee is most likely to speak up about their ideas and problematic issues they observe.

This study makes several contributions to the literature on employee voice behaviors. First, this research examines employees’ voice behaviors in a context or environment other than the business/corporate context. Examining employee voice behaviors in a multitude of contexts is very important because it can enable comparisons across contexts to help determine if and/or how they matter. Additionally, the focus here on employee voice in public higher education, and especially in the community college context, is essential given the resource constraints and the many other challenges these community colleges face, which make innovation and new ideas from their employees a key to their survival and adaptability (Fuller & Raman, 2022). Finally, the importance of studying voice behaviors in the context of higher education cannot be overemphasized given the frequent accounts of workplace misconduct or abuse such as “gender harassment, workplace bullying, and mobbing” at all staffing levels in American colleges and universities, much of which is often unreported (Henning et al., 2017, p. 521).

Second, this research contributes to scholarship on employee voice behaviors by highlighting the role of employee work motivations as important antecedents or predictors of employee voice behaviors. Work motivation is an important factor in organizational research as indicated by the wealth of research on it; however, it is surprisingly understudied in organizational and business communication scholarship in general, and especially in its connection to employees’ voice behaviors. Yet, it not only intuitively makes sense to think that employee work motivations are important to consider when seeking to understand their work behaviors, but it is also supported by a wealth of previous research (Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2017).

Third, this study contributes to scholarship on leadership, employee behavior, and human resource management in higher education institutions more generally, and community colleges more specifically (e.g., Holcombe et al., 2022; Kezar & Holcombe, 2017; Lyons & Akroyd, 2014; Osburn & Gocial, 2019), by identifying key factors that influence community college employees’ voice behaviors within their organizations. Indeed, not all employees are equally willing to speak up about problems that they notice or ideas that they have to improve their colleges or universities. In this study, we consider a host of employee characteristics, but especially their work motivations, in examining their voice behaviors.

Finally, a great deal of the scholarship on community colleges’ employees has focused on the experiences of faculty or administrators/leaders (e.g., Gonzales & Ayers, 2018; Kater, 2017; Martinez, 2019; Morris, 2017). In contrast, studies that significantly incorporate staff members’ (or all categories of community college employees) experiences/inputs have been scarce. Yet staff members constitute an important part of community college employees and play a valuable role in the success of these institutions (Gibson-Harman et al., 2002). In this study, we remedy that trend by including staff members, in addition to faculty and administrators, in our survey. Notably, community college staff members constitute nearly half (46.4%) of our respondents.

Literature Review

Employee Voice Behavior

In recent decades, since at least the seminal of work of Hirschman (1970), employee voice has been increasingly recognized as a crucial factor that may impact organizational performance or effectiveness through better decision-making and increased employee commitment (Mowbray et al., 2015; Oyetunde et al., 2022). This recognition of the strategic importance of employee voice has led to a proliferation of research on employee voice in various disciplines or fields such as industrial and labor relations, human resource management, organizational behavior (OB), communication, economics, and law (for some reviews, see Mori et al., 2022; Mowbray et al., 2015; Wilkinson et al., 2020). This abundant diversity of disciplinary perspectives on employee voice and related terms such as employee participation, empowerment, involvement, and democracy (Budd et al., 2010) has led to various debates over its conceptualization as well as striking differences in assumptions about the meaning and purpose of voice (Morrison, 2014; Wilkinson et al., 2020).

In this study, since we are interested in examining individual differences in voice behaviors, we have adopted an approach to employee voice which is most consistent with the OB literature (Morrison, 2011, 2014). In OB research, employee voice is generally viewed as “an informal discretionary in-role, and extra-role behavior by workers aimed at expressing ideas, suggestions, and concerns, and targeted at challenging the status quo to bring about change” (Oyetunde et al., 2022, p. 144). In other words, employee voice is a type of organizational citizenship behavior which involves “upward communication behavior” (Morrison, 2014, p. 174) with the goal of improving organizational functioning (Wilkinson et al., 2018). In terms of function, Liang et al. (2012) argue that voice essentially functions as a means to talk about either what can be done better or what is harmful. Indeed, voice behavior can be challenging to organizations as it is perceived as having both favorable and unfavorable consequences.

Several researchers have examined how the role of employee voice behavior in organizations can reflect both promotive and prohibitive aspects/dimensions (Bai et al., 2019; Liang et al., 2012; Mao & DeAndrea, 2019; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998; Wilkinson et al., 2018). Liang et al. (2012) define promotive voice as voice behavior that is meant to better the organization, such as employees making suggestions for new ways to improve organizational processes. Prohibitive voice, on the other hand, is defined as a means to express concern or point out harmful situations, misconduct, or other problems that are already found within the organization (Liang et al., 2012). In other words, both promotive and prohibitive voice are positive behaviors with good organizational intentions such as seeking opportunities to speak up and contribute to address work related issues (Wilkinson et al., 2018). However, promotive voice is behavior expressed to suggest new or creative ideas versus prohibitive voice that is behavior expressed to point out concern about existing practices or activities (Liang et al., 2012). In general, the risk employees face in engaging in those two types of voice behavior is different. Promotive voice is generally more easily accepted or welcomed by organizations and leaders while prohibitive voice is typically viewed as a challenge to organizational leaders’ authority and is, therefore, generally less welcomed or accepted (Morrison, 2014).

Research on employee voice overwhelmingly views it positively and has generally focused on the antecedents and benefits of employee voice for both employees and organizations mainly in corporate contexts. For instance, employee voice has been found to positively influence the economic and quality indicators of a company (Detert & Burris, 2007). At the same time, Jha et al. (2019) highlight the importance of employee voice as a strategy to increase employee engagement and organizational success. Ruck et al. (2017) further contribute that effective employee voice facilitates innovation, competitiveness, and work engagement. Other positive outcomes of voice behavior include creativity and implementation of new ideas (Ng & Feldman, 2012) as well as employee well-being (Mao & DeAndrea, 2019), especially when it is used to speak out about workplace wrongdoings as in the case of the #MeToo movement.

Because of the many benefits associated with employee voice, a significant amount of research has been devoted to identifying antecedents to employee voice behaviors. Previous research has identified several predictors of employee voice behaviors, including anonymity, safety, efficacy (Mao & DeAndrea, 2019), leader-member exchange and power distance (Botero & Van Dyne, 2009), ethical leadership and ethical climate (Bai et al., 2019), transformational leadership and managerial openness (Detert & Burris, 2007), proactive personality (Wijaya, 2019), and inclusive leadership (Jolly & Lee, 2021). Because of the importance of employee voice to organizational success, and due to the diversity of environments in which employees work, Liang et al. (2012) strongly recommend additional research on factors affecting employee voice expression. Bai et al. (2019) echo that call by recommending additional research on “possible different antecedents, mechanism, consequences” of employee voice (p. 1895). In this study we answer these calls by examining the role of employee work motivations—a logical but surprisingly understudied potential antecedent to voice behavior—on their voice behaviors.

Work Motivation

Motivation is the driving force for acting or engaging in something (Singh, 2016). In organizational environments, motivation is the reason why employees work hard (Singh, 2016). According to Pinder (1998), work motivation is “a set of energetic forces that originate both within as well as beyond an individual’s being, to initiate work-related behavior and to determine its form, direction, intensity, and duration” (p. 11). Thus, understanding work motivation is key for meeting successful organizational productivity outcomes (MacDonald et al., 2019).

Employee work motivation has been widely examined in previous research (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Previous research has identified several predictors of work motivation including motivating language (Sun et al., 2016); income groups, punishment, performance, goals/values, and regulations (Posch, 2019); money, autonomy, recognition, culture of respect, trust, and rapport (Singh, 2016); justice (Hubbell & Chory-Assad, 2005); solidarity and job satisfaction (MacDonald et al., 2019); and need satisfaction, autonomy-support, leadership style, and job design (Gagné et al., 2015). In terms of outcomes, work motivation has been found to predict job performance and organizational citizenship behavior (Sun et al., 2016); workaholic behavior and work engagement (Ryan & Deci, 2017); and vitality, emotional exhaustion, commitment, proficiency, adaptivity, proactivity, job effort and turnover intention (Gagné et al., 2015).

According to self-determination theory (SDT), work motivation varies in types and across individuals and can range from amotivation—which is a person’s lack of motivation—to controlled motivation—which is motivation due to the pressure an employee feels to do something—to autonomous motivation—which is motivation due to a person’s own willingness to do something (Ferraro et al., 2018; Gagné et al., 2015; Moller et al., 2019). According to Gagné et al (2015), work motivation is a multi-dimensional construct that encompasses six different “types” of motivation. The first type or dimension of work motivation is amotivation, which is the absence of motivation or an employee’s lack of effort. The second type is extrinsic regulation—social, that is felt motivation for social reasons such as employees motivated because they are seeking approval or respect. The third type is extrinsic regulation—material, that is felt motivation for material reasons such as an employees motivated because they are seeking financial gain or job security. The fourth type is introjected regulation, which is felt motivation from internal pressures such as employees who are motivated because they are trying to avoid feeling shame or guilt. The next type is identified regulation, which is felt motivation from employees because they identify with and feel shared values or meaning with the organization. The final type is intrinsic motivation, which is doing the job for its own sake such as employees motivated because the job and/or job tasks are interesting or enjoyable. Hence, SDT proposes that there are different sources of motivation that drive people to put effort at work. In other words, some people may be driven by money while others may be driven to avoid looking like they are not a team-player, yet others might be driven by the joy they get from the work. Table 1 illustrates the six different types of work motivation according to SDT.

Table 1.

Motivation Self-Determination Dimensions.

Category	Amotivation	Controlled motivation			Autonomous motivation
Feel You Must → → → → → → → → Feel You Want To
Type	Amotivation	Extrinsic Regulation—Social	Extrinsic Regulation—Material	Introjected Regulation	Identified Regulation	Intrinsic Motivation
Reason	Lacking motivation or effort	Seeking approval or respect	Seeking financial gain or job security	Avoiding feeling shame or guilt	Feeling shared values or meaning	Enjoying or for the fun of it
Item Sample	I don't know why I'm doing this job, its pointless work	To avoid being criticized by others	Because I risk losing my job if I don't put effort into it	Because otherwise I feel ashamed of myself	Because putting effort in this job has personal significance to me	Because the work I do is interesting

Item Stem: Why do you or would you put efforts into your current job?

Source. Adapted from Gagné et al. (2015), Ferraro et al. (2018), Moller et al. (2019).

The Present Study: Work Motivation and Voice Behavior in Community Colleges

Community colleges and their leaders are currently facing complex and turbulent environments (Holcombe et al., 2022; Kezar & Holcombe, 2017). Indeed, across the nation, community colleges are facing increasing disinvestment from state government, limited (and decreasing) federal and grant support, and sometimes (where applicable) decreasing local government support (Hammond et al., 2020; Kezar & Holcombe, 2017; Nix et al. 2024). Yet community colleges are people-oriented and mission-driven HEIs that serve the most vulnerable and marginalized groups of postsecondary students (Gonzales & Ayers, 2018; Mayfield et al., 2022; McCambly et al., 2023). According to Gonzales and Ayers (2018), these colleges “overwhelmingly enroll historically underserved populations, including racial and ethnic minoritized students, first-generation college students, working class students, veterans, English-language learners, and undocumented students” (p. 456). Additionally, these colleges provide postsecondary education to their disproportionately socio-economically disadvantaged students at a much lower cost than other HEIs (Mayfield et al., 2022; McCambly et al., 2023). Essentially, for many decades now, community colleges have been increasingly asked to do more with increasingly less. These environmental pressures alone compel community colleges, much more so than other HEIs, to be more innovative, adaptable, and responsive (Kezar & Holcombe, 2017). Under normal conditions, all organizations need to be able to depend on their employee voice to function effectively (Morrison, 2014; Wilkinson et al., 2018). However, that need may actually increase as organizational environments become more complex and turbulent (Prouska et al., 2023), as in the case of community colleges nationwide.

To further complicate matters, enrollment in community colleges has been significantly decreasing for many decades now, thus significantly threatening their survival (Koch, 2020). For instance, since peak enrollment in 2010, enrollment in community colleges has consistently decreased, with community colleges losing more than 1 million students (i.e., 14.4% drop in enrollment) between 2010 and 2017 (Koch, 2020). Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic further exacerbated both the community college enrollment and funding crises, and their negative impacts (Kurlaender et al., 2024).

All of these challenges and many others (Holcombe et al., 2022; Kezar & Holcombe, 2017) that community colleges face necessitate, among other things, new approaches to leadership, management, and governance that, perhaps more than ever before, effectively harvest, include, and capitalize on employee voice (Cloud, 2010; Holcombe et al., 2022; Kater, 2017; Kezar & Holcombe, 2017; Wallin, 2010). Indeed, if community college employees are silent or do not speak up about their ideas, or problems that they see within their colleges, then community colleges are more likely to face negative consequences such as inertia, suboptimal performance, and failure to achieve organizational goals (Bailey et al. 2015; Holcombe et al., 2022; Levin et al., 2010; Tovar, 2015). As has been highlighted in research (e.g., Henning et al., 2017; Sethares, 2020) and other recent calls/commentaries (e.g., Bradburn & Townsend, 2014; Moskell, 2024) employee voice is extremely important to the success of HEIs.

Additionally, other key values or principles such as shared governance, justice, equity, inclusion, integrity, safety, and many other standards that are supposed to characterize the culture and governance of community colleges—and in fact all HEIs—cannot be effectively upheld without centering employee voice in the governance process (Fuller, 2006; Grasmick et al., 2012; Henning et al., 2017; Holcombe et al., 2022; Kater, 2017; Kezar & Holcombe, 2017; Sethares, 2020). As such, increasing community college employees’ voice behaviors is of paramount importance and essential to the survival, the resilience, and the adaptability of these colleges to the challenges that they face (Bailey et al. 2015; Holcombe et al. 2022; Sethares, 2020). The goal of this study is to contribute to that effort by examining the relationship between community college employees’ work motivations and their voice behaviors.

Although work motivation is an essential factor in the understanding and explanation of employee behavior (Gagné et al., 2015; MacDonald et al., 2019; Moller et al., 2019; Ryan & Deci, 2017), it has (surprisingly) rarely been examined in the context of higher education, let alone in community college scholarship. In fact, to our knowledge, no study thus far has explicitly examined the impact of the various types of work motivations identified by Gagné et al. (2015) on community college employees’ behaviors. Yet community colleges, and, in fact, all HEIs constitute important and relevant settings to conduct such investigations. Indeed, people join, stay, and put effort (or not) into their work at these institutions for a variety of reasons and motivations. What are those motivations and, especially, how do they impact their behaviors in these colleges? In this study, given the importance of employee voice to community colleges’ survival, adaptability, and goal achievement, we are interested in examining how community college employees’ work motivations impact their voice behaviors. In other words, our goals here are to explore and, hopefully, identify which (if any) types of work motivation may be significant drivers of employee voice behaviors. Thus, we are interested in examining the following research questions:

RQ1: Is there a relationship between the various types of employee work motivations and promotive voice behavior?

RQ2: Is there a relationship between the various types of employee work motivations and prohibitive voice behavior?

Methods

The data for this study was gathered from a sample of 811 employees at a community college in the southwestern United States. The college is a Hispanic serving institution (HSI) in which employees are not unionized. However, as a collective voice mechanism, the college’s employees do have constituency groups (e.g., faculty senate, professional staff association, and classified staff association) that often (re)present the interests/needs of their members during board of trustees’ meetings. After the study’s IRB approval, all 2,314 employees (those that were on the payroll at the time of data collection) of the organization received a link to the online survey, and they all had a choice to complete it or not. Of the 2,314 employees who were on the organization’s payroll, 811 consented and agreed to participate in the study, providing a response rate of 35.05%. The data was gathered over the course of a couple of months in fall 2020, with several survey completion reminders being sent to participants during that time.

To assess the representativeness of our sample, we compared our sample’s distribution in terms of gender, ethnicity, and employee status to the college’s employee population data at the time of data collection, and the proportions were relatively similar, indicating that our sample provides an adequate representation of the college’s population. For example, in terms of gender, our sample’s distribution was 58.7% female and 39.9% male, while the college employee population’s distribution was 57.5% female and 42.5% males. In terms of ethnicity, 77.3% of our sample identified as Hispanic/Latinx, while 79.5% did so in the college population data. Finally, in terms of employee status, 58% of our sample indicated they were full-time and 42% part-time, while at the college population level the distribution was 52.9% full-time and 47.1% part-time.

Measurement

Age

Based on feedback from certain informants during survey design, age was measured as a categorical variable. So, respondents were provided with 11 age categories from which they had to choose. The age categories ranged from (1) 18–24, (2) 25–29, up to (11) 70 and above. The most common age category in the sample was 55–59 with 112 (14.2%) respondents, and the least common was 18–24 with 35 (4.4%) respondents.

Gender

Respondents chose from (1) female, (2) male, (3) other, or (4) prefer not to answer. The number of respondents was 467 (58.7%) females, 318 (39.9%) males, 2 (.3%) other, and 9 (1.1%) preferred not to answer. Since there were so few respondents who selected options 3 and 4, these respondents were removed from the analyses, and gender was essentially treated as binary to enable meaningful categorical comparisons.

Education Level

Respondents chose from (1) high school diploma, (2) some college, (3) associate degree, (4) bachelor’s degree, (4) master’s degree, and (5) doctoral degree. Among the participants, 9 (1.1%) indicated their highest educational level as a high school diploma, 58 (7.3%) as some college, 161 (20.2%) as an associate degree, 156 (19.6%) as a bachelor’s degree, 348 (43.7%) as a master’s degree, and 64 (8%) as a doctoral degree.

Ethnicity

Respondents chose from (1) YES or (2) NO regarding whether they were of Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. There were 613 (77.3%) respondents who identified as Hispanic/Latinx and 180 (22.7%) who did not.

Race

Respondents choose from (1) White, (2) Black or African American, (3) Asian/Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian, (4) Native American, (5) two or more races/multiracial, and (6) other. Looking at the race data, 600 (75.7%) respondents identified as white, 10 (1.3%) as Black or African American, 11 (1.4%) as Asian/Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian, 21 (2.6%) as Native American, 73 (9.2%) as multiracial, and 78 (9.8%) as other.

Organizational Tenure

Respondents indicated years of employment from less than one year to 50 years. The average length of employment was 14.4 years.

Employee Category

Employee category included (1) classified, (2) professional, (3) administrator, and (4) faculty. There were 238 (30%) classified staff, 130 (16.4%) professional staff, 37 (4.7 %) administrator, and 388 (48.9%) faculty.

Employee Status

Respondents chose from (1) full-time or (2) part-time status. The sample included 459 (58%) full-time employees and 332 (42%) part-time employees.

Second Job

Respondents were asked whether they had another paid job besides their current job at the college. One hundred eighty-eight (23.7%) respondents reported that they had another paid job/occupation besides their job at the organization, and 604 (76.3%) reported that they did not.

Alumni Status

Respondents chose from (1) have attended the institution, (2) graduated from the institution, or (3) have never attended the institution. There were 249 (31.5%) respondents that reported having attended the institution, 332 (42%) that graduated from the institution, and 210 (26.5%) that have never taken a credit course at the institution.

Work Motivation

Work motivation was measured using the multidimensional work motivation scale that (MWMS; Gagné et al., 2015). The MWMS measures the extent to which employees are motivated by various sources/drivers/needs to put effort into their work. The MWMS consists of six dimensions or types of motivation. These are extrinsic regulation—social, extrinsic regulation—material, introjected regulation, identified regulation, intrinsic motivation, and amotivation. The six types of motivation are measured in subscales and all the items on the scale/subscales respond to the item stem “why do you or would you put effort into your current job?” The items on the subscales were measured using a seven-step Likert scale ranging from (1) “strongly disagree” to (7) “strongly agree.” Principal component analyses (with both varimax and oblique rotations) of the 19-item MWM scale with six fixed factors were conducted to assess consistency with Gagné et al.’s (2015) results. Those analyses revealed that two items (i.e., “because I have to prove to myself that I can” and “because it makes me feel proud of myself”) which were originally part of the four-item introjected regulation factor did not load well on any of the six factors. As a result, those two items were removed from that factor and the analysis. Essentially, the 19-item MWM scale was reduced to 17 items measuring six dimensions.

The first dimension or subscale of the MWMS measured extrinsic regulation–social, which refers to motivation to work based on social reasons such as seeking approval or respect from others. This subscale included three items, and higher scores on it indicate that the individual is highly motivated by the expectation of social gain/approval. The reliability for this subscale was good at .85 (M = 4.06, SD = 1.59).

The second subscale of the MWMS measured extrinsic regulation–material, which refers to work motivation based on material reasons such as seeking financial gain or job security. This subscale consisted of three items. Higher scores indicate higher work motivation for material gain. The reliability for this measure was respectable at .77 (M = 3.57, SD = 1.57).

The third subscale of the MWMS measured introjected regulation, which is felt motivation to work from internal pressures such as avoidance of shame or guilt. This subscale originally consisted of four items but was reduced to two items after PCA analyses. Higher scores indicate that avoidance of shame or guilt highly drives an individual to put effort into their work. The reliability for this subscale was excellent at .95 (M = 4.63, SD = 1.95).

The fourth subscale of the MWMS measured identified regulation, which is felt motivation from identifying with shared values or meaning. This subscale included three items. The higher score indicates stronger perceived motivation based on identified shared values. The reliability for this subscale was excellent at 0.91 (M = 6.45, SD = .83).

The fifth subscale of the MWMS measured intrinsic motivation, that is, doing the job for its own sake such as because it is interesting or enjoyable. This subscale consisted of three items. A higher score indicates stronger intrinsic motivation to put effort into one’s job. The alpha reliability for this subscale was excellent at 0.94 (M = 6.14, SD = 1.10).

The final subscale of the MWMS measured amotivation, which simply refers to a lack or absence of motivation for one’s work. As such a higher score shows more perceived lack of motivation. The alpha reliability for this subscale was excellent at 0.92 (M = 1.53, SD = 1.05).

Employee Voice Behavior

Employee voice behavior was measured using a 10-item scale developed by Liang et al. (2012). The scale was designed to measure the degree to which an employee voices suggestions or recommendations for organizational success and includes two dimensions: promotive voice (5 items) and prohibitive voice (5 items). The items on the scale were measured using a seven-step Likert scale ranging from (1) “strongly disagree” to (7) “strongly agree.” The promotive voice subscale measures employees’ propensity to engage in voice behavior meant to express new ideas for improving the function of the organization. The reliability for this subscale was excellent at 0.94 (M = 4.92, SD = 1.40). The prohibitive voice subscale measures employees’ propensity to express concern about practices or activities that are harmful to the organization. The reliability for the prohibitive voice subscale was good at 0.88 (M = 4.86, SD = 1.24).

Table 2 presents the items that were used to measure the key constructs examined in the study, along with the reliabilities of each scale. The reliabilities—assessed here through Cronbach’s Alpha—were used to determine how internally consistent each scale was. In other words, these reliability coefficients are an indication of how closely related a set of items measuring a construct are as a group. As a general rule, alpha scores of 0.70 or higher are considered satisfactory/acceptable (Salkind, 2015).

Table 2.

Scales’ Items Measuring Study’s Key Constructs.

Constructs	Scale items
Amotivation (alpha = .91)	-I don't put effort into my job, because I really feel that I'm wasting my time at work. -I put little effort into my job because I don’t think this work is worth putting effort into. -I don’t know why I’m doing this job; it is pointless work
Extrinsic regulation–social (alpha = .85)	-To get approval from others (e.g., supervisor, colleagues, family, clients . . .) -Because others (e.g., supervisor, colleagues, family, . . .) will respect me more -To avoid being criticized by others (e.g., supervisor, colleagues, family, . . .).
Extrinsic regulation–material (alpha = .77)	-Because others (e.g., employer, supervisor . . .) will reward me financially only if I put enough effort in my job -Because others (e.g., employer, supervisor . . .) offer me greater job security if I put enough effort in my job -Because I risk losing my job if I don’t put enough effort in it
Introjected regulation (alpha = .95)	-Because otherwise I feel ashamed of myself -Because otherwise I will feel bad about myself
Identified regulation (alpha = .91)	-Because I personally consider it important to put effort in this job -Because putting effort in this job aligns with my personal values -Because putting effort in this job has personal significance to me
Intrinsic motivation (alpha = .94)	-Because I have fun doing my job -Because what I do in my work is exciting -Because the work I do is interesting
Promotive voice behavior (alpha = .94)	-I proactively develop and make suggestions for issues that may influence 00915521251389878 -I proactively suggest new projects which are beneficial to 00915521251389878 -I raise suggestions to improve 00915521251389878’s working procedures -I proactively voice constructive suggestions that help 00915521251389878 reach its goals -I make constructive suggestions to improve 00915521251389878’s operations
Prohibitive voice behavior (alpha = .88)	-I advise other colleagues against undesirable behaviors that would hamper job performance -I speak up honestly about problems that might cause serious loss to 00915521251389878, even when/though dissenting opinions exist -I voice out opinions on things that might affect efficiency at 00915521251389878, even if that would embarrass others -I point out problems when they appear at 00915521251389878, even if that would hamper/damage relationships with other colleagues -I proactively report coordination problems at 00915521251389878 to the appropriate personnel

Analysis

To answer the research questions of this study, multiple linear regression analysis was used. Given the impact of the use of self-report questionnaires and the homogeneity of the data sources, there was a potential for common method bias (CMB). Indeed, CMB can occur when the estimates of the relationships between two or more variables are measured with the same method—i.e., within one survey, using the same response technique (Kock et al., 2021). CMB has been widely identified across several disciplines as a threat to the integrity of research results (Kock et al., 2021). To assess the potential for CMB, Harman’s single-factor test was used. In general, if the total variance extracted by the single factor exceeds 50%, CMB is assumed to be present. In this study, the single factors extracted for both regression models accounted for less than 30% (well below the 50% threshold) of the variance, indicating that CMB was not likely present.

To assess autocorrelation and multicollinearity in the regression models, Durbin–Watson statistics and variance inflation factors (VIF) values were examined for all the models. In general, VIF values of less than 5 and Durbin–Watson Statistics near the value of 2—which indicates non-autocorrelation—are considered desirable in multiple regression analysis (Durbin & Watson, 1971). In the two regression models performed, the VIF values for all the predictors ranged from 1.02 to 2.07 (thus < 5), and the Durbin–Watson statistics ranged from 1.98 to 2.05.

Results

Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics and a correlation matrix of the study’s main independent and dependent variables. Notably, of all the types of work motivation examined, only identified regulation and intrinsic motivation were correlated to both promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors. Additionally, there was a strong positive correlation (r = .67, p < .01) between promotive voice behaviors and prohibitive voice behaviors.

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Matrix of Study Variables.

	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Amotivation	1.53	1.05	−	0.11**	0.14**	−0.03	−0.50**	−0.44**	−0.08*	−0.07
2. Extrinsic Regulation-S	4.06	1.59		−	0.54**	0.25**	0.04	0.06	−0.04	0.00
3. Extrinsic Regulation-M	3.57	1.57			−	0.27**	−0.05	0.01	−0.06	−0.06
4. Introjected Regulation	4.63	1.95				−	0.19**	0.08**	−0.05	−0.03
5. Identified Regulation	6.45	0.83					−	0.62**	0.18**	0.13**
6. Intrinsic Motivation	6.14	1.10						−	0.20**	0.15**
7. Promotive voice	4.92	1.40							−	0.67**
8. Prohibitive voice	4.86	1.24								−

Note. *indicates significant (two tailed) correlation at p < .05 and ** at p < .01.

Table 4 presents the results from the hierarchical regression analyses predicting promotive voice behaviors. An examination of the effects of control variables in the model reveals that only two of them, namely employee status and having a second job significantly predicted community college employees’ promotive voice behaviors. Specifically, part-time employees were less likely than full-time employees to engage in promotive voice behaviors. Additionally, community college employees who did not have a second job were more likely than those who did to engage in promotive voice behaviors.

Table 4.

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Promotive Voice Behaviors.

	Step 1		Step 2
Predictors	B	β	B	β
Age	0.00	0.00	−0.01	−0.02
Gender	0.12	0.04	0.18	0.07
Education level	0.09	0.007	0.08	0.06
Ethnicity	0.03	0.01	0.12	0.04
Race	0.06	0.07	0.06	0.07
Tenure	0.01	0.10*	0.01	0.09
Employee category	0.09	0.08	0.04	0.04
Employee status	−0.44	−0.16***	−0.51	−0.18***
Second job	0.38	0.12**	0.35	0.11*
Alumni status	−0.00	−0.00	−0.01	−0.01
Amotivation			0.07	0.05
Extrinsic Regulation-S			−0.03	−0.04
Extrinsic Regulation-M			0.04	0.05
Introjected Regulation			−0.04	−0.06
Identified Regulation			0.19	0.11*
Intrinsic Motivation			0.21	0.17***
∆R² (Change in R²)	0.09***		0.05***
R ²	0.09***		0.13***

Note. *indicates significance at p < .05; ** at p < .01; *** at p < .001.

Regarding the study’s first research question, after controlling for various employee organizational and demographic characteristics, there was a positive relationship between identified regulation and promotive voice behaviors (β = .11, p < .05) and between intrinsic motivation and promotive voice behaviors (β = .17, p < .01). None of the other types of work motivation were significantly related to promotive voice behaviors. In other words, of all the six types of motivation examined, only intrinsic motivation and identified regulation predicted community college employees’ promotive voice behaviors. Moreover, those two types of motivation both positively predicted community college employees’ promotive voice behaviors, with intrinsic motivation having the stronger effect of the two. In sum, these results suggest that employees who engage in promotive voice behaviors tend to be (1) those that are either intrinsically motivated or (2) those for whom the job is personally meaningful/significant.

Table 5 presents the results from the hierarchical regression analyses predicting prohibitive voice behaviors. An examination of the effects of control variables in the regression models reveals that only gender, tenure, and employee status significantly predicted community college employees’ prohibitive voice behaviors. Specifically, community college employees who tended to engage in prohibitive voice behaviors were (1) more likely to be male than female, (2) more likely to have been in the college longer, and (3) more likely to have full-time than part-time status.

Table 5.

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Prohibitive Voice Behaviors.

	Step 1		Step 2
Predictors	B	β	B	β
Age	−0.00	−0.00	−0.01	−0.02
Gender	0.21	0.08*	0.26	0.10**
Education level	0.06	0.06	0.06	0.06
Ethnicity	−0.09	−0.03	−0.04	−0.01
Race	0.03	0.05	0.03	0.05
Tenure	0.02	0.15**	0.02	0.13**
Employee category	0.01	0.01	−0.02	−0.02
Employee status	−0.31	−0.12**	−0.33	−0.13**
Second job	0.20	0.07	0.18	0.06
Alumni status	−0.02	−0.01	−0.03	−0.02
Amotivation			0.04	0.03
Extrinsic Regulation-S			0.02	0.02
Extrinsic Regulation-M			−0.01	−0.01
Introjected Regulation			−0.02	−0.03
Identified Regulation			0.14	0.09
Intrinsic Motivation			0.14	0.12*
∆R² (Change in R²)	0.07***		0.03**
R ²	0.07***		0.10**

Note. *indicates significance at p < .05; ** at p < .01; *** at p < .001.

Regarding the study’s second research question, the results from Table 5 show that, after controlling for various employee organizational and demographic characteristics, only intrinsic motivation was positively related to prohibitive voice behaviors (β = .12, p < .05). None of the other types of work motivation were significantly related to prohibitive voice behaviors. The positive relationship between intrinsic motivation and prohibitive voice behaviors signifies that as community college employees’ intrinsic motivation increased, their propensity to engage in prohibitive voice behaviors also increased.

Overall, the findings suggest that although community college employees’ work motivations matter, not all types of motivation matter. In fact, most of the types of motivation examined did not have a significant relationship with either promotive or prohibitive voice behavior. The specific findings related to the study’s research questions are summarized in Table 6. It is important to note that of all the types of motivation examined in this study, intrinsic motivation, was the strongest or best predictor of both promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors.

Table 6.

Summary of the Main Study’s Findings.

Dependent variable	Specific research question	Finding
Promotive voice behavior	Is there a relationship between amotivation and promotive voice behavior?	NO
	Is there a relationship between Extrinsic regulation–social and promotive voice behavior?	NO
	Is there a relationship between Extrinsic regulation–material and promotive voice behavior?	NO
	Is there a relationship between Introjected regulation and promotive voice behavior?	NO
	Is there a relationship between Identified regulation and promotive voice behavior?	YES, a positive one
	Is there a relationship between Intrinsic motivation and promotive voice behavior?	YES, a positive one
Prohibitive voice behavior	Is there a relationship between amotivation and prohibitive voice behavior?	NO
	Is there a relationship between Extrinsic regulation–social and prohibitive voice behavior?	NO
	Is there a relationship between Extrinsic regulation–material and prohibitive voice behavior?	NO
	Is there a relationship between Introjected regulation and prohibitive voice behavior?	NO
	Is there a relationship between Identified regulation and prohibitive voice behavior?	NO
	Is there a relationship between Intrinsic motivation and prohibitive voice behavior?	YES, a positive one

Discussion

The goal of this study was to examine the relationship between community college employees’ work motivations and their voice behaviors to determine whether different types of work motivation differentially impact employees’ voice behaviors. The results from the analyses suggest that community college employees’ work motivations do matter when it comes to predicting or explaining their voice behaviors. However, not all types of work motivations equally matter. Indeed, of the six work motivation dimensions that were examined, only intrinsic motivation was significantly related to prohibitive voice behaviors, and only intrinsic and identified regulation motivations were significantly related to promotive voice behaviors.

Work Motivation and Promotive Voice Behaviors

The results suggest that two types/forms of motivation, namely identified regulation and intrinsic motivation, are positively related to promotive voice behaviors among community college employees. In other words, community college employees who are motivated by the fact that their job has personal significance to them, and those who work because they enjoy their job and/or derive a sense of satisfaction from seeing the job well done are more likely to voluntarily speak up about ways to improve their college or unit. According to SDT, what identified regulation and intrinsic motivation have in common is that they are the most autonomous forms of motivation (Gagné et al., 2015). In both forms of motivation, the behavior of the individual is self-driven, and they engage in the activities volitionally (Gagné et al., 2015; Ryan & Deci, 2017). An employee high in identified regulation motivation does a job or engages in an activity because they identify with its value or meaning and accepts it as their own—i.e., a reflection of who they are (Gagné & Deci, 2005). Identified regulation motivation differs from intrinsic motivation in that the activity is not done out of inherent enjoyment or interest but for the significance it has or the instrumental value it represents (Gagné et al., 2015).

These two forms of motivation likely were positive drivers of promotive voice behaviors among community college employees because when employees primarily care about the job itself—whether because it gives them satisfaction, or aligns with their values—they are more likely to voluntarily offer suggestions to improve the job environment. Since their work motivation is not controlled or primarily determined by pressure to earn (a reward) or avoid (punishment, shame) something, they are more likely to voluntarily go beyond the proverbial “call of duty” and engage in extra role behaviors such promotive voice behaviors. The positive impact of community college employees’ autonomous forms of motivation on their promotive voice behaviors is consistent with previous research that suggest that employees who are autonomously motivated to do their jobs have more beneficial outcomes such as higher performance and commitment, compared to employees holding controlled types of motivation or amotivation (Gagné & Deci, 2005; Gagné et al., 2015; Ryan & Deci, 2017).

Work Motivation and Prohibitive Voice Behaviors

Employees’ prohibitive voice behaviors are characterized as riskier than promotive voice behaviors because they often imply or are perceived to imply a failure of organizational leaders (Liang et al., 2012). As the content of prohibitive voice highlights dysfunctional, problematic, or negative aspects of work practices, organizational leaders may view employees engaging in prohibitive voice behaviors as complainers, critics, or troublemakers instead of people caring about organizational development (Liang et al., 2012; Morrison, 2014). As such, this type of voice behavior is much more likely to be received/perceived as challenges or threats and may induce opposition or defensiveness among supervisors and colleagues (Morrison, 2014).

With respect to the relationship between work motivation and prohibitive work behaviors, only community college employees who are intrinsically motivated are significantly likely to speak up about problematic issues, harmful practices, or misconduct at work. This may be because employees who are intrinsically motivated tend to seek out challenges and are more driven to push or navigate boundaries, difficulties, and barriers to extend and exercise their capacity to explore, learn, and do their job better (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Intrinsic motivation is the most autonomous form of motivation, and it is fueled by curiosity, passion, and personal fulfillment (Gagné et al., 2015; Gagné & Deci, 2005). It is often the drive that keeps workers perfecting their craft despite limited or no support, or that keeps community college faculty teaching effectively despite the obstacles (e.g., low pay, high workload, etc.), or that keeps runners running when their legs want to quit. Intrinsically motivated employees are more likely to challenge the status quo, even though risky, when they perceive that their job environment is deficient and failing them in some way (Ryan & Deci, 2017). In fact, because intrinsically motivated behavior involves self-directed motivation and is not contingent upon any external reward or punishment, it is both a stronger and longer lasting form of motivation, especially in the face of obstacles (Gagné & Deci, 2005; Kinley & Ben-Hur, 2015).

Controlled Work Motivation and Voice Behaviors

The results also reveal that other types or sources of work motivation—i.e., controlled forms of work motivation—do not play a significant role in shaping employees’ propensity to voluntarily speak up about organizational issues. To better understand those results, it is important to keep in mind at least two things. First, employee voice behaviors are a form of extra-role behavior, which means that they are not specifically mandated as part of employees’ job descriptions (Morrison, 2011, 2014). In other words, voice behaviors constitute an extra effort—beyond what’s required from them—on the part of community college workers who are generally already burdened and insufficiently supported (Dee, 2004; Gibson-Harman et al., 2002; Gonzales & Ayers, 2018). Second, unlike corporations or other organizations that tend to have a lot of resources, relatively sophisticated and/or attractive compensations, benefits, and rewards/incentives packages for their employees, public higher education institutions and, especially community colleges, are comparatively severely underresourced (Gonzales & Ayers, 2018; McCambly et al., 2023) and have much less attractive compensations, benefits, and reward/incentives packages for their employees.

It seems that in chronically underresourced organizational environments such as community colleges (Gonzales & Ayers, 2018; McCambly et al., 2023), relying primarily on compensation, rewards, incentives, and other extrinsic or externally determined sources of motivation is unlikely to motivate employees to engage in extra role behaviors such as voice behaviors. Although very important in many ways, the main problem with using extrinsic motivators as the exclusive or primary source of employee motivation is that they don’t necessarily engage employees beyond the minimum they are required to do as part of their jobs. For engagement above and beyond the minimum requirements of the job, such as when employees engage in voice behaviors, intrinsic motivation is the key. This is especially true, as the results suggest, when the engagement in voice behaviors may be risky(ier), as in the case of prohibitive voice behaviors. Intrinsic motivation is so powerful a motivational tool because it involves employees doing something for its own sake — for the joy and satisfaction of doing it and seeing it done well (Kinley & Ben-Hur, 2015; Ryan & Deci, 2017). That’s why it is necessary for community college leaders to monitor and foster intrinsic motivation in their employees as well as recruit employees who are not only competent but also already intrinsically motivated to do the job/tasks for which they are being hired. Indeed, positive organizational outcomes/behaviors such as high performance, innovativeness, work enjoyment, concentration, initiative (Kinley & Ben-Hur, 2015) and, based on this study’s results, promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors are positively linked to intrinsic motivation.

Implications for Increasing Employee Voice Behaviors

The findings from this study suggest that community college leaders should do whatever they can to foster community college employees’ autonomous motivations (i.e., identified regulation and intrinsic motivation) to increase their voice behaviors. According to SDT, this means satisfying community college employees’ needs for autonomy, competence/mastery, and relatedness/connection (Gagné & Deci, 2005; Kinley & Ben-Hur, 2015; Ryan & Deci, 2017).

The concept of autonomy is essential to the development of autonomous motivation. Autonomy entails that community college employees should feel that they have a degree of choice or flexibility in what they do or how they do things (Ryan & Deci, 2017). When employees lack autonomy, they tend to be more controlled by what others think or do, and they may thus become overly deferential and have a hard time trusting themselves, thinking independently, or making any kind of suggestion (Gagné & Deci, 2005; Kinley & Ben-Hur, 2015). As such, to increase their employees’ feelings of autonomy, community college leaders should for instance involve them appropriately in decision making, ask them for suggestions and feedback on the college’s issues and carefully listen (and take action when appropriate), and interact or communicate with them as partners in the college’s fate (Atouba et al., 2019; Grasmick et al., 2012; Kezar & Holcombe, 2017; Moskell, 2024). When employees feel that their voice matters and their input is valued, they are more likely to offer suggestions to help the college succeed (Atouba, 2021; Atouba et al., 2019). Thankfully, within many community colleges, there has recently been some movement away from “hero” leadership in which a positional leader holds/hoards power, to more participatory forms of leadership that involves, includes, and values the voices of other employees (Eddy et al., 2022; Grasmick et al., 2012; Holcombe et al., 2022; Pierce, 2022). Hopefully that movement will continue and further evolve to more effectively include employee voices.

Competence here refers to the extent to which employees believe that they have performed or are able to perform well at their job (Kinley & Ben-Hur, 2015). Community college leaders should work to enhance their employees’ feelings of competence. To enhance their employees’ feelings of competence, community college leaders should be curious about and attentive to what their employees do, provide positive feedback for work that is well done, and offer encouragement, suggestions for improvement, as well as opportunities for training or professional development when the work is not where it needs to be (Pierce, 2022). Throughout that process, it is important that these leaders communicate confidence in their employees’ ability/potential to reach goals, and frame tasks/goals as worthy challenges to take on (Kinley & Ben-Hur, 2015; Pierce, 2022). Community college leaders should act as coaches whose job is to empower their employees to be the best they can be in their roles (Pierce, 2022).

Relatedness or connection here refers to the extent to which employees feel a sense of purpose and a sense of belonging or connectedness to others through their work (Kinley & Ben-Hur, 2015). To develop a sense of connection, community college leaders should do at least two things. First, they should work to cultivate positive, caring, and supportive relationships with and among their employees. This is unfortunately not always the case at many community colleges (Zoromski & Sasso, 2024). However, fostering camaraderie and creating a safe and positive work climate is important to the nurturing of intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Secondly, community college leaders should help connect their employees’ work to a higher and worthwhile purpose/cause (e.g., moral/ethical, political, spiritual, organizational, etc.). In other words, they should help their employees find meaning in their work. Most people have a need to feel that their work makes a (worthwhile) difference and that their efforts are not in vain; otherwise, they become demotivated (Chalofsky, 2010). As such, it is important for community college leaders to frequently convey to their employees how much their work matters or makes a positive difference to the college, the students, the greater community, the nation, or other important/relevant constituencies.

Finally, as mentioned in the discussion, community college leaders should make sure that the right employees are in the right positions (Pierce, 2022). This should ideally be done during the hiring process. However, even beyond the hiring process, it is very important that these leaders get to know their employees, what they enjoy doing, where they excel, and use that information to recommend or promote them to roles where they may best serve the college.

Limitations and Future Directions

This study has several limitations which could inspire future studies on the topic. First, our study uses a cross-sectional design; as such, any causal inference made from it should be interpreted with caution. Future research could use a longitudinal or time-lag design to further strengthen the results and conclusions. Second, the data for this study was collected from only one community college, an HSI, during the COVID pandemic which was a time of very high uncertainty, disruption, and turbulence for colleges, their employees, and in fact everyone (Kurlaender et al., 2024). Thus, it is possible that the results could reflect the unique context of that college at that time. Future research should replicate this study under more “normal” conditions in other community colleges and HEIs across the country. Third, the data from the study are essentially self-reports from the same source which may raise concerns about common method bias. Although the Harman single factor test found no major concern about CMB, future research may use multiple data sources and triangulation techniques for better results.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Yannick C. Atouba

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Jessie S. Arellano M.A., is a doctoral student in the college of education at the University of Texas at El Paso. She is interested in improving the management, leadership, and performance of higher education organizations.

Yannick C. Atouba Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of organizational communication and director of graduate studies in the Department of Communication at the University of Texas at El Paso. His research examines communication and organizing across a variety of contexts.

References

Atouba

(2021). How does participation impact IT workers’ organizational commitment? Examining the mediating roles of internal communication adequacy, burnout and job satisfaction. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 42(4), 580–592. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-09-2020-0422

Atouba

Carlson

E. J.

Lammers

J. C.

(2019). Directives and dialogue: Examining the relationship between participative organizational communication practices and organizational identification among IT workers. International Journal of Business Communication, 56(4), 530–559. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488416672430

Bai

Lin

Liu

J. T.

(2019) Leveraging the employee voice: A multi-level social learning perspective of ethical leadership. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(12), 1869–1901. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2017.1308414

Bailey

T. R.

Jaggars

S. S.

Jenkins

(2015). Redesigning America’s community colleges: A clearer path to student success. Harvard University Press.

Botero

I. C.

Van Dyne

(2009). Employee voice behavior: Interactive effects of LMX and power distance in the United States and Colombia. Management Communication Quarterly, 23(1), 84–104. doi: 10.1177/0893318909335415

Bradburn

Townsend

(2014). Higher education’s missing faculty voices. Chronicle of Higher Education, 60(38), 34–35. https://www.chronicle.com/article/higher-educations-missing-faculty-voices/

Budd

J. W.

Gollan

P. J.

Wilkinson

(2010). New approaches to employee voice and participation in organizations. Human Relations, 63(3), 303–310.

Chalofsky

(2010). Meaningful workplaces. Jossey-Bass.

Cloud

R. C.

(2010). Epilogue: Change leadership and leadership development. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2010(149), 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.398

10.

Dee

J. R.

(2004). Turnover intent in an urban community college: Strategies for faculty retention. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28(7), 593–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920490467242

11.

Detert

J. R.

Burris

E. R.

Harrison

D. A.

Martin

S. R.

(2013). Voice flows to and around leaders: Understanding when units are helped or hurt by employee voice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(4), 624–668.

12.

Detert

J. R.

Burris

E. R.

(2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869–884.

13.

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.

14.

Durbin

Watson

G. S.

(1971). Testing for serial correlation in least squares regression III. Biometrika, 58, 1–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2334313

15.

Eddy

P. L.

VanDerLinden

Hartman

(2022). Changing definitions of leadership or same old “hero” leader? Community College Review, 51(1), 30–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/00915521221125304

16.

Ferraro

Pais

Moreira

J. M.

Dos Santos

N. R.

(2018). Decent work and work motivation in knowledge workers: The mediating role of psychological capital. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 13(2), 501.

17.

Fuller

R. W.

(2006). All rise: Somebodies, nobodies, and the politics of dignity. Berrett-Koehler.

18.

Fuller

Raman

(2022). The partnership imperative: Community colleges, employers, and America’s chronic skills gap. Harvard Business School.

19.

Gagné

Deci

E. L.

(2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322

20.

Gagné

Forest

Vansteenkiste

Crevier-Braud

Broeck

A. V. D.

Aspeli

A. K.

Westbye

(2015). Multidimensional work motivation scale. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(2), 178–196. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2013.877892

21.

Gibson-Harman

Rodriguez

Grant Haworth

(2002). Community college faculty and professional staff: The human resource challenge. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2002(117), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.55

22.

Gonzales

L. D.

Ayers

D. F.

(2018). The convergence of institutional logics on the community college sector and the normalization of emotional labor: A new theoretical approach for considering the community college faculty labor expectations. Review of Higher Education, 41(3), 455–478. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2018.0015

23.

Grasmick

Davies

T. G.

Harbour

C. P.

(2012). Participative leadership: Perspectives of community college presidents. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 36(2), 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920802421496

24.

Hammond

Baser

Cassell

(2020). The relationships between state community college governance centralization and local appropriations. Higher Education Politics & Economics, 6(1), 20–38. doi: 10.32674/hepe.v6i1.1734

25.

Henning

M. A.

Zhou

Adams

Moir

Hobson

Hallett

Webster

C.S.

(2017). Workplace harassment among staff in higher education: A systematic review. Asia Pacific Education Review, 18(4), 521–539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-017-9499-0

26.

Hirschman

A. O.

(1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Harvard University Press.

27.

Holcombe

E. M.

Kezar

A. J.

Elrod

S. L.

Ramaley

J. A.

(Eds.). (2022). Shared leadership in higher education: A framework and models for responding to a changing world (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003446965

28.

Hubbell

A. P.

Chory-Assad

R. M.

(2005). Motivating factors: Perceptions of justice and their relationship with managerial and organizational trust. Communication Studies, 56(1), 47–70. doi: 10.1080/0008957042000332241

29.

Jha

Potnuru

R. K. G.

Sareen

Shaju

(2019). Employee voice, engagement and organizational effectiveness: A mediated model. European Journal of Training and Development, 43(7/8), 699–718. doi: 10.1108/ejtd-10-2018-0097

30.

Jolly

P. M.

Lee

(2021). Silence is not golden: Motivating employee voice through inclusive leadership. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research (Washington, D.C.), 45(6), 1092–1113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348020963699

31.

Kater

S. T.

(2017). Community college faculty conceptualizations of shared governance: Shared understandings of a sociopolitical reality. Community College Review, 45(3), 234–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552117700490

32.

Kezar

A. J.

Holcombe

E. M.

(2017). Shared leadership in higher education: Important lessons from research and practice. American Council on Education.

33.

Kinley

Ben-Hur

(2015). Changing employee behavior: A practical guide for managers. Palgrave: MacMillan.

34.

Koch

(2020). Impacts of recent crises on enrollment and finances at public higher education institutions. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 52(6), 12–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2020.1839313

35.

Kock

Berbekova

Assaf

A. G.

(2021). Understanding and managing the threat of common method bias: Detection, prevention and control. Tourism Management, 86, Article 104330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104330

36.

Kurlaender

Cooper

Rodriguez

Bush

(2024). From the disruption of the pandemic: A path forward for community colleges. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 56(3), 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2024.2349456

37.

LePine

J. A.

Van Dyne

(2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with big five personality characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(2), 326–336.

38.

Levin

J. S.

Cox

E. M.

Cerven

Haberler

(2010). The recipe for promising practices in community colleges. Community College Review, 38(1), 31–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552110374505

39.

Liang

Farh

C. I. C.

Farh

J. L.

(2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: a two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 71–92.

40.

Lyons

F. W.

Akroyd

(2014). The impact of human capital and selected job rewards on community college faculty job satisfaction. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 38(2–3), 194–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2014.851965

41.

MacDonald

Kelly

Christen

(2019). A path model of workplace solidarity, satisfaction, burnout, and motivation. International Journal of Business Communication, 56(1), 31–49. doi: 10.1177/2329488414525467

42.

Mao

C. M.

DeAndrea

D. C.

(2019). How anonymity and visibility affordances influence employees’ decisions about voicing workplace concerns. Management Communication Quarterly, 33(2), 160–188. doi: 10.1177/0893318918813202

43.

Martinez

(2019). “The Rules Change”: Exploring faculty experiences and work expectations within a drifting community college context. Community College Review, 47(2), 111–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552119835022

44.

Mayfield

Cutler White

Downs

Erlandson

(2022). Expanding advocacy for community college success. New Directions for Community Colleges, 197, 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20494

45.

McCambly

H. N.

Aguilar-Smith

Felix

E. R.

Baber

L. D.

(2023). Community colleges as racialized organizations: Outlining opportunities for equity. Community College Review, 51(4), 658–679. https://doi.org/10.1177/00915521231182121

46.

Moller

A. C.

Jager

A. J.

Williams

G. C.

Kao

A. C.

(2019). US physicians’ work motivation and their occupational health: A national survey of practicing physicians. Medical Care, 5, 334.

47.

Mori

Cavaliere

Sassetti

Caputo

(2022). Employee voice: A knowledge map to provide conceptual clarity and future research directions. Journal of Management & Organization, 30(6), 1873–1899. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2022.89

48.

Morris

(2017). Challenges and opportunities facing the community college president in the 21st century. Journal of Research on the College President, 1. https://collegepresidentresearch.uark.edu/2017/12/challenges-opportunities-facing-community-college-president/

49.

Morrison

E. W.

(2011). Employee voice behaviour: Integration and directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373–412. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2011.574506

50.

Morrison

E. W.

(2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 173–197.

51.

Moskell

(2024). Elevating staff voices in higher education. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/career-advice/advancing-administrator/2024/07/03/how-harness-full-potential-higher-ed-staff

52.

Mowbray

P. K.

Wilkinson

Tse

H. H.

(2015). An integrative review of employee voice: Identifying a common conceptualization and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(3), 382–400. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12045

53.

T. W. H.

Feldman

D. C.

(2012). Employee voice behavior: A meta-analytic test of the conservation of resources framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(2), 216–234. doi: 10.1002/job.754

54.

Nix

A. N.

Bertrand Jones

Daniels

(2024). “There’s so much that we’re doing”: How Florida college system institutions address basic needs insecurity among students. Community College Review, 52(3), 334–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/00915521211047674

55.

Osburn

Gocial

T. M.

(2019). Trust in administrators among community college faculty members. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 44(10–12), 899–913. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2019.1666064

56.

Oyetunde

Prouska

McKearney

(2022). Voice in non-traditional employment relationships: A review and future research directions. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 33(1), 142–167.

57.

Pierce

(2022, June/July). Everybody is a leader. Community College Journal, 28–33. https://www.ccjournal-digital.com/ccjournal/library/item/june_july_2022/4021785/

58.

Pinder

C. C.

(1998). Work motivation in organizational behavior. Prentice hall.

59.

Posch

Bleier

Lechner

C. M.

Danner

Flöck

Strohmaier

(2019). Measuring motivations of crowdworkers. ACM Transactions on Social Computing, 2(2), 1–34. doi: 10.1145/3335081

60.

Prouska

Nyfoudi

Psychogios

Szamosi

L. T.

Wilkinson

(2023). Solidarity in action at a time of crisis: The role of employee voice in relation to communication and horizontal solidarity behaviour. British Journal of Management, 34(1), 91–110.

61.

Ruck

Welch

Menara

(2017). Employee voice: An antecedent to organisational engagement. Public Relations Review, 43(5), 904–914.

62.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 64–67.

63.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press.

64.

Salkind

(2015). Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics (1st ed.). SAGE

65.

Sethares

(2020). The impacts of neoliberalism on US community colleges: Reclaiming faculty voice in academic governance (1st ed.). Routledge.

66.

Singh

(2016). The impact of intrinsic and extrinsic motivators on employee engagement in information organizations. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 57(2), 197–206. doi: 10.12783/issn.2328-2967/57/2/11

67.

Sun

P.-C.

Pan

F.-T.

C.-W.

(2016). Does motivating language matter in leader–subordinate communication? Chinese Journal of Communication, 9(3), 264–282.

68.

Tovar

(2015). The role of faculty, counselors, and support programs on latino/a community college students’ success and intent to persist. Community College Review, 43(1), 46–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552114553788

69.

Van Dyne

Le Pine

J. A.

(1998). Helping and voice extra-role behavior, evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108–119.

70.

Wallin

D. L.

(2010). Looking to the future: Change leaders for tomorrow’s community colleges. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2010(149), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.390

71.

Wijaya

N. H. S.

(2019). Proactive personality, LMX, and voice behavior: Employee–supervisor sex (dis)similarity as a moderator. Management Communication Quarterly, 33(1), 86–100. doi: 10.1177/0893318918804890

72.

Wilkinson

Barry

Morrison

(2020). Toward an integration of research on employee voice. Human Resource Management Review, 30(1), Article 100677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.12.001

73.

Wilkinson

Gollan

P. J.

Kalfa

(2018). Voices unheard: Employee voice in the new century. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(5), 711–724. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2018.1427347

74.

Zoromski

Sasso

P. A.

(2024). Transactional and stopgap relationships between community college department chairs and their adjuncts. Community College Review, 52(2), 210–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/00915521231218239