The effect of high-quality voice on observing employees’ helping behavior: A moderated mediation model

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4949527/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

The effect of high-quality voice on observing employees’ helping behavior: A moderated mediation model

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4949527/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background: Grounding on social information processing theory and theory of cooperation and competitiveness, this study aims to explore the impact of voicers’ high-quality voice on observing employees’ helping behavior while considering the mediator of perceptions of benefit to resources, along with the moderating role of goal competitiveness.

Method: This study employed a two-wave study to examine the theoretical model. A total of 226 employees in China were used to test our hypotheses by adopting hierarchical multiple regression method. SPSS and MPLUS were used to analyze data.

Results: The findings revealed that voicer’s high-quality voice positively predicted observing employees’ helping behavior, and perceptions of benefit to resources mediated this relationship. Furthermore, goal competitiveness weakened the positive relationship between voicers’ high-quality voice and observing employees’ perceptions of benefit to resources as well as the positive indirect effects of voicers’ high-quality voice on observing employees’ helping behavior via perceptions of benefit to resources.

Conclusion: Voice quality is vital for organizational effectiveness but related research is limited. Hence, scholars encourage future research to shift attention from voice frequency to voice quality. Our research contributes to the emerging literature on employee voice quality by revealing the positive effect of high-quality voice on observing employees’ helping behavior through perceptions of benefit to resources and exploring the boundary condition (i.e., goal competitiveness) of this relationship. Our research is among the first to explore the influence of high-quality voice in observing employees’ helping behavior, enriching the literature on voice quality.

high-quality voice

perceptions of benefit to resources

helping behavior

goal competitiveness

Employee voice—speaking up to improve the organization — is beneficial for improving organizational effectiveness [1, 2], reducing team errors, and fostering worker innovation [3, 4]. To have a comprehensive understanding of the role of employee voice, many scholars have explored the consequences of employee voice [5–8]. However, they mainly focus on the characteristics of voice frequency but neglects the characteristics of voice quality [9, 10].

Recent work proposes that voice quality is a robust predictor of outcomes, beyond voice frequency [9]. Thus, scholars begin to shift their attention from voice frequency to voice quality. High-quality voice refers to high value of employees’ voice communications, as inferred by message characteristics [9, 10]. However, related research remains largely absent and merely explored leaders’ and coworkers’ positive responses to high-quality voice, such as higher performance and promotion ratings [9]. Scholars have not further examined the distal positive behavioral consequences of high-quality voice (e.g., helping behavior). Helping behavior is defined as the voluntary assistance given to coworkers to accomplish goals or prevent problems [11]. Examining whether and when voicers’ high-quality voice influences observers’ helping behavior is critical. This is because voicers must dedicate their own resources to propose high-quality voice, which indicates they care about whether they can obtain positive reactions from others such as receiving helping behavior from the observing coworkers. If voicers can receive helping behavior from their coworkers after proposing high-quality voice, organizations may obtain sustainable constructive voice in the future. Besides, coworkers are observers of voicers and agents who interact frequently with one another, which influence voicers’ work attitudes and behaviors [12]. Hence, this research aims to examine whether and when voicers’ high-quality voice influences observing employees’ helping behavior towards voicers.

To answer this research question, we utilize social information processing theory to explain how voicers’ high-quality voice influences observing employees’ helping behavior. Social information processing theory emphasizes that social environment can provide individual information, which is coded and interpreted by individuals and determines their subsequent attitudes and behaviors [13]. It is usually used to explain how leader or coworker behaviors influence employee perceptions and subsequent behaviors [14, 15]. According to social information processing theory, when voicers’ voice quality is high, the observing employees may obtain the cues that voicers are competent. Such cues may cause observing employees as coworkers to perceive that voicers may bring potential resources to them. This can be captured by perceptions of benefit to resources (i.e., the perceptions of one in the workgroup benefit access to material and social resources at work) (cf. [16]). It reflects how observing employees interpret the cues from voicers’ high-quality voice, which may subsequently influence observing employees’ helping behavior. Hence, we examine how high-quality voice relates to observing employees’ helping behavior towards voicers, with observing employees’ perceptions of benefit to resources.

Further, theory of cooperation and competitiveness suggests that the way goals are perceived influences individual expectations and interaction [17]. This means how observers perceive goals may influence their interpretation of the cues from high-quality voice and their subsequent interactions with voicers. Goal competitiveness refers to the extent to which there are incompatible goals and rewards between two parties [18, 19]. When goal competitiveness is high, individuals believe that the others’ successes decrease the potential of their own successes. Thus, if there is a high level of goal competitiveness between voicers and observing employees, observing employees may perceive that voicers’ high-quality voice is not beneficial for them to obtain potential resources. Subsequently, observing employees are less likely to provide helping behavior towards voicers. Therefore, we propose that goal competitiveness is a boundary condition moderating the relationship between voicers’ high-quality voice and observing employees’ helping behavior via perceptions of benefit to resources. The conceptual model is illustrated in Fig. 1.

Our research makes several theoretical contributions. First, our research is among the first to explore the influence of high-quality voice in observers’ helping behavior, which answers the call of Brykman and Raver (2021) to shift the attention from voice frequency to voice quality [9] and enriches the voice quality outcomes literature [20]. Meanwhile, prior research mainly focuses on how leaders respond to voice [21], but our research enriches this line of research by exploring how observing employees respond to voicers’ voice. Second, drawing on social information processing theory, we establish the mediating role of perceptions of benefit to resources in the relationship between voicers’ high-quality voice and observing employees’ helping behavior. We provide a specific process of how observing employees transform cues from voicers into subsequent behavior. Finally, combining social information processing theory with theory of cooperation and competitiveness, our research contributes to the understanding of boundary conditions under which high-quality voice is more versus less strongly connected with observing employees’ helping behavior. This enriches research on providing complete pictures of the processes and circumstances that drive observing employees’ positive reactions to voice [12].

Theory and Hypotheses Development

Social information processing theory posits that the social environment provides individual information, which is coded and interpreted by individuals and influences their subsequent cognition and behaviors [13]. Coworkers work with employees every day and interact frequently with employees [12], so coworkers are a crucial source of information for employees in the social environment [14]. Coworker behaviors such as voice are liable to be observed by employees [12] and can provide observing employees with information that determines their subsequent cognition and behavior. While prior research on voice behavior mainly focuses on voice frequency, recent research proposes that voice varies in quality and voice quality is more important than voice frequency [9, 10]. In this paper, we shift our focus from voice frequency to voice quality, specifically exploring how the information conveyed through voicers’ high-quality voice influences observing employees’ interpretation and subsequent cognitive and behavioral reactions based on social information processing theory.

Voicers’ high-quality voice and observing employees’ helping behavior

Helping behavior plays a critical role in smoothing organizational functioning and organizational effectiveness [22, 23]. The current study proposes that there is a positive relationship between high-quality voice and observing employees’ helping behavior for the following reasons.

On the one hand, unlike low-quality voice, which provides little value to the organization and conveys a disingenuous attempt at helping, high-quality voice is a more positive initiating action [9]. It alleviates managers’ and observing employees’ personal obligations to identify issues and proposes novel solutions [24]. Moreover, high-quality voice is beneficial for the organization and its members [9]. Social information processing theory posits that social environment provides individuals with cues, and their interpretations of the cues reshape their subsequent behaviors to fit the environment [13, 25]. According to social information processing theory, when observing employees as coworkers observe voicers’ high-quality voice, they will obtain the cues that voicers have genuine concerns for their organization and are altruistic [9]. Such cues will motivate observing employees to be selfish and altruistic in the workplace. As a result, they are more likely to assist voicers with work-related tasks and problems and lend a helping hand to voicers when needed [26], that is, there is a high possibility that observing employees exhibit helping behavior towards voicers.

On the other hand, voicers’ high-quality voice is useful and feasible [9, 24]. It signals a high level of voicers’ competence, knowledge, abilities, and skills needed in the work role [9]. Thus, observing employees may obtain the cues that voicers who propose high-quality voice are competent. Observing employees as coworkers can benefit from such voicers, such as improving their potential performance. According to social information processing theory, such cues will further decide observing employees’ subsequent behaviors. Specifically, the cues that voicers are competent enable observing employees to view voicers as trustworthy, which decreases the risks of unfavorable returns from the helping behavior. Besides, research offers evidence that individuals will associate with those with a high level of competence because of an expectation that this act could bring them instrumental outcomes, such as more opportunities to learn new skills and knowledge or effective advice and help [27, 28]. In addition, norm of reciprocity can also help explain how the cues obtained from voices’ high-quality voice influence observing employees’ helping behavior. Norm of reciprocity is the most fundamental rule among social interactions and competence is essential for developing positive social exchange relationships [29]. When observing employees as coworkers obtain the cues that voicers are competent, observers will consider voicers as high-quality exchange partners [9]. Observers are more likely to engage in helping behavior towards voicers, as it is beneficial to building positive social exchange relationships [30]. Based on the discussion above, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1

Voicers’ high-quality voice positively relates to observing employees’ helping behavior.

The mediating role of perceptions of benefit to resources

Social information processing theory proposes that the cues perceived by individuals play an important role in affecting their subsequent behavior [13]. Hence, how people perceive the environment is essential [31]. In clarifying how observing employees perceive the environment of high-quality voice, we introduce the concept of perceptions of benefit to resources and regard it as the mediating role to reveal the mechanism of how voicers’ high-quality voice influences observing employees’ helping behavior.

High-quality voice is useful for managers, who have the need for voice with high quality to improve their products [4]. Thus, managers may be grateful for voicers who propose voice quality, which increases voicers’ performance ratings and reward allocations [4, 9]. Voicers’ high-quality voice offers observing employees cues that voicers may bring benefit to the workgroup such as greater manager satisfaction with the workgroup and more customers or clients. Such cues enable observing employees as coworkers to perceive that voicers benefit their resource access. In addition, voicers’ high-quality voice also exhibits the cues that voicers are competent. Possessing valued capabilities increase their potential helpfulness and their instrumental value to observing employees[16]. Thus, voicers who propose high-quality voice can improve observing employees’ access to resources such as opportunities for learning and advice, increasing observing employees’ perceptions of benefit to resources.

As observing employees consider voicers who propose high-quality voice beneficial to their own resources, we expect that observing employees will further engage in helping behavior towards voicers for two reasons. First, when observing employees perceive that voicers are beneficial to resources based on the environment cues, observing employees prefer to socially invest resources in relationships with individuals who can bring them value [32]. Helping behavior towards coworkers is a type of resource investment which is conducive to forming a positive relationship [30] and is helpful in terms of getting resources [33]. Hence, observing employees are likely to engage in helping behavior to obtain potential resources from voicers. Besides, when observing employees consider that voicers are beneficial for their resources, they perceive more potential resources. Evidence shows that when employees perceive more resources, they have more resources to invest for future returns on those investments [30]. Thus, observing employees may invest in helping behavior towards voicers to keep positive relationships with coworkers, improve their image [34], and get the potential resources from coworkers. Second, according to norm of reciprocity, observing employees’ helping behavior towards voicers will increase voicers’ trust and helping behaviors [30, 35], which brings observing employees resources, information, and skills that aid their performance [36]. Hence, observing employees are likely to increase helping behavior towards voicers to form reciprocal relationships after perceiving voicers as beneficial for obtaining resources. Based on the analysis above, we propose that:

Hypothesis 2

Perceptions of benefit to resources mediates the positive relationship between voicers’ high-quality voice and observing employees’ helping behavior.

The moderating role of goal competitiveness

Prior research suggests that employees are inclined to pay more attention to the actions of the person who has a highly competitive goal with themselves as this person’s experiences and outcomes are closely related to their personal benefits [37]. This is in line with the theory of cooperation and competition, which proposes that the way goals are perceived influences people’s expectations and interactions [17]. This means that how employees perceive goals may influence their interpretation of the cues from coworker voice quality and their subsequent interactions with coworkers. Combining the theory of cooperation and competition and social information processing theory, we predict that goal competitiveness may moderate the relationship between high-quality voice and observing employees’ perceptions of benefit to resources.

The theory of cooperation and competition outlines that when goals are perceived in competition, individuals believe that their goal achievements are negatively related [19]. Thus, when the goal between the voicer and the observing employee is competitive at a high level, each of them believes that his or her goal is not compatible with the other’s and considers their relationship as a zero-sum game [37]. In other words, the other person’s successes decrease the potential of one’s own successes [18, 19]. When voicers propose a high-quality voice, it offers observing employees cues that voicers are more likely to be evaluated highly by leaders [9] and obtain more resources from leaders. Prior research proposes that others’ success will make employees with competitive goals less likely to be successful [38]. Thus, when there is a high level of goal competitiveness between voicers and observing employees, they may perceive that voicers who propose high-quality voice are more likely to occupy the limited resources and less likely to provide potential resources for them. Furthermore, employees may withhold ideas and information and may even be likely to obstruct the goal progress of others [17, 39]. Accordingly, observing employees as coworkers are less likely to believe that voicers’ high-quality voice is beneficial for their resources. In contrast, when the goal between voicers and observing employees is less competitive, the observing employees as coworkers are less likely to believe that their goal is incompatible with that of voicers [37]. That is, goals and rewards among observing employees and voicers are compatible to some extent. As a result, observing employees who obtain the cues that voicers are altruistic and competent may perceive a high likelihood of getting the potential resources from voicers. On the basis of the analysis above, we propose that:

Hypothesis 3

Goal competitiveness moderates the relationship between voicers’ high-quality voice and observing employees’ perceptions of benefit to resources, such that the relationship is less positive when goal competitiveness is higher.

In addition to the moderating role of goal competitiveness on the relationship between voicers’ high-quality voice and observing employees’ perceptions of benefit to resources, it is logical to expect that goal competitiveness will conditionally influence the strength of the indirect association between voicers’ high-quality voice and observing employees’ helping behavior. Combining social information processing theory and the theory of cooperation and competition, the goal competitiveness influences how observing employees interpret the cues from voicers’ high-quality voice and their subsequent behavior. Specifically, observing employees with a high level of goal competitiveness with voicers are less likely to perceive that voicers’ high-quality voice is beneficial to their access to resources and then are less likely to engage in helping behavior. Given our hypotheses above, a conditional indirect effect was proposed:

Hypothesis 4

Goal competitiveness moderates the positive indirect effect of voicers’ high-quality voice on observing employees’ helping behavior (via perceptions of benefit to resources) such that the indirect effect is less positive when goal competitive is higher.

Participants

We recruited 249 full-time working adults to participate in an online study through Credamo, an online platform used for scientific studies [40]. Following the suggestions of Brykman and Raver (2021) [9], we asked participants to choose a single coworker who regularly interacts in mind and answer all questions based on this person. A time-lagged survey-based design was used to examine our research model. At wave 1, we measured voice quality, perceptions of benefit to resources, goal competitiveness, and demographic information. One week lag between two surveys may reduce common method bias [41]. Thus, one week later, in the second wave of data collection, participants were asked to rate their helping behavior. After two waves of data collection, 23 participants who missed attention checks were excluded and a final sample of 226 participants were obtained, with a response rate of 90.76%. Of the participants, 40.3% were male and a majority of participants held a bachelor’s degree (67.70%). They had an average age of 31.23 years (SD = 7.12), and average tenure in their job position of 8.16 years (SD = 7.38). Participants were from different industries, including service (16.40%), manufacturing (31.40%), information technology (17.70%), finance (7.10%), construction (5.80%) and others (21.60%).

Measurements

A translation-back translation procedure was adopted to ensure the questionnaires’ accuracy. Unless otherwise indicated, participants responded using a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).

High-quality Voice. We used the scale prompt “When this coworker speaks up at work…” followed by five items used by Ng et al. (2022) [10]. A sample item was “He or she provides useful suggestions.” Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.96.

Perceptions of benefit to resources. We adopted Campbell et al.’s (2017) two-item scale [16]. Participants were asked to rate the extent to which the coworker’s voice benefits their access to material and social resources at work. A sample item was “It is a beneficial source of resources to me.” Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.77.

Helping behavior. We measured participants’ helping behavior toward the coworker who speaks up using Yue et al.’s (2017) three-item helping behavior scale [11]. A sample item was “I lend a helping hand to this coworker when needed.” Responses ranged from 1 (very little or not at all) to 5 (extremely). Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.91.

Goal competitiveness. Five items from the scale used by Chen et al. (2021) were used to measure goal competitiveness [37]. A sample item was “This coworker and I have a ‘win-lose’ relationship.” Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.91.

Control variables. We controlled for employees’ demographic characteristics, which include gender, age, education, and job tenure, allowing for their influences on employee helping behavior [42].

Data Analysis and Results

Descriptive statistics

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations of the variables. The results showed that voicers’ high-quality voice was positively correlated with perceptions of benefit to resources (r = 0.72, p < 0.01) and observing employees’ helping behavior (r = 0 .48, p < 0.01). In addition, perceptions of benefit to resources was positively associated with observing employees’ helping behavior (r = 0.50, p < 0.01). The above results provide preliminary proof in support of our hypotheses.

Table 1

Means, standard deviations, and correlations among variables
Variable	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Gender	0.60	0.49
2. Age	31.23	7.12	-0.04
3. Education	3.10	0.68	0.09	-0.08
4. Job tenure	8.16	7.38	-0.09	0.77^**	-0.13^*
5. High-quality voice	3.71	1.10	0.02	0.06	-0.06	0.08
6. Perceptions of benefit to resources	3.44	1.06	0.03	0.02	-0.15^*	0.10	0.72^**
7. Helping behavior	3.68	1.06	-0.04	0.11	-0.02	0.13	0.48^**	0.50^**
8. Goal competitiveness	2.90	1.16	0.09	-0.09	0.01	-0.07	-0.27^**	-0.31^**	-0.63^**
Note. N = 226. p < 0.05, p < 0 .01, **p < 0.001(two-tailed). Gender: 0 = male; 1 = female. Education: 1 = high school or lower degrees; 2 = junior college degrees; 3 = bachelor degrees; 4 = master degrees; 5 = doctoral degree.

Confirmatory factor analysis

Prior our hypothesis testing, confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) was conducted by using Mplus 7.4 to evaluate the construct validity of variables. As shown in Table 2, the hypothesized four-factor model was the best fit to the data (χ²/df = 2.16, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.07) compared to alternative models (see Table 2). The results supported the construct validity of our key variables.

Table 2

Model fits of measurement models
Models	χ²	df	χ²/ df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA
Four-factor model	179.37	83	2.16	0.97	0.96	0.07
Three-factor model	507.37	87	5.83	0.86	0.83	0.15
Two-factor model	984.81	89	11.07	0.70	0.65	0.21
One-factor model	1338.02	90	14.87	0.59	0.52	0.25
Notes: Four-factor model = each variable loading on a separate model; Three-factor model = perceptions of benefit to resources and goal competitiveness loading on one factor; Two-factor model = perceptions of benefit to resources, goal competitiveness, and high-quality voice loading on one factor; One-factor model = items for high-quality voice, perceptions of benefit to resources, goal competitiveness, and helping behavior loading on one factor.

Hypotheses testing

Hierarchical regression analysis was used to perform data analysis. We estimated two parts with the composite scores of our research variables. Mediating effects were considered in the first part. Moderating effects were accounted for in the second part, thereby providing a comprehensive test of our hypotheses. Multiple regression analysis results are shown in Table 3. The regression results showed that high-quality voice positively and significantly predicted helping behavior (b = 0.45, p < 0.001). Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported.

Table 3

Summary of multiple regression analysis results
	Perceptions of Benefit to Resources			Helping Behavior
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6
Control variables
Gender^a	0.11	0.10	0.10	-0.05	-0.09	-0.11
Age	0.02	-0.02	-0.02	0.003	0.003	0.01
Education^b	-0.22^*	-0.16^*	-0.16^*	-0.009	0.03	0.08
Job Tenure	0.03	0.02	0.02	0.16	0.01	0.01
Independent variable
High-quality Voice		0.69^***	0.66^***		0.45^***	0.22^**
Moderator
Goal Competitiveness			-0.11^**
Interaction
High-quality Voice * Goal Competitiveness			-0.10^*
Mediator
Perceptions of Benefit to Resources						0.34^***
R²	0.04	0.54	0.56	0.02	0.24	0.29
ΔR²	0.04	0.50^***	0.02^**	0.02	0.22^***	0.05^***
Note: N = 226; p < 0.05, p < 0.01, **p < 0.001

Then, the mediating role of perceptions of benefit to resources was tested. Results in Table 3 also indicated that high-quality voice was positively related to perceptions of benefit to resources (b = 0.69, p < 0.001) and helping behavior (b = 0.45, p < 0.001). When perceptions of benefit to resources as the mediator variable was added into the model, perceptions of benefit to resources had a significant positive impact on helping behavior (b = 0.34, p < 0.001). However, the effect of high-quality voice and helping behavior weakened (b = 0.22, p < 0.01). We further use SPSS PROCESS to test the indirect effect of high-quality voice on helping behavior. The results show that high-quality voice had an indirect effect on helping behavior through perceptions of benefit to resources (b = 0.23, SE = 0.07, 95% CI = [0.11, 0.39]). 95% confidence interval excludes zero, which indicates perceptions of benefit to resources mediated the relationship between high-quality voice and helping behavior, supporting Hypothesis 2.

The moderating effect of goal competitiveness was tested and the results of the moderating effect analysis were shown in Table 3. The predictors were mean centered before the interaction was generated. The results showed that the interaction between high-quality voice and goal competitiveness was significantly related to perceptions of benefit to resources (b = -0.10, p < 0.05). In order to clearly interpret the moderating effects, we conducted simple slope test. As depicted in Fig. 2, the effect of voice quality on perceptions of benefit to resources was less positive when goal competitiveness was higher (simple slope = 0.57, p < 0.001) as compared to when it was lower (simple slope = 0.76, p < 0.001). Hence, Hypothesis 3 was supported.

Finally, the conditional indirect effects were tested by bias-corrected bootstrapping. Results further indicated that the indirect effects of high-quality voice on helping behavior via perceptions of benefit to resources were less positive under higher goal competitiveness (estimate = 0.20, SE = 0.06, 95% CI [0.09, 0.35]) as compared to lower goal competitiveness (estimate = 0.25, SE = 0.08, 95% CI [0.12, 0.41]). The index of moderated mediation was significant (estimate = -0.02, SE = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.06, -0.001]), providing full support for Hypothesis 4.

Our research developed a moderated mediation model to better understand the positive outcomes of voice quality. The results signal that voicers’ high-quality voice facilitates observing employees’ helping behavior. According to social information processing theory, voicers’ high-quality voice may provide observing employees cues that voicers (coworkers) are competent and altruistic [9]. Such cues influence observing employees’ subsequent cognition (e.g., perceptions of benefit to resources) and behaviors (e.g., helping behavior) [13]. During this process, the influence of voicers’ high-quality voice on observing employees’ voice quality via perceived benefit to resources is weaker when goal competitiveness is higher. This may be due to the fact that goal competitiveness influences how individuals interact with each other [17]. People with a high level of competitive goal conclude that they are better off if others are ineffective [38]. Hence, when observing employees with a high level of competitive goal observe coworkers’ high-quality voice, observing employees are more likely to engage in helping behavior.

Theoretical implications

Our research contributes to the literature on employee voice quality in three important ways. First, this research reveals a positive relationship between high-quality voice and helping behavior from the perspective of observers. Although existing research explores the outcomes of voice such as voicer’s status, competence, and ostracism [10, 43] observers’ responses to voice is still limited [12, 44]. Our paper adds to this line of research by proposing and substantiating the positive relationship between voice quality and observers’ helping behavior. By doing so, our research also enriches the literature on the outcomes of voice quality. Ng et al. (2022) proposes that coworkers’ reactions to voice quality are important for future research [10]. Our research provides theoretical arguments and empirical evidence to explain why that is the case. Meanwhile, we heed the call from organizational scholars to shift the focus from voice frequency to voice quality [9, 10, 44]. Moreover, our research suggests that voicers’ voice quality can be rewarded by observing employees’ helping behavior. That is, we provide evidence that voice quality can increase social rewards from coworkers. This provides a new form of voice rewards, which enriches prior research that focuses on leaders’ reward to voice [4].

Second, our research supports the mediating role of perceptions of benefit to resources in the relationship between voice quality and helping behavior, adding a novel insight into the mechanism of the influence of voice quality in positive outcomes. Unlike previous theoretical perspectives used in the voice quality literature (e.g., social exchange theory and sociometer theory), our paper adopts social information processing theory and provides a specific process of how employees transform cues from coworkers in the workplace into subsequent behavior by introducing the mediating role of perceptions of benefit to resources. By doing so, our paper not only extends existing research which mainly regards leaders as an important source of cues for employees in the workplace [13, 15, 31], but also applies social information processing theory in voice quality research. Besides, by exploring the positive effect of voice quality on helping behavior via perceptions of benefit to resources, we echo Brykman and Raver’s (2021) call for scholars to explore how employees’ voice quality benefits individuals’ careers [9].

Finally, by integrating social information theory and the theory of cooperation and competition, our research provides a unique explanation of how observing employees react to voicers’ high-quality voice and demonstrates an important boundary condition of this process. Our results showed that the indirect effect of voicers’ high-quality voice on observing employees’ helping behavior through perceptions of benefit to resources was stronger when goal competitiveness was lower. Thus, we highlight the importance of considering the goal competitiveness relationship between voicers and observing employees in studying the outcomes of voice quality. This contributes to the research on providing complete pictures of the processes and circumstances that drive coworkers’ positive reactions to voice [12]. In addition, this research provides further evidence for the notion that goal competitiveness influences how individuals act with each other [17].

Practical implications

Our research has several important managerial implications. First, receiving helping behavior from coworkers can be regarded as a kind of reward from voice behavior. When rewarded by others, proactive employees will continue to perform better at workplace [45] and contribute to their organizations [12]. To increase the possibility of obtaining helping behavior after voice, organizations should encourage employees to propose high-quality voice rather than make lots of suggestions. For instance, organizations and managers should push employees to think more deeply and search more information before they propose suggestions [12]. Besides, they can train employees on the ways to improve the quality of voice with simple question prompts (e.g., Is the novelty of the idea highlighted?) [9], which is further beneficial for getting more helping behavior from coworkers.

Second, it is critical that managers monitor and evaluate how observers react to voice [9]. Specifically, when voicers propose high-quality voice, managers should be attentive to observing employees’ perceptions of resources. If observing employees perceive a high level of benefit to resources from voicers, they will increase helping behaviors to voicers. Hence, to help voicers obtain help and support from their coworkers, managers should take some positive measures to reward voicers and guide voicers to pay attention to sharing some resources with coworkers, such as the resources of voicers’ expertise, advice, and learning opportunities [16]. This enables coworkers to perceive their access to resources from voicers and be likely to provide further help to voicers. As a result, coworkers’ helping behavior as the reward for voicers may be beneficial for promoting the sustainable voice [12] and the development of organizations.

Finally, the results in this research point out that the positive effect of voicers’ voice quality on observing employees’ helping behavior is stronger when goal competitiveness is lower. This implies that goal competitiveness weakens the positive effect of voicers’ voice quality on observing employees’ helping behavior. Based on this, one tactic for promoting the positive effect of voice quality is to attempt to change the competitive climate. For instance, organizations could focus on reducing their competitive cultures and managers could take actions to reduce goal competitiveness within their team [37]. By doing so, voicers are more likely to obtain helping behaviors from their coworkers.

Limitations and future research

This research has several limitations. First, our variables were measured through self-report, which raises the possibility of common method bias. Although we have collected data via two waves and prior research on voice quality has utilized similar measurement methods [9], more rigorous designs should be conducted to minimize concerns for common method bias (e.g., multi-source design). Future research can also use longitudinal designs to examine how voice quality affects observing employees’ perceptions of benefit to resources, and helping behavior over time. Besides, we measure voice quality relying on the overall voice quality scale without considering its specific dimensions like novelty or rationale [9]. Different dimensions of voice quality may have distinct effects on employee perceptions and behaviors. Future research could explore different impacts of various dimensions of voice quality to gain a deeper understanding of its contributions in influencing employee outcomes.

Second, we only identified perceptions of benefit to resources as cognitive consequences, but other outcomes are likely as well. For instance, other than cognitive response, another intriguing question is what emotional responses arise after observing voicers proposing high-quality voice. Future research could explore other consequences of observed high-quality voice. Furthermore, we have not considered how voice quality affects observers’ evaluations combined with other voice conceptualizations, such as promotive voice and prohibitive voice [46]. Promotive voice and prohibitive voice may be perceived differently by observers and result in different outcomes. Voicers who propose prohibitive voice may be perceived as more capable and obtain more rewards than those propose promotive voice [9]. We encourage future research to theorize and empirically evaluate the voice quality outcomes with consideration of promotive and prohibitive voice.

Third, for theoretical reasons, we examined the moderating role of goal competitiveness between voicers and observing employees on the relationship between high-quality voice and helping behavior. In addition to this factor, future work could consider organizational contexts. For example, leaders are crucial information sources for employees impacting their perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors [13, 15]. Paradoxical leaders stress “both-and” cognitive basis [47], which is more likely to guide employees to consider things using holistic thinking. Thus, observing employees may evaluate voicers’ voice quality with paradoxical perspectives if they work with paradoxical leaders. Future research can further explore the double-edged effect of voice quality.

As more and more research are beginning to notice the importance of voice quality, our research explores a moderated mediation model that reveals the relationship between high-quality voice and observing employees’ helping behavior, the mediating role of perceptions of benefit to resources, and the moderating role of goal competitiveness. We hope this research can emerge as a new start, and all scholars interested in voice quality can benefit from it.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Northeast Forestry University. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Competing interests

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

Author Contribution

L.L., and L.Z. contributed to the original idea, study design, the conception of the work, conducting of the study, drafting, revising the drafting, and editing the article. S.H., Z.F. and L.S. assisted with data collection and contributed to data analysis. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank all the participants for taking part in the study

Data Availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author if requested.

Morrison EW. Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. Acad Manag Ann. 2011;5(1):373–412. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2011.574506.
LePine JA, Van Dyne L. Predicting voice behavior in work groups. J Appl Psychol. 1998;83(6):853–68. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.6.853.
Detert JR, Burris ER, Harrison DA, Martin SR. Voice flows to and around leaders: Understanding when units are helped or hurt by employee voice. Admin Sci Quart. 2013;58(4):624–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/000183921351.
Parke MR, Tangirala S, Sanaria A, Ekkirala S. How strategic silence enables employee voice to be valued and rewarded. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2022;173:104187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104187.
Guzman FA, Espejo A. Introducing changes at work: How voice behavior relates to management innovation. J Organ Behav. 2018;40(1):73–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2319.
Weiss M, Zacher H. Why and when does voice lead to increased job engagement? The role of perceived voice appreciation and emotional stability. J Vocat Behav. 2022;132:103662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2021.103662.
Zhang LM, Liang J, Liu F. I spoke up, did you hear? The impact of voice (in)congruence on employee-initiated constructive changes. Hum Relat. 2023;76(10):1567–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267221110781.
Zhang X, Qian J, Wang B, Chen M. The role of reward omission in empowering leadership and employee outcomes: A moderated mediation model. Hum Resour Manag J. 2020;30(2):226–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12260.
Brykman KM, Raver JL. To speak up effectively or often? The effects of voice quality and voice frequency on peers’ and managers’ evaluations. J Organ Behav. 2021;42(4):504–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2509.
Ng TW, Wang M, Hsu DY, Su C. Voice quality and ostracism. J Manage. 2022;48(2):281–318.
Yue Y, Wang KL, Groth M. Feeling bad and doing good: The effect of customer mistreatment on service employee’s daily display of helping behaviors. Pers Psychol. 2017;70(4):769–808. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12208.
Liu X, Zheng X, Ni D, Harms PD. Employee voice and coworker support: The roles of employee job demands and coworker voice expectation. J Organ Behav. 2022;43(7):1271–86. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2621.
Salancik GR, Pfeffer P. A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Admin Sci Quart. 1978;23(2):224–53. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392563.
Wrzesniewski A, Dutton JE, Debebe G. Interpersonal sensemaking and the meaning of work. Res Organizational Behav. 2003;25:93–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(03)25003-6.
Zhong J, Zhang L, Xiao H, Wen Q. Antecedents and consequences of follower moqi: Leader humility, follower humility, and knowledge hiding. Curr Psychol. 2023;42:6564–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02001-1.
Campbell EM, Liao H, Chuang A, Zhou J, Dong Y. Hot shots and cool reception? An expanded view of social consequences for high performers. J Appl Psychol. 2017;102(5):845–66.
Deutsch M. The resolution of conflict. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1973.
Tjosvold D. The dynamics of interdependence in organizations. Hum Relat. 1986;39(6):517–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872678603900.
Wong A, Tjosvold D, Yu ZY. Organizational partnerships in China: Self-interest, goal interdependence, and opportunism. J Appl Psychol. 2005;90(4):782–91.
Brykman KM, Raver JL. Persuading managers to enact ideas in organizations: The role of voice message quality, peer endorsement, and peer opposition. J Organ Behav. 2023;44(5):802–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2703.
Duan J, Zhou AJ, Yu L. A dual-process model of voice endorsement. Int J Hum Resour Man. 2022;33(18):3765–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2021.1949624.
Organ DW, Ryan K. A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Pers Psychol. 1995;48(4):775–803. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01781.x.
Settoon RP, Mossholder KW. Relationship quality and relationship context as antecedents of person and task-focused interpersonal citizenship behavior. J Appl Psychol. 2002;87(2):255–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.255.
Turnipseed DL, Rassuli A. Performance perceptions of organizational citizenship behaviours at work: A bi-level study among managers and employees. Brit J Manage. 2005;16(3):231–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00456.x.
Babalola MT, Ren S, Ogbonnaya C, Riisla K, Soetan GT, Gok K. Thriving at work but insomniac at home: understanding the relationship between supervisor bottom-line mentality and employee functioning. Hum Relat. 2022;75(1):33–57.
Singh B, Winkel DE. Racial differences in helping behaviors: the role of respect, safety, and identification. J Bus Ethics. 2012;106(4):467–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726720978687.
Cuddy AJ, Fiske ST, Glick P. Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Adv Exp Soc Psychol. 2008;40:61–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00002-0.
Zhang MJ, Law KS, Wang L. The risks and benefits of initiating change at work: Social consequences for proactive employees who take charge. Pers Psychol. 2021;74(4):721–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12423.
Gouldner A. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. Am Sociol Rev. 1960;25(2):161–78. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623.
Halbesleben JRB, Wheeler AR. To invest or not? The role of coworker support and trust in daily reciprocal gain spirals of helping behavior. J Manage. 2015;41(6):1628–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312455246.
Li Z, Liang L, Zhang X, Li J. Impact of environmentally specific transformational leadership on organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: The role of moral reflectiveness and leader group prototypicality. J Environ Plann Man. 2023;66(7):1413–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2022.2027748.
Gibbons DE. Friendship and advice networks in the context of changing professional values. Admin Sci Quart. 2004;49(2):238–62. https://doi.org/10.2307/4131473.
Halbesleben JRB, Wheeler AR. I owe you one: Coworker reciprocity as a moderator of the day-level exhaustion-performance relationship. J Organ Behav. 2011;32(4):608–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.748.
Long DM, Baer MD, Colquitt JA, Outlaw R, Dhensa-Kahlon RK. What will the boss think? The impression management implications of supportive relationships with star and project peers. Pers Psychol. 2015;68(3):463–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12091.
Lyons BJ, Scott BA. Integrating social exchange and affective explanations for the receipt of help and harm: A social network approach. Organ Behav Hum Dec. 2012;117(1):66–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.10.002.
Lanaj K, Chang CH, Johnson RE. Regulatory focus and work related outcomes: A review and meta-analysis. Psychol Bull. 2012;138(5):998–1034.
Chen C, Qin X, Yam KC, Wang H. Empathy or schadenfreude? Exploring observers’ differential responses to abusive supervision. J Bus Psychol. 2021;36:1077–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-020-09721-4.
Alper S, Tjosvold D, Law KS. Interdependence and controversy in group decision making: Antecedents to effective self-managing teams. Organ Behav Hum Dec. 1998;74(1):33–52. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2748.
Stanne MB, Johnson DW, Johnson RT. Does competition enhance or inhibit motor performance: A meta-analysis. Psychol Bull. 1999;125(1):133–54.
Wang H, Li H, Zhao Y, et al. Being natural is aesthetic: The effects of natural labeling on lay beliefs and the purchase intention of unattractive produce. Asia Pac J Market Lo. 2023;35(7):1759–73. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-04-2022-0316.
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(5):879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
Zhu Y, Akhtar S. How transformational leadership influences follower helping behavior: The role of trust and prosocial motivation. J Organ Behav. 2014;35(3):373–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1884.
McClean EJ, Martin SR, Emich KJ, Woodruff T. The social consequences of voice: An examination of voice type and gender on status and subsequent leader emergence. Acad Manage J. 2018;61(5):1869–91. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0148.
Bain K, Kreps TA, Meikle NL, Tenney ER. Amplifying voice in organizations. Acad Manage J. 2021;64(4):1288–312. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.0621.
Nwokocha I. Managing reward strategy to enhance employee performance, retention and productivity in organizations: A general overview. Int J Dev Manage Rev. 2016;11(1):20–38.
Liang J, Farh CIC, Farh JL. Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Acad Manage J. 2012;55(1):71–92. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0176.
Zhang Y, Waldman DA, Han Y, Li X. Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences. Acad Manage J. 2015;58(2):538–66. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0995.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Revision requested
22 Aug, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
22 Aug, 2024
Submission checks completed at journal
21 Aug, 2024
First submitted to journal
21 Aug, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

The effect of high-quality voice on observing employees’ helping behavior: A moderated mediation model

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction