Journal of Applied Psychology © 2013 American Psychological Association

2014, Vol. 99, No. 1, 87–112 0021-9010/14/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0034284

Speaking More Broadly: An Examination of the Nature, Antecedents, and

Consequences of an Expanded Set of Employee Voice Behaviors

Timothy D. Maynes Philip M. Podsakoff

University at Buffalo, The State University of New York University of Florida

Scholarly interest in employee voice behavior has increased dramatically over the past 15 years.
Although this research has produced valuable knowledge, it has focused almost exclusively on voice as
a positively intended challenge to the status quo, even though some scholars have argued that it need not
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

challenge the status quo or be well intentioned. Thus, in this paper, we create an expanded view of voice;
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

one that extends beyond voice as a positively intended challenge to the status quo to include voice that
supports how things are being done in organizations as well as voice that may not be well intentioned.
We construct a framework based on this expanded view that identifies 4 different types of voice behavior
(supportive, constructive, defensive, and destructive). We then develop and validate survey measures for
each of these. Evidence from 5 studies across 4 samples provides strong support for our new measures
in that (a) a 4-factor confirmatory factor analysis model fit the data significantly better than 1-, 2-, or
3-factor models; (b) the voice measures converged with and yet remained distinct from conceptually
related comparison constructs; (c) personality predictors exhibited unique patterns of relationships with
the different types of voice; (d) variations in actual voice behaviors had a direct causal impact on
responses to the survey items; and (e) each type of voice significantly impacted important outcomes for
voicing employees (e.g., likelihood of relying on a voicing employee’s opinions and evaluations of a
voicing employee’s overall performance). Implications of our findings are discussed.

Keywords: types of employee voice behavior, scale development, construct validation, performance
evaluations

More than four decades have passed since Hirschman (1970)
first noted the importance of behaviors wherein employees speak
up in order to change things rather than live with an ineffective or
inefficient status quo. He called this behavior employee voice and
argued that it serves the vital function of helping organizations
adapt to the ever changing business environment. Initially, re-
search in this area had very little impact on the field of manage-
ment. For example, in the 25 years between 1970 and 1994, fewer
than 15 articles on voice behavior appeared in management jour-
nals. However, in the years since 1994 the number of published
articles has increased more than 10 times to over 200 manuscripts.
Scholarly interest in voice behavior was slow to materialize be-
cause early researchers were hindered by a lack of conceptual
clarity regarding what voice is (Gorden, 1988), resulting in poor
measurement (Rusbult, Farrell, Rogers, & Mainous, 1988) and
inconsistent empirical findings (Withey & Cooper, 1989).
The dramatic increase in voice research observed after 1994 is
likely the result of research conducted by Van Dyne and LePine
This article was published Online First September 16, 2013.
Timothy D. Maynes, Department of Organization and Human Re-
sources, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York; Philip
M. Podsakoff, Department of Marketing, Warrington College of Business
Administration, University of Florida.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Timothy
D. Maynes, Department of Organization and Human Resources, Jacobs
Management Center, University at Buffalo, The State University of New
York, Buffalo, NY 14260-4000. E-mail: tdmaynes@buffalo.edu
87
(1998). These authors clarified the definition of voice and devel-
oped an operational measure of it. They defined voice as the
expression of constructive challenge intended to improve how
things are done (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998) and identified change-
oriented suggestions and recommendations for improvements as
examples of voice. Furthermore, they argued that voice has a
positive impact on organizational functioning because it identifies
new or better ways of doing things, directs management’s attention
to critical issues that need to be addressed, and corrects problems
with existing work practices or procedures (LePine & Van Dyne,
1998).
Although the rapid growth in this area over the past 15 years has
substantially increased our knowledge of voice behavior, the focus
of this research has been overly narrow, concentrating almost
exclusively on voice as a positively intended challenge to the
status quo (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Thus, in this paper, we
introduce a new, more expansive view of voice behavior. We
believe that such a view is warranted for several reasons. First, an
expanded view of voice is supported from a conceptual perspec-
tive, given that some scholars have argued that voice need not
challenge how things are done in organizations or be well inten-
tioned (Gorden, 1988; Hirschman, 1970; Van Dyne, Ang, &
Botero, 2003). For instance, Van Dyne et al. (2003) discussed a
type of voice that supports the status quo, and Gorden (1988)
argued that some voice behaviors are destructive in nature. Unfor-
tunately, the narrow focus of past research may have precluded
investigations into other types of voice. As evidence of this fact,
although more than a dozen voice behaviors have been discussed
 88 MAYNES AND PODSAKOFF
in the literature (Gorden, 1988; Liang, Farh, & Farh, 2012; Mor-
rison, 2011; Van Dyne et al., 2003; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998), a
validated survey measure exists for only one of them (Van Dyne &
LePine, 1998). For this reason, scholars have called for the devel-
opment of measures that capture other types of voice behavior
(Morrison, 2011; Van Dyne et al., 2003).
Second, many of the other types of voice discussed in the
literature have conceptual problems. This fact has created confu-
sion regarding the nature of voice. For instance, Gorden (1988)
discussed a “passive” form of voice (characterized by such behav-
iors as nonverbal support and calculative silence), which is clearly
inconsistent with the current view that voice is an active, verbal
behavior. We address these conceptual issues by developing an
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
overarching definition of voice behavior that should clarify what
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
voice is and what it is not.
Third, as the research reported in this paper demonstrates, (a)
other types of voice behavior actually occur in organizations; (b)
these behaviors are distinct from each other; and (c) these behav-
iors have important consequences for the employees who enact
them and for organizations as a whole. Thus, expanding the
domain of voice is warranted from a practical as well as a theo-
retical perspective.
Finally, scholars have recently suggested that the existing mea-
sure of voice may need to be refined (Detert & Burris, 2007; Grant,
Parker, & Collins, 2009). Van Dyne and LePine (1998) anticipated
this need in the original publication of their measure, observing
that “another task for future research is refinement of the . . . voice
scales” (p. 118). The need to refine a construct’s measure is not
uncommon. Schwab (1980) noted that differences between the
conceptual meaning of a construct and its operational measure-
ment result from a natural process in which changes are made to
the construct’s conceptualization or to its measures, thus resulting
in either contamination or deficiency. Schwab recommended pe-
riodically reevaluating the correspondence between theoretical
constructs and their measures as a remedy for this issue.
Thus, our primary objective in this research is to develop a
new, more expansive voice behavior framework; one that in-
cludes behaviors that either challenge or support the status quo
as well as behaviors that possess either positive or negative
attributes. After constructing this framework, we define each of
the behaviors identified within it, develop valid measures for
these behaviors, and examine some of their antecedents and
consequences. We conclude with a discussion regarding direc-
tions for future research.
This paper makes several important contributions to the
literature. First, the conceptual framework and definitions of the
different forms of voice provided in this paper should expand
the voice behavior domain to include important behaviors (be-
haviors that are of both practical and theoretical value) that
have been relatively ignored up to this point. Second, this work
should help to clarify the conceptual nature of voice behavior,
which will provide a clear framework for voice researchers as
they move forward in the future. Third, the development and
validation of scales for several different types of voice should
provide the necessary tools with which to test our theories of
voice behavior and thereby facilitate research on the types of
voice that have yet to be examined empirically. Fourth, follow-
ing the recent recommendations of Podsakoff, Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, and Klinger (2013), we demonstrate how establish-
ing the construct validity of our voice measures using the
nomological network can be augmented with a more direct
technique based on video validation procedures. Finally, we
examine some of the personality predictors of voice, as well as
the mediating mechanisms connecting voice to important out-
comes for voicing employees.
Expanding the Conceptualization of Voice Behavior
We followed three steps in expanding the conceptualization of
voice behavior. First, we examined the various definitions of voice
in the literature in order to determine the boundaries of the domain.
On the basis of this review, we developed an overarching defini-
tion of voice that clarified what voice is and what it is not. Next,
we constructed a framework based on the foundational elements of
voice and the overarching definition produced in the first step that
identifies four types of voice as well as the attributes that distin-
guish these behaviors from each other. Finally, we labeled and
defined the specific forms of voice.
Employee Voice Behavior
In addition to Hirschman’s (1970) seminal work, the research
of other scholars (Gorden, 1988; Liang et al., 2012; Van Dyne
et al., 2003; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998) has informed the field’s
conception of employee voice behavior. The conceptual defi-
nitions, key attributes, and limitations of several previous con-
ceptualizations of voice behavior are summarized in Table 1.
An examination of this table suggests that there are several core
attributes of voice behavior. On the basis of these attributes, we
define voice behavior as an individual’s voluntary and open
communication directed toward individuals within the organi-
zation that is focused on influencing the context of the work
environment (Gorden, 1988; Hirschman, 1970; Morrison, 2011;
Van Dyne et al., 2003; Van Dyne, Cummings, & Parks, 1995;
Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Furthermore, voice behaviors share
several important attributes: (a) they are exhibited by individual
employees; (b) they are not silent (Van Dyne et al., 2003),
anonymous (Hirschman, 1970), or neutral (Hirschman, 1970);
(c) they conspicuously stake out an employee’s position relative
to the status quo; and (d) because others in the organization may
disagree with the voicing employee’s position, voicing may
damage interpersonal relationships at work (LePine & Van
Dyne, 1998; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998).
Although voice is often verbally expressed, it is not limited to
verbal behavior (Hirschman, 1970); it includes such actions as
sending e-mails and writing memos (Withey & Cooper, 1989). On
the other hand, not all expressive behavior is voice (Van Dyne et
al., 2003). To be considered voice, the expression must be (a)
openly communicated, (b) organizationally relevant, (c) focused
on influencing the work environment, and (d) received by someone
inside the organization. For this reason, providing improvement-
oriented suggestions to a manager is an example of voice, whereas
notifying regulatory agencies of misconduct in the organization or
placing anonymous notes in suggestion boxes is not.
Organizing Framework for Voice Behaviors
A further examination of Table 1 indicates that despite the
progress that has been made in the voice literature, there are still
 EXPANDED SET OF EMPLOYEE VOICE BEHAVIORS 89

Table 1
Summary of Prior Voice Behavior Conceptualizations

Study Conceptualization of voice behavior Key attributes Limitations

Hirschman (1970) Voice behavior Broad definition leaves room for many
“Voice is . . . [an attempt] to change, Challenges the status quo forms of voice.
rather than to escape from, an No validated measures.
objectionable state of affairs.” (p. 30)
“Voice is . . . [a] ‘messy’ concept Conspicuous/visible
because it can be graduated, all the Direct
way from faint grumbling to violent
protest; it implies articulation of one’s
critical opinions rather than a private,
‘secret’ vote in the anonymity of a
supermarket; and finally, it is direct
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

and straightforward rather than

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

roundabout.” (p. 16)

“Voice is like exit in that it can be Critical
overdone: The discontented . . . Prohibitive or promotive
members could become so harassing focus
that their protests would . . . hinder
rather than help.” (p. 31)
Gorden (1988) Active/constructive voice
Expressions that actively reaffirm or Promotes improvement No validated measures of these
correct the activities of the behaviors.
organization. Definitions confound norms and
Behaviors include making suggestions, Preserves or challenges the behavior.
bolsterism (supporting the status quo), status quo Preserving/challenging the status quo
and principled dissent. (p. 285) confounded in one type of voice.
Active/destructive voice Passive dimension is inconsistent with
Expressions that are actively Oriented toward doing Hirschman’s (1970) notion of voice
antagonistic toward the organization harm being “active.”
and its activities. Several behaviors identified as voice
Behaviors include verbal aggression, Challenges the status quo do not involve the sharing of
bad-mouthing, and antagonistic exit. information/opinions with others.
(p. 285)
Passive/constructive voice
Behaviors indicating acceptance of and Preserves the status quo
submission to organizational
activities.
Behaviors include nonverbal support,
compliance, and cooperation. (p. 258)
Passive/destructive voice
Behaviors that indicate resigned Preserves the status quo
conformance to the activities of the
organization.
Behaviors include apathy, calculated
silence, and withdrawal. (p. 285)
Van Dyne & LePine Voice behavior
(1998) “promotive behavior that emphasizes the Promotes improvement Scholars have observed that the
expression of constructive challenge Challenges the status quo scale is contaminated (Detert &
intended to improve rather than Positive intentions Burris, 2007; Grant et al., 2009).
merely criticize” (p. 109)
Van Dyne et al. (2003) Prosocial voice
“non-required behavior that emphasizes Active, discretionary No validated measures of these
the expression of change-oriented behavior behaviors.
comments.” (p. 1370) Promotes improvement Definitions confound motive and
The expression of “work related ideas, Challenges the status quo behavior.
information, or opinions based on Altruistic motive
cooperative motives. Thus, this . . .
behavior is intentional, proactive, and
other-oriented.” (p. 1371)
Behaviors include suggestions for
change and recommendations for
improvements.
(table continues)
 90 MAYNES AND PODSAKOFF

Table 1 (continued)

Study Conceptualization of voice behavior Key attributes Limitations

Defensive voice
The expression of “work-related ideas, Self-protective
information or opinions—based on
fear—with the goal of protecting the
self.” (p. 1372)
Behaviors include expressing ideas that Motivated by fear
shift attention elsewhere based on
fear and proposing ideas that focus on
others to protect the self.
Acquiescent voice
The “expression of work-related ideas, Preserves/promotes the
information, or opinions—based on status quo
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

feelings of resignation. Acquiescent

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

voice is disengaged behavior that is

based on feeling unable to make a
difference. Thus, it results in
expressions of agreement and support
based on low self-efficacy to affect
any meaningful change.” (p. 1373)
Behaviors include expressions of Motivated by resignation
support and agreement.
Liang et al. (2012) Promotive voice
“employees’ expression of new ideas or Challenges the status quo Does not capture the negative
suggestions for improving the overall connotation associated with the term
functioning of their work unit or prohibitive.
organization. . . . Such voice is
‘promotive’ in the sense that it is
focused on a future ideal state.”
(p. 74)
Behaviors include proposing ways to Promotes change
change the status quo and offering
suggestions for improvement.
Prohibitive voice
“Prohibitive voice describes employees’ Prevents harm
expressions of concern about work
practices, incidents, or employee
behavior that are harmful to their
organization.” (p. 75)
Behaviors include expressing concern Preserves or challenges the
over current work practices that are status quo
problematic and expressions focused
on preventing problematic initiatives
from being implemented.

a number of limitations that should be addressed. First, although
scholars tend to agree that there is more than one type of voice,
many of the forms of voice discussed in the literature do not have
validated measures. As a result, our empirical knowledge of the voice
domain has been restricted. Second, several of the voice models re-
ported in the literature have definitional issues that have made it
difficult to investigate these behaviors. For instance, Gorden’s
(1988) definitions conflate norms with voice behaviors, and in
some cases his definitions are overly broad and include more than
one type of voice. Finally, the vast majority of empirical work on
voice has focused on behaviors with positive attributes (e.g.,
improvement oriented, intended to benefit the organization, altru-
istically motivated), even though several forms of voice possessing
negative attributes (e.g., hinders rather than helps, antagonistic
toward the organization) have been identified. This is especially
apparent when one considers the voice behaviors that are prohib-
itive in nature. These behaviors have primarily been defined as
consisting of positive attributes, even though the connotations and
definitional meanings associated with the term prohibitive are
quite negative.
Given these issues, one of our objectives was to develop a
new voice behavior framework; one that both expands the
domain and clarifies what types of behaviors should be consid-
ered to be voice. In constructing this framework, we drew on
several of the voice models summarized in Table 1. As shown
in this table, scholars have discussed two different dimensions
upon which voice behaviors may vary. The first dimension
distinguishes voice behaviors that preserve the status quo (i.e.,
reaffirm, sustain, keep things the same) from those that chal-
lenge it (i.e., correct, question, confront). This dimension is
rooted in Hirschman’s (1970) description of voice as the artic-
ulation of critical opinions; Gorden’s (1988) observation that
voice behaviors can either “reaffirm” or “correct” the activities
of the organization; and Van Dyne et al.’s (2003) distinction
between voice behaviors that express support versus those that
constructively challenge.
 EXPANDED SET OF EMPLOYEE VOICE BEHAVIORS 91

The second dimension distinguishes promotive voice behaviors
(i.e., those that are aimed at advocating, encouraging, or endors-
ing) from prohibitive voice behaviors (i.e., those that are aimed at
stopping, blocking, or hindering). This dimension is found in
Hirschman’s (1970) view that voice behavior may be focused
either on promoting change or on hindering it; Gorden’s (1988)
distinction between voice behavior focused on promoting change
versus voice that is focused on tearing down the organization; and
the prohibitive/promotive dimension from Liang et al.’s (2012)
recent work. However, unlike Liang et al. (2012), whose concep-
tualization views prohibitive voice as a constructive behavior that
prevents deterioration in work practices, we conceptualize prohib-
itive voice as being more consistent with Gorden’s (1988) sugges-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
(d) challenge/ prohibitive quadrant destructive voice. In our view,
voice is not an overarching construct made up of multiple subdi-
mensions. Instead, voice is a domain consisting of multiple cate-
gories of behaviors (Rusbult et al., 1988; Van Dyne et al., 2003;
Withey & Cooper, 1989). Each category is a separate construct,
and the behaviors within each category are reflective of the con-
struct representing that category. Thus, the forms of voice are
reflective, not formative, constructs (Bollen, 1989).
Finally, our conceptualization of voice relies primarily on the
perspective of observers of voice events rather than on the per-
spective of voicing employees, because (a) observers are likely to
be aware of voice events given that these events are highly visible;
(b) the majority of recent research on voice behavior has examined

tion that voice messages can either be constructively or destruc- voice from this perspective (Burris, Detert, & Chiaburu, 2008;
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

tively focused. Although this perspective is a departure from Liang
et al. (2012) and may be viewed as somewhat controversial, we
believe that it is consistent with prior theory (Gorden, 1988;
Hagedoorn, Van Yperen, Van de Vliert, & Buunk, 1999; Kassing,
1998, 2011) and with the definitional meaning of the term prohib-
itive. It is also consistent with the fact that people don’t always
voice their opinions in a constructive manner.
Positioning the preservation/challenge dimension opposite the
promotive/prohibitive dimension in a two by two matrix divides
the voice domain into four quadrants (summarized in Table 2). We
labeled the behaviors in the (a) preservation/promotion quadrant
supportive voice; (b) challenge/promotion quadrant constructive
voice; (c) preservation/prohibitive quadrant defensive voice; and
LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Liang et al., 2012; Tangirala &
Ramanujam, 2008; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998; Venkataramani &
Tangirala, 2010); and (c) self-reports of voice may result in biased
responses, because some voice behaviors may be perceived as
socially desirable/undesirable (Nederhof, 1985).
Definitions for Each Type of Voice
Supportive voice. Supportive voice represents the preserva-
tion/promotion quadrant in our model. To be supportive means to
sustain (i.e., preserve) by defending or endorsing (i.e., promoting;
Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). We define supportive voice as the
voluntary expression of support for worthwhile work-related pol-

Table 2
Organizing Framework for Employee Voice Behaviors

Dimension Preservation Challenge

Promotive Supportive voice Constructive voice

Definition: Supportive voice is the voluntary expression of Definition: Constructive voice is the voluntary
support for worthwhile work-related policies, programs, expression of ideas, information, or opinions
objectives, procedures, etc., or speaking out in defense of focused on effecting organizationally
these same things when they are being unfairly criticized. functional change to the work context.
Representative behaviors Representative behaviors
Expressing support for organizational procedures or Suggesting improvements to standard operating
objectives procedures
Verbally defending organizational policies that other Proposing ideas for new or more effective
employees are criticizing work methods
Related constructs Related constructs
Acquiescent voice (Van Dyne et al., 2003) OCB voice (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998)
Active/constructive voice (Gorden, 1988) Prosocial voice (Van Dyne et al., 2003)
Passive/constructive voice (Gorden, 1988) Promotive voice (Liang et al., 2012)
Loyalty (Graham, 1991) Prohibitive voice (Liang et al., 2012)

Prohibitive Defensive voice Destructive voice

Definition: Defensive voice is the voluntary expression of Definition: Destructive voice is the voluntary
opposition to changing an organization’s policies, procedures, expression of hurtful, critical, or debasing
programs, practices, etc., even when the proposed changes opinions regarding work policies, practices,
have merit or making changes is necessary. procedures, etc.
Representative behaviors Representative behaviors
Vocally opposing changes to work policies, even though Bad-mouthing the organization’s policies or
the changes are necessary objectives
Speaking out against changing work policies, even when Making overly critical comments about how
the changes have merit things are done in the organization
Related constructs Related constructs
Defensive voice (Van Dyne et al., 2003) Active/destructive voice (Gorden, 1988)
Resistance to change (Oreg, 2003) Poor sportsmanship (Organ, 1988)
Note. OCB ⫽ organizational citizenship behavior.
 92 MAYNES AND PODSAKOFF
icies, programs, objectives, procedures, and so on, or speaking out
in defense of these same things when they are being unfairly
criticized. Representative behaviors include expressing support for
valuable work practices or defending valid organizational policies
that coworkers are criticizing. Supportive voice is similar to ac-
quiescent voice (Van Dyne et al., 2003), given that they both
emphasize the expression of support for work-related practices.
However, whereas acquiescent voice must be motivated by a
feeling that one cannot make a difference, supportive voice is not
subject to the same restriction. Supportive voice is also similar to
organizational loyalty (i.e., identification with the organization
and its leaders; Graham, 1991) and loyal boosterism (i.e., promo-
tion of the organizational image to outsiders; Moorman & Blakely,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
1995). However, supportive voice differs from these constructs,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
given that supportive voice must be the communication of infor-
mation to organizational insiders.
Constructive voice. This form of voice represents the chal-
lenge/promotion quadrant. To be constructive is to promote im-
provement (i.e., to challenge the status quo; Gorden, 1988). We
define constructive voice as the voluntary expression of ideas,
information, or opinions focused on effecting organizationally
functional change to the work context. Constructive voice expres-
sions may include suggestions of (a) new or improved ways of
doing things; (b) ways to fix problems with existing work methods,
procedures, and so on; or (c) solutions to problems that have been
previously identified. Constructive voice is similar to active/con-
structive voice (Gorden, 1988), organizational citizenship behav-
ior (OCB) voice (the form of voice identified by Van Dyne &
LePine, 1998), and prosocial voice (Van Dyne et al., 2003), given
that each of these emphasizes improvements to the working envi-
ronment. However, constructive voice also differs from these
constructs. OCB and active/constructive voice are broader, given
that they include nonexpressive behaviors such as keeping in-
formed about work-related issues and participative decision mak-
ing. In contrast, prosocial voice is narrower, given that it must be
motivated by a desire to benefit others.
Defensive voice. Behaviors that reflect the preservation/
prohibitive quadrant are called defensive voice. In this case, to
be defensive is to shield (i.e., prohibit) the status quo from
potential changes (i.e., preserve; Ashforth & Lee, 1990). We
define defensive voice as the voluntary expression of opposition
to changing an organization’s policies, procedures, programs,
and practices, even when the proposed changes have merit or
making changes is necessary. Representative behaviors include
stubbornly arguing against changing work methods or vocally
opposing changes to standard operating procedures. Van Dyne
et al.’s (2003) three-factor model also contained a behavior that
they labeled defensive voice. Although their conception of this
construct is similar to ours (i.e., both are protective actions
intended to reduce a perceived threat), these constructs differ in
two important ways. First, in our model defensive voice is
focused on shielding the status quo, whereas in their model the
behavior is aimed at protecting the voicing employee. Second,
their conception of defensive voice is broader, given that it
includes expressions of support for the organization as well as
protective expressions. Defensive voice is also similar to Oreg’s
(2003) resistance to change construct, given that both empha-
size preserving the status quo. However, defensive voice is
more active in that defensive voicers speak out against changes
in order to prevent them from occurring, whereas resistance to
change is more passive, given its focus on avoiding changes
that have already been enacted.
Destructive voice. The final form of voice represents the
challenge/prohibitive quadrant. These behaviors are referred to
as destructive voice. To be destructive is to be hurtful or critical
(i.e., challenge) or to bring down or end (i.e., prohibit; Gorden,
1988; Warren, 2003). We define destructive voice as the vol-
untary expression of hurtful, critical, or debasing opinions
regarding work policies, practices, procedures, and so on. Rep-
resentative behaviors include bad-mouthing organizational pol-
icies, making disparaging comments regarding work-related
programs, and harshly criticizing the organization’s work meth-
ods. Destructive voice is similar to active/destructive voice
(Gorden, 1988), given that they both emphasize harsh criticism
of the status quo. However, active/destructive voice differs,
given that it includes expressions that are not critical of the
work context (e.g., ingratiation and duplicity). Destructive
voice is also similar to the OCB construct of a lack of sports-
manship, which includes such behaviors as “complaining, petty
grievances, [and] railing against real or imagined slights”
(Organ, 1988, p. 11). Despite the similarities, destructive voice
differs from poor sportsmanship in three important ways: (a)
poor sportsmanship is not limited to the expression of informa-
tion; (b) poor sportsmanship behaviors include expressions that
are not limited to work practices, policies, or methods; and (c)
poor sportsmanship behaviors do not include disparaging ex-
pressions.
Instrument Development
After constructing our conceptual framework, we developed
and validated survey measures for each voice behavior in our
model. We did so in five stages based on the recommendations
of several organizational scholars (Churchill, 1979; MacKenzie,
Podsakoff & Podsakoff, 2011; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). In
the first stage, survey items were generated from the theoretical
definitions, a review of the literature, and qualitative interviews
with working professionals. Following this, the content validity
of the items was assessed. Next, we conducted a preliminary
test of the convergent, discriminant, and nomological validity of the
scales. In Stage 4, the causal connection between the voice
behaviors and ratings on the voice scales was assessed (i.e., the
scale’s veridical validity). In the final stage, the criterion-
related validity of the voice scales was evaluated.
Stage 1: Item Generation and Refinement
The objective of the first stage was to generate a sufficient
number of items to adequately tap the conceptual domain of each
form of voice (Kerlinger, 1973). Items were generated in two
ways. First, 44 items were generated based on a review of previous
research and theory regarding behaviors that are similar to voice
(e.g., taking charge, issue selling, loyalty, defensive behavior).
Second, 38 unique behaviors were identified via interviews with
39 associates working in professional service firms (e.g., manage-
ment consulting, advisory services, financial services). On aver-
age, the interviewees were about 35 years old (M ⫽ 34.79, SD ⫽
6.28). They were primarily male (87.2%) and Caucasian (94.8%)
 EXPANDED SET OF EMPLOYEE VOICE BEHAVIORS 93

and had just under 10 years of work experience (M ⫽ 9.55, SD ⫽
5.90). Respondents were given the conceptual definition and ex-
amples of one of the four forms of voice, and they were then asked
to describe an incident of someone engaging in the behavior.
Between the two procedures, a total of 82 items were generated.
After we eliminated redundant or overlapping items, 68 unique
items remained.
Stage 2: Assessment of Item Content Validity
Content validity evidence was obtained in two separate studies.
In the first, the extent to which each survey item is consistent with
the definitions of the overall dimensions of voice (i.e., preserva-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
wording of the items. Evidence of the content validity of each item
relative to the overall dimensions of voice (i.e., preservation/
challenge and prohibitive/promotive) was then obtained by asking
study participants to rate each survey item twice; once regarding
the extent to which the items describe behaviors that tend to be
prohibitive (blocks, hinders, hampers, abolishes, or stamps out) or
promotive (advances, advocates, encourages, or endorses), and
once regarding the extent to which the behaviors tend to preserve
(sustain, support, or keep things the same) or challenge the status
quo (criticize, change, or tear down). These tasks were performed
sequentially and were counterbalanced such that half of the par-
ticipants rated the preservation/challenge dimension first, followed
by the prohibitive/promotive dimension, and the other half per-

tion/ challenge and promotive/prohibitive) was assessed. Although formed these tasks in reverse order. Items were rated on a 7-point
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

an assessment of this type differs from traditional content validity
assessments, it is valuable because it provides evidence regarding
the validity of our overarching framework of the voice domain. In
the second study, in which we used a more traditional approach to
content validity (cf. Haynes, Richard, & Kubany, 1995; Nete-
meyer, Bearden & Sharma, 2003), the extent to which the survey
items are consistent with the definitions of the four types of voice
behavior was assessed.
Study 1: Content Validity Relative to the Overall
Dimensions of Voice
Participants. Thirty undergraduate students majoring in busi-
ness from a large university in the United States participated in this
study. On average, participants were 20 years of age (M ⫽ 20,
SD ⫽ .74). They were primarily male (53.3%) and Caucasian
(83.3%) and had just over 4 months of full-time work experience
(M ⫽ 4.63, SD ⫽ 9.23). Students completed this exercise as part
of a requirement to earn course credit. Although some scholars
have cautioned against the use of undergraduate students for
research purposes (Anderson & Gerbing, 1991), it is appropriate in
this case because participants were asked to evaluate survey items
based on definitions (which is similar to the activities of most
undergraduate courses), not to assess whether the items tapped
actual behaviors in organizations.
Procedure. We first refined the list of survey items from 68 to
48 (supportive voice ⫽ 12, constructive voice ⫽ 13, defensive
voice ⫽ 11, and destructive voice ⫽ 12) based on two preliminary
studies in which we sought input from participants regarding the
scale ranging either from ⫺3 (Preserve) to 3 (Challenge) or from
⫺3 (Prohibitive) to 3 (Promotive).
Results and Discussion. Aggregated results from this assess-
ment (reported in the first four columns of Table 3) indicate that
the supportive voice items are preservation oriented (M ⫽ ⫺2.77,
SD ⫽ 0.70) and promotive in nature (M ⫽ 2.56, SD ⫽ 0.62); the
constructive voice items are challenge oriented (M ⫽ 2.70, SD ⫽
0.76) and promotive in nature (M ⫽ 2.76, SD ⫽ 0.47); the
defensive voice items are preservation oriented (M ⫽ ⫺2.90,
SD ⫽ 1.45) and prohibitive in nature (M ⫽ ⫺2.66, SD ⫽ 0.63);
and the destructive voice items are challenge oriented (M ⫽ 2.65,
SD ⫽ 1.00) and prohibitive in nature (M ⫽ ⫺2.72, SD ⫽ 0.51).
These findings are consistent with our conceptual framework of
voice behavior.
Study 2: Content Validity Relative to
the Definitions of Voice
Participants. Forty-seven undergraduate students majoring in
business at a large university in the United States participated in
this study. On average, participants were 20 years of age (M ⫽ 20,
SD ⫽ 0.55). They were primarily male (74.4%) and Caucasian
(91.5%) and had just over 4 months of full-time work experience
(M ⫽ 4.38, SD ⫽ 8.95). Students completed this exercise as part
of a requirement to earn course credit.
Procedure. Evidence of item content validity relative to the
definitions of voice was obtained by asking study participants to
rate the extent to which each survey item is captured by the
conceptual definition of each form of voice (Hinkin & Tracey,

Table 3
Mean Ratings of Survey Items Obtained From Content Validity Assessment (Stage 2)

Study 1 Study 2
Preserve (⫺)/ Prohibit (⫺)/
Challenge (⫹) Promote (⫹) Mean ratings Standard deviation of ratings
Type M SD M SD SV CV DFV DSV SV CV DFV DSV

Supportive ⫺2.77 0.70 2.56 0.62 6.81 1.15 1.08 1.05 0.84 0.66 0.48 0.31
Constructive 2.70 0.76 2.76 0.47 1.13 6.88 1.00 1.02 0.48 0.54 0.02 0.16
Defensive ⫺2.90 1.45 ⫺2.66 0.63 1.36 1.13 6.37 1.68 1.20 0.60 1.70 1.71
Destructive 2.65 1.00 ⫺2.72 0.51 1.03 1.01 1.34 6.72 0.13 0.06 1.06 0.92
Note. In Study 1, items were rated on a 7-point scale from –3 (Preserve) to 3 (Challenge) for the preservation versus challenge dimension, and from –3
(Prohibit) to 3 (Promote) for the prohibitive versus promotive dimension. In Study 2, items were rated on a 7-point scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (completely)
for SV, CV, DFV, and DSV. Italicized means indicate average ratings that were significantly higher than any other mean in the same row. SD ⫽ standard
deviation; SV ⫽ supportive voice; CV ⫽ constructive voice; DFV ⫽ defensive voice; DSV ⫽ destructive voice.
 94 MAYNES AND PODSAKOFF
1999; MacKenzie et al., 2011). Thus, four ratings were obtained
for each item (1 item ⫻ 4 behaviors).1 Response choices ranged
from 1 (the survey item is not captured by the conceptual definition
at all) to 7 (the survey item is completely captured by the concep-
tual definition). Content validity was then assessed with a one-way
repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedure,
wherein mean ratings on the intended form of voice were com-
pared to mean ratings on the other forms of voice. This was
followed up with a series of planned comparisons, which assessed
whether an item’s mean score was significantly higher on the
proposed form of voice compared to the other forms.
Results and Discussion. Summary results, reported in Table
3, indicate that the supportive voice (SV) items were captured by
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
the definition of supportive voice but not the other types of voice
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
(mean ratings for SV ⫽ 6.81, CV ⫽ 1.15, DFV ⫽ 1.08, DSV ⫽
1.05); the constructive voice (CV) items were captured by the
definition of constructive voice but not the other types (mean
ratings for SV ⫽ 1.13, CV ⫽ 6.88, DFV ⫽ 1.00, DSV ⫽ 1.02); the
defensive voice (DFV) items were captured by the definition of
defensive voice but not the other types (mean ratings for SV ⫽
1.36, CV ⫽ 1.13, DFV ⫽ 6.37, DSV ⫽ 1.68); and the destructive
voice (DSV) items were captured by the definition of destructive
voice but not the other types (mean ratings for SV ⫽ 1.03, CV ⫽
1.01, DFV ⫽ 1.34, DSV ⫽ 6.72). On an individual level, each item
received its highest rating on the intended form of voice, and this
rating was always significantly higher than the other ratings (all p
values ⬍ .05). Taken together, this analysis suggests that the items
possess adequate content validity.
Stage 3: Preliminary Assessment of Convergent,
Discriminant and Nomological Validity
The objective in this stage was to conduct a preliminary assessment
of the convergent, discriminant, and nomological validity of the voice
scales. This assessment was conducted in two separate steps. In the
first step, we examined the convergent and discriminant validity of the
voice measures at the item- and construct-level using confirmatory
factor analysis procedures in LISREL 8.8. Two confirmatory factor
analyses (CFA) were examined in this stage. In the first, a four-factor
model that included only the items measuring the types of voice was
analyzed. This was done in order to assess the convergent/discrimi-
nant validity among the voice scales at the item and construct level. In
the second, an eight-factor model containing the measures of voice
and the measures of a comparison construct for each type of voice was
examined in order to assess the convergent/discriminant validity of
the voice scales relative to the measures of the comparison constructs.
Loyalty was selected as the comparison construct for supportive voice,
because these two behaviors share an emphasis on supporting elements of
the organization and should therefore covary. OCB voice served as the
comparison for constructive voice, given that these two forms of voice
focus on promoting constructive changes. Resistance to change served as
the comparison for defensive voice, because both of these behaviors focus
on preventing change. Finally, poor sportsmanship was selected as the
comparison for destructive voice, given that both of these behaviors focus
almost exclusively on negative aspects of the organization.
In the second step, we conducted a preliminary assessment of
the nomological validity of the voice scales by examining dispo-
sitional antecedents of voice. Predictors were selected from the Big
Five personality framework because (a) early research on voice
behavior focused on personality predictors (LePine & Van Dyne,
2001); and (b) prior research indicates that there is a connection
between personality and discretionary behaviors such as voice
(Crant, Kim, & Wang, 2011; Ilies, Fulmer, Spitzmuller, & John-
son, 2009; Nikolaou, Vakola, & Bourantas, 2008; Organ & Ryan,
1995). We conducted the analysis with structural equation model-
ing procedures. Because the analysis is preliminary, we do not
develop formal hypotheses. However, we do expect to see certain
patterns of relationships emerge (in some cases differentially)
across the forms of voice. These expectations are described below.
Given that agreeable people tend to be empathetic, cooperative,
and friendly and that they place a high value on social harmony in
the workplace (Barrick & Mount, 1991; LePine & Van Dyne,
2001), they are unlikely to defend the organization when others are
being critical (supportive voice), challenge the status quo by mak-
ing recommendations for change (constructive voice), speak out
against changes that are being made (defensive voice), or speak out
against the status quo (destructive voice) because each of these
behaviors may create social discord by offending those who are
opposed to the views of the voicer. Thus, agreeableness should be
negatively related to each type of voice in our model.
Conscientiousness is associated with the traits of being depend-
able, responsible, planful, and achievement oriented (Barrick &
Mount, 1991). Thus, conscientious employees are likely to speak
up in support of the organization when others are being critical
because they may view it as the responsible thing to do. Further-
more, they would likely speak up with recommendations for im-
provement, if doing so would help them achieve the results they
desired. Thus, conscientiousness should be positively related to the
promotive forms of voice in our model (i.e., supportive and con-
structive voice) but not related to the prohibitive forms of voice
(i.e., defensive and destructive).
Emotional stability is the trait of being calm and even tempered
(Barrick & Mount, 1991). In contrast, emotionally unstable people
tend to be anxious, angry, worried, and insecure (Barrick &
Mount, 1991). Empirical evidence indicates that emotionally un-
stable people are uncooperative (LePine & Van Dyne, 2001); tend
to have low quality interactions with coworkers (LePine & Van
Dyne, 2001); often express negative attitudes about aspects of the
work environment (Judge & Bono, 2001); and respond poorly to
environmental stressors such as changes to work processes or
procedures (Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, & Welbourne, 1999). Given
that defensive voice is the expression of a negative attitude about
changing work conditions and that destructive voice is the expres-
sion of a negative attitude about how things are currently being
done in the organization, emotionally unstable people are likely to
engage in these types of voice. In contrast, given that supportive
voice is the expression of a positive attitude about current work
practices and that a potential outcome of constructive voice is a
1
Ratings of item-level content validity relative to the definitions of each
form of voice were obtained by presenting participants with a matrix,
wherein the rows of the first column contained the survey items, and the
definitions of supportive, constructive, defensive, and destructive voice
were listed at the tops of columns 2 through 5. A final column titled
“Other” was provided to capture items that were not consistent with any of
the forms of voice. A 7-point rating scale was provided at the intersection
of each row and column.
 EXPANDED SET OF EMPLOYEE VOICE BEHAVIORS
change to current work practices, emotional instability is unlikely
to be related to these types of voice.
Extraversion is associated with the traits of sociability/dominance,
gregariousness, and talkativeness (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Extra-
verts tend to be expressive and assertive in their interpersonal inter-
actions. Thus, they are likely to speak up and express their opinions,
especially if doing so helps them achieve their goals. However,
extraverts also tend to be socially adept; they are unlikely to express
negative views or opinions at work because doing so may arouse
negative feelings in others, creating resentment. Furthermore, prior
research indicates that extraverts tend to be happy (Pavot, Diener, &
Fujita, 1990) and to experience high levels of positive emotion (Die-
ner, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999). Thus, extraverts are unlikely to hold
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
negative views of the work environment. As a consequence, when
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
extraverts voice their opinion it is likely to be in a positive manner.
Because promotive voice behaviors are the expression of positive
attitudes about opportunities for improvement or about current orga-
nizational procedures, extraversion should be positively related to
these types of voice (i.e., supportive/constructive). Consistent with
this line of reasoning, extraversion is not expected to be related to
either defensive or destructive voice behavior.
Openness to experience is characterized by active imagination,
intellectual curiosity, and broad-mindedness (Barrick & Mount,
1991). People who score high on this dimension are willing to
consider diverse perspectives; are likely to seek opportunities to learn
new things and to have new experiences; and are very tolerant of
diversity (McCrae, 1996). In contrast, those who are closed to expe-
rience prefer stable routines over new experiences and have a very
narrow range of interests (Whitbourne, 1986). Given that constructive
voice initiates change and defensive voice diminishes change, open-
ness to experience should be positively related to constructive voice
but negatively related to defensive voice.
Method
Sample. The questionnaire was administered to a sample of
executive MBA students taking classes at a large university in the
United States (210 completed surveys were returned for a response
rate of 81%). On average, respondents were 39 years of age (M ⫽
38.81 years). They were primarily male (90%) and Caucasian (83.3%)
and had approximately 8 years of full-time work experience (M ⫽
7.92). Furthermore, 51% had been required to evaluate the perfor-
mance of subordinates as part of their job; they had this responsibility
for just over three years on average. Participants were paid $20.
Procedure. Respondents were instructed to think about a co-
worker that they work with frequently in their job. They then rated
this coworker on the items measuring the types of voice, loyalty, OCB
voice, resistance to change, poor sportsmanship, and variables from
the Big Five personality framework on a 7-point scale (1 ⫽ strongly
disagree, 7 ⫽ strongly agree). Although personality is often assessed
with self-reports, we relied on observer ratings because it has been
argued (Goldberg, 1993) that they capture meaningful aspects of
personality not captured in a self-report. Meta-analytic evidence sup-
ports this view in that other-reports of personality explain significant
incremental variance over self-reports in important outcomes (Oh,
Wang, & Mount, 2011). Thus, we chose to rely on observer ratings of
personality. Respondents also answered demographic questions about
themselves and the focal coworker.
95
Measures. One goal in this study was to create short-form mea-
sures by reducing the length of our scales. Thus, although all 48 voice
items from our previous content validity assessment were included in
this study, only five items for each voice scale were retained in the
final models. Consistent with the recommendations of MacKenzie et
al. (2011), scales were trimmed by first conducting a CFA and
looking for items with low/nonsignificant factor loadings, strong/
significant error covariances, or strong/significant cross-loadings. All
of the voice items passed these tests. Thus, the final five items for each
scale were selected based on (a) the content validity ratings; (b) the
ratings on the overall dimensions of voice (e.g., prohibitive/promo-
tive); and (c) an assessment regarding whether the items captured,
collectively, the entire domain of the construct.
Reliabilities for these measures were .89 for supportive voice; .95
for constructive voice; .92 for defensive voice; and .93 for destructive
voice. Loyalty (␣ ⫽ .82) was measured with five items from Van
Dyne, Graham, and Dienesch’s (1994) scale; OCB voice (␣ ⫽ .89)
was measured with six items from Van Dyne and LePine’s (1998)
scale; resistance to change (␣ ⫽ .85) was measured with five items
from Oreg’s (2003) scale; and poor sportsmanship (␣ ⫽ .90) was
measured with four items from Podsakoff and MacKenzie’s (1994)
scale. Traits from the Big Five personality framework were assessed
with three items from each of Saucier’s (1994) trait adjective mea-
sures. Cooperative, rude (reverse coded), and unsympathetic (reverse
coded) were used to assess agreeableness (␣ ⫽ .89); efficient, orga-
nized, and practical were used to assess conscientiousness (␣ ⫽ .88);
moody, temperamental, and touchy (all reverse coded) were used
to assess emotional stability (␣ ⫽ .90); bashful (reverse coded), bold,
and energetic were used to assess extraversion (␣ ⫽ .82); and cre-
ative, imaginative, and unintellectual (reverse coded) were used to
assess openness to experience (␣ ⫽ .79).
Results and Discussion
Assessment of convergent and discriminant validity. The
convergent/discriminant validity of the voice scales was evaluated
with two CFAs constructed in LISREL 8.8. The first was a
four-factor model. Only the items measuring the types of voice
were included. Results, reported in Table 4, indicate high levels of
convergent validity. Each factor loading is strong and significant
(all p values ⬍ .01), and the average variance extracted (AVE)
value for each type of voice is well above Fornell and Larcker’s
(1981) suggested cutoff of .50. Results also indicate high levels of
discriminant validity. As indicated in the first column of Table 5,
the hypothesized four-factor model fit the data significantly better
(all p values ⬍ .01) than a measurement model in which all of the
supportive, constructive, defensive, and destructive voice items
loaded on a single factor (⌬␹2 ⫽ 818.45, df ⫽ 6); a two-factor model
in which the promotive types of voice loaded on one factor and the
prohibitive types loaded on another (⌬␹2 ⫽ 980.71, df ⫽ 5); and a
two-factor model in which the preservation-oriented types of voice
loaded on one factor and the challenge-oriented types loaded on
another (⌬␹2 ⫽ 1,432.28, df ⫽ 5). Finally, goodness-of-fit indices for
the four-factor model met or exceeded Hu and Bentler’s (1999)
suggested cutoff of .95 for the comparative fit index (CFI ⫽ .96), .09
for the standardized root mean residual (SRMR ⫽ .06), and .95 for the
incremental fit index (IFI ⫽ .96).
The second CFA was constructed as an eight-factor model
wherein the measures of voice and the selected comparison con-
 96 MAYNES AND PODSAKOFF

Table 4
Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results (Stage 3)

Constructs/items Factor loadings

Supportive voice (average variance extracted) (.62)

This employee
1. Defends organizational programs that are worthwhile when others unfairly criticize the programs. .79
2. Expresses support for productive work procedures when others express uncalled for criticisms of the procedures. .80
3. Speaks up in support of organizational policies that have merit when others raise unjustified concerns about the policies. .78
4. Defends useful organizational policies when other employees unfairly criticize the policies. .84
5. Defends effective work methods when others express invalid criticisms of the methods. .72
Constructive voice (average variance extracted) (.77)
This employee
1. Frequently makes suggestions about how to do things in new or more effective ways at work. .88
2. Often suggests changes to work projects in order to make them better. .88
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

3. Often speaks up with recommendations about how to fix work-related problems. .89
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

4. Frequently makes suggestions about how to improve work methods or practices. .87
5. Regularly proposes ideas for new or more effective work methods. .87
Defensive voice (average variance extracted) (.71)
This employee
1. Stubbornly argues against changing work methods, even when the proposed changes have merit. .83
2. Speaks out against changing work policies, even when making changes would be for the best. .79
3. Vocally opposes changing how things are done, even when changing is inevitable. .84
4. Rigidly argues against changing work procedures, even when implementing the changes makes sense. .91
5. Vocally argues against changing work practices, even when making the changes is necessary. .84
Destructive voice (average variance extracted) (.72)
This employee
1. Often bad-mouths the organization’s policies or objectives. .82
2. Often makes insulting comments about work-related programs or initiatives. .83
3. Frequently makes overly critical comments regarding how things are done in the organization. .91
4. Often makes overly critical comments about the organization’s work practices or methods. .92
5. Harshly criticizes the organization’s policies, even though the criticism is unfounded. .75
Note. All factor loadings are completely standardized lambda loadings and are significant at p ⬍ .01. The chi-square test had 164 degrees of freedom.
␹2 ⫽ 392.19 (p ⬍ .01); comparative fit index ⫽ .96; standardized root mean residual ⫽ .06; incremental fit index ⫽ .96.

structs were modeled as separate factors. The means, standard
deviations, reliabilities, AVE values, and correlations are reported
in Appendix A. As indicated in the table in this appendix, the types
of voice are significantly correlated with their comparison con-
structs (i.e., correlations ranged from .46 to .76), which provides
evidence of convergent validity. As indicated in the second column
of Table 5, the measures also demonstrate a sufficient level of
discriminant validity, given that the hypothesized eight-factor
model fit the data significantly better than a single-factor model or
a four-factor model in which the items from each type of voice and
its comparison construct loaded on the same factor. Finally, the
CFI (.97), SRMR (.07), and IFI (.97) values for the eight-factor
model all met or exceeded standard cutoff levels (Hu & Bentler,
1999). These results provide substantial support for the conver-
gent/discriminant validity of the items and overall measures of
voice.2
Assessment of nomological validity. The second objective in
this study was to conduct a preliminary assessment of the nomological
validity of the voice scales using the personality variables as predic-
tors of the voice behaviors. Relationships were examined with struc-
tural equation modeling procedures in LISREL 8.8. A model with
nine latent variables was specified (covariances among the personality
variables and among the measures of voice were estimated). The five
personality variables served as predictors, and the four types of voice
served as outcomes. Results are summarized in Table 6.
As indicated in the table, agreeableness is negatively related to
defensive voice (␥ ⫽ ⫺.30, p ⬍ .05) but not supportive (␥ ⫽ ⫺.23,
p ⬎ .05), constructive (␥ ⫽ ⫺.07, p ⬎ .05), or destructive voice
(␥ ⫽ ⫺.15, p ⬎ .05). Thus, people perceived as more agreeable
were also perceived to express lower levels of defensive voice than
people who were perceived to be less agreeable. Contrary to our
expectations, conscientiousness was not significantly related to
either supportive (␥ ⫽ .09, p ⬎ .05) or constructive voice (␥ ⫽ .08,
p ⬎ .05). However, as expected, emotional stability was negatively
related to defensive (␥ ⫽ ⫺.27, p ⬍ .01) and destructive voice
2
In order to provide a more robust test of the discriminant validity of the
new voice measures from their comparison constructs, we analyzed a series of
two-factor CFA models. In each of these, the focal type of voice and its
comparison construct were included in the model. Results of these analyses
indicated that there was a substantial amount of support for the distinctiveness
of the voice measures in that (a) all of the goodness-of-fit indices for the
hypothesized two-factor solutions met or exceeded the cutoffs suggested by
Hu and Bentler (1999); (b) all of the two-factor CFA models fit the data better
than one-factor CFA models, which collapsed the measures of the focal voice
construct with the measures of the comparison construct (e.g., all chi-square
differences between the hypothesized two-factor CFA models and the one-
factor models were greater than the critical value of 3.84, and all p values
were ⬍ .01); (c) all of the items loaded significantly on their intended factors;
(d) consistent with Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) test of convergent validity, all
of the AVEs met or exceeded the suggested level of .50; and (e) consistent with
Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) test for discriminant validity, the average vari-
ance extracted from the items by the hypothesized constructs was greater than
the squared correlations between these constructs in every case. Thus, these
tests provide strong evidence in support of the discriminant validity of the new
voice measures.
 EXPANDED SET OF EMPLOYEE VOICE BEHAVIORS 97

Table 5
Summary of Model Fit Information for All CFAs Examined

Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5

Model 4-factor 8-factor SV CV DFV DSV 13-factor

Sample size 210 210 76 76 75 74 222

Hypothesized model
␹2 (df) 392.19 (164) 1,354.03 (712) 431.29 (265) 478.49 (289) 365.84 (265) 340.12 (242) 1,357.57 (849)
CFI .96 .97 .94 .93 .94 .97 .98
SRMR .06 .07 .08 .10 .08 .06 .07
IFI .96 .97 .94 .93 .94 .97 .98
4-factor model
␹2 (df) 2,378.33 (734) 712.06 (269) 537.48 (293) 443.35 (269) 415.01 (246)
CFI .92 .83 .91 .89 .94
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

SRMR .11 .15 .11 .11 .10

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

IFI .92 .83 .91 .89 .94

3-factor model
␹2 (df) 4,446.79 (924)
CFI .87
SRMR .12
IFI .87
2-factor model Promotive/prohibitive Mediators/Outcomes
␹2 (df) 1,372.90 (169) 4,734.08 (926)
CFI .81 .86
SRMR .16 .11
IFI .81 .86
2-factor model Preservation/challenge Predictors/Mediators
␹2 (df) 1,824.47 (169) 4,651.41 (926)
CFI .73 .86
SRMR .22 .11
IFI .73 .86
1-factor model
␹2 (df) 1,210.64 (170) 4,291.76 (740) 1,276.34 (275) 1,065.40 (299) 1,152.79 (275) 1,180.59 (252) 5,052.04 (927)
CFI .67 .83 .61 .71 .45 .67 .85
SRMR .19 .16 .25 .20 .22 .23 .11
IFI .67 .83 .62 .72 .46 .67 .85
Note. CFA ⫽ confirmatory factor analysis; SV ⫽ supportive voice; CV ⫽ constructive voice; DFV ⫽ defensive voice; DSV ⫽ destructive voice; df ⫽
degrees of freedom; CFI ⫽ comparative fit index; SRMR ⫽ standardized root mean residual; IFI ⫽ incremental fit index.

(␥ ⫽ ⫺.45, p ⬍ .01) and was not related to supportive (␥ ⫽ .17,
p ⬎ .05) or constructive voice (␥ ⫽ .10, p ⬎ .05). These findings
suggest that people perceived as emotionally stable are also per-
ceived to exhibit lower levels of both forms of prohibitive voice
behaviors. We also found that extraversion was positively related
to supportive voice (␥ ⫽ .29, p ⬍ .05) but not constructive voice
(␤ ⫽ .11, p ⬎ .05). This finding suggests that people perceived to
be extraverts may try to preserve the status quo of the organization
by speaking up in support of what the organization is currently
doing. Finally, openness to experience was positively related to
perceptions of constructive (␤ ⫽ .43, p ⬍ .01) and defensive voice
(␤ ⫽ ⫺.33, p ⬍ .01), as expected. Although not anticipated,
openness to experience was also positively related to supportive
voice (␤ ⫽ .36, p ⬍ .01). These findings suggest that people who

Table 6
Summary of Direct Effects of Personality Predictors on Voice Measures for Nomological Validity Study (Stage 3)

Supportive voice Constructive voice Defensive voice Destructive voice

Expected Expected Expected Expected
Predictor relationship ␤ relationship ␤ relationship ␤ relationship ␤
ⴱ
Agreeableness ⫺ ⫺.23 ⫺ ⫺.07 ⫺ ⫺.30 ⫺ ⫺.15
Conscientiousness ⫹ .09 ⫹ .08 0 .15 0 .24
Emotional stability 0 .17 0 .10 ⫺ ⫺.27ⴱⴱ ⫺ ⫺.45ⴱⴱ
Extraversion ⫹ .29ⴱ ⫹ .11 0 .20 0 ⫺.11
Openness to experience NA .36ⴱⴱ ⫹ .43ⴱⴱ ⫺ ⫺.33ⴱⴱ NA ⫺.06
Model R2 .26 .25 .32 .24
Note. All estimates in this table are from the completely standardized solution. Expected relationships are denoted as follows: A plus sign equals expected
positive relationship; a minus sign equals expected negative relationship; 0 means expected nonrelationship; NA means that no expectation was articulated.
The chi-square test for this model had 524 degrees of freedom. ␹2 ⫽ 954.57 (p ⬍ .01); CFI ⫽ .96; SRMR ⫽ .06; IFI ⫽ .96.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
 98 MAYNES AND PODSAKOFF
are perceived to be open to new experiences are likely to speak up
in support of the organization and to make constructive sugges-
tions for change but are unlikely to verbally fight against changes
that they do not want to see enacted.
These results provide preliminary, albeit mixed, support for the
nomological validity of the voice measures. Consistent with our
expectations, agreeableness was negatively related to defensive
voice. However, contrary to our expectations, this personality
variable was not related to the other forms of voice behavior. This
may be the case because defensive voice contains an element of
stubbornness (not shared by the other voice behaviors) in that
defensive voicers speak out against suggested changes even when
others generally agree that making the changes is a good idea. This
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
may lead to a perception that the voicing employee is obstinate and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
disagreeable.
Conscientiousness was not related to any of the forms of voice.
This was consistent with our expectations for defensive and de-
structive voice. However, we were surprised that conscientious-
ness was not related to either supportive or constructive voice,
because LePine and Van Dyne (1998) reported a significant pos-
itive relationship between conscientiousness and voice behavior,
and other research has demonstrated a relationship between con-
scientiousness and other proactive behaviors (Organ & Ryan,
1995). One explanation for the lack of support may be that con-
scientious people don’t view speaking up in support of the orga-
nization or with improvement oriented suggestions as one of their
responsibilities.
Emotional stability was negatively related to defensive and
destructive voice but not to supportive or constructive voice. Thus,
as expected, emotional stability was a stronger predictor of the
prohibitive than the promotive types of voice. Given that emotion-
ally unstable people ruminate on the negative attributes of their
work environment (Barrick & Mount, 1991), it is not surprising
that they express negative views regarding potential changes or
current work practices that are bothersome.
As expected, extraversion was not related to defensive or de-
structive voice but was positively related to supportive voice.
Given that extraverts tend to focus on the positive aspects of their
work environment (Barrick & Mount, 1991) and that they are
generally comfortable sharing their opinions, these findings were not
surprising. However, contrary to our expectations and prior research,
extraversion failed to predict constructive voice. This result may be
connected to the fact that prior studies of voice used a measure that
captured a broader spectrum of proactive behaviors. Regardless, these
results suggest that perceived extraversion is a stronger predictor of
supportive voice than of the other types of voice.
Finally, consistent with our expectations, openness to experi-
ence was positively related to constructive voice and negatively
related to defensive voice. This underscores the importance of
change to constructive voice and change prevention to defensive
voice, given that intellectual curiosity and finding enjoyment in
new experiences are key traits of this personality type (Barrick &
Mount, 1991). Although unanticipated, openness to experience
also predicted supportive voice. When other employees criticize
the organization, those who are open to experience may speak up
and present the alternative point of view because they tend to be
broad minded and are willing to consider information from mul-
tiple perspectives (Barrick & Mount, 1991).
Taken together, the results discussed above provide support for
many (67%) of the expected relationships between the personality
variables and our voice measures. However, several relationships
that were expected to be significant were not. For instance, al-
though it was anticipated that agreeableness would negatively
impact each form of voice, the only significant relationship was
with defensive voice. In addition, the anticipated positive relation-
ships between conscientiousness and the promotive forms of voice
were not observed. One possible explanation for these nonsignif-
icant findings may be that the personality measures were obtained
from observers rather than from the voicers themselves. This may
have attenuated some relationships, because observers may not
understand a voicing employee’s motives for speaking up. Thus,
we recommend that future research examining relationships be-
tween personality and voice collect personality measures from the
person expressing voice, rather than from an observer, to see if this
makes a difference.
Stage 4: Assessment of Veridical Validity
Most scholars agree that the primary objective of construct valida-
tion is to assess whether an instrument measures what it is intended to
measure (cf. Borsboom, Mellenbergh, & van Heerden, 2004). Unfor-
tunately, traditional methods of evaluating the construct validity of
survey measures do not directly examine this assertion, relying in-
stead on indirect, correlational evidence (e.g., convergent, discrimi-
nant, and nomological validity). Borsboom et al. (2004, p. 1061)
noted the irony of this and argued that “a test is valid for measuring
an attribute if and only if (a) the attribute [behavior] exists and (b)
variations in the attribute causally produce variations in the outcomes
of the measurement procedure.” Given that validity is a causal con-
cept, construct validation procedures should include a test that meets
the conditions necessary to infer causality if possible. That is, the test
should demonstrate that (a) the measure covaries with the attribute it
is intended to measure; (b) variation in the measure is preceded by
variation in the attribute; and (c) alternative causes of variation in the
measure are controlled. Thus, in this phase of validation, we examine
the causal connection between the voice constructs and their mea-
sures, a type of validity referred to as veridical validity (MacKenzie et
al., 2011).
Hypotheses
Despite the merits of testing veridical validity, no studies that
we are aware of have conducted such an investigation. One reason
for this may be that a method for doing so has only recently been
reported in the literature (Podsakoff et al., 2013). Podsakoff et al.
noted that such an assessment can be conducted for behavioral
constructs by developing films of the behaviors at high and low
levels, showing the films to study participants, and then having the
participants rate the behaviors shown using the scale items. As-
suming that respondents actively attend to the level of the behav-
iors portrayed in the videos, encode these behaviors in memory,
and recall this information when they generate a response to each
scale item, there should be a strong relationship between the level
of a manipulation and responses on the scale (Tourangeau, Rips, &
Rasinski, 2000). When this procedure is used, a scale is considered
to be valid if there is a high degree of correspondence between the
level of the manipulation a study participant is exposed to and the
 EXPANDED SET OF EMPLOYEE VOICE BEHAVIORS
rating on the scale that the participant provides (Podsakoff et al.,
2013). Consistent with these arguments, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 1: Variation in the levels of (a) supportive, (b)
constructive, (c) defensive, and (d) destructive voice behav-
iors produces variation in the measures of these constructs.
This procedure can also be used to assess the degree to which
survey measures of other constructs capture the focal construct that
was manipulated, which provides evidence of the discriminant valid-
ity of the measures. As was done in Stage 3, the measures of a
comparison construct for each type of voice were included in the
questionnaire administered to study participants (i.e., loyalty for sup-
portive voice, OCB voice for constructive voice, resistance to change
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
for defensive voice, and poor sportsmanship for destructive voice).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Given the above arguments regarding how respondents formulate
responses to survey items, when a respondent is presented with survey
items for which there is no matching information to retrieve from mem-
ory, there should be very little correspondence between the level of the
behavior and responses on the scale items. Therefore, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 2: Variation in the levels of (a) supportive, (b)
constructive, (c) defensive, and (d) destructive voice behav-
iors produce more variation in their corresponding measures
than they do in the measures of conceptually related constructs
or the other voice behavior measures.
Method
Participants. Three hundred and one undergraduate business
students from a large U.S. university participated in this study. On
average, participants were 21 years of age (M ⫽ 21.43 years).
They were primarily male (58%) and Caucasian (83.4%) and had
approximately 6 months of full-time work experience (M ⫽ 6.29).
All participants completed the experiment for credit in a course
related to their major.
Procedure. Following the recommendations of Podsakoff et
al. (2013), we used an experimental procedure to assess veridical
validity. This required five main steps. The first three of these
steps, which included (a) developing the scripts, (b) validating the
scripts with subject matter experts (SMEs) and conducting manip-
ulation checks with students, and (c) filming the videos with
professional actors and film crews, are described in detail in
Appendix B.
In the fourth step, the films were used as stimuli in four
experimental studies (one for each type of voice). Each study
employed a between-subjects design with two conditions (high vs.
low level of voice). Participants first watched a short instructional
video in which they were told that they would be playing the role
of a recently hired employee going through a management training
program, and that they would be required to accurately identify the
behaviors of employees who had been videotaped while interact-
ing in the workplace. Participants then viewed a video depicting a
focal employee engaging in one of the four forms of voice at either
a high or a low level. After this, they were presented with the
measures of voice and related constructs (i.e., loyalty, OCB voice,
resistance to change, and poor sportsmanship) and were asked to
indicate their level of agreement regarding whether the voicing
employee had engaged in the behaviors described by the measures.
Thus, although each participant viewed a manipulation for only
99
one type of voice, she or he responded to items for all the forms of
voice and the chosen comparison construct. This design allowed
for tests of veridical and discriminant validity of the voice mea-
sures. Responses were on a 7 point scale (1 ⫽ strongly disagree,
7 ⫽ strongly agree). All experimental materials were presented to
participants via computer. The total time of the videos was about
25 minutes. Veridical validity was evaluated using structural equa-
tion modeling procedures.
Measures. The voice items reported in Table 4 were used to
assess the types of voice. Reliabilities for these measures were .98,
.85, .86, and .91 for supportive voice; .86, .96, .92, and .91 for
constructive voice; .87, .91, .96, and .95 for defensive voice; and
.88, .81, .89, and .97 for destructive voice. Loyalty, OCB voice,
resistance to change, and poor sportsmanship were all measured
with the same scales we used in Study 3. Reliabilities for these
measures were .93 for loyalty, .89 for OCB voice, .68 for resis-
tance to change, and .80 for poor sportsmanship.
Results
Means, standard deviations, and correlations among the vari-
ables in each of the four studies are reported in the table in
Appendix C. Results of a confirmatory factor analysis are reported
in Table 5. As indicated in columns 3– 6 of this table, the measures
demonstrate a sufficient level of discriminant validity, given that
the hypothesized five-factor models fit the data significantly better
than single-factor models or four-factor models in which the items
from each type of voice and the comparison construct loaded on
the same factor. To test our hypotheses, we constructed a six-
variable structural equation model for each type of voice. In each
of these SEM models, the voice manipulation was modeled as a
manifest independent variable, whereas the survey measures of
voice and the appropriate comparison construct were modeled as
latent dependent variables. Paths between the independent variable
and each dependent variable were estimated, and the dependent
variables were allowed to covary. Generally speaking, fit indices
(reported at the bottom of Figure 1) indicated a relatively good fit
of the models to the data.
The analyses are summarized in Figure 1 (panels A–D). As
indicated in the figure, the manipulation of supportive voice had a
strong and significant impact on ratings of supportive voice (␥ ⫽
.96, p ⬍ .01; R2 ⫽ .92); the manipulation of constructive voice
had a strong and significant impact on ratings of constructive
voice (␥ ⫽ .96, p ⬍ .01; R2 ⫽ .92); the manipulation of
defensive voice had a strong and significant impact on ratings of
defensive voice (␥ ⫽ .93, p ⬍ .01; R2 ⫽ .87); and the manipulation
of destructive voice had a strong and significant impact on ratings
of destructive voice (␥ ⫽ .94, p ⬍ .01; R2 ⫽ .88). Thus, Hypoth-
eses 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d were supported.
To test whether the manipulations produced more variation in
their corresponding measures than in the measures of the concep-
tually related constructs, or the other voice measures, we calcu-
lated the significance of the difference between the focal path (i.e.,
manipulation to its intended measure) and the other paths in the
model using t tests. In every model, the path estimate from the
manipulation to its intended measure was significantly greater than
those of all of the other paths in the model (all p values ⬍ .01).
This was even the case for the difference between the path esti-
mates for constructive voice and OCB voice in the constructive
 100 MAYNES AND PODSAKOFF
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Figure 1. Summary of direct effects of video manipulations on measures of voice and related constructs (Stage
4). For each voice manipulation, 0 ⫽ low level of voice and 1 ⫽ high level of voice. All coefficients reported
in this figure are completely standardized. SV ⫽ supportive voice; CV ⫽ constructive voice; DFV ⫽ defensive
voice; DSV ⫽ destructive voice; CFI ⫽ comparative fit index; SRMR ⫽ standardized root mean residual; IFI ⫽
incremental fit index. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

voice model (␥constructive ⫺ ␥OCB voice ⫽ .06, p ⬍ .01), even
though these standardized effect sizes appear to be quite similar in
size. Thus, Hypotheses 2a, 2b, 2c, and 2d were all supported.
Discussion
The results of this study provide strong evidence of the veridical
validity of the voice measures. In each model, the voice manipu-
lation accounted for between 87% and 92% of the variance in its
intended measure. This evidence is important because it demon-
strates that the manipulation of each of the voice constructs had a
direct, causal effect on the variability in its corresponding scale. In
addition, the variability observed in the voice scales cannot be
attributed to common method biases (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee,
& Podsakoff, 2003), given that the voice behaviors were manip-
ulated independently of participants’ ratings on the scales.
Beyond this, the fact that the path estimate between each voice
manipulation and its intended measure was significantly greater
than the other paths in each model provides evidence that the voice
scales possess a high degree of discriminant validity. As further
evidence of this distinctiveness, Figure 1 indicates that the manip-
ulation of the focal construct accounted for substantially more
variance in its intended measure than in the measures of related
constructs. This was even the case in the constructive voice model
even though the manipulation accounted for considerable variance
in both its intended measure (92%) and the measure of OCB voice
(81%), which indicates that the behaviors assessed by these mea-
sures are at least somewhat different. Thus, the measures of the
four types of voice appear to possess a high degree of veridical
validity and are relatively distinct from each other and from
measures of related constructs.
Stage 5: Assessment of Criterion-Related Validity
The objective in this stage was to examine the criterion-related
validity of the voice measures. The final outcomes examined were
observer’s intentions to rely on the voicer’s opinion and evalua-
tions of the voicing employee’s overall performance. Intention to
rely on the voicer’s opinion was selected because this variable
represents what is probably the most desirable proximal outcome
for a voicing employee. Evaluation of a voicer’s overall perfor-
mance was selected because prior research indicates that voicing
may result in positive evaluations under some conditions but
negative evaluations under other conditions (Milliken, Morrison,
& Hewlin, 2003; Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001). The mediators
chosen were (a) perceptions that the voicer is concerned about the
organization and (b) perceptions that the behavior will have a
positive/negative impact on organizational functioning. Although
these mediators have not been examined in prior voice research,
we elected to examine them in this study because they have been
shown to mediate other OCB– outcome relationships (Allen &
Rush, 1998; Johnson, Erez, Kiker, & Motowidlo, 2002) and be-
cause there were good theoretical reasons to believe that they
would mediate the relationships between the voice behaviors and
the outcome variables in our study.
The Influence of Voice on Perceived Organizational
Concern and Positive/Negative Impact
Supportive voicers voluntarily speak up and support, endorse, or
defend organizational policies, procedures, and work practices. Ob-
servers are likely to rely on the opinion of a supportive voicer and
evaluate them favorably for several reasons. First, observers may
view this type of voice as a signal of an employee’s level of concern
for the organization, given that supportive voicers defend the organi-
zation when others are being critical. Second, observers may believe
that supportive voice behaviors positively impact organizational func-
tioning because these behaviors preserve worthwhile work practices,
thereby reducing confusion over how tasks are to be performed and
allowing supervisory staff to allocate less time to overseeing these
functions. Finally, expressions of support for organizational objec-
 EXPANDED SET OF EMPLOYEE VOICE BEHAVIORS
tives may also help leaders obtain buy-in from other subordinates,
making it easier to reach consensus on important issues (Galvin,
Balkundi, & Waldman, 2010). These arguments are consistent with
prior research indicating that workplace behaviors that are supportive
of the organization are positively related to perceptions that the
employee is highly committed to the organization (Allen & Rush,
1998) and to ratings of overall performance (Whiting, Podsakoff, &
Pierce, 2008). Thus, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 3: Supportive voice is positively related to per-
ceptions that (a) the voicer is concerned about the organization
and that (b) the behavior will have a positive impact on
organizational functioning.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Constructive voice is the voluntary expression of ideas regard-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ing new or improved work methods, procedures, and programs.
Observers are likely to rely on a constructive voicer’s opinion and
to evaluate his or her performance favorably for several reasons.
First, observers may view constructive voice as evidence of the
voicer’s commitment to and concern for the organization, given
that the voicing employee expended extra effort in solving an
organizational problem that was not required of him or her. Sec-
ond, given that the topic of a constructive voice message is about
improving an organization’s work procedures, methods, and so on,
observers may believe that this type of behavior will actually lead
to improvements in organizational functioning. Finally, because
constructive voice may improve the performance of a given work
unit, the manager of the unit may seek to encourage this type of
behavior by rewarding the voicing employee with higher perfor-
mance appraisals. Consistent with these expectations, prior re-
search indicates that constructive workplace behaviors are posi-
tively related to perceptions of organizational commitment (Allen
& Rush, 1998) and perceptions that the behavior will positively
impact organizational performance (Whiting, Maynes, Podsakoff
& Podsakoff, 2012). Thus, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 4: Constructive voice is positively related to per-
ceptions that (a) the voicer is concerned about the organization
and that (b) the behavior will have a positive impact on
organizational functioning.
Defensive voicers speak out in opposition to changing how
things are done in the organization, even when change is inevitable
or implementing changes makes sense. Observers are unlikely to
rely on a defensive voicer’s opinion when making important
organizational decisions and are likely to evaluate the voicing
employee’s performance negatively for several reasons. First,
given that defensive voicers speak out against making changes
even when the changes are in the best interests of the organization,
observers are likely to perceive that the voicing employee is more
concerned about the preservation of his or her own self-interests
than the organization’s success (Allen & Rush, 1998; Johnson et
al., 2002). Second, observers may believe that defensive voice will
negatively impact organizational functioning because it prolongs
problem resolution and delays the implementation of needed
changes. Finally, defensive voice behaviors may force a manager
to work harder and for a longer period of time in order to align the
work of subordinates with organizational objectives, leading the
manager to evaluate the voicing employee’s performance nega-
tively. Generally consistent with these expectations, chronically
101
defensive employees have been shown to (a) experience less trust
from supervisors (Ashforth & Lee, 1990), (b) consistently under-
achieve because they fail to learn from prior mistakes (Baumeister
& Scher, 1988), (c) fail to solve problems (Argyris, 1985), and (d)
experience significant performance anxiety as they anticipate fail-
ure (Baumeister & Scher, 1988). Thus, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 5: Defensive voice is (a) negatively related to
perceptions that the voicer is concerned about the organization
but (b) positively related to perceptions that the behavior will
have a negative impact on organizational functioning.
Destructive voice is the voluntary expression of overly critical or
disparaging comments regarding an organization’s work practices,
methods, and programs. There are several reasons why destructive
voice should negatively impact performance ratings and reduce the
likelihood that observers would rely on the voicing employee’s opin-
ion. First, observers may interpret overly critical or disparaging com-
ments regarding organizational practices as evidence of the voicer’s
lack of concern for the organization, given that these behaviors clearly
communicate contempt. Second, destructive voice may increase in-
terpersonal tensions between coworkers and thereby create discord
within a given work unit. Furthermore, destructive comments may
undermine the morale of coworkers, requiring organizational leaders
to expend substantial effort in reenergizing the workforce. Finally, it
is also possible for managers to feel threatened by overly critical
comments and respond with hostility, especially if the comments are
interpreted as a personal attack (Fincham, 1992). Empirical evidence
indicates that destructive behaviors result in a variety of negative
outcomes for the employee who enacts the behavior. For example,
poor sportsmanship has been linked to negative ratings of employee
performance (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994), and complaining has
been related to deteriorating satisfaction with and commitment to
interpersonal relationships (Fincham, 1992). Furthermore, to the ex-
tent that employees become branded as complainers, they run the risk
of being shunned by organizational leaders (Graen & Uhl-Bien,
1995), excluded from informal groups (Kowalski, 1996), and left out
of social interactions (Kowalski, 1996). Thus, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 6: Destructive voice is (a) negatively related to
perceptions that the voicer is concerned about the organization
but (b) positively related to perceptions that the behavior will
have a negative impact on organizational functioning.
The Mediating Effects of Perceived
Organizational Concern
Organizational concern is defined as an employee’s desire to dem-
onstrate pride in the organization and to see the company be success-
ful (Rioux & Penner, 2001). A rater’s perception that a voicing
employee’s behavior is motivated by concern (or lack of concern) for
the organization should impact his or her ratings of the voicer’s
overall performance and intent to rely on the voicer’s opinions,
because raters are likely to believe that good employees are commit-
ted to the organization and want to see it do well (Rioux & Penner,
2001). Attribution theory provides an explanation of how this effect
operates. According to this theory, people have a fundamental need to
assign causal explanations to the behavior of others (Heider, 1958).
When the behavior is at the discretion of the actor, people tend to
perceive that the cause is located within the actor. Consistent with this
 102 MAYNES AND PODSAKOFF
proposition, prior research on discretionary workplace behavior indi-
cates that people are likely to attribute the behavior to an actor’s
motive and that the assigned motive has a significant impact on how
the actor is perceived (Allen & Rush, 1998; Johnson et al., 2002). In
general, raters tend to punish selfishly motivated behaviors and re-
ward behaviors motivated by a concern for others. Thus, based on the
reasoning presented here and in the previous sections, perceptions that
a voicer’s behavior is motivated by concern (or lack thereof) for the
organization should mediate the impact of supportive, constructive,
defensive, and destructive voice on ratings of overall performance and
the intent to rely on the voicer’s opinions. Therefore, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 7: The impact of (a) supportive, (b) constructive,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
(c) defensive, and (d) destructive voice on intent to rely on the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
voicer’s opinions is mediated by a rater’s perception that the
voicer is concerned about the organization.
Hypothesis 8: The impact of (a) supportive, (b) constructive,
(c) defensive, and (d) destructive voice on performance eval-
uations is mediated by a rater’s perception that the voicer is
concerned about the organization.
The Mediating Effects of Perceived
Positive/Negative Impact
Rater conceptions of employee performance are likely to in-
clude notions regarding the impact of employee actions on orga-
nizational functioning (Ajzen, 1991). Furthermore, intentions to
rely on the opinion of another may depend on the perceived
outcome of following the advice received. Thus, perceptions that a
voice behavior will positively (negatively) impact organizational
functioning should influence ratings of a voicing employee’s over-
all performance and the intent of an observer to rely on the voicer’s
opinion. It is also plausible that those who stand to benefit from
behaviors that are perceived to have a positive impact on the
organization (managers, supervisors, coworkers, etc.) would be
likely to rely on the voice message and reinforce the behavior by
rewarding the voicing employee with higher performance evalua-
tions (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998; Whiting et al., 2012). In con-
trast, those who would be adversely impacted by behaviors that are
perceived to have a negative impact on the organization may give
lower performance evaluations in an effort to discourage the
behavior’s occurrence in the future. Considering these arguments
and those made previously, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 9: The impact of (a) supportive, (b) constructive,
(c) defensive, and (d) destructive voice on intent to rely on the
voicer’s opinions is mediated by a rater’s perception that the
behavior will positively/negatively impact the organization.
Hypothesis 10: The impact of (a) supportive, (b) constructive,
(c) defensive, and (d) destructive voice on performance eval-
uations is mediated by a rater’s perception that the behavior
will positively/negatively impact the organization.
Method
Sample. The questionnaire was administered to a sample of
executive MBA students taking classes at a large university in the
United States (222 completed surveys were returned for a response
rate of 98%). Respondents were on average 30 years of age (M ⫽
30.4 years) and were primarily male (79%) and Caucasian (79%).
They had approximately 8 years of work experience (M ⫽ 7.8) and
had been required to evaluate the performance of subordinates as
part of their job for nearly three years (2.64). Furthermore, the
subordinate they chose to rate had reported to them for approxi-
mately 2.5 years (M ⫽ 2.58).
Procedure. Survey respondents were instructed to think about
the subordinate they interact with most frequently in their job.
They were then asked to rate this person on the items measuring
the different types of voice, mediators, and outcomes. Respondents
also answered demographic questions about themselves and the
focal coworker. In addition, because all of our measures were
obtained from the same source, we accounted for the possibility of
common method bias by measuring response styles and then
controlling for these in our analyses (Baumgartner & Steenkamp,
2001; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012; Weijters, Schil-
lewaert, & Geuens, 2008).3
Measures. All scales were assessed with a 7-point Likert
response format (1 ⫽ Strongly Disagree to 7 ⫽ Strongly Agree).
The measures of voice reported in Table 4 were used for this study.
Reliabilities for these measures were .92 for supportive, .95 for
constructive, .94 for defensive, and .95 for destructive voice,
respectively. Perceived concern for the organization was mea-
sured with three items adapted from Rioux and Penner’s (2001)
scale (␣ ⫽ .82). Perceived positive impact was measured with
three items, and perceived negative impact was measured with two
items. These items were developed based on the work of Gorden
(1988; positive impact ␣ ⫽ .95; negative impact ␣ ⫽ .93). Reli-
ance on the opinion of the voicer was assessed with three items
adapted from the work of Mayer and Davis (1999; ␣ ⫽ .90).
Overall performance was assessed with three items reported by
MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Fetter (1991; ␣ ⫽ .95). Finally, ac-
quiescent, disacquiescent, extreme, and midpoint responding were
measured with 15 heterogeneous items based on the work of
Weijters et al. (2008).
Results
Measurement validity. A confirmatory factor analysis using
LISREL 8.8 was conducted to examine the measurement validity
of all questionnaire items. Results of this analysis (reported in the
3
This method builds on the assumption that people tend to respond to
survey questions in a consistent manner (i.e., response style). The most
common styles include acquiescence (tendency to agree with items), di-
sacquiescence (tendency to disagree with items), extreme responding (ten-
dency to utilize ends of the rating scaling), and midpoint responding
(tendency to endorse the middle scale category; Weijters, Geuens, &
Schillewaert, 2010). Measures of these response styles are composed of
items that do not form a “meaningful nomological network.” Instead, items
are randomly selected from a sample of heterogeneous items. These items
are included in a survey as buffer items between items of substantive
interest, and then the response styles are calculated as follows: Acquies-
cence ⫽ [f(5) ⫻ 1 ⫹ f(6) ⫻ 2 ⫹ f(7) ⫻ 3]/k; Disacquiescence ⫽ [f(1) ⫻
3 ⫹ f(2) ⫻ 2 ⫹ f(3) ⫻ 1]/k; Extreme ⫽ [f(1) ⫹ f(7)]/k; and Midpoint ⫽
f(4)/k; where k is equal to the number of items and f(o) refers to the
frequency of response option o. In this study, these response styles were
measured with 15 heterogeneous items based on the work of Weijters et al.
(2008). The items were then subdivided into three groups of five, and the
response style calculations were performed on each of these groups,
resulting in three indicators for each response style.
 EXPANDED SET OF EMPLOYEE VOICE BEHAVIORS 103

last column of Table 5) indicate that the hypothesized 13-factor
model (i.e., 4 types of voice, 4 response styles, 3 mediators, and 2
final outcomes) fit the data very well. This model fit the data
significantly better than a single-factor model in which all items
loaded on one construct; a two-factor model in which the items for
the mediators and final outcomes loaded on one construct and the
items for the predictors (i.e., voice behaviors and response styles)
loaded on a separate construct; a two-factor model in which the
items for the predictors and mediators loaded on one factor and the
items for the final outcomes loaded on a separate factor; and a
three-factor model wherein the items for the final outcomes loaded
on one factor, the items for the mediators loaded on another factor,
and the predictor items loaded on a third factor. In addition, all of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
from the model in which they were. Although the pattern of
results between these two models is quite similar, we will focus
our attention on the results that account for method bias because
they are more conservative. In this model, the following direct
effects were observed. Supportive voice significantly affected
perceptions that the voicer is concerned about the organization
(␥ ⫽ .58, p ⬍ .01) and perceptions that the behavior positively
impacts organizational functioning (␥ ⫽ .28, p ⬍ .01); con-
structive voice significantly affected perceived positive impact
(␥ ⫽ .26, p ⬍ .01) but not perceived organizational concern
(p ⬎ .05); defensive voice positively affected perceptions of
negative impact (␥ ⫽ .48, p ⬍ .01) but not perceptions of
organizational concern (p ⬎ .05); and destructive voice nega-

the variables passed Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) test for discrim-
tively impacted perceived organizational concern (␥ ⫽ ⫺.14,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

inant validity.
Test of hypothesized model. A 13-factor structural equation
model was constructed in LISREL 8.8 to examine the direct and
indirect effects of the voice measures on the mediators and out-
comes. Means, standard deviations, and correlations are reported
in Appendix D. All paths between the voice measures and medi-
ators and outcomes were estimated. Paths between the response
styles and outcome variables were also estimated. With the excep-
tion of the response style variables, all nonsignificant paths were
removed from the final model. Fit statistics indicate that this model
fit the data very well (df ⫽ 878; ␹2 ⫽ 2,382.44, p ⬍ .01; CFI ⫽
.95; SRMR ⫽ .07; IFI ⫽ .95).
Results from this model are reported in Figure 2 (indirect
effects are reported in Appendix E). In the figure, there are two
estimates next to each path (estimates are completely standard-
ized). The first estimate is from the model in which response
styles were not taken into account, and the second estimate is
p ⬍ .05) and positively affected perceived negative impact (␥ ⫽
.26, p ⬍ .01). Thus, Hypotheses 3a, 3b, 4b, 5b, 6a, and 6b were
supported, but Hypotheses 4a and 5a were not.
Although not hypothesized, constructive voice had significant
effects on perceived negative impact (␥ ⫽ ⫺.21, p ⬍ .01) and
evaluations of the voicer’s overall performance (␥ ⫽ .13, p ⬍ .05),
and defensive voice significantly affected perceived positive im-
pact (␥ ⫽ ⫺.21, p ⬍ .01).
Finally, perceived organizational concern did not have a
significant impact on intentions to rely on the voicer’s opinion
(␤ ⫽ .16, p ⬎ .05), but it did significantly affect overall
performance evaluations (␤ ⫽ .28, p ⬍ .01); perceived positive
impact significantly impacted intentions to rely on the voicer’s
opinion (␤ ⫽ .32, p ⬍ .01) and overall performance evaluations
(␤ ⫽ .18, p ⬍ .05); and perceived negative impact had a
negative effect on both intentions to rely on the voicer’s opinion

Figure 2. Final model of voice outcomes. All estimates reported in this figure are from the completely
standardized solution. Estimates before the forward slash are from a model in which response styles were not
included as control variables, whereas estimates after the slash are from a model in which response styles were
included. Although correlations among predictors; among mediators; and between the outcomes were estimated,
they were not reported in the figure for the sake of clarity. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
 104 MAYNES AND PODSAKOFF
(␤ ⫽ ⫺.25, p ⬍ .01) and overall performance evaluations (␤ ⫽
⫺.22, p ⬍ .01).
When controlling for method biases, supportive voice impacted
intentions to rely on the voicer’s opinion indirectly (indirect
effect ⫽ .18, p ⬍ .01) via perceived positive impact (indirect
effect ⫽ .09, p ⬍ .01) but not perceived organizational concern
(indirect effect ⫽ .09, p ⬍ .08). Thus, Hypothesis 9a was sup-
ported but Hypothesis 7a was not. Supportive voice also impacted
performance evaluations indirectly (indirect effect ⫽ .21, p ⬍ .01)
through perceptions of organizational concern (indirect effect ⫽
.16, p ⬍ .01) and perceived positive impact (indirect effect ⫽ .05, p ⬍
.05), supporting Hypotheses 8a and 10a (indirect effects are sum-
marized in Appendix E).
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Constructive voice indirectly affected intentions to rely on the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
voicer’s opinion (indirect effect ⫽ .13, p ⬍ .01) via perceived
positive impact (indirect effect ⫽ .08, p ⬍ .01) and perceived
negative impact (indirect effect ⫽ .05, p ⬍ .05) but not per-
ceived organizational concern. Constructive voice also indirectly
impacted overall performance evaluations (indirect effect ⫽ .10,
p ⬍ .10) through perceived positive impact (indirect effect ⫽ .05,
p ⬍ .05) and perceived negative impact (indirect effect ⫽ .05, p ⬍
.05) but not perceptions of organizational concern. Thus, Hypoth-
eses 9b and 10b were supported, but Hypotheses 7b and 8b were
not. The effects for perceived negative impact were not hypothe-
sized.
Defensive voice exhibited a significant indirect influence on
participants’ intent to rely on the voicer’s opinions (indirect
effect ⫽ ⫺.19, p ⬍ .01) through perceived negative impact (indi-
rect effect ⫽ ⫺.12, p ⬍ .01) and perceived positive impact
(indirect effect ⫽ ⫺.07, p ⬍ .05) but not through perceptions of
organizational concern. Defensive voice also had a significant
indirect effect on evaluations of overall performance (indirect
effect ⫽ ⫺.15, p ⬍ .01) via perceived negative impact (indirect effect ⫽
⫺.11, p ⬍ .01) and perceived positive impact (indirect effect ⫽
⫺.04, p ⬍ .05) but not perceived organizational concern. Thus,
Hypotheses 9c and 10c were supported, whereas Hypotheses 7c
and 8c were not. The effects for perceived positive impact were not
hypothesized.
Finally, destructive voice impacted intentions to rely on the
voicer’s opinion indirectly (indirect effect ⫽ ⫺.09, p ⬍ .01) via
perceived negative impact (indirect effect ⫽ .07, p ⬍ .01) but
not perceived organizational concern (indirect effect ⫽ .02, p ⬎
.05). Destructive voice also impacted performance evaluations
indirectly (indirect effect ⫽ ⫺.10, p ⬍ .01) via perceived
negative impact (indirect effect ⫽ .06, p ⬍ .01) but not per-
ceived organizational concern (indirect effect ⫽ .04, p ⬍ .09).
Thus, Hypotheses 9d and 10d were supported, but Hypotheses
7d and 8d were not.
Discussion
A summary of the support we found for our hypotheses is
provided in Table 7. As indicated in the table in this appendix, 15
of our 24 hypotheses were supported. These results provide addi-
tional evidence regarding the empirical usefulness of the voice
behaviors outlined in our model, given that the measures ac-
counted for significant, unique variance in the outcome variables
and that they exhibited different patterns of effects. For instance,
supportive voice exhibited its strongest indirect effects through
perceived organizational concern, which suggests that speaking up
in support or defense of such things as work procedures signals to
others in the workplace that the voicer is motivated by a concern
for the organization’s welfare. In contrast, the primary indirect
path for constructive voice was through the positive impact others
perceive that it will have on organizational functioning, which
suggests that observers value constructive voice because it poten-
tially benefits the organization. Constructive voice also had a
significant direct effect on overall performance evaluations,
whereas none of the other forms of voice did, suggesting that there
is something unique about constructive voice that is not captured
by the mediators included in our study. One attribute that may have
led to this finding is that only constructive voice requires voicers
to proactively think about issues in advance (e.g., come up with
new or innovative ways of doing things).
Defensive voice exhibited its strongest indirect effects through
perceived negative impact, suggesting that observers don’t like
defensive voice because they believe that the behavior itself may
harm the organization. Finally, as with defensive voice, the stron-
gest indirect effects for destructive voice operated through per-
ceived negative impact. However, unlike defensive voice, destruc-
tive voice also exhibited indirect effects through perceived
organizational concern, suggesting that destructive voice signals a
lack of concern for the organization. A final point worth noting is
that because we measured common response styles and accounted
for these in our statistical analyses, concern regarding the impact
of same source biases on our findings should be substantially
reduced.
General Discussion
The purpose of the present research was to (a) clarify the
boundaries of the employee voice behavior domain; (b) develop a
new, more expansive voice behavior framework; (c) report on the
construct validation of new measures of the voice behaviors iden-
tified by this framework; and (d) examine the antecedents and
consequences of these behaviors. Our results suggest that em-
ployee voice behaviors can be conceptualized along two intersect-
ing dimensions (i.e., preservation vs. challenge orientation and
promotive vs. prohibitive), resulting in four different types of
voice: supportive, constructive, defensive, and destructive voice.
Even though our framework may be seen by some as a departure
from recent conceptualizations of voice that have focused primar-
ily on the positive attributes of this behavior (Liang et al., 2012;
Van Dyne & LePine, 1998), we found strong support for our
four-factor model in that (a) participants in our content validity
study easily categorized the voice items in a manner that was
consistent with the overall dimensions of our framework (i.e.,
preservation/challenge and promotive/prohibitive); (b) the confir-
matory factor analyses (summarized in Table 5) we conducted
supported the four-factor measurement model, and the latent con-
structs accounted for more variance in their corresponding items
than these constructs shared with the other forms of voice; and (c)
the forms of voice exhibited differential relationships with the
personality predictors and with the outcomes. Although some may
view our framework as being somewhat controversial because it
incorporates negative attributes of voice, we believe that our
findings build on and extend the original theoretical work of
Hirschman (1970) and the more recent contributions of Gorden
 EXPANDED SET OF EMPLOYEE VOICE BEHAVIORS 105

Table 7
Summary of Support for Hypothesized Relationships in Study 5 (Outcomes of Voice)

Organizational Positive Negative

Hypothesis concern impact impact

Direct effects
H3 Supportive voice is positively related to (a) perceived Y Y —
organizational concern and (b) perceived positive impact.
H4 Constructive voice is positively related to (a) perceived N Y —
organizational concern and (b) perceived positive impact.
H5 Defensive voice is (a) negatively related to perceived N — Y
organizational concern but (b) positively related to perceived
negative impact.
H6 Destructive voice is (a) negatively related to perceived Y — Y
organizational concern but (b) positively related to perceived
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

negative impact.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Indirect effects
SV CV DFV DSV
H7 Perceived organizational concern mediates the impact of (a) Nⴱ N N Nⴱ
supportive, (b) constructive, (c) defensive, and (d) destructive
voice on intent to rely on a voicer’s opinion.
H8 Perceived organizational concern mediates the impact of (a) Y N N N
supportive, (b) constructive, (c) defensive, and (d) destructive
voice on evaluations of a voicer’s performance.
H9 Perceived positive impact mediates the impact of (a) supportive Y Y Y Y
and (b) constructive voice on intent to rely on a voicer’s
opinion; perceived negative impact mediates the effect of (c)
defensive and (d) destructive voice.
H10 Perceived positive impact mediates the impact of (a) supportive Y Y Y Y
and (b) constructive voice on evaluations of a voicer’s
performance; perceived negative impact mediates the effect of
(c) defensive and (d) destructive voice.
Note. The asterisks next to the Ns for Hypothesis 7 indicate that the relationships were significant when not controlling for method variance. SV ⫽
supportive voice; CV ⫽ constructive voice; DFV ⫽ defensive voice; DSV ⫽ destructive voice; Y ⫽ supported; N ⫽ not supported. A dash indicates not
hypothesized.

(1988) and Van Dyne et al. (2003), in that they suggest that voice
behavior is more complex than has been recognized in much of the
prior empirical research reported in the literature (Rusbult et al.,
1988; Withey & Cooper, 1989).
Aside from the support for the four-factor conceptualization of
voice, the studies reported in this paper highlight several strengths
of the voice measures. First, the measures possess adequate dis-
criminant validity, given that they are empirically distinguishable
from each other and from a number of conceptually related con-
structs. Second, the new measures exhibit an acceptable level of
nomological and criterion-related validity, because they are gen-
erally related to the measures of the antecedents and consequences
that they should be related to theoretically. Finally, the voice
measures possess a high degree of veridical validity, given that
they were shown to be causally connected to actual voice behav-
iors. This evidence is particularly powerful because it is not subject
to the limitations of correlational data or to issues related to
common method variance. Furthermore, findings from this stage
also provide very strong evidence regarding the discriminant
validity of our measures, because they captured more variance
in the actual behaviors they were intended to capture than did
measures of related constructs or measures of the other forms of
voice. Thus, taken together, the evidence provided in this paper
lends a significant amount of support to the validity of the voice
scales.
Implications for Voice Research
Our findings have several important implications for future
research. First, prior researchers (Detert & Burris, 2007; Grant et
al., 2009; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998) have acknowledged the lack
of consensus regarding what voice behavior is. Much of this
problem has stemmed from the existence of multiple, incomplete
conceptualizations of voice behavior in the literature. Thus, the
conceptual framework and definitions of the different forms of
voice provided in this paper should help to clarify the domain for
voice researchers in the future.
Second, although scholars have contemplated the existence of
various types of voice (Gorden, 1988; Rusbult et al., 1988; Van
Dyne et al., 2003; Withey & Cooper, 1989), a validated survey
measure exists for only one of these; unfortunately, even this
measure has come under some recent criticism (Detert & Burris,
2007; Grant et al., 2009). Furthermore, the history of voice re-
search is one of poor measurement and inconsistent empirical
findings (Rusbult et al., 1988; Withey & Cooper, 1989). Thus, the
development and validation of scales for the four types of voice
should give researchers greater confidence when examining
questions related to voice behavior and should facilitate re-
search on the types of voice that have been relatively ignored in
past research.
 106 MAYNES AND PODSAKOFF
Finally, there has been some debate in the literature regarding the
impact of constructive voice behaviors on important outcomes for
voicing employees. Some scholars argue that because constructive
voice is oriented toward organizationally functional change, decision
makers in the organization (e.g., managers) will value constructive
voice and reward this type of behavior by granting higher perfor-
mance evaluations, recommending voicing employees for promo-
tions, and so on (Whiting et al., 2008; Whiting et al., 2012). However,
given the challenging nature of constructive voice, other scholars have
argued that it may damage interpersonal relationships and result in
negative outcomes for employees choosing to engage in this type of
behavior (Milliken et al., 2003; Seibert et al., 2001; Van Dyne et al.,
1995). Given the issues related to the measurement of voice
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
noted earlier in our paper, it is possible that the inconsistent
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
empirical findings and differing conceptual views related to
individual outcomes for voicing employees may be a function
of the type of voice enacted. Consistent with this view, we
found that promotive types of voice result in positive outcomes
for the voicing employee, whereas prohibitive forms resulted in
negative outcomes. Thus, our understanding of how voicing
impacts the voicer should be enhanced by examining the effects
of the various types of voice included in our study.
Implications for Practitioners
This research should be informative to practitioners for several
reasons. First, the fact that we found a relationship between the
different forms of voice and performance appraisals and observer
intentions to rely on the voicer’s opinion should prove useful to
employees who are thinking about speaking up, given that the pro-
motive forms of voice were much more likely than the prohibitive
forms to result in positive outcomes for the voicer. Furthermore, when
observers of voice events perceive that the behavior is motivated by
a concern for the welfare of the organization or that the behavior will
ultimately have a positive impact on organizational functioning, the
observers tend to reward the voicing employee with higher perfor-
mance evaluations. Thus, we recommend that, before speaking up,
voicers think about the signal that their communication sends to those
who will be receiving the voice message.
Second, given the potential benefits of voice and its voluntary,
conspicuous, and potentially damaging nature, understanding why
employees speak up is important from a practical perspective.
Thus, the information related to the personality predictors of voice
reported in this paper should be useful to practicing managers.
Unfortunately, beyond the work examining the antecedents of
constructive voice (Burris et al., 2008; Detert & Burris, 2007;
LePine & Van Dyne, 2001; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008; Van
Dyne & LePine, 1998), the other forms of voice have received
very little attention in this area. Thus, we recommend that future
research address this issue.
Limitations
As is true of all studies, those reported in this paper have some
limitations. One limitation arises from the heterogeneity (e.g.,
industry, age, work experience) of the executive MBA samples
used in Stages 3 and 5. Although the breadth of these samples
decreases generalizability concerns, it may also have increased the
amount of error-related variance; resulting in decreased effect
sizes. Therefore, future research should replicate these findings in
a more homogenous sample in order to determine whether our
observed effect sizes were suppressed.
Another limitation results from the fact that all of the measures
in Stages 3 and 5 were gathered from the same source. Thus,
common method biases (Podsakoff et al., 2003) may have been
partly responsible for the observed relationships between the voice
scales and their comparison constructs and the personality vari-
ables (Stage 3), and between the voice scales and the outcomes for
voicing employees (Stage 5). However, it is important to note that
these biases could not have accounted for the effects of our
manipulations of the voice constructs on their respective measures
in Stage 4, because the independent variable (video manipulation
of the voice behaviors) was not obtained from the same source as
the dependent variable (participants’ ratings of measures of the
focal construct). In addition, method biases also have difficulty
accounting for the majority of the findings of Study 5, since these
findings were largely the same even after we controlled for re-
sponse style biases. Thus, although additional research will be
necessary to assess the generalizability of our findings, the pre-
liminary results suggest that method biases cannot account for all
of our findings.
A final limitation is that our measures focused exclusively on
the perspective of observers of voice. Although we believe this
approach is consistent with the majority of prior research in the
voice domain, Burris, Detert, and Romney (2013) recently
noted the importance of examining voice from the perspective
of others in the workplace. Indeed, results of the Burris et al.
(2013) paper suggest that ratings of voice provided by a voicing
employee may differ from those provided by an observer and
that both the causes and effects of such differences are impor-
tant areas that warrant further study. Thus, although we focused
on the perspective of observers of voice behavior, future re-
search should not be limited to examining voice solely from this
perspective.
Conclusion
Scholarly interest in employee voice behavior has grown
dramatically over the past few decades. Unfortunately, the
voice literature suffers from several limitations, not the least of
which is a need to better understand the conceptual nature of the
voice construct and to develop valid measures of the different
types of voice. Thus, the purpose of the research reported in this
paper has been to gain a deeper understanding of the different
forms of employee voice behavior and to develop valid mea-
sures of them. Although additional research is clearly needed to
establish the generalizability of our findings, we believe that the
studies reported in this paper provide preliminary support for
the validity our new voice behavior framework and for the
measures that we developed and that they provide evidence
regarding some of the antecedents and outcomes of the various
forms of voice behavior.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179 –211. doi:10.1016/0749-
5978(91)90020-T
 EXPANDED SET OF EMPLOYEE VOICE BEHAVIORS
Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. (1998). The effects of organizational citizen-
ship behavior on performance judgments: A field study and a laboratory
experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 247–260. doi:10.1037/
0021-9010.83.2.247
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1991). Predicting the performance of
measures in a confirmatory factor analysis with a pretest assessment of
their substantive validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 732–740.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.732
Argyris, C. (1985). Strategy, change, and defensive routines. Boston, MA:
Pitman.
Ashforth, B., & Lee, R. (1990). Defensive behavior in organizations: A
preliminary model. Human Relations, 43, 621– 648. doi:10.1177/
001872679004300702
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimen-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
sions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
1–26. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x
Baumeister, R. F., & Scher, S. J. (1988). Self-defeating behavior patterns
among normal individuals: Review and analysis of common self-
destructive tendencies. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 3–22. doi:10.1037/
0033-2909.104.1.3
Baumgartner, H., & Steenkamp, J. B. E. M. (2001). Response styles in
marketing research: A cross-national investigation. Journal of Market-
ing Research, 38, 143–156. doi:10.1509/jmkr.38.2.143.18840
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New
York, NY: Wiley.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion
domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt &
W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71–98).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept
of validity. Psychological Review, 111, 1061–1071. doi:10.1037/0033-
295X.111.4.1061
Burris, E. R., Detert, J. R., & Chiaburu, D. S. (2008). Quitting before
leaving: The mediating effects of psychological attachment and detach-
ment on voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 912–922. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.912
Burris, E. R., Detert, J. R., & Romney, A. C. (2013). Speaking up vs. being
heard: The disagreement around and outcomes of employee voice.
Organization Science, 24, 22–38. doi:10.1287/orsc.1110.0732
Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of
marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64 –73. doi:
10.2307/3150876
Crant, J. M., Kim, T. Y., & Wang, J. (2011). Dispositional antecedents of
demonstration and usefulness of voice behavior. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 26, 285–297. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9197-y
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee
voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50,
869 – 884. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.26279183
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective
well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125,
276 –302. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276
Fincham, F. D. (1992). The account episode in close relationships. In M. L.
McLaughlin, M. Cody, & S. J. Read (Eds.), Explaining one’s self to
others: Reason-giving in a social context (pp. 167–182). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models
with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Market-
ing Research, 18, 39 –50. doi:10.2307/3151312
Galvin, B. M., Balkundi, P., & Waldman, D. A. (2010). Spreading the word: The
role of surrogates in charismatic leadership processes. Academy of Management
Review, 35, 477–494. doi:10.5465/AMR.2010.51142542
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits.
American Psychologist, 48, 26 –34. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.1.26
107
Gorden, W. I. (1988). Range of employee voice. Employee Responsibilities
and Rights Journal, 1, 283–299. doi:10.1007/BF01556937
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to
leadership: Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of
leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain approach.
Leadership Quarterly, 6, 19 –247. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
Graham, J. (1991). An essay on organizational citizenship behavior. Em-
ployee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4, 249 –270. doi:10.1007/
BF01385031
Grant, A., Parker, S., & Collins, C. (2009). Getting credit for proactive
behavior: Supervisor reactions depend on what you value and how you
feel. Personnel Psychology, 62, 31–55. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008
.01128.x
Hagedoorn, M., Van Yperen, N. W., Van de Vliert, E., & Buunk, B. P.
(1999). Employees’ reactions to problematic events: A circumplex struc-
ture of five categories of responses, and the role of job satisfaction.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 309 –321. doi:10.1002/
(SICI)1099-1379(199905)20:3⬍309::AID-JOB895⬎3.0.CO;2-P
Haynes, S. N., Richard, D. C. S., & Kubany, E. S. (1995). Content validity
in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and
methods. Psychological Assessment, 7, 238 –247. doi:10.1037/1040-
3590.7.3.238
Heider, E. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York,
NY: Wiley. doi:10.1037/10628-000
Hinkin, T., & Tracey, J. (1999). An analysis of variance approach to
content validation. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 175–186. doi:
10.1177/109442819922004
Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in
firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in cova-
riance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alter-
natives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/
10705519909540118
Ilies, R., Fulmer, I. S., Spitzmuller, M., & Johnson, M. D. (2009).
Personality and citizenship behavior: The mediating role of job
satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 945–959. doi:10.1037/
a0013329
Johnson, D. E., Erez, A., Kiker, D. S., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2002). Liking
and attributions of motives as mediators of the relationships between
individuals’ reputations, helpful behaviors, and raters’ reward decisions.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 808 – 815. doi:10.1037/0021-9010
.87.4.808
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations
traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emo-
tional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80 –92. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.86.1.80
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999).
Managerial coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspec-
tive. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 107–122. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.84.1.107
Kassing, J. W. (1998). Development and validation of the Organizational
Dissent Scale. Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 183–229.
doi:10.1177/0893318998122002
Kassing, J. W. (2011). Dissent in organizations. Cambridge, United King-
dom: Polity Press.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundations of behavioral research (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Holt McDougal.
Kowalski, R. M. (1996). Complaints and complaining: Functions, anteced-
ents, and consequences. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 179 –196. doi:
10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.179
 108 MAYNES AND PODSAKOFF
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work
groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 853– 868. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.83.6.853
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as
contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential
relationships with Big Five personality characteristics and cognitive
ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 326–336. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.86.2.326
Liang, J., Farh, C., & Farh, L. (2012). A two-wave examination of the
psychological antecedents of voice behavior. Academy of Management
Journal, 55, 71–92. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0176
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational
citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of man-
agerial evaluations of salespersons’ performance. Organizational Behav-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 123–150. doi:10.1016/0749-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
5978(91)90037-T
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Construct
measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research:
Integrating new and existing techniques. MIS Quarterly, 35, 293–334.
Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance
appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 123–136. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84
.1.123
McCrae, R. R. (1996). Social consequences of experiential openness.
Psychological Bulletin, 120, 323–337. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.120.3
.323
Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory
study of employee silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate
upward and why. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1453–1476.
doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00387
Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism– collectivism as
an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 127–142. doi:10.1002/job
.4030160204
Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and direc-
tions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 373– 412.
doi:10.1080/19416520.2011.574506
Nederhof, A. J. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A
review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 263–280. doi:
10.1002/ejsp.2420150303
Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling proce-
dures: Issues and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nikolaou, I., Vakola, M., & Bourantas, D. (2008). Who speaks up at work?
Dispositional influences on employees’ voice behavior. Personnel Re-
view, 37, 666 – 679. doi:10.1108/00483480810906892
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.).
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Oh, I. S., Wang, G., & Mount, M. K. (2011). Validity of observer ratings
of the five-factor model of personality traits: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 96, 762–773. doi:10.1037/a0021832
Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: Developing an individual differ-
ences measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 680 – 693. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.680
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good
soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal
and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Per-
sonnel Psychology, 48, 775– 802. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995
.tb01781.x
Pavot, W., Diener, E., & Fujita, F. (1990). Extraversion and happiness.
Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 1299 –1306. doi:10.1016/
0191-8869(90)90157-M
Podsakoff, N. P., Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Klinger, R. L.
(2013). Are we really measuring what we say we’re measuring? Using
video techniques to supplement traditional construct validation proce-
dures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 99 –113. doi:10.1037/
a0029570
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. (1994). Organizational citizenship
behaviors and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research,
31, 351–363. doi:10.2307/3152222
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003).
Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the
literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88, 879 –903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of
method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to
control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539 –569. doi:10.1146/
annurev-psych-120710-100452
Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organizational
citizenships behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 86, 1306 –1314. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1306
Rusbult, C. E., Farrell, D., Rogers, G., & Mainous, A. G. (1988). Impact of
exchange variables on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: An integrative
model of responses to declining job status satisfaction. Academy of
Management Journal, 31, 599 – 627. doi:10.2307/256461
Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg unipolar
Big-Five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 506 –516.
doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6303_8
Schwab, D. P. (1980). Construct validity in organizational behavior. In
B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational
behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 3– 43). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proactive
people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive personality and
career success. Personnel Psychology, 54, 845– 874. doi:10.1111/j.1744-
6570.2001.tb00234.x
Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2008). Exploring nonlinearity in em-
ployee voice: The effects of personal control and organizational identi-
fication. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 1189 –1203. doi:
10.5465/AMJ.2008.35732719
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of
survey response. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/CBO9780511819322
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I. (2003). Conceptualizing employee
silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of
Management Studies, 40, 1359 –1392. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00384
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & Parks, J. M. (1995). Extra-role
behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity. Research in
Organization Behavior, 17, 215–285.
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational
citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement, and valida-
tion. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 765– 802. doi:10.2307/
256600
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role
behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of
Management Journal, 41, 108 –119. doi:10.2307/256902
Venkataramani, V., & Tangirala, S. (2010). When and why do central
employees speak up? An examination of mediating and moderating
variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 582–591. doi:10.1037/
a0018315
Warren, D. (2003). Constructive and destructive deviance in organizations.
Academy of Management Review, 28, 622– 632.
Weijters, B., Geuens, M., & Schillewaert, N. (2010). The stability of
individual response styles. Psychological Methods, 15, 96 –110. doi:
10.1037/a0018721
Weijters, B., Schillewaert, N., & Geuens, M. (2008). Assessing response
styles across modes of data collection. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 36, 409 – 422. doi:10.1007/s11747-007-0077-6
 EXPANDED SET OF EMPLOYEE VOICE BEHAVIORS 109

Whitbourne, S. K. (1986). Openness to experience, identity flexibility, and
life change in adults. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50,
163–168. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.1.163
Whiting, S. W., Maynes, T. D., Podsakoff, N. P., & Podsakoff, P. M.
(2012). Effects of message, source, and context on evaluations of em-
ployee voice behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 159 –182.
doi:10.1037/a0024871
Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Pierce, J. R. (2008). Effects of task
performance, helping, voice, and organizational loyalty on performance
appraisal ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 125–139. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.125
Withey, M. J., & Cooper, W. H. (1989). Predicting exit, voice, loyalty, and
neglect. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 521–539. doi:10.2307/
2393565

Appendix A
Variable Means, Standard Deviations, Intercorrelations, and Internal Consistency Reliabilities (Stage 3)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Variable M SD AVE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1. Supportive voice (SV) 5.03 1.21 .62 (.89)

2. Constructive voice (CV) 4.75 1.57 .77 .57 (.95)
3. Defensive voice (DFV) 2.72 1.36 .71 ⫺.27 ⫺.32 (.92)
4. Destructive voice (DSV) 2.86 1.61 .72 ⫺.36 ⫺.09 .33 (.93)
5. Loyalty (LY) 4.93 1.25 .57 .46 .34 ⫺.14 ⫺.52 (.82)
6. OCB voice (OCBV) 4.78 1.34 .58 .58 .76 ⫺.24 ⫺.17 .47 (.89)
7. Resistance to change (RC) 3.68 1.35 .55 ⫺.42 ⫺.56 .48 .24 ⫺.24 ⫺.56 (.85)
8. Poor sportsmanship (PS) 4.88 1.63 .70 ⫺.40 ⫺.22 .42 .66 ⫺.50 ⫺.29 .40 (.90)
9. Agreeableness (AG) 4.44 1.78 .72 .06 .10 ⫺.17 ⫺.16 .10 .08 ⫺.08 ⫺.19 (.89)
10. Conscientiousness (CO) 4.41 1.69 .58 .20 .17 ⫺.01 ⫺.02 .16 .14 ⫺.06 ⫺.12 .59 (.88)
11. Emotional stability (ES) 3.55 1.76 .60 .14 .15 ⫺.41 ⫺.40 ⫺.34 ⫺.20 .28 .66 ⫺.31 ⫺.09 (.90)
12. Extraversion (EX) 4.44 1.71 .60 .02 .15 .12 .01 .13 .21 ⫺.07 ⫺.05 .46 .53 .04 (.82)
13. Openness to experience (OE) 4.93 1.31 .63 .44 .56 ⫺.36 ⫺.21 .40 .54 ⫺.62 ⫺.39 .10 .11 ⫺.31 .09 (.79)
Note. Cronbach alpha reliabilities are reported in parentheses on the diagonal. Correlations with an absolute value greater than or equal to.14 are
significant at the p ⬍ .05 level. AVE ⫽ average variance extracted; OCB ⫽ organizational citizenship behavior.

(Appendices continue)
 110 MAYNES AND PODSAKOFF

Appendix B
Summary of Procedures Used in Developing and Validating Video Scripts

The following is a description of first three steps used to validate
the scripts for the veridical validity study (Stage 4)
Step 1
Scripts for the experimental stimuli (videos of workplace inter-
actions) were developed and validated. Scripts were based on the
conceptual definitions of the four voice behaviors. Each script
depicted workplace interactions in a fictitious auditing firm
(Brooks, Wilson, & Kline), wherein a focal employee engaged in
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
four ways. First, participants selected the intended voice category
89% of the time. Second, the average ratings across all four of the
voice behaviors for the high level scripts was high (M ⫽ 6.36), and
the average ratings across all of the behaviors for the low level
scripts was low (M ⫽ 1.92). Third, ANOVA comparisons of the
ratings on the high versus low scripts for each type of voice
indicated that they were significantly different from each other in
each case (all Fs ⬎ 22.84; dfs ranging from [1, 12] to [1, 14],
depending on sample size; all ps ⬍ .01). Finally, results of

ANOVA comparisons within the manipulation levels (i.e., high or

either a high or a low level of one form of voice. The employees
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

described in the scripts were members of a financial statement
audit team responsible for the completion of the year-end audit of
a fictitious client (Capital Bank). The audit team was composed of
a manager (Luke), the team member exhibiting voice (Sarah), and
two coworkers (Josh and Ryan). (The scripts are available from the
first author upon request.)
Step 2
We examined the validity of the scripts. This was done in two
stages. First, subject matter experts (SME) analyzed the scripts to
ensure that the manipulations were content valid. Second, we
conducted manipulation checks of the scripts with a sample of 62
undergraduate students majoring in business. Each participant
reviewed one of the eight video scripts. They were then provided
with five categories of behavior (i.e., supportive, constructive,
defensive, destructive, or other) and were asked to categorize the
behavior of the voicing employee (Sarah). After they selected the
category, participants were asked to rate the level of the behavior
on a 7 point scale (1 ⫽ Very Low Level, 7 ⫽ Very High Level).
Results of this study support the validity of the manipulations in
low) indicated that the high level scripts were equally high, F (3,
27) ⫽ 0.64, p ⬎ .05, and that the low level scripts were equally
low, F (3, 27) ⫽ .18, p ⬎ .05, across the four types of voice. Thus,
the high level scripts depicted high level voice behaviors, the low
level scripts depicted low level voice behaviors, the high and low
level scripts depicted significantly different levels of behaviors,
and the manipulation levels were consistent across the types of
voice.
Step 3
We filmed professional actors playing the roles described in the
scripts. The manager role was played by a male actor in his early
30s, and the voicing employee was played by a female actor in her
late 20s. The final two team members were played by male actors
in their mid-to-late 20s. For the purposes of filming, the actors
were trained to limit their facial expressions, voice variation, and
expressed emotions so as to avoid introducing confounding effects.
The filming was conducted by a professional film crew using
commercial grade video equipment to ensure quality. A total of
eight films were created (high/low for each type of voice).

(Appendices continue)
 EXPANDED SET OF EMPLOYEE VOICE BEHAVIORS 111

Appendix C
Variable Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations for Veridical Validity Study (Stage 4)

Supportive voice model Constructive voice model

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Manipulation — — — 1. Manipulation — — —
2. Supportive voice 3.98 2.44 .96ⴱⴱ (.98) 2. Supportive voice 2.11 1.07 .22 (.85)
3. Constructive voice 1.52 0.81 .47ⴱⴱ .46ⴱⴱ (.86) 3. Constructive voice 3.98 2.34 .93ⴱⴱ .28ⴱ (.96)
4. Defensive voice 1.41 0.67 ⫺.21 ⫺.19 .13 (.87) 4. Defensive voice 1.82 1.16 ⫺.17 .24ⴱ ⫺.14 (.91)
5. Destructive voice 1.36 0.71 ⫺.24ⴱ ⫺.24ⴱ .03 .71ⴱⴱ (.88) 5. Destructive voice 1.84 1.01 ⫺.17 .32 ⴱⴱ
⫺.17 .14 (.81)
ⴱ
6. Loyalty 3.57 1.17 .17 .21 .27 ⫺.06 ⫺.06 (.93) 6. OCB voice 4.22 1.67 .80ⴱⴱ .25 ⴱ
.80 ⴱⴱ
.07 ⫺.15 (.89)

Defensive voice model Destructive voice model

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

1. Manipulation — — — 1. Manipulation — — —
2. Supportive voice 1.96 0.88 ⫺.29ⴱ (.86) 2. Supportive voice 1.66 0.93 ⫺.32ⴱⴱ (.91)
3. Constructive voice 1.51 0.83 .06 .24ⴱ (.92) 3. Constructive voice 1.37 0.62 .29ⴱ .33ⴱⴱ (.91)
4. Defensive voice 4.01 2.04 .90ⴱⴱ ⫺.18 .09 (.96) 4. Defensive voice 2.75 1.66 .62ⴱⴱ ⫺.15 .22 (.95)
5. Destructive voice 1.92 1.05 .15 .13 .08 .22 (.89) 5. Destructive voice 3.82 2.17 .93ⴱⴱ ⫺.29ⴱ .18 .60ⴱⴱ (.97)
6. Resistance to change 6.23 0.82 .23 ⫺.05 ⫺.24ⴱ .23ⴱ ⫺.02 (.68) 6. Poor sportsmanship 4.07 1.35 .44ⴱⴱ ⫺.43ⴱⴱ ⫺.03 .28ⴱ .45ⴱⴱ (.80)

Note. For each voice manipulation, 0 ⫽ low level of voice and 1 ⫽ high level of voice. Cronbach alpha reliabilities are reported in parentheses on the
diagonal.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

Appendix D
Variable Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations for Criterion-Related Validity Study (Stage 5)

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1. Supportive voice (SV) 4.91 1.37 (.92)

2. Constructive voice (CV) 5.01 1.53 .55 (.95)
3. Defensive voice (DFV) 2.88 1.47 ⫺.38 ⫺.34 (.94)
4. Destructive voice (DSV) 3.14 1.69 ⫺.52 ⫺.16 .48 (.95)
5. Acquiescence response style (ARS) 0.95 0.37 .37 .28 ⫺.23 ⫺.27 (.48)
6. Disacquiescence response style (DRS) 0.55 0.35 ⫺.23 ⫺.27 .26 .28 ⫺.34 (.60)
7. Extreme response style (ERS) 0.21 0.16 .16 .01 .01 ⫺.03 .45 .46 (.57)
8. Midpoint response style (MRS) 0.21 0.15 ⫺.02 ⫺.02 ⫺.01 ⫺.07 ⫺.42 ⫺.46 ⫺.32 (.60)
9. Perceived organizational concern (POC) 5.41 1.35 .66 .37 ⫺.40 ⫺.50 .35 ⫺.27 .10 .01 (.82)
10. Perceived positive impact (PPI) 4.79 1.29 .57 .55 ⫺.48 ⫺.40 .36 ⫺.29 .07 ⫺.04 .56 (.95)
11. Perceived negative impact (PNI) 2.68 1.37 ⫺.45 ⫺.40 .65 .50 ⫺.26 .19 ⫺.05 .02 ⫺.54 ⫺.58 (.93)
12. Intent to rely on voicer’s opinion (Rely) 5.41 1.55 .53 .49 ⫺.45 ⫺.35 .42 ⫺.35 .09 ⫺.01 .56 .66 ⫺.59 (.90)
13. Evaluation of overall performance (Eval) 5.61 1.48 .58 .54 ⫺.46 ⫺.40 .39 ⫺.36 .01 .01 .60 .65 ⫺.60 .77 (.95)
Note. Cronbach alpha reliabilities are reported in parentheses on the diagonal. Correlations with an absolute value greater than or equal to .16 are
significant at the p ⬍ .05 level.

(Appendices continue)
 112 MAYNES AND PODSAKOFF

Appendix E
Summary of Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects of the Final Model for Study 5 With and Without Accounting for
Common Method Variance

Intent to rely on voicer’s opinion Overall performance evaluations

Predictor Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total

Model 1 (without response styles)

Supportive voice .32ⴱⴱ .32ⴱⴱ .31ⴱⴱ .31ⴱⴱ
Constructive voice .17ⴱⴱ .17ⴱⴱ .15ⴱⴱ .12ⴱⴱ .27ⴱⴱ
Defensive voice ⫺.22ⴱⴱ ⫺.22ⴱⴱ ⫺.17ⴱⴱ ⫺.17ⴱⴱ
Destructive voice ⫺.11ⴱⴱ ⫺.11ⴱⴱ ⫺.12ⴱⴱ ⫺.12ⴱⴱ
Organizational concern .26ⴱⴱ .26ⴱⴱ .33ⴱⴱ .33ⴱⴱ
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Positive impact .40ⴱⴱ .40ⴱⴱ .25ⴱⴱ .25ⴱⴱ

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Negative impact ⫺.24ⴱⴱ ⫺.24ⴱⴱ ⫺.23ⴱⴱ ⫺.23ⴱⴱ

Model R2 .60 .61
Model 2 (controlling for response styles)
Supportive voice .18ⴱⴱ .18ⴱⴱ .21ⴱⴱ .21ⴱⴱ
Constructive voice .13ⴱⴱ .13ⴱⴱ .13ⴱ .10ⴱⴱ .23ⴱⴱ
Defensive voice ⫺.19ⴱⴱ ⫺.19ⴱⴱ ⫺.15ⴱⴱ ⫺.15ⴱⴱ
Destructive voice ⫺.09ⴱⴱ ⫺.09ⴱⴱ ⫺.10ⴱⴱ ⫺.10ⴱⴱ
Organizational concern .16 .16 .28ⴱⴱ .28ⴱⴱ
Positive impact .32ⴱⴱ .32ⴱⴱ .18ⴱ .18ⴱ
Negative impact .25ⴱⴱ .25ⴱⴱ ⫺.22ⴱⴱ ⫺.22ⴱⴱ
Model R2 .65 .65

Model fit statistics, chi-square values, and degrees of freedom

Sample size df ␹2 CFI SRMR IFI
SEM without response styles 222 470 864.47 .98 .06 .98
SEM controlling for response styles 222 878 2,382.44 .95 .07 .95
Note. df ⫽ degrees of freedom; CFI ⫽ comparative fit index; SRMR ⫽ standardized root mean residual; IFI ⫽ incremental fit index; SEM ⫽ structural
equation modeling.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

Received February 22, 2012

Revision received June 25, 2013
Accepted July 31, 2013 䡲