Controlling case questions:
Who’s Worldwide Spirits and Glenmedia? What’s their relation? 2.
What’s Glenmedia’s strength and competitiveness?
What’s Glenmedia’s marketing objectives and related activities? How’s the outcome of these marketing activities? 4.
What are Glenmedia’s R&D objectives and related activities? How’s the outcome of these R&D activities? 5.
How to balance the development between marketing and R&D department? 6.
Are there any financial tools to control the performance and cost of marketing and R&D department? How to perform the controlling
Academy of Management Journal
2008, Vol. 51, No. 6, 1189–1203.
EXPLORING NONLINEARITY IN EMPLOYEE VOICE: THE
EFFECTS OF PERSONAL CONTROL AND
University of Maryland
We investigated the relationship between personal control—employees’ perceptions of autonomy and impact at work—and voice—employees’ expression of challenging but constructive work-related opinions, concerns, or ideas. Specifically, we developed and tested an explanation that integrates two conceptual perspectives (i.e., dissatisfaction- based versus expectancy-based) on the effects of personal control. Using data from 586 nurses, we found that the relationship between personal control and voice was U- shaped. Further, organizational identification acted as a moderator: When personal control was low, voice was lower for employees with stronger identification. When personal control was high, voice was higher for employees with stronger identification. The growing complexity of the work environ-
ment is placing considerable information-process-
ing demands on managers (Chakravarthy, McEvily,
Doz, & Rau, 2003). More than ever, they are now
compelled to go beyond formal communication
mechanisms and rely on employees’ voluntary con-
tribution of ideas and information to the decision-
making process (Morrison & Milliken, 2000; Ryan &
Oestreich, 1998). Hence, it has become important
for managers to understand the conditions that fa-
cilitate employee communication behaviors such
as voice— employees’ expression of challenging
but constructive opinions, concerns, or ideas about
work-related issues (Van Dyne, Ang, & Botero,
2003). This understanding can help managers de-
sign interventions that aid the early detection of
work-related problems, opportunities, and solu-
tions and thereby facilitate organizational innova-
tion and readiness for responding to unexpected
situations (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001). Against this
backdrop, we examine a potentially key antecedent
of voice: personal control, or employees’ belief that
they have autonomy on the job as well as an impact
on important work outcomes (Brockner, Spreitzer,
Mishra, Hochwarter, Pepper, & Weinberg, 2004).
Voice is usually categorized as an extra-role be-
havior (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). But unlike other
extra-role behaviors that facilitate interpersonal co-
We thank Brad Agle, Gilad Chen, and Sally Lowery for
their help and advice. This article also benefited from the
insightful comments of Brad Kirkman and the three
operation and affiliation (e.g., interpersonal help-
ing), voice is a form of assertive nonconformance
that often causes disruptive alterations to an organ-
izational status quo (Graham & Van Dyne, 2006).
Hence, the motivational basis of voice may differ
from that of other extra-role behaviors (Choi, 2007;
Van Dyne, Cummings, & McLean Parks, 1995). In
fact, scholars have argued that, given the challeng-
ing and change-oriented nature of voice, employ-
ees’ motivation to exercise individual control over
their work environment might be particularly rele-
vant to explaining it (e.g., Fay & Frese, 2000; Frese
& Fay, 2001).
Despite this acknowledgement of a control-based
explanation for voice, empirical work has yet to
References: Aguinis, H., Beaty, J. C., Boik, R. J., & Pierce, C. A. 2005.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression:
Testing and interpreting interactions
Aronson, E. 1992. The social animal. New York: Free-
Ashford, S. J., & Barton, M. 2007. Identity-based issue
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory
and the organization
Ashforth, B. E., & Saks, A. M. 2000. Personal control in
organizations: A longitudinal investigation with
Avery, D. R., & Quinones, M. A. 2002. Disentangling the˜
effects of voice: The incremental roles of opportu-
Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.
Barker, J. R., & Tompkins, P. K. 1994. Identification in the
self-managing organization: Characteristics of target
Bender, K. A., &. Sloane, P. J. 1998. Job satisfaction, trade
unions, and exit-voice revisited
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. 2003. The past, present,
and future of workplace deviance research
Brehm, J. W. 1966. A theory of psychological reactance.
Brehm, S. S. & Brehm, J. W. 1981. Psychological reac-
tance: A theory of freedom and control
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. 1993. Alternative ways of
assessing model fit
Burger, J. M. 1992. Desire for control: Personality, so-
cial, and clinical perspectives
Burnham, K. P., & D. R. Anderson. 2002. Model selection
and multimodel inference: A practical informa-
Chakravarthy, B., McEvily, S., Doz, Y., & Rau, D. 2003.
Cheney, G. 1983. The rhetoric of identification and the
study of organizational communication
Choi, J. N. 2007. Change-oriented organizational citizen-
ship behavior: Effects of work environment charac-
DeCharms, R. 1968. Personal causation: The internal
affective determinants of behavior
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. 2007. Leadership behavior
and employee voice: Is the door really open? Acad-
Dillman, D. A. 2000. Mail and internet surveys: The
tailored design method
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. 1994.
Edmondson, A. C. 2003. Speaking up in the operating
room: How team leaders promote learning in inter-
Please join StudyMode to read the full document