Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study examines the empowering effect of transformational leadership on employees’ promotive voice behavior. In addition, the mediating effect of organization-based self-esteem and the moderating effect of job insecurity were investigated. Survey data were collected from 128 Chilean employees (enrolled in an executive business specialization program at a major Chilean university) three times using a time-lagged design. Latent moderated structural equation modeling was conducted to test the research hypotheses using Mplus. Results indicate that organization-based self-esteem fully mediates the positive relationship between transformational leadership and employees’ promotive voice behavior. Job insecurity had no significant moderating effect. This article contributes to the literature on transformational leadership by (1) providing insight into the role of organization-based self-esteem as a mechanism of follower transformation, (2) studying the boundary condition of quantitative job insecurity that may influence the effectiveness of transformational leadership, and (3) using a three-wave time-lagged design to understand these relationships.

Keywords

Organization-based self-esteem promotive voice behavior quantitative job insecurity social identity theory transformational leadership

Introduction

Promotive voice behavior, i.e., a type of performance where employees proactively express constructive ideas to challenge and improve the organization’s status quo, has been demonstrated to be a crucial employee outcome for organizations that enhances their performance (Van Dyne and LePine, 1998). This behavior goes beyond normal role expectations or role requirements, shows organizational effectiveness, and brings a mechanism to develop innovation, restructuring tasks, coordination, and preventing or correcting errors (Morrison, 2014; Ng and Feldman, 2012). Transformational leadership has been repeatedly studied and proved to promote desirable employee outcomes like voice behavior. Specifically, transformational leadership motivates followers to pursue collective benefits beyond their self-interests by role modeling, encouraging innovative thoughts, elaborating inspirational visions, and addressing followers’ personalized concerns (Bass, 1999; Siangchokyoo et al., 2020). This leadership style generates a robust personal identification with employees, building strong relationships with them, and motivating them to speak up (Duan et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2011). Employees’ comfort in voicing concerns is herewith promoted, suggesting new ideas, and feeling safe to express themselves (Svendsen and Joensson, 2016). However, despite this progress being made in the field of transformational leadership and its impact on employee voice behavior, we argue that research in this field can be improved in three ways.

First, while scholars have theorized and examined collective identification, value internalization, and self-efficacy as mechanisms to mediate transformational leadership and different performance behaviors such as voice (e.g., Bass, 1985; Lu and Li, 2021; Schaubroeck et al., 2016), the mediating role of organization-based self-esteem has been less investigated (Siangchokyoo et al., 2020). This resource helps employees stay positive, feel valued, and cope with difficulties linked with personal and organizational outcomes (Bakker, 2011; Kim and Beehr, 2018). Following social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1986), we argue that the degree to which an employee believes they are a capable, significant, and worthy member of an organization (Pierce et al., 1989) may prompt employees’ extra-role behaviors for the benefit of the organization (Bowling et al., 2010; He and Brown, 2013). In response to the call by Siangchokyoo and colleagues (2020), we therefore investigate organization-based self-esteem as a mediating mechanism between transformational leadership and promotive voice behavior.

Second, transformational leadership can help followers cope with uncertainty and adapt effectively to tasks and organizations (Shadraconis, 2013; Turan and Sny, 1996). However, much of the research concerning transformational leadership and promotive voice behavior has focused on leadership as an isolated predictor variable and has not considered the role of uncertain environments related to the job, such as feelings of job insecurity (Tangirala and Ramanujam, 2012). This implies that employees are insecure about their jobs for different uncertain environmental reasons such as economic downturns, increased competition, organizational restructuring, outsourcing, and many others (López et al., 2022; Muñoz Medina et al., 2023; Shoss, 2017). Given the importance of uncertain environments, researchers have called for more studies on how contextual variables interact with leadership to increase or decrease the effect of leadership behaviors (Alves et al., 2024; Ashford et al., 2009). In light of the growing concerns about precarious employment and unemployment worldwide due to recent economic, health, wars, and geopolitical crises (ILO, 2020, 2023), we examine job insecurity as a potential boundary condition, i.e., moderator, that may impact the relationship between transformational leadership and organization-based self-esteem.

Finally, although most studies on leadership suggest that transformational leadership predicts voice behaviors, these studies often employ cross-sectional designs, which restrict the ability to examine how leadership and voice behaviors evolve over time or to explore potential reciprocal relationships between the two constructs (Svendsen et al., 2018). As a result, there is a lack of research utilizing time-lagged and longitudinal designs, which could offer deeper insights into the temporal dynamics of follower transformation. Time-lagged studies are essential for understanding how transformational leadership can change followers, ultimately leading to beneficial work outcomes (Siangchokyoo et al., 2020; Svendsen et al., 2018).

In sum, our research contributes to the transformational leadership literature in three ways. First, drawing on social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1986), we propose and examine organization-based self-esteem as a mediating mechanism for follower transformation that empowers employees’ pro-organizational behaviors, i.e., promotive voice (Siangchokyoo et al., 2020). In addition, we shed light on a crucial yet under-investigated boundary condition, i.e., quantitative job insecurity, for follower transformation, drawing on conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989), as an important moderator. Finally, we employed a time-lagged design to respond to calls as suggested by Siangchokyoo et al.’s (2020) and Svendsen’s et al. (2018) studies.

Theory and hypotheses

Transformational leadership, organization-based self-esteem, and employees’ promotive voice behavior

As a type of extra-role behavior that is not prescribed by job requirements and is not formally rewarded or punished, promotive voice behavior refers to an employee proactively expressing constructive ideas to challenge and improve the organization’s status quo (Van Dyne and LePine, 1998). Research findings support the idea that promotive voice behavior should be encouraged as it can boost team productivity (Li et al., 2017), enhance workplace inclusion (Um-e-Rubbab and Naqvi, 2020), and promote organizational innovation (Shin et al., 2022). Employees are more likely to undertake voice behaviors when their suggestions are solicited, supported, valued, and taken seriously by their supervisors (Detert and Treviño, 2010; Janssen and Gao, 2015; Tangirala and Ramanujam, 2012).

Podsakoff et al. (1990) and Carless et al. (2000) summarized that transformational leaders are characterized by seven typical leadership behaviors, including: (1) vision – communicating an inspirational vision of the organization that motivates and guides their followers; (2) employee development – facilitating followers’ personal development by giving constructive advice and delegating responsibilities that cater to followers’ personal needs and capabilities; (3) supportive leadership – giving constructive feedback and recognition for followers’ individual and team achievements and competence; (4) empowerment – empowering followers by involving them in the team’s or organization’s decision-making and problem-solving processes and fostering a collaborative and participatory culture; (5) innovative thinking – stimulating followers’ lateral thinking and innovative behaviors; (6) lead by example – serving as a role model for followers to emulate; and (7) charisma – convincing and motivating followers through the leader’s charm, talent, and excellent competence.

Organization-based self-esteem denotes the extent to which employees perceive themselves as worthy and competent members of their employing organization (Pierce et al., 1989). According to the research, employees achieve high organization-based self-esteem when they acknowledge that working as an organizational member allows them to fully display their self-value and competence (Tajfel and Turner, 1986). Recognition of their competency and contributions to the organization by significant others, such as leaders, can also enhance employees’ organization-based self-esteem (Pierce and Gardner, 2004).

Social identity theory (SIT) (Tajfel and Turner, 1986) can be used to explain the mediating role of organization-based self-esteem in the relationship between transformational leadership and promotive voice behavior. Organization-based self-esteem refers to individuals’ sense of self that is linked to their membership in a particular social category or group (Tajfel and Turner, 1986) and proposes that individuals instinctively pursue and maintain a positive self-evaluation of their social identity in order to enhance their collective self-esteem, namely a self-perception that they are competent and valuable members of specific social groups (Luhtanen and Crocker, 1992). This positive self-perception motivates individuals to engage in constructive behaviors that make their in-groups superior to out-groups (Turner et al., 1987). Through these behaviors, transformational leaders recognize their followers’ capabilities and contributions to the organization, facilitate their growth, and encourage them to manifest self-value in the workplace (Carless et al., 2000). This is likely to boost followers’ perceived self-worth and competence in working as organizational members and thus enhance their organization-based self-esteem. Previous research based on cross-sectional data also indicates positive associations between transformational leadership behaviors and followers’ organization-based self-esteem (Kark et al., 2003; Kensbock and Boehm, 2016; Twigg, 2008; Zhao et al., 2023). In addition, SIT suggests that positive organization-based self-esteem may inspire employees to share constructive ideas for organizational improvement to sustain positive self-perception (Tajfel and Turner, 1986). Studies herewith show a positive correlation between employees’ organization-based self-esteem and promotive voice behavior (Jahanzeb and Newell, 2022; Liang et al., 2012).

We contend that transformational leaders can stimulate employees’ promotive voice through organization-based self-esteem because they foster open communication and proactively solicit and appreciate employees’ suggestions for collective decision-making and problem-solving (Carless et al., 2000; Podsakoff et al., 1990). Previous research has explored various mechanisms via which transformational leadership empowers employees’ promotive voice, including psychological safety (Detert and Burris, 2007), leader expectations (Duan et al., 2022), and meaningful work (Chen et al., 2018). However, when it comes to the mediating role of self-efficacy in the relationship between transformational leadership and employee outcomes, studies show a less consistent result. Some studies did not find a mediating role of self-efficacy (e.g., Lyons and Schneider, 2009; Schaubroeck et al., 2016; Tims et al., 2011), while others did find self-efficacy to act as mediating mechanisms (Wang et al., 2015). Building on social identity theory and empirical evidence supporting the positive relationship between transformational leadership and organization-based self-esteem, and between organization-based self-esteem and promotive voice behavior, we hypothesize that:

H1. Transformational leadership is positively related to employees’ promotive voice behavior via organization-based self-esteem.

The moderating role of quantitative job insecurity

Due to rapid organizational changes such as outsourcing, downsizing, and restructuring, employees may experience a sense of job insecurity in the workplace (Sora et al., 2010). Quantitative job insecurity pertains to the fear of unwillingly losing the current job in the near future (Hellgren et al., 1999; Låstad et al., 2015), which can cause employees to doubt their competence and value to the organization. Job insecurity is defined as ‘subjectively experienced anticipation of a fundamental and involuntary event related to job loss’ (Sverke et al., 2002: 243).

Building on conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989), we argue that employees with high levels of job insecurity may experience a threat or real loss of resources (i.e., employment and its accompanying benefits), which makes them likely to experience symptoms of strain and reduced sense of control. As a result, they withdraw from activities that further drain their resources (Alves et al., 2024). Thus, employees decrease their task performance and do not engage in extra-role behaviors that take up their resources (König et al., 2010), such as voice (Xia et al., 2020). When employees feel insecure, they may become less trusting of leadership, diminishing their ability to internalize the positive reinforcement offered by transformational leaders. This may create an inverse buffering effect, where job insecurity weakens the beneficial relationship between transformational leadership and organization-based self-esteem and in turn promotive voice behavior.

Empirical evidence supports the notion that environmental insecurity attenuated the positive indirect effect of transformational leadership on employees’ organizational commitment via leadership effectiveness (Van Dierendonck et al., 2014). Hence, we could infer that it may be harder for transformational leaders to convince or inspire employees at risk of job loss than those in stable employment that they are worthy and proficient organizational members.

H2. Quantitative job insecurity moderates the positive relationship between transformational leadership and employees’ organization-based self-esteem, such that the relationship between transformational leadership and organization-based self-esteem is weaker among employees experiencing higher levels of quantitative job insecurity.

H3. Quantitative job insecurity moderates the positive relationship between transformational leadership and employees’ organization-based self-esteem, such that the indirect relationship between transformational leadership and promotive voice behavior via organization-based self-esteem is weaker among employees experiencing higher levels of quantitative job insecurity.

Figure 1 illustrates our conceptual model and hypotheses.

Figure 1.

Conceptual model.

Methods

Participants and procedure

Data were collected using a face-to-face survey with Chilean employees who were enrolled in an executive business specialization program at a major Chilean university in three waves between August and October 2022, with a one-month time lag between each wave. These time lags are consistent with previous empirical studies on related constructs (e.g., Shoss, 2017; Sverke et al., 2019). The first data collection (Time 1), measuring transformational leadership and quantitative job insecurity, was performed in August; the second collection (Time 2), measuring organization-based self-esteem, was carried out in September; and the third collection (Time 3), measuring promotive voice behavior, was carried out in October. A research assistant with training in research methods from the university helped collect data and inform participants about the project’s purpose, value, and voluntary nature. Participants signed a statement of informed consent, and a personal identification code was used to match each questionnaire to the participant throughout the study while ensuring data anonymity and confidentiality. In addition, it was indicated that the data would be analyzed by the principal investigator only and used for scientific purposes. Furthermore, in the letter it was highlighted that the data were not shared with employers. The university’s official research ethics committee approved the study and it involved minimal risk to participants.

To mitigate common method bias, methodological suggestions were followed such as emphasizing voluntary participation, anonymity, confidentiality, and no standard answer (Conway and Lance, 2010), and measuring the predictor, mediator, and outcome variables separately with a one-month time lag (Podsakoff et al., 2011). Also, the data were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis (McGonagle, 2017; Podsakoff et al., 2003; Simmering et al., 2015) and Harman’s single factor test (Andersson and Bateman, 1997; Aulakh and Gençtürk, 2000) to establish discriminant validity (Simmering et al., 2015).

According to the GPower test (using the a priori power analysis, with an effect size of 0.15, three tested predictors, and five as total number of predictors including control variables, with a power of 0.95), a total sample size of 119 was necessary for our analysis. The final sample consisted of 128 employees who completed all three questionnaires and provided complete answers. The analyses were carried out by deleting a list of cases where data were missing (Piszczek, 2017). The final sample rate was 46% of the initial sample.

Most participants were women (64.06%) with an average age of 31.57 years and an average organizational tenure of 4.00 years. The proportion of participants who finished postgraduate, bachelor, and technical education was 68.75%, 28.91%, and 2.34%, respectively.

Measures

We utilized Brislin’s (1970) back-translation procedure to translate the survey items from English to Spanish. The predictor of transformational leadership, the moderator of quantitative job insecurity, and the control variables of participants’ sex, age, and tenure were measured at Time 1 (T1). The mediator of organization-based self-esteem was measured at Time 2 (T2). Promotive voice behavior was measured at Time 3 (T3).

Transformational leadership

Participants reported how often their direct supervisor displayed transformational leadership behaviors using seven items developed by Carless et al. (2000) on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = never, 7 = always). A sample item is ‘My direct supervisor fosters trust, involvement and cooperation among team members’ (α = 0.93).

Quantitative job insecurity

Quantitative job insecurity was measured by three items developed by Låstad et al. (2015). A sample item is ‘I am afraid I may lose my job in the near future’ (α = 0.67).

Organization-based self-esteem

Participants completed 10 items assessing their organization-based self-esteem on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) developed by Pierce et al. (1989). A sample item is ‘I am valuable around here’ (α = 0.95).

Promotive voice behavior

We adapted six items from Van Dyne and LePine (1998) to examine employees’ promotive voice behavior. Participants self-reported the frequency of undertaking these behaviors over the past month on a five-point Likert scale (1 = very little, 5 = a great deal). A sample item is ‘I keep well informed about issues where my opinion might be useful to my work group’ (α = 0.94).

Control variables

Based on previous research (e.g., Ilyas et al., 2021; Mo and Shi, 2018; Takeuchi et al., 2012), we included participants’ sex (1 = female, 0 = male), age (years), and tenure (years) as control variables given their potential influence on employees’ voice behaviors.

Analytical strategy

We used Mplus 8.3 for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to examine the construct validity of five latent variables. Due to non-normal distribution and small sample size, we used maximum likelihood (ML) estimation with 5000 bootstrap samples to generate less biased results (Fox, 2015). The four-factor CFA model (χ²₍₂₇₇₎ = 418.89, p < 0.01, RMSEA = 0.06, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.95, SRMR = 0.08) had a better fit than the one-factor CFA model (χ²₍₂₈₃₎ = 1396.60, p < 0.01, RMSEA = 0.18, CFI = 0.64, TLI = 0.58, SRMR = 0.19), supporting the discriminant validity between the four latent variables.

For testing the hypotheses with latent variables of transformational leadership and quantitative job insecurity as predictor and moderator, respectively, we utilized Mplus 8.3’s latent moderated structural equation modeling (LMS) function. Given its more accurate estimates, increased power of detecting significant interaction effects, and statistical efficiency, LMS is preferred over the regression and the product–indicator approaches to assessing the moderating effect of latent variables (Maslowsky et al., 2015; Schoemann and Jorgensen, 2021). Since the AIC and BIC are the only available model fit indices for the LMS model in Mplus 8.3, we followed Maslowsky et al.’s (2015) two-step approach for model fit by fitting Model 0 (null model) without the interaction term and Model 1 including the interaction term using the MLR estimation. We decided to include the interaction term because Model 0 fitted data well (χ²₍₄₃₂₎ = 630.98, p < 0.01, RMSEA = 0.06, CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.92, SRMR = 0.08, AIC = 9034.73, adjusted BIC = 8995.00) and Model 1 had slightly better fit (AIC = 9033.20, adjusted BIC = 8993.14). Lastly, we replicated Model 1 using Bayesian estimation and MCMC algorithm with 20000 iterations for more unbiased results than the ML and MLR methods (Asparouhov and Muthén, 2021; Wang and Preacher, 2015).

Results

Descriptive statistics

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations, and reliabilities of research variables. All the correlations were significant and consistent with hypotheses except for those between transformational leadership and promotive voice behavior (r = 0.15, p = 0.13). The Cronbach’s alpha values range from 0.67 to 0.94, demonstrating acceptable reliabilities of the instruments (Taber, 2018).

Table 1.

The descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations, and reliabilities of study measures.

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Sex (0 = male, 1 = female) (T1)	0.64	0.48
2. Age (T1)	31.57	5.82	−0.23**
3. Organizational tenure (T1)	4.00	4.38	−0.16	0.49**
4. Transformational leadership (T1)	4.77	1.31	0.06	0.01	0.16	0.93
5. Quantitative job insecurity (T1)	3.52	1.15	−0.02	0.02	−0.25*	−0.25*	0.67
6. Organization-based self-esteem (T2)	5.49	1.10	−0.02	0.09	0.10	0.41**	−0.15	0.95
7. Promotive voice behavior (T3)	3.75	0.90	0.09	0.06	0.06	0.15	−0.17	0.30**	0.94

p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01. Sample size N = 128. M = mean. SD = standard deviation. Reliabilities in terms of Cronbach’s alpha are presented in bold on the diagonals. T1, T2, and T3 refer to three time points of data collection with a one-month time lag, respectively. Gender, age, organizational tenure, transformational leadership, and quantitative job insecurity were measured at T1; organization-based self-esteem was measured at T2; promotive voice behavior was measured at T3.

Hypothesis testing

Table 2 presents the results of the LMS analysis. Transformational leadership at T1 had a moderate-to-strong positive direct effect on employees’ organization-based self-esteem at T2 (β = 0.41, SE = 0.10, 95% CI [0.22, 0.62]), indicating that leaders who exhibit transformational behaviors significantly contribute to employees’ perception of self-worth within the organization. This effect size suggests that leadership behaviors that inspire and develop employees are substantial contributors to organizational self-esteem.

Table 2.

The results of latent moderated structural equation modeling (LMS) on promotive voice behavior.

	Organization-based self-esteem (T2)				Promotive voice behavior (T3)
	β	SE	p	95% CI	β	SE	p	95% CI
Control variables
Sex	0.083	0.25	0.22	[−0.28, 0.67]	0.064	0.15	0.22	[−0.18, 0.43]
Age	−0.106	0.02	0.25	[−0.06, 0.03]	0.129	0.01	0.12	[−0.01, 0.05]
Organizational tenure	0.080	0.03	0.27	[−0.04, 0.08]	0.049	0.02	0.36	[−0.03, 0.05]
Study variables
Transformational leadership (T1)	0.41**	0.10	< 0.01	[0.22, 0.62]	0.92	0.06	0.47	[−0.12, 0.13]
Quantitative job insecurity (T1)	−0.07	0.16	0.34	[−0.38, 0.24]
Organization-based self-esteem (T2)					15.6**	0.06	< 0.01	[0.05, 0.31]
Transformational leadership × Quantitative job insecurity	−0.17	0.10	0.04	[−0.38, 0.03]
Mediation effect ^a					0.07**	0.03	< 0.01	[0.02, 0.14]
Index of moderated mediation					−0.03	0.02	0.05	[−0.08, 0.004]
R ²	0.26**	0.08	< 0.01	[0.12, 0.41]	0.15**	0.06	< 0.01	[0.049, 0.269]

The indirect effect of transformational leadership (T1) on promotive voice behavior (T3), via organization-based self-esteem.

p < 0.01. Sample size N = 128. β = standardized coefficients. SE = standard errors. 95% CI = 95% credibility intervals based on Bayesian estimation and the Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm with 20000 iterations.

The direct effect of transformational leadership at T1 on employees’ promotive voice behaviors at T3 was not statistically significant (β = 0.92, SE = 0.06, 95% CI [–0.12, 0.13]). Employees’ organization-based self-esteem at T2 strongly positively affected their promotive voice behavior at T3 (β = 15.6, SE = 0.06, 95% CI [0.05, 0.31]). Furthermore, the positive relationship between transformational leadership at T1 and employees’ promotive voice behaviors at T3 was fully mediated by employees’ organization-based self-esteem at T2, supporting Hypothesis 1 (β = 0.07, SE = 0.03, 95% CI [0.02, 0.14]). This result highlights organization-based self-esteem as a key driver of promotive voice, reinforcing its importance in fostering proactive employee behaviors.

The assumed moderating effect of quantitative job insecurity at T1 on the association between transformational leadership at T1 and employees’ organization-based self-esteem at T2 (H2 and H3) was rejected (β = –0.17, SE = 0.10, 95% CI [–0.38, 0.03]). The moderated mediation indices for employees’ promotive voice behaviors at T3 (β = –0.03, SE = 0.02, 95% CI [–0.08, 0.004]) were statistically insignificant, indicating that quantitative job insecurity at T1 did not affect the indirect effects of transformational leadership at T1 on employees’ voice behavior at T3 via employees’ organization-based self-esteem at T2. These results reinforce the critical role of organization-based self-esteem as a mediator in leadership–voice relationships.

Discussion and conclusion

Drawing on a social identity perspective, the present study explored whether transformational leadership can empower employees’ voice by enhancing their organization-based self-esteem. Also, it tested the effect of job insecurity on the relationship between transformational leadership and organization-based self-esteem. Our findings provide compelling evidence that transformational leadership has a moderate-to-strong positive effect on employees’ organization-based self-esteem, reinforcing the notion that leaders who inspire, develop, and support their employees contribute significantly to their sense of self-worth within the organization. Also, our results demonstrate that organization-based self-esteem serves as a full mediator in this relationship, highlighting its central role in fostering employees’ willingness to express constructive suggestions and engage in proactive workplace behaviors.

Contrary to our initial expectations, job insecurity did not moderate the effects of transformational leadership on organization-based self-esteem, nor did it influence the indirect effect of transformational leadership on promotive voice behavior. These results suggest that employees’ perceptions of their self-worth within the organization remain a strong determinant of voice behavior, even in contexts where job insecurity exists.

Our research findings enrich the extant literature by substantiating that transformational leadership can enhance employees’ organization-based self-esteem and facilitate their promotive voice behavior regardless of employees’ feelings of job insecurity.

Theoretical contributions

Our research adds to the transformational leadership theory in three ways. First, drawing on social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1986), we found organization-based self-esteem to play a mediating role in the relationship between transformational leadership and voice behavior, which can be shown to empower employees to exhibit pro-organizational behaviors. From the social identity perspective, transformational leadership plays a crucial role in employee empowerment and organizational identification. This is because by satisfying the human need for a positive self-concept and increasing the salience of organizational membership as part of employees’ social identity, transformational leadership behaviors can motivate employees to work beyond self-interests for the betterment of the organization (Siangchokyoo et al., 2020).

Second, we explored an important yet under-examined boundary condition for transformational leadership to take effect, i.e., quantitative job insecurity. The nonsignificant moderating effect of quantitative job insecurity conveys a vital message that transformational leadership can strengthen employees’ organization-based self-esteem and thereby increase their promotive voice behavior regardless of their levels of job insecurity. This expands our knowledge of the empowering effect of transformational leadership against the backdrop of job insecurity (Alves et al., 2024). Furthermore, our findings suggest that the influence of transformational leadership on voice may be more complex than previously thought, and contextual factors beyond job insecurity should be considered (Duan et al., 2022).

Finally, following Siangchokyoo et al.’s (2020) recommendation of using a time-lagged research design, our results elucidate the empowerment process whereby transformational leadership convinces employees that working as organizational members can demonstrate their self-value and competence and thereby empower employees’ pro-organizational behaviors such as promotive voice.

Practical implications

From a managerial perspective, employees’ promotive voice should be encouraged because it provides valuable insights and constructive suggestions for promoting the organizational status quo based on their frontline work experience (Kee et al., 2021). However, stimulating promotive voice is not an easy task because it is an employee’s autonomous behavior that cannot be forced by job requirements (Van Dyne and LePine, 1998). Moreover, employees may prefer not to speak up for the fear of negative consequences brought on by their ‘bold’ advice that may challenge the status quo and offend their employers and colleagues (Maynes and Podsakoff, 2014). Hence, employers should cultivate a supportive organizational environment that values and encourages employees’ promotive voice.

Our findings suggest that promoting transformational leadership behaviors through leadership training programs may effectively empower employees’ promotive voice by enhancing their organization-based self-esteem. In line with social identity theory, our study indicates that when employees hold positive self-perceptions about their self-value and competence in working in the organization, they are more likely to engage in constructive behaviors such as voice, organizational citizenship, and sharing knowledge (Campbell, 1990; Pierce and Gardner, 2004). Therefore, we recommend that employers adopt more organizational practices to improve employees’ organization-based self-esteem, such as offering employees greater job autonomy, career prospects, and recognition of their competence and contributions (Bowling et al., 2010; Gardner et al., 2022).

Our research reveals that the empowering effect of transformational leadership on employees’ organization-based self-esteem and promotive voice is not affected by job insecurity. This implies that employers can still motivate employees to work beyond their job requirements by promoting transformational leadership behaviors even when job security cannot be guaranteed.

Limitations and future research

Limitations of our research include potential inflation of common method bias due to self-reported survey data from a single source (Podsakoff et al., 2003), despite our efforts to mitigate such bias. To decrease biases further, future research could gather data from multiple sources. Additionally, although a time-lagged design enhanced our understanding of the follower transformation process via organization-based self-esteem, and research has shown that transformational leadership and employee behavior can fluctuate on a weekly and monthly basis (Breevaart and Zacher, 2019; Busari et al., 2019), it limited our ability to establish causality between transformational leadership and followers’ changes, and unobserved confounders may have influenced the results. Therefore, future research could use rigorous longitudinal or experimental designs (Siangchokyoo et al., 2020). Furthermore, our sample size was relatively small, although we did find enough respondents following the guidelines of the GPower test to conduct our analysis. However, future research with larger and more diverse samples could enhance the generalization of our findings. A random sample across different employers would allow to investigate the influence of workplace differences in more detail. Furthermore, we acknowledge the potential influence of unmeasured external factors and suggest that future studies could incorporate industry-level data to control for macroeconomic and labor trends. However, industry-level data and random representative population samples are often prohibitively expensive for many research groups. This study, using data collected during an executive business specialization program, provided a unique opportunity to conduct a study within our institution’s financial constraints in which workers had different employers and work experiences (the focus of this study). Finally, our study focused only on one positive outcome, i.e., promotive voice behavior, of follower transformation, and we recommend exploring a wider range of employee outcomes resulting from this mechanism, such as deviant workplace behaviors and unethical pro-organizational behaviors.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iDs

Sergio López Bohle

Jeske van Beurden

Felipe Muñoz Medina

Susan E. Peters

Author biographies

Sergio López Bohle (PhD, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile) is an associate professor in the Faculty of Administration and Economics at the Universidad de Santiago de Chile. In terms of research, his areas of interest are the perception of job insecurity, downsizing and layoffs, supervisor–employee relationships, and job performance.

Jeske van Beurden (PhD, Tilburg University) is an assistant professor in the Department of Human Resource Studies at Tilburg University, the Netherlands. Her research interests include leadership, strategic human resource management, employee well-being, and performance.

Felipe Muñoz Medina (PhD, Universidad de Chile) is an assistant professor in the Technological Faculty at the Universidad de Santiago de Chile. His research interests include employee well-being, job insecurity, job performance, work–technology relationships, and neurodiversity in the workplace.

Susan E. Peters (PhD, University of Queensland, Australia) is a research scientist in the Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and the associate director for the Center for Work, Health, and Well-being. Her main interests focus on how work and working conditions can shape thriving from work through Total Worker Health®.

References

Alves

Duarte

Rosa

da Silva

(2024) Do they need us? Linking functional indispensability and voice behavior: The role of psychological ownership, job insecurity and organizational ambidexterity. Economic and Industrial Democracy 45(2): 363–388.

Andersson

Bateman

(1997) Cynicism in the workplace: Some causes and effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior 18(5): 449–469.

Ashford

Sutcliffe

Christianson

(2009) Speaking up and speaking out: The leadership dynamics of voice in organizations. In: Greenberg

Edwards

(eds) Voice and Silence in Organizations. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 175–202.

Asparouhov

Muthén

(2021) Bayesian estimation of single and multilevel models with latent variable interactions. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 28(2): 314–328.

Aulakh

Gençtürk

(2000) International principal–agent relationships: Control, governance and performance. Industrial Marketing Management 29(6): 521–538.

Bakker

(2011) An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current Directions in Psychological Science 20(4): 265–269.

Bass

(1985) Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press.

Bass

(1999) Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 8(1): 9–32.

Bowling

Eschleman

Wang

et al. (2010) A meta-analysis of the predictors and consequences of organization-based self-esteem. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 83(3): 601–626.

10.

Breevaart

Zacher

(2019) Main and interactive effects of weekly transformational and laissez-faire leadership on followers’ trust in the leader and leader effectiveness. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 92(2): 384–409. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12253.

11.

Brislin

(1970) Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 1(3): 185–216.

12.

Busari

Khan

Abdullah

Mughal

(2019) Transformational leadership style, followership, and factors of employees’ reactions towards organizational change. Journal of Asia Business Studies 14(2): 181–209.

13.

Campbell

(1990) Self-esteem and clarity of the self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59(3): 538–549. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.3.538.

14.

Carless

Wearing

Mann

(2000) A short measure of transformational leadership. Journal of Business and Psychology 14(3): 389–405.

15.

Fox

(2015) Applied Regression Analysis and Generalized Linear Models, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

16.

Gardner

Huang

G (Emily)

Pierce

et al. (2022) Not just for newcomers: Organizational socialization, employee adjustment and experience, and growth in organization-based self-esteem. Human Resource Development Quarterly 33(3): 297–319.

17.

Brown

(2013) Organizational identity and organizational identification. Group & Organization Management 38(1): 3–35.

18.

Hellgren

Sverke

Isaksson

(1999) A two-dimensional approach to job insecurity: consequences for employee attitudes and well-being. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 8(2): 179–195.

19.

Hobfoll

(1989) Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American psychologist 44(3): 513–524.

20.

ILO (2020) World employment and social outlook: Trends 2020. Geneva: International Labour Office.

21.

ILO (2023) World employment and social outlook: Trends 2023. Geneva: International Labour Office.

22.

Ilyas

Abid

Ashfaq

et al. (2021) Status quos are made to be broken: The roles of transformational leadership, job satisfaction, psychological empowerment, and voice behavior. SAGE Open 11(2).

23.

Jahanzeb

Newell

(2022) Co-worker ostracism and promotive voice: A self-consistency motivation analysis. Journal of Management & Organization 28(2): 244–260.

24.

Janssen

Gao

(2015) Supervisory responsiveness and employee self-perceived status and voice behavior. Journal of Management 41(7): 1854–1872.

25.

Kark

Shamir

Chen

(2003) The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(2): 246–255.

26.

Kee

van Wieringen

Beersma

(2021) The relational road to voice: how members of a low-status occupational group can develop voice behavior that transcends hierarchical levels. Journal of Professions and Organization 8(3): 253–272.

27.

Kensbock

Boehm

(2016) The role of transformational leadership in the mental health and job performance of employees with disabilities. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 27(14): 1580–1609.

28.

Kim

Beehr

(2018) Organization-based self-esteem and meaningful work mediate effects of empowering leadership on employee behaviors and well-being. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 25(4): 385-398. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051818762337.

29.

König

Debus

Häusler

et al. (2010) Examining occupational self-efficacy, work locus of control and communication as moderators of the job insecurity–job performance relationship. Economic and Industrial Democracy 31(2): 231–247.

30.

Låstad

Berntson

Näswall

et al. (2015) Measuring quantitative and qualitative aspects of the job insecurity climate. Career Development International 20(3): 202–217.

31.

Liao

Tangirala

Firth

(2017) The content of the message matters: The differential effects of promotive and prohibitive team voice on team productivity and safety performance gains. Journal of Applied Psychology 102: 1259–1270.

32.

Liang

Farh

CIC

Farh

J-L

(2012) Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: a two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal 55(1): 71–92.

33.

López Bohle

Bal

Probs

et al. (2022) What do job insecure people do? Examining employee behaviors and their implications for well-being at a weekly basis. Journal of Management and Organization. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2022.45.

34.

(2021) The dual effect of transformational leadership on individual- and team-level performance: The mediational roles of motivational processes. Frontiers in Psychology 12.

35.

Luhtanen

Crocker

(1992) A collective self-esteem scale: self-evaluation of one’s social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 18(3): 302–318.

36.

Lyons

Schneider

(2009) The effects of leadership style on stress outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly 20(5): 737–748.

37.

McGonagle

(2017) A review of common method variance in organizational research: Its causes, consequences, and remedies. Organizational Research Methods 20(4): 570–602.

38.

Maslowsky

Jager

Hemken

(2015) Estimating and interpreting latent variable interactions: A tutorial for applying the latent moderated structural equations method. International Journal of Behavioral Development 39(1): 87–96.

39.

Maynes

Podsakoff

(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: 87–112.

40.

Shi

(2018) The voice link: A moderated mediation model of how ethical leadership affects individual task performance. Journal of Business Ethics 152(1): 91–101.

41.

Morrison

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

42.

Muñoz Medina

López Bohle

Jiang

et al. (2023) Qualitative job insecurity and voice behavior: Evaluation of the mediating effect of affective organizational commitment. Economic and Industrial Democracy 44(4): 986-1006. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143831X221101655.

43.

TWH

Feldman

(2012) Employee voice behavior: A meta-analytic test of the conservation of resources framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior 33: 216–234.

44.

Pierce

Gardner

(2004) Self-esteem within the work and organizational context: A review of the organization-based self-esteem literature. Journal of Management 30(5): 591–622.

45.

Pierce

Gardner

Cummings

Dunham

(1989) Organization-based self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. The Academy of Management Journal 32(3): 622–648.

46.

Piszczek

(2017) Boundary control and controlled boundaries: Organizational expectations for technology use at the work–family interface. Journal of Organizational Behavior 38: 592–611.

47.

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

Lee

J-Y

Podsakoff

(2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(5): 879–903.

48.

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

Moorman

Fetter

(1990) Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly 1(2): 107–142.

49.

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

Podsakoff

(2011) Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology 63: 539–569.

50.

Schaubroeck

Lam

SSK

Peng

(2016) Can peers’ ethical and transformational leadership improve coworkers’ service quality? A latent growth analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 133: 45–58.

51.

Schoemann

Jorgensen

(2021) Testing and interpreting latent variable interactions using the semTools package. Psych. https://doi.org/10.3390/psych3030024.

52.

Shadraconis

(2013) Organizational leadership in times of uncertainty: Is transformational leadership the answer? LUX 2(1): 1–15.

53.

Shin

Woodwark

Konrad

Jung

(2022) Innovation strategy, voice practices, employee voice participation, and organizational innovation. Journal of Business Research 147: 392–402.

54.

Shoss

(2017) Job insecurity: An integrative review and agenda for future research. Journal of Management 43(6): 1911–1939.

55.

Siangchokyoo

Klinger

Campion

(2020) Follower transformation as the linchpin of transformational leadership theory: A systematic review and future research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly 31(1).

56.

Simmering

Fuller

Richardson

et al. (2015) Marker variable choice, reporting, and interpretation in the detection of common method variance. Organizational Research Methods 18(3): 473–511.

57.

Sora

Caballer

Peiró

(2010) The consequences of job insecurity for employees: The moderator role of job dependence. International Labour Review 149(1): 59–72.

58.

Svendsen

Joensson

(2016). Transformational leadership and change related voice behavior. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 37(3): 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-07-2014-0124.

59.

Svendsen

Unterrainer

Jønsson

(2018) The effect of transformational leadership and job autonomy on promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave study. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 25(2): 171–183.

60.

Sverke

Hellgren

Näswall

(2002) No security: A meta-analysis and review of job insecurity and its consequences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 7(3): 242–264.

61.

Taber

(2018) The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education 48(6): 1273–1296.

62.

Tajfel

Turner

(1986) The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In: Worchel

Austin

(eds) Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 2nd edn. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, pp. 7–24.

63.

Takeuchi

Chen

Cheung

(2012) Applying uncertainty management theory to employee voice behavior: An integrative investigation. Personnel Psychology 65(2): 283–323.

64.

Tangirala

Ramanujam (2012) Ask and you shall hear (but not always): Examining the relationship between manager consultation and employee voice. Personnel Psychology 65(2): 251–282.

65.

Tims

Bakker

Xanthopoulou

(2011) Do transformational leaders enhance their followers' daily work engagement? The Leadership Quarterly 22(1): 121–131.

66.

Turan

Sny

(1996) An exploration of transformational leadership and its role in strategic planning: A conceptual framework. Athens, OH: ISEP.

67.

Turner

Hogg

Oakes

et al. (1987) Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. Oxford and New York: Blackwell.

68.

Twigg

(2008) Educational leadership: The effects of perceived support, organization-based self-esteem, and citizenship behaviors on student performance. Journal of School Leadership 18(3): 256–277.

69.

Um-e-Rubbab Naqvi

SMMR

(2020) Employee voice behavior as a critical factor for organizational sustainability in the telecommunications industry. PLOS One 15(9).

70.

Van Dierendonck

Stam

Boersma

et al. (2014) Same difference? Exploring the differential mechanisms linking servant leadership and transformational leadership to follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly 25(3): 544–562.

71.

Van Dyne

LePine

(1998) Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal 41(1): 108–119.

72.

Wang

Gan

Wang

(2015) Ethical leadership and employee voice: Employee self-efficacy and self-impact as mediators. Psychological Reports 116(3): 751–767.

73.

Wang

L (Peggy)

Preacher

(2015) Moderated mediation analysis using Bayesian methods. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 22(2): 249–263.

74.

Cao

Chen

Tang

(2011) Transformational leadership and employee voice behavior: An examination of the mediating mechanisms. Chinese Journal of Management 8(1): 61–66.

75.

Xia

Schyns

Zhang

(2020) Why and when job stressors impact voice behaviour: An ego depletion perspective. Journal of Business Research 109: 130–140.

76.

Zhao

Wang

Song

Tse

HHM

(2023) Transformational leadership and older teachers’ intention to delay retirement in China: The roles of organization-based self-esteem and life expectancy. Current Psychology 42: 29589–29602

We need more voices,not less! Promoting employee voice through transformational leadership: The mediating role of organization-based self-esteem

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Theory and hypotheses

Transformational leadership, organization-based self-esteem, and employees’ promotive voice behavior

The moderating role of quantitative job insecurity

Methods

Participants and procedure

Measures

Transformational leadership

Quantitative job insecurity

Organization-based self-esteem

Promotive voice behavior

Control variables

Analytical strategy

Results

Descriptive statistics

Hypothesis testing

Discussion and conclusion

Theoretical contributions

Practical implications

Limitations and future research

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

Author biographies

References