A Meta‐Analysis of Voice and Its Promotive and Prohibitive Forms: Identification of Key Associations, Distinctions, and Future Research Directions
verifiedrich profile · Personnel Psychology · 2016
Chamberlin, Melissa; Newton, Daniel W.; Lepine, Jeffery A.
How this was studied
A meta-analytic synthesis — it pools many primary studies rather than running a single design, so there is no single-study diagram.
What this article reports
The findings we extracted from this work, normalized into Principia’s relationship form (X → Y). Each feeds the synthesized models below.
voice behavior → task performance
Models this article informs
The meta-analytic priors this article contributes evidence to — its place in the broader synthesis.
voice behavior predicts organizational citizenship behavior ocb
voice behavior predicts task performance
In the authors’ words
The article’s own abstract.
This article reports meta‐analyses intended to clarify and enhance our understanding of voice and its promotive and prohibitive forms. We find that undifferentiated constructive voice is associated with a wide range of antecedents that fit in Morrison's (2014) five categories: (a) dispositions, (b) job and organizational attitudes and perceptions, (c) emotions, beliefs, and schemas, (d) supervisor and leader behavior, and (e) contextual factors. However, relative weight analyses reveal a highly dominant variable within each category (personal initiative, felt responsibility, engagement, leader–member exchange, and positive workplace climate). We also find that undifferentiated constructive voice has a moderate zero‐order association with job performance that is nonsignificant when task performance and organizational citizenship behavior are also considered. Finally, we explore how associations vary as a function of whether voice is promotive or prohibitive. First, there are significant differences in associations with over a third of the antecedents (core self‐evaluations, felt responsibility, organizational commitment, detachment, psychological safety, ethical leadership, and leader openness). Second, although promotive voice has a positive association with job performance, the opposite is true for prohibitive voice. We conclude with suggestions to enhance our understanding of voice, especially with respect to efforts needed to clarify and distinguish promotive and prohibitive voice.
What the literature says about it
Attributed, open-access quotes from other works that cite this article, plus the citation-graph verdict tally. Corroborations and disputes, in one place — the honest-broker view.
supports “A recent meta-analysis showed that organizational identification leads to promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors (Chamberlin et al., 2017), which aligns with recent meta-analytic findings suggesting that organizational identification is positively related to an employee’s extra-role performance…”
supports “While constructive voice behavior can be considered a unique type of Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) [7]), it also carries potential risks and can give rise to challenges [6,8].”
Ancillary research
Neighbouring works in the citation graph around this article.
Assembled from Principia’s registry — bibliographic record, extracted effect sizes, the models they inform, and open-access citing literature.