This research assesses individual differences in value of voice and examines their impact on the voice–procedural fairness relationship. In Study 1, 184 full-time employees completed surveys including measures of perceived voice, organizational procedural fairness, and value of voice. The results indicated that employee’s value of voice moderated the relationship between perceived voice and procedural fairness. A second study was conducted in a laboratory setting where voice was experimentally manipulated. Ninety-eight undergraduates participated in a simulation exercise wherein they completed measures of perceived voice, procedural fairness, and value of voice. Again, value of voice moderated the voice-fairness relationship, suggesting that individual differences influence voice effects.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aguinis, H., & Stone-Romero, E. F. (1997). Methodological artifacts in moderated multiple regression and their effects on statistical power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 192-206.
2.
Aguinis, H., & Whitehead, R. (1997). Sampling variance in the correlation coefficient under indirect range restriction: Implications for validity generalization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 528-538.
3.
Avery, D. R., & Quiñones, M. A. (in press). Disentangling the effects of voice: The incremental roles of opportunity, instrumentality,and behavior in predict in gprocedural fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology.
4.
Baron, R., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
5.
Barry, B., & Shapiro, D. L. (2000).When will grievants desire voice?: A test of situational, motivational, and attributional explanations. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11, 106-134.
6.
Brockner, J., Heuer, L., Siegel, P., Wiesenfeld, B., Martin, C., Grover, S., et al. (1998).The moderating effect of self-esteem in reaction to voice: Converging evidence from five studies. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 75, 394-407.
7.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis in the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
Cotton, J. L. (1995). Participation’s effect on performance and satisfaction: A reconsideration of Wagner. Academy of Management Review, 20, 276-278.
9.
Crampton, S., & Wagner, J. (1994). Percept–percept inflation in micro-organizational research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 67-76.
10.
Cropanzano, R., & Konovsky, M. (1995). Resolving the justice dilemma by improving the outcomes: The case of employee drug screening. Journal of Business & Psychology, 10, 221-243.
11.
Earley, P. C., & Lind, E. A. (1987). Procedural justice and participation in task selection: The role of control in mediating justice judgments. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 52, 1148-1160.
12.
Folger, R. (1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of “voice” and improvement on experienced inequality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 108-119.
13.
Folger, R., & Bies, R. (1989). Managerial responsibilities and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities & Rights Journal, 2, 79-90.
14.
Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. London: Sage.
15.
Folger, R., Cropanzano,R., Timmerman,T. A., Howes, J. C., & Mitchell, D. (1996). Elaborating procedural fairness: Justice becomes both simpler and more complex. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 435-441.
16.
Harrison, D., McLaughlin, M., & Coalter, T. (1996). Context, cognition, and common method variance: Psychometric and verbal protocol evidence. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 68, 246-261.
17.
Hunton, J., & Beeler, J. (1997). Effects of user participation in systems development: A longitudinal field experiment. MIS Quarterly, 21, 359-388.
18.
Hunton, J., Hall, T., & Price, K. (1998). The value of voice in participative decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 788-797.
19.
Hunton, J., & Price, K. (1997). Effects of the user participation process and task meaningfulness on key information system outcomes. Management Science, 43, 797-812.
20.
Konovsky, M. A. (2000). Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 489-511.
21.
Korsgaard, M. A., & Roberson, L. (1995). Procedural justice in performance evaluation: The role of instrumental and non-instrumental voice in performance appraisal discussions. Journal of Management, 21, 657-669.
22.
Lepine, J., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 853-868.
23.
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-54). New York: Plenum.
24.
Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R., & Earley, P. C. (1990). Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 59, 952-959.
25.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.
26.
Lowe, R. H., & Vodanovich, S. J. (1995). A field study of distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction and organizational commitment. Journal of Business & Psychology, 10, 99-114.
27.
McFarlin, D. B., & Rice, R. (1992). The role of facet importance as a moderator in job satisfaction processes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 41-54.
28.
McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 626-637.
29.
McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1996). Does having a say matter only if you get your way? Instrumental and value-expressive effects of employee voice. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 18, 289-303.
30.
Peterson, R. (1999). Can you have too much of a good thing? The limits of voice for improving satisfaction with leaders. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 313-324.
31.
Price, K. H., Hall, T. W., van den Bos, K., Hunton, J. E., Lovett, S., & Tippett, M. J. (2001). Features of the value function for voice and their consistency across participants from four countries: Great Britain, Mexico, the Netherlands, and the United States. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 84, 95-121.
32.
Quiñones, M. A. (1995). Pre-training context effects: Training assignment as feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 226-238.
33.
Rice, R. W., Gentile, D. A., & McFarlin, D. B. (1991). Facet importance and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 31-39.
34.
Sagie, A. (1995). Employee participation and work outcomes: An end to the dispute? Academy of Management Review, 20, 278-280.
35.
Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (1997). Process and outcome: Gender differences in the assessment of justice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 83-98.
36.
Tyler, T. R. (1994). Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 67, 850-863.
37.
van den Bos, K. (1999). What are we talking about when we talk about no-voice procedures? On the psychology of the fair outcome effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 560-577.
38.
van den Bos, K., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. (1996). The consistencyrule and the voice effect: The influence of expectations on procedural fairness judgments and performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 411-428.
39.
Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley.
40.
Wagner, J. A. (1994). Participation’s effects on performance and satisfaction: A reconsideration of research evidence. Academy of Management Review, 19, 312-330.
41.
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 247-252.
