ABSTRACT Title: EMPLOYEE VOICE BEHAVIOR DURING ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE Jiseon Shin, Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), 2013 Directed By: Dr. M. Susan Taylor Smith Chair of Human Resource Management & Organizational Change Department of Management and Organization Dr. Myeong-Gu Seo Associate Professor Department of Management and Organization I seek to understand the dynamic organizational change process by focusing on employees' change-related voice as the mechanism through which their dissatisfaction with change implementation processes relates to their positive behavioral outcomes during organizational change. I propose that employees who are dissatisfied with their organization's change implementation processes are more likely to engage in change-related voice behavior ? defined as behavior that expresses constructive suggestions (promotive voice) and challenges (prohibitive voice) to improve change processes ? and that their affective commitment to change, change efficacy, and work-unit leader?s empowering leader behavior will positively moderate the relationship between dissatisfaction and change-related voice behavior. Through a survey with a sample of 192 employees and 27 work-unit leaders working for an organization undergoing a large-scale organizational change, I found that the patterns of how the hypothesized antecedents relate to change-related voice behavior vary depending on the type of voice behavior. Specifically, employees are more likely to make constructive suggestions (promotive voice) when their work-unit leader shows empowering behaviors and when they are high in change efficacy. Employees who are dissatisfied with the change implementation processes engage in promotive voice behavior only when they are strongly committed to change (affective commitment to change) and believe they are not capable of handling change demands (change efficacy). Furthermore, employees tend to point out problems in current change implementation processes (prohibitive voice) when the levels of their work-unit leader?s empowering leader behavior and dissatisfaction with the current change processes are high; and the relationship between dissatisfaction and prohibitive voice was stronger when the level of their change efficacy is low rather than high. Lastly, increased levels of employee change-related voice behavior in both types are positively related with their individual performance of change tasks. EMPLOYEE VOICE BEHAVIOR DURING ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE by Jiseon Shin Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2013 Advisory Committee: Dr. M. Susan Taylor, Co-Chair Dr. Myeong-Gu Seo, Co-Chair Dr. Debra L. Shapiro Dr. Subrahmaniam Tangirala Dr. Paul J. Hanges, Dean?s Representative ? Copyright by Jiseon Shin 2013 ii Dedication I dedicate my dissertation to my family who provided unflagging support, continuous sacrifice, and constant love through this journey. I love you all with all my heart. iii Acknowledgements First of all, I would like to convey my sincere gratitude and appreciation to my two advisors, Susan Taylor and Myeong-Gu Seo, who have provided tremendous support and encouragement throughout my doctoral journey even when things did not seem to be going so well. Each of you is my exemplary role model as a scholar, and I am very grateful to you both for all you have done for me not only as an advisor but also as a mentor. I would not have been able to successfully complete my doctoral study without your unwavering support and help. I would also like to thank my dissertation committee members, Debra Shapiro, Subra Tangirala, and Paul Hanges, who were always willing to give their time and energy to provide me with constant help and words of encouragement throughout the dissertation process and helped me view my dissertation research from multiple perspectives by offering valuable feedback and guidance. I was impressed by your expertise, depth of knowledge, and keen insight across various areas in our field, and I will carry what I learned from each of you with me throughout my studies and future career. Last but not least, I extend my appreciation to my cohort-mates and colleagues at The University of Maryland who were sources of joy and friendship. I will never forget the joyful moments we had together during our time at Maryland. iv Table of Contents Dedication ..................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents ......................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ............................................................................................................... vi List of Figures ............................................................................................................. vii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................1 Purpose of Study ........................................................................................................3 Chapter Outline ..........................................................................................................4 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES ...................................6 Organizational Change and Employee Engagement ..................................................6 Employee Voice Behavior .........................................................................................8 Change-Related Voice Behavior ..............................................................................10 Promotive Change-related Voice Behavior versus Prohibitive Change-related Voice Behavior ...................................................................................................................13 Hypotheses ...............................................................................................................19 Dissatisfaction with change implementation processes and change-related voice behavior ................................................................................................................19 Moderating factors associated with the relationship between dissatisfaction with change implementation processes and change-related voice ...............................22 A consequence of change-related voice................................................................29 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .........................................................34 Sample and Procedure ..............................................................................................34 Individual Level Measures .......................................................................................35 Dissatisfaction with change implementation processes .......................................35 Affective commitment to change ...........................................................................36 Change efficacy ....................................................................................................36 Change-related voice behavior ............................................................................37 v Voice instrumentality ............................................................................................37 Performance of change tasks ................................................................................38 Control variables ..................................................................................................38 Work-unit Level Measure ........................................................................................40 Empowering leader behavior ...............................................................................40 Analyses ...................................................................................................................41 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS .............................................................................................44 Hypothesis Testing ...................................................................................................44 Post-hoc Simple Slope Tests ....................................................................................49 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION .......................................................................................51 Theoretical Contributions .........................................................................................52 Practical Contributions .............................................................................................59 Limitations ...............................................................................................................61 Conclusion ................................................................................................................63 APPENDIX ..................................................................................................................77 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................85 vi List of Tables TABLE 1: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations among Study Variables...64 TABLE 2: The Main Effect of Dissatisfaction with Change Implementation Processes on Change-related Voice Behavior????????????????.???.66 TABLE 3: The Interactional Effects between Dissatisfaction with Change Implementation Processes and Moderating Variables (Affective commitment to Change, Change Efficacy, and Empowering Leader Behavior) on Change-related Voice Behavior?????????????????.??..?????..?...67 TABLE 4: The Effects of Change-related Voice Behavior and Voice Instrumentality on Performance of Change Tasks???..???????????????.?.69 vii List of Figures FIGURE 1: Hypothesized Theoretical Model??????????????.?71 FIGURE 2: Interaction Effect between Dissatisfaction with Change Implementation Processes and Affective commitment to Change on Promotive Change-related Voice??????????????????..????????????..72 FIGURE 3: Interaction Effect between Dissatisfaction with Change Implementation Processes and Change Efficacy on Promotive Change-related Voice???..??...73 FIGURE 4: Interaction Effect between Dissatisfaction with Change Implementation Processes and Change Efficacy on Prohibitive Change-related Voice?...????.74 FIGURE 5: Interaction Effect between Prohibitive Change-related Voice and Prohibitive Voice Instrumentality on Performance of Change Tasks?.?...???.75 FIGURE 6: Summary of Findings????????????????..??.?76 1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Throughout the last two decades in the contemporary business environment, the incidence of organizational change has continued at a high rate in the workplace, one of many efforts to respond to an ever-changing business environment and new opportunities inside and outside of the organization (Armenakis & Harris, 2009; Cascio, 1995; Herold & Fedor, 2008; Howard, 1995; Malone, 2004). However, according to a survey report with global companies, only one third of organizational change initiatives were considered successful by their organizational executives (Meaney & Pung, 2008). In many cases, organizational change has failed to deliver expected results and/or to meet intended objectives (Marks, 2006; Paper & Chang, 2005; Quinn, 2004). Previous scholars have suggested that one very important determinant of the level of change success is the attitudinal and behavioral engagement of employees who are actually responsible for executing the change processes in their workplaces (e.g., Kotter & Cohen, 2002; Van Knippenberg, Martin, & Tyler, 2006; Whelan-Berry, Gordon, & Hinings, 2003). Previous research on organizational change has consistently documented that employees are prone to view organizational change as intrusive and disruptive because increased work demands and alteration of the existing work routines tend to accompany change processes (Beer, Eisenstat, & Spector, 1990; Pollard, 2001; Strebel, 1996). Not surprisingly then, it is common for employees to become discontent and dissatisfied with change implementation processes during organizational change even if they understand values and benefits underlying the change (Burke, 2002; DeCelles, Tesluk, & Taxman, 2013; Wanous, Reichers, & Austin, 2000). 2 In this paper, I argue that employees? dissatisfaction with change implementation processes can contribute to the success of the organizational change by improving employees? positive attitudes toward change and change-related performances when the dissatisfaction is converted to employees? voice behaviors. Employee voice behavior ? defined as behavior that expresses innovative suggestions and constructive challenges intended to improve rather than merely criticize the current work situation and organizational matters (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998) ? indeed has been conceptualized as playing a critical role in the successful implementation of organizational change (Morrison & Milliken, 2000; Piderit, 2000). This is because employees? voice behaviors can provide constructive feedback and diverse viewpoints on the current change processes, which, in turn, are likely to improve the effectiveness of the processes and further, the final outcome of the change (Ford, Ford, & D'Amelio, 2008). Importantly, I adopt a recent typology of employee voice behavior developed by Liang, Farh and Farh (2012) who proposed two types of employee voice behavior: promotive and prohibitive. More detailed discussion about this typology will be presented in the later section. Change implementation involves complicated and dynamic processes and novel approaches to work processes throughout the entire organization. Thus, it is important to attain bottom-up input regarding the change processes from the employees who actually execute change-related tasks in the field (By, Burnes, & Oswick, 2011; Cohen & Caspary, 2011; Sminia & Van Nistelrooij, 2006). In spite of the implications of voice behaviors during organizational change, little research has examined the antecedents and consequences of voice behavior during change. In this 3 paper, therefore, I study the circumstances under which employees are likely to engage in voice behavior by focusing on their dissatisfaction with change processes as an antecedent to the roles played by voice behaviors in the change context. Purpose of Study Accordingly, the primary purposes of my dissertation are four-fold. First, I hypothesize that employees? discontent with the change implementation processes can result in their positive attitudinal and behavioral outcomes, and subsequently, performance of change tasks. Extending the theory of exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect that proposes four types of employee reactions to unpleasant jobs (Farrell, 1983; Hirschman, 1970; Rusbult, Farrell, Rogers, & Mainous, 1988), I argue that employees? dissatisfaction with change processes can result in their positive behaviors toward change under some circumstances during change. Second and related to the first purpose, I attempt to investigate the mechanism through which employees? dissatisfaction with change processes can lead to their change-related performance behavior. In particular, I theorize and hypothesize that it is employees? change-related voice behavior, both promotive and prohibitive types, that converts their dissatisfaction with the change process into their positive attitudes and behaviors for change and, thereby, performance of change tasks. Given that many employees tend to be cynical about change implementation processes (Burke, 2002; DeCelles et al., 2013; Wanous et al., 2000), it is critical to provide them with opportunities to express their opinions, ideas, and concerns (voice behavior) in order to convert their discontent to a positive and productive individual outcome such as performance of change tasks. 4 Third, I examine the conditions under which employees? dissatisfaction with change processes is more likely to lead to their voice behaviors. By proposing three moderating variables at both the individual and work-unit levels of analysis, I examine potential ways to assist employees who are discontent with the change processes in proactively engaging in voice behaviors for the purpose of participating in successful change implementation. Specifically, I argue that the positive relationships between dissatisfaction with change processes and positive outcomes (i.e., voice behavior) are more likely to occur in the presence of three moderating variables: employee commitment to change, change efficacy, and work-unit leader?s empowering behavior, each of which will be discussed in the later sections. Fourth, I strive to examine the condition under which a positive outcome of employees? change-related voice behavior is more likely to occur. I predict that change-related voice behavior eventually leads to better performance, and these benefits of voice behavior will be more likely to occur when employees actually see their voice behaviors result in alterations of the change routines and processes. A visual summary of the theoretical hypothesized model that I propose to empirically test in my dissertation is illustrated in Figure 1. ------------------------------- Insert Figure1 about here -------------------------------- Chapter Outline This dissertation proceeds as follows. First, in Chapter 2, based on previous research on organizational change and voice behavior, I discuss the theoretical 5 background and development that guided the theoretical hypothesized model of my dissertation followed by specific sets of hypotheses. Next in Chapter 3, I provide the methodological approach of my dissertation study that includes an explanation about the research site (an organization in the electronics industry undergoing large-scale organizational change), sample and survey measures as well as my analytical approach to test hypotheses. In Chapter 4, I describe results of my data analyses and hypothesis testing followed by theoretical and practical contributions and limitations of this study in Chapter 5. 6 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES Organizational Change and Employee Engagement Prior scholars have suggested that it is critical to embrace employees? input and encourage them to engage in change processes by expressing their voices and participating in organizational decision making in order to successfully implement change initiatives (Brown & Cregan, 2008; Ford et al., 2008; Morrison & Milliken, 2000; Piderit, 2000; Vales, 2007). For instance, it has been empirically found that employees who are actively involved in change processes by expressing their opinions and concerns and participating in decision making are less likely to feel cynical about the change (Brown & Cregan, 2008). In that employees? cynicism during organizational change is known to be detrimental to its successful implementation (e.g., Bommer, Rich, & Rubin, 2005; Wanous et al., 2000), it is reasonable to believe that employees? proactive involvement in organizational change may directly and/or indirectly increase the probability that the change initiative is successfully executed (cf. Kim & Mauborgne, 2003; Neubert & Cady, 2001; Robertson, Roberts, & Porras, 1993). In the organizational change literature, employees? engagement and involvement in change processes have been studied with a focus on antecedents of employees? attitudinal or behavioral reactions to change. To illustrate, researchers have studied factors leading to positive attitudes toward change, such as commitment to change (e.g., Fugate & Kinicki, 2008; Herold, Fedor, & Caldwell, 2007; Herold, Fedor, Caldwell, & Liu, 2008; Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002), openness to change (Wanberg & Banas, 2000), and positive emotions toward change (Fugate & Kinicki, 7 2008) as well as negative attitudes such as cynicism (Bommer et al., 2005; Brown & Cregan, 2008) and resistance to change (Furst & Cable, 2008). Other scholars have examined how employees? attitudinal reactions to change lead to their subsequent behavioral reactions. For instance, employees? commitment to change was found to be positively linked to their behavioral support for change (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Meyer, Srinivas, Lal, & Topolnytsky, 2007; Seo et al., 2012; Shin, Taylor, & Seo, 2012), which is defined as the extent to which employees demonstrate support and enthusiasm toward change by going along with the change spirit and going beyond their required roles and responsibilities to ensure the success of the change. As another example, it was found that employees? organizational identification directly leads to their behavioral support for change (Michel, Stegmaier, & Sonntag, 2010). Yet only a few studies have empirically examined the consequences of employees? behavioral engagement and involvement in change processes despite the fact that a number of prior articles emphasize the importance of employee engagement during organizational change (By et al., 2011; Cohen & Caspary, 2011; Sminia & Van Nistelrooij, 2006). In this research, I build on prior studies in the organizational change literature by examining not only factors that predict employees? voice behaviors during change but also the favorable outcome (performance of change tasks) that results as a consequence of their behavioral engagement in change. Next, I discuss employee voice behavior that I conceptualize is an important form of employee engagement during change. 8 Employee Voice Behavior Employee voice behavior has attracted scholarly attention due to its significant implications for organizational outcomes. When employees express their voices concerning work-related issues, their work groups or organizations are likely to benefit from it. The benefits include improvement of the current work routines and successful management of, and prevention from, unexpected failures in the work process by error detection and correction, and improvement in the quality of decision making (Argyris & Schon, 1978; Nemeth, 1997; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001). Indeed, scholars have empirically found that employees who speak up frequently tend to receive high performance ratings from their leaders (Whiting, Podsakoff, & Pierce, 2008), and make contributions to team learning (Edmondson, 1999) and crisis prevention (Schwartz & Wald, 2003). In addition, Morrison and Milliken (2000) proposed in their theory paper that employees? collective level of silence ? the opposite of their voice ? is related to not only organizational outcomes such as less effective change processes, but also individual level outcomes such as decreased work morale or satisfaction and increased withdrawal behaviors. Realizing the significant implications and benefits of voice for both individual employees and work groups, a number of scholars have examined the factors that are likely to influence employee voice behavior in the workplace. One stream of research on antecedents to voice has conceptualized it as a type of extra-role behavior (e.g., Detert & Burris, 2007; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998; Whiting et al., 2008) and focused on positive aspects of individual and contextual characteristics as predictors of employee voice behavior. To illustrate, researchers have found that the likelihood of 9 employees? speaking up depends on their levels of dispositional affectivity (George & Zhou, 2002), personalities (e.g., conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness) (LePine & Van Dyne, 2001), psychological detachment from the organization (Burris, Detert, & Chiaburu, 2008), work-group identification (Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008a, b), and work-flow centrality (Venkataramani & Tangirala, 2010), as well as the extent to which leaders and work-unit climates encourage voice behaviors (Detert & Burris, 2007; Morrison, Wheeler-Smith, & Kamdar, 2011). A second perspective on the nature of voice antecedents can be found in a stream of research, rooted in the theories about employee reaction to job dissatisfaction (Farrell, 1983; Hirschman, 1970; Rusbult et al., 1988). This research conceptualizes voice behavior as one of several forms of response that dissatisfied employees can exhibit. According to prior research in this stream, employees may respond to unpleasant jobs in one of four ways: exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. First, employees who are dissatisfied with their work may decide to leave the organization ? exit. Second, dissatisfied employees may opt to remain in the organization and actively try to improve work situations by coming up with and supporting new approaches to the current work processes ? voice. Third, employees may remain in the organization and just adopt existing problematic approaches of doing things without raising issues or searching for new approaches ? loyalty. Fourth, dissatisfied employees may remain in the organization but engage in withdrawal behaviors ? neglect. Exit and voice are considered as active responses while loyalty and neglect are forms of passive and dysfunctional responses (Farrell, 1983). Between the two forms of active responses to job dissatisfaction, only voice has been conceptualized as 10 a functional and constructive way that is likely to assist the organization in improving the work processes by correcting existing problems and adopting innovative approaches (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Contrary to voice, the other three reactions do not help to solve work problems or improve situations; rather they simply involve remaining silent and ignoring difficulties. In this regard, it seems critical to help employees convert their dissatisfaction with their work to a functional reaction, which is voice. In my dissertation research, I integrate these two perspectives in order to better specify the antecedents of employee voice behavior during change. Consistent with the second perspective, I predict that employees who are discontent with change implementation processes are likely to engage in voice behavior. Relying on the first perspective and also drawing on the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1988, 1991), I further predict that the latter relationship between employees? dissatisfaction with change processes and their voice behaviors will be more or less likely to occur depending on the presence of other variables that encourage employees? discretionary engagement in voice behaviors. I will discuss this in more detail in the later hypotheses section. In the next section, I discuss the core construct of this research ? change- related voice behavior ? and develop specific hypotheses. Change-Related Voice Behavior By extending and integrating the organizational change and employee voice behavior literatures, this research examines both antecedents and consequences of employees? voice behavior in the change context. Among various forms of employee 11 engagement in change processes, this paper focuses on employees? change-related voice behavior ? defined as the extent to which employees express constructive suggestions and ideas and challenge problematic approaches in order to improve change implementation processes. Next, I discuss how change-related voice behavior is similar to and/or distinct from two existing constructs in the organizational change literature. In the first comparison, change-related voice behavior and previously examined behavioral reactions to change, such as behavioral support for change, share a common element ? namely that both behaviors are supportive of the successful accomplishment of change goals. However, change-related voice behavior and behavioral support for change are distinct in two aspects. First, while the basic assumption underlying employees? behavioral support for change is that they agree and are willing to comply with the change processes established by organizational managers (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002), change-related voice behavior does not necessarily require employee compliance with the current change processes (cf. Choi, 2007; Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Second, while the purpose of employee engagement in change-related voice behavior is to improve the existing change implementation processes by providing new suggestions and challenging problematic approaches, the goal of employee behavioral support for change is simply to support the change by acting consistently with its spirit and planned implementation. In this sense, I argue that employee voice behavior during change is a more proactive and discretionary form of employee engagement in the change process than behavioral 12 support for change, a construct frequently examined as a behavioral reaction of employees to change in the organizational change literature. The second comparison examines the similarities and differences between change-related voice behavior and procedural justice. There have been scholarly efforts to study the implications of managers providing employees with opportunities to express their concerns and ideas in the change context mostly relying on the taxonomy of organizational justice that categorizes justice into four forms: procedural justice, distributive justice, informational justice and interpersonal justice (Colquitt, 2001; Cropanzano & Folger, 1991; Folger & Konovsky, 1989). Procedural justice refers to the extent to which the process by which organizational decisions about outcome distribution (e.g. promotion, pay, recognition) are made is ethical, fair, free from bias and consistent across different recipients and occasions (Greenberg, 1993; Lind & Tyler, 1988). Prior studies in the organizational change literature have examined the effects of employees? perceived procedural justice on their attitudinal and behavioral reactions to change (e.g., Brotheridge, 2003; Kickul, Lester, & Finkl, 2002; Korsgaard, Sapienza, & Schweiger, 2002; Michel et al., 2010; Riolli & Savicki, 2006). Although procedural justice and voice behavior appear similar in that both regard the opportunities to speak up, they are distinct in terms of their foci (Morrison, 2011). Procedural justice regards whether or not employees perceive that they have been treated justly by the decision process, while employee voice behavior regards whether or not they took discretionary action and indeed expressed their voice. Therefore, in the change context, employee voice behavior is expected to directly 13 influence employees? perception about whether they were able to speak up and to improve the actual change implementation processes by actually speaking up (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). On the contrary, procedural justice influences employees? perception about whether the allocation of resources or organizational decisions resulting from the change was fair as examined in prior studies (e.g., Brotheridge, 2003; Kickul et al., 2002; Korsgaard et al., 2002; Michel et al., 2010; Riolli & Savicki, 2006). Furthermore, antecedents of voice behavior include not only social aspects of the work context that encourage speaking up (e.g., leadership, climate) (e.g., Detert & Burris, 2007; Morrison et al., 2011; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009) but also employee characteristics leading them to engage in voice behavior (e.g., LePine & Van Dyne, 2001; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008b), while whether employees perceive procedural justice is mostly dependent on managerial practices that determine the process through which organizational decisions are made. In conclusion, I argue that employees? change-related voice behavior differs substantially from their perceptions of the procedural justice of decisions made during organizational change. Promotive Change-related Voice Behavior versus Prohibitive Change-related Voice Behavior As mentioned earlier, in my dissertation study, I examine two different forms of voice behavior. A recent definition of voice behavior by Van Dyne, Ang, and Botero (2003) suggests that employees? voice behavior includes not only making constructive suggestions for improvement of organizational functioning but also expressing concerns and pointing out harmful factors that potentially do harm to 14 organizational performance. They introduce three types of voice depending on employees? motives underlying their voice behavior: prosocial voice, defensive voice, and acquiescent voice. Prosocial voice is an other-oriented form of voice including proactively making constructive ideas and solutions to problems with a cooperative motive; defensive voice is a type of self-protective behavior motivated by fear and it includes expressing suggestions and ideas in order to protect the self from unpleasant outcomes; and acquiescent voice is a kind of a disengaged behavior that includes expressing ideas and opinions because of feelings of resignation. Similarly, Morrison (2011) also proposed that voice behavior can take three different forms depending on the content and message type. The three types of voice suggested by her include: suggestion-focused voice defined as expressing ideas and suggestions to enhance the organizational functioning; problem-focused voice defined as speaking up with concerns regarding existing or potential harmful factors; and opinion-focused voice defined as expressing opinions pertaining to work practices that are different from others? viewpoints. In line with the theorizations above, Liang and associates (2012) introduced two dimensions of voice ? promotive and prohibitive ? and provide empirical support for their conceptual distinction and discriminant validity. Promotive voice behavior is defined as employees? behaviors that include expressing helpful and constructive ideas, suggestions and opinions in order to improve the status quo of the organizational functioning and processes whereas prohibitive voice behavior regards employees? behaviors that include reporting errors and pointing out problematic 15 approaches in a constructive manner that are likely to do harm to effective organizational functioning (Liang et al., 2012). According to Liang and colleagues? (2012) conceptualization, both types of voice share several commonalities. That is, both promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors aim to improve the functioning of an employee?s work-unit or the entire organization. As the content of voice is constructive in nature, the purpose of speaking up is not merely criticizing the current organizational practices as is also documented in other previous voice papers (e.g., LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Van Dyne et al., 2003). In addition, both promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors are discretionary behaviors. Consistent with other citizenship behaviors (e.g., sportsmanship behavior), promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors are not formally described as job duties. Thus, employees? enactment of these voice behaviors requires their efforts and willingness to go beyond their formal duties and engage in extra-role behaviors in order to promote organizational performance. Last, the two types of voice behavior tend to stem from employees? positive and favorable attitudes toward their work-units or organization and reflect their sense of responsibility. Both promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors are born out of employees? desire to help their work-unit or organization perform better; thus, although both types of voice can possibly evoke inconvenience or negative emotions to others in the short term, the two types of voice are intended to, and are likely to lead to bring about improvements. In spite of these commonalities that both promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors share, there are also clear distinctions between the two. According to Liang and colleagues? (2012) theorization, promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors are 16 distinct from one another in three ways. First, the two types of voice behavior are different from each other in behavioral content. Promotive voice behavior is future- oriented as it is associated with speaking up with constructive suggestions and solutions that possibly improve the status quo and lead to better ways of doing things in the organization in the future. In contrast, prohibitive voice can be both future and past-oriented depending on its focus. Employees detect and report problematic practices or routines that have been harmful to their work-unit or organization or that may cause harm to the organization in the future by enacting prohibitive voice behavior. Second, promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors differ from one another in function. While promotive voice enables an organization to function or perform more effectively by suggesting better ways in which things are done, prohibitive voice enables an organization avoid any harmful factors to the organizational functioning that may potentially cause an organizational failure or malfunctioning by calling attention to those factors. Third, promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors differ in terms of their implications for others. Promotive voice identifies ways that an organization can benefit in the long-run even though it can disrupt or bring a hard stop to organizational practices and routines in the short-run. Furthermore, the intention underlying enacting promotive voice behaviors tends to be positive and easily recognizable by others (Van Dyne et al., 2003). On the contrary, although the intention of prohibitive voice is a good one (i.e., to point out harmful factors), it is likely to stimulate others to feel negative emotions, inconvenience, and defensiveness, and sometimes, even causes a misunderstanding. 17 Beyond the conceptual distinctions between promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors, Liang and associates (2012) also empirically show that these two types of voice behavior are influenced by similar and different psychological mechanisms. First, the researchers found that both promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors are positively predicted by three psychological antecedents: psychological safety, felt obligation for constructive change, and organization-based self-esteem. Psychological safety refers to the degree to which employees believe that their speaking up with suggestions or pointing out concerns will not be negatively evaluated by their colleagues or managers (Detert & Burris, 2007). Felt obligation for constructive change reflects the extent to which employees perceive that they are socially obliged to make innovative suggestions and address problematic approaches in order to create constructive changes in their workplace (Fuller, Marler, & Hester, 2006). Organization-based self-esteem is defined as individuals? perceptions regarding their insider status and capabilities within their organization (Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, & Dunham, 1989). Despite the finding that all three psychological states positively predict both promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors, Liang and associates (2012) also found that these three antecedents are differentially related to the two types of voice. In particular, among the three antecedents, felt obligation for constructive change was found to be the strongest predictor of promotive voice whereas psychological safety was found to be the strongest predictor of prohibitive voice. They argue that the differential relationships between the antecedents and the two types of voice stem from different psychological mechanisms. Specifically, an employee?s enactment of promotive voice behavior requires him or her to invest time 18 and cognitive efforts in generating innovative ideas and helpful opinions in order to promote the current organizational practices or routines; thus, engaging in promotive voice behavior requires strong commitment to help his or her workplace in functioning more efficiently. On the contrary, speaking up with concerns and problems in the status quo of the work routines involves taking risks because such behaviors are more likely to evoke negative emotions and defensiveness from others in the organization. Therefore, in order for an employee to willingly take risks by pointing out problematic approaches or errors, he or she needs to believe engaging in prohibitive voice behavior is safe in his or her workplace and will not be punished or misunderstood by others. In a change setting, I believe that employees can speak up from two different motivational states. Relying on the broadened definition of voice suggested by previous research (Morrison, 2011; Van Dyne et al., 2003) as well as the two types of voice behaviors introduced by Liang and associates (2012), I argue that employees may make efforts in generating constructive and helpful suggestions and ideas that are likely to promote change implementation processes ? promotive change-related voice. Likewise, employees may also be motivated to correct errors and problematic approaches that potentially are harmful to their work-units or organization by pointing out those problems ? prohibitive change-related voice. I believe that both types of change-related voice behavior will be helpful and useful for the successful implementation of organizational change. Promotive change-related voice behavior will point to possibilities of how to implement the change more effectively and more efficiently than how it has been implemented so far. As well, prohibitive change- 19 related voice behavior will enable an organization to avoid any potential harmful factors that can negatively affect the way change is implemented or to address current problematic factors in the current change implementation processes by calling managers? attention to those harmful factors. Therefore, I argue that it is imperative to examine both promotive and prohibitive types of voice behavior, despite their differential relationships to the antecedents of voice, given the benefits they contribute to the successful implementation of organizational change. Hypotheses Based on the literature reviews provided above, I now discuss the hypothesized relationships that I propose to empirically test in my dissertation work. The general research question of my research is how and why employees? dissatisfaction with change implementation processes tends to result in positive outcomes during change ? that is, higher levels of change performance. As a first step to address this question, I hypothesize that employees? dissatisfaction with their organizations? change implementation processes will tend to lead to their display of change-related voice behaviors in both promotive and prohibitive types. I then identify, develop, and hypothesize several moderating variables that are expected to strengthen the relationships between dissatisfaction and employee voice behaviors. Finally, I develop and discuss the effect of employees? change-related voice behavior on a positive outcome as well as a moderating variable that is likely to strengthen the latter effect of voice behavior on the positive outcome. Dissatisfaction with change implementation processes and change-related voice behavior. By drawing on the theory of exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect about 20 employees? four types of reactions to their unpleasant jobs (Farrell, 1983; Hirschman, 1970; Rusbult et al., 1988), I predict that employees? dissatisfaction with current change implementation processes is related to their level of engagement in change- related voice behaviors. Note that the dissatisfaction of interest in this study is that concerning the processes through which change is implemented, rather than dissatisfaction with the general purpose and/or content of the change. I expect that employees who see problems in current change implementation processes and/or ways to improve the current approaches ? in other words, those who are not fully satisfied with the change processes ? will try to communicate the existence of problems and constructive, innovative ways to resolve them by expressing their voices. Indeed prior research has found that voice behavior tends to occur when employees are discontent with their existing work or work environment and thus, exert efforts to make improvements (e.g., Withey & Cooper, 1989; Zhou & George, 2001). Further, this research has found that employee creativity is a significant reaction to employee dissatisfaction. Applying these findings to the situation of organizational change, I argue that employees who are not satisfied with current change-related processes will tend to engage in voice behavior to improve the organizational functioning during change. In spite of the tenet of the framework regarding the four types of employee reaction arguing that dissatisfied employees tend to speak up, there have been conflicting empirical findings pertaining to the relationship between organizational satisfaction and voice in the prior voice literature. In particular, some scholars found 21 that employees who are satisfied with their job or work-unit tend to be more motivated to voice because they tend to have high levels of organizational identification and perceived obligation to the organization (Detert & Burris, 2007; LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). In a change context, however, given that the process of organizational change lasts only for a fixed period of time with a specific change purpose and goal, employees? satisfaction or dissatisfaction with change implementation processes is not likely to influence their levels of organizational identification or a sense of obligation to the organization. Hence, the above findings regarding the positive relationship between organizational satisfaction and voice may not emerge in a change context. Based on the previous discussion about promotive and prohibitive aspects of voice, I argue that employees who are not satisfied with change implementation processes will likely engage in both promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors. First, employees who are dissatisfied with the status quo of the organizational change implementation will be motivated to improve the implementation processes in order to alleviate their dissatisfaction by generating and speaking up with new ideas and solutions regarding how to do things better during organizational change. Second, employees? dissatisfaction with change implementation processes will also lead employees to address the factors that cause their dissatisfaction by reporting current problematic approaches and expressing their concerns. Thus, I predict that employees? dissatisfaction with change implementation processes will be predictive of both promotive and prohibitive change-related voice behaviors as follows. 22 Hypothesis 1a: Employees who are dissatisfied with change implementation processes will engage in promotive change-related voice behavior. Hypothesis 1b: Employees who are dissatisfied with change implementation processes will engage in prohibitive change-related voice behavior. Moderating factors associated with the relationship between dissatisfaction with change implementation processes and change-related voice. The above relationships between employee dissatisfaction with change implementation processes and their promotive and prohibitive change-related voice behaviors, however, will be more likely to occur for some employees than for others. Again, I note findings of research examining employee dissatisfaction with their jobs and their identification of four major types of reactions of which voice is only one, although the most functional. Thus, some dissatisfied employees may choose to keep silent rather than to speak up and instead choose to exit the organization, remain loyal and accepting of the status quo, or exhibit passive withdrawal behaviors (Farrell, 1983; Hirschman, 1970; Rusbult et al., 1988). Thus, it is important to investigate the conditions under which employees who are dissatisfied with change implementation processes are likely to respond in an active and constructive manner through voice. I first assume that voice behavior is a planned behavior in line with prior research (Liang et al., 2012; Van Dyne et al., 2003). Prior voice research has consistently emphasized that exhibiting voice behaviors is associated with risk taking because it increases the focal employee?s visibility and potentially causes negative reactions from other colleagues and managers if its intention is misunderstood (e.g., Detert & Burris, 2007; Liang et al., 2012; Liu, Zhu, & Yang, 2010; Morrison & 23 Milliken, 2000; Van Dyne, Cummings, & McLean Parks, 1995). Furthermore, an organization is prone to experience internal chaos and turbulence during organizational change due to large-scale alterations of organizational routines and newly adapted (Burke & Litwin, 1992; Herold et al., 2007). Given the volatility and turbulence during change, employees may be more likely to view speaking up with their concerns and suggestions as something likely to bring forth inconvenience and intrusiveness into their workplace and organization, often known as resistance to change. In this sense, change-related voice behavior may require even more courage and maneuvering as a planned behavior in a change context. To more closely examine this possibility, I build on the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1988, 1991). According to the planned behavior theory, individuals intend to execute a particular planned behavior such as voice when they have three beliefs regarding the focal behavior (Ajzen, 1988, 1991): behavioral beliefs, control beliefs, and normative beliefs. First, behavioral beliefs (attitudes toward the behavior) regard the extent to which individuals view the focal behavior is favorable and desirable. Enactment of a planned behavior occurs when an individual believes that the focal behavior will result in positive outcomes. Second, control beliefs (perceived behavioral control) regard the extent to which individuals perceive that they have control over the focal behavior. Individuals are more motivated to perform the focal behavior when they perceive that they have necessary resources and opportunities for, and capabilities of performing the behavior and possess sufficient control over the result of the behavior. Third, normative beliefs (subjective norm) regard the extent to which individuals feel obligated to engage in the focal behavior. When individuals perceive that the focal 24 behavior is supported by social or moral norms, they are willing to perform the behavior without worrying about punishment or other negative evaluation from others. Placing the theory of planned behavior in the context of organizational change, I expect that employees? three beliefs relating to change-related voice behavior will strengthen the above relationships between employees? dissatisfaction with change implementation processes and their display of voice behavior. I expect that employees? behavioral beliefs (positive attitude toward the behavior), control beliefs (perceived behavioral control), and normative beliefs (subjective norm) regarding change-related voice behavior will strengthen the above relationships between employees? dissatisfaction with change implementation processes and their display of voice behavior. Based on the three beliefs, I predict that employees feeling dissatisfied with change processes will be more likely to speak up when they (a) are committed to the organizational change ? affective commitment to change (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002) (behavioral beliefs), (b) feel capable in engaging in change behaviors ? change efficacy (Wanberg & Banas, 2000) (control beliefs), and (c) believe that expressing voice is perceived as a desirable behavior by others within their work-unit, such as their work-unit leader?s behaviors supporting employees? responsibility to participate in decision making ? a work-unit leader?s empowering behavior, respectively (Kirkman & Rosen, 1997, 1999; Manz & Sims, 1987; Strauss, 1963) (normative beliefs). Below, I develop each proposed moderator variable based on the three beliefs of the theory of planned behavior. First, as a factor that influences behavioral beliefs about change-related voice behavior, employees? commitment to change is hypothesized to moderate the 25 relationship between dissatisfaction and voice behavior. Employee commitment to change refers to an individual employee?s mind-set that increases the likelihood that he or she is willing to and desires to support the change (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) originally proposed three types of commitment to change: affective commitment to change, referring to one?s desire to support organizational change as he or she believes the benefits change is expected to bring; normative commitment to change, defined as one?s normative feeling of obligation to support change; and continuance commitment to change, referred to as support for change that stems from one?s recognition of the costs that are likely to occur if they fail to support change. In this study, the type of commitment to change of interest is affective commitment to change. This type of commitment to change reflects the degree to which employees see inherent values and benefits of the change initiative and thereby feeling a sense of excitement about change (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). While the other two types of commitment to change (normative and continuance) are born out of external pressures or influences, affective commitment to change is based on employees? own evaluation about the benefits resulting from change and accompanied feelings of enthusiasm and excitement. I argue that it is reasonable to believe that employees who are affectively committed to change will tend to possess positive attitudes toward the change-related voice behavior because it is likely to yield significant improvements in the change processes. Employees who see values and benefits underlying organizational change (affective commitment to change) are likely to believe that speaking up with helpful 26 suggestions and concerns will increase the likelihood those expected values and benefits occur. Hence, due to their positive attitudes toward the change-related voice behavior, employees who are discontent with the change processes will exert their voice to improve change implementation processes. Therefore, I hypothesize: Hypothesis 2a: The relationship between employee dissatisfaction with change implementation processes and promotive change-related voice behavior will be stronger when an employee is high in affective commitment to change. Hypothesis 2b: The relationship between employee dissatisfaction with change implementation processes and prohibitive change-related voice behavior will be stronger when an employee is high in affective commitment to change. Second, as the factor influencing employees? control beliefs about change- related voice behavior, I propose that employees? change efficacy will be another moderating variable of the relationship between dissatisfaction with change implementation processes and change-related voice behavior. Change efficacy is defined as the extent to which employees feel competent in dealing with change- related demands and in performing well during and after the change implementation (Wanberg & Banas, 2000). I argue that change efficacy may reflect employees? felt- control over their change-related voice behavior. Employees possessing high self- efficacy in coping with challenges associated with change seem likely to feel competent to deal with additional or new change demands that are likely to accrue from their voice behaviors. Also, their efficacy in change demands may help them to 27 feel that engaging in change-supportive behaviors, such as suggesting new ways of doing things and challenging problematic approaches to improve change processes, will be easy to accomplish. Thus, employees? felt-control over the change demands will tend to stimulate a felt-control over their change-related voice behaviors. In this sense, employees who are not satisfied with change implementation processes are more likely to decide to speak up in order to make corrections and improvements due to their felt-control over their change demands and change-related voice behaviors. Hypothesis 3a: The relationship between employee dissatisfaction with change implementation processes and promotive change-related voice behavior will be stronger when an employee is high in change efficacy. Hypothesis 3b: The relationship between employee dissatisfaction with change implementation processes and prohibitive change-related voice behavior will be stronger when an employee is high in change efficacy. Third, regarding the normative beliefs about voice behavior, I argue that leadership behavior towards work-unit members will influence employees? normative pressure and social norm to voice. Empowering leader behaviors include sharing and delegating authority, power, and responsibilities to employees (Kirkman & Rosen, 1997, 1999; Manz & Sims, 1987; Strauss, 1963). There have been two streams of research on empowering leadership. One is focused on leader behaviors (e.g., Kirkman & Rosen, 1997, 1999; Strauss, 1963; Zhang & Bartol, 2010), and the other is focused on employees? psychological or motivational states as a result of empowerment (e.g., Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). This study takes the former perspective to examine the social and contextual 28 influence of leader behaviors on employees? change-related voice behavior because the perspective that views empowering leadership as a leader?s influence fits into the theorization of the planned behavior theory that social and contextual influences surrounding a focal behavior shape one?s evaluation about the focal behavior?s subjective norms. Prior research indicates that the tendency of employees to express voice is influenced by the extent to which their immediate leader or supervisor encourages them to participate in organizational decision-making processes and take responsibility for job tasks (cf. Detert & Burris, 2007; Raub, 2008). Since leaders tend to form a social influence on employees? attitudes and behaviors within their work-units through their actions and behaviors (e.g., Chen & Tesluk, 2011; Yukl, 2002) and tend to serve as agents of the organization (Levinson, 1965), employees may learn what actions are expected and desired as social norms via leader actions. Work-unit members? collective perception about their work-unit leader?s empowering behavior is a shared perception about what they see and experience within their work- unit (Ostroff, Kinicki, & Tamkins, 2003). Hence, the extent to which employees view voice behavior as encouraged and safe within their work-unit will serve as a social norm for voice. In this sense, empowering leader behavior toward work-unit members will reflect the extent to which social contexts and norms support voice behaviors during organizational change. Therefore, it is likely that employees who are dissatisfied with change implementation processes may be more willing and feel obliged to express their views and thoughts regarding change processes when their leader encourages them 29 and their work-unit colleagues to engage in change implementation and take responsibilities for change-related tasks through his or her empowering leader behaviors. I expect that work-unit leaders? empowering leader behavior will be another moderating condition under which employees? dissatisfaction with change implementation processes is linked to their change-related voice behavior by shaping employees? subjective norm for voice behavior. Hypothesis 4a: The relationship between employee dissatisfaction with change implementation processes and promotive change-related voice behavior will be stronger when the work-unit leader displays high levels of empowering leader behavior toward work-unit members. Hypothesis 4b: The relationship between employee dissatisfaction with change implementation processes and prohibitive change-related voice behavior will be stronger when the work-unit leader displays high levels of empowering leader behavior toward work-unit members. Taken together, I hypothesized that the theorized direct positive relationships between employees? dissatisfaction with change implementation processes and their promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors are more likely to be observed when the three moderators discussed above ? affective commitment to change, change efficacy, and empowering leader behavior ? are present. Next, I present hypotheses for the second half of my conceptual model focusing on the benefits of change-related voice behaviors during organizational change. A consequence of change-related voice. I predict that an increased level of change-related voice behavior will be positively related to employee performance of 30 change tasks for two reasons. First, one known benefit of voice for employees is that it increases the focal individual?s work motivation and general work attitudes toward the organization (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). These effects may result because employees who are able to openly express their viewpoints tend to perceive that they are valued and supported by the organization (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Morrison & Milliken, 2000). This feeling of being valued may, in turn, increase their work morale and positive attitudes toward the organization (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Extending this theorization to the change context, it is likely that employees who are able to openly express their ideas and challenge the status quo of change processes in order to make improvements are likely to believe that they are valued and supported by the organization and, thus, will be more motivated to work hard and support the change that their organization strives to successfully implement. Furthermore, the feeling of being valued will lead employees to believe that their organization will share the benefits of change with them, which, in turn, will tend to increase the likelihood that employees make efforts in performing their change-related tasks (cf. Shin et al., 2012). Second, I argue that voice behavior will increase the effectiveness and creativity of the process individual employees engage in to achieve their change- related goals. According to Morrison and Milliken?s theorization (2000), employees? voice behaviors are likely to improve the effectiveness of change processes during organizational change because voice behaviors help the organization detect and correct errors and improve decision qualities. Similarly, I argue that employees? change-related voice behaviors may also improve the processes through which 31 individuals achieve their performance for change tasks. Employees? voice behaviors will assist individual employees in addressing problematic ways that may have caused their dissatisfaction with change processes previously and further in having more effective and innovative ways of doing things. Furthermore, employees who openly express their voices ? as opposed to those who do not ? are likely to be more motivated to invest their time and energy in developing better work processes. This is because employees may want to see their efforts to suggest new ideas and challenge problematic approaches result in actual improvement of their work processes during change that exceeds the improvement of their organization?s change implementation processes in general. In conclusion, I predict that the increased levels of change-related voice behavior, both promotive and prohibitive, will directly impact employees? performances of change tasks, which is defined as the degree to which employees fulfill their responsibilities and achieve their individual goals regarding the change initiative. Thus, I propose the following hypotheses. Hypothesis 5a: Employees? promotive change-related voice behavior will be positively related to their performance of change tasks. Hypothesis 5b: Employees? prohibitive change-related voice behavior will be positively related to their performance of change tasks. Importantly, I expect that the above benefits of employees? change-related voice behavior are more likely to be realized when the ?voice? is actually integrated within the organizational change processes. Specifically, I suggest that voice instrumentality will moderate the positive relationships between change-related voice 32 behavior and employees? performance of change tasks by enhancing both their later favorable attitudes toward change and effective process engagement. Voice instrumentality is defined as the extent to which an employee?s suggestions are actually incorporated in the outcome of the decision and work processes ? specifically, change-related processes in this research (Avery & Qui?ones, 2002). Positive outcomes of voice behavior are more likely to result when individuals see and experience instrumentality in their voice behavior. Based on the prior research, I argue that if employees do not see their input incorporated, they are likely to be less motivated to support the change by displaying low levels of affective and normative commitment to change (e.g., Avery & Qui?ones, 2002; Korsgaard & Roberson, 1995; McFarlin & Sweeney, 1996). Similarly, employees who see their voice has no impact on change-related processes will be less willing to get involved in developing effective work processes to achieve their change-related goals. Therefore, I hypothesize that the positive relationships between employees? proactive and prohibitive change-related voice behaviors and their performance of change tasks will be positively moderated by employees? experienced voice instrumentality. In other words, employees who see the constructive and helpful suggestions and ideas they made actually incorporated into change implementation processes will be more likely to perform better during change because of their belief that they are valued within their workplace. Likewise, if employees see that the problematic approaches or errors that they reported were well received by organizational managers and addressed, they will likely perform better during change. 33 It is important to note that even when employees experience that the suggestions and ideas they provide to improve change implementation processes (promotive voice) are frequently accepted by their managers or colleagues, it is possible that the influence of their prohibitive voice on the outcome of a decision during change is low, or vice-versa. Therefore, I distinguish promotive voice instrumentality from prohibitive voice instrumentality in the hypotheses and measures as well. Thus, I predict: Hypothesis 6a: Promotive voice instrumentality will strengthen the positive relationship between employees? promotive change-related voice behavior and their performance of change tasks. Hypothesis 6b: Prohibitive voice instrumentality will strengthen the positive relationship between employees? prohibitive change-related voice behavior and their performance of change tasks. Up to this point, I have discussed the theoretical background and literature review underlying my hypothesized model. In the next section, I will describe the research design and procedure to test the hypotheses. 34 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Sample and Procedure In order to test the hypothesized model, I collected data from an organization in the electronics industry located in South Korea that was in the middle of large- scale organizational change at the time of data collection. After reaching agreement on a joint research project with the company, a survey was conducted several months after the specific change implementation plans and processes had been delivered to all work-units and work-unit members but about a year before the change implementation efforts were completed. In return for the research collaboration, I provided an executive summary and feedback report based on survey findings. The study organization was going through change efforts that aimed to alter its strategic vision, organizational culture, human resource management policies, and communication processes under a bigger change initiative called ?implementing autonomously-managing team system.? All work-units and organizational members were affected by this initiative. The organization consists of 29 work-units to which, in average, eight work- unit members belong (245 employees in total), and these work-units constitute seven organizational divisions. Two versions of survey were distributed: one for employees (work-unit members) and one for work-unit leaders. The entire organization except executive members participated in the on-line survey, and the response rates were 93.47% for the employee survey and 93.10% for the work-unit leader survey, respectively. Owing to the organizational representative?s strong sponsorship, I was 35 able to achieve high response rates. After removing incomplete data, 192 employee responses and 27 work-unit data sets were included in the final dataset for analyses. I used two different data sources to minimize the common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003): employees and work-unit leaders. Employees assessed their dissatisfaction with change implementation processes, affective commitment to change, change efficacy, empowering leader behavior of their work-unit leader, and control variables (i.e., impact of change, organizational commitment, voice expectancy, usage of other formal communication media to speak up). Work-unit leaders reported their employees? change-related voice behaviors and performances of change tasks. As the survey participant?s native language was Korean, I followed the back translation procedures suggested by prior research (Brislin, 1970, 1981). In other words, all survey items that were originally developed in English were first translated to Korean and then translated again back to English for comparison in order to minimize discrepancies between the original items and the translated items. In terms of employee sample characteristics, 82.6% of the sampled employees were male, 94.5% held a Bachelor?s degree or higher, and the age in average was 32.64. In terms of work-unit leader sample characteristics, 96.3% were male and held a Bachelor?s degree or higher, and the average age was 40.15. Individual Level Measures The full version of the survey measures and items is provided in Appendix. Dissatisfaction with change implementation processes. Employees were asked to report the extent to which they were dissatisfied with the current change 36 implementation processes based on a 7-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree to 7= strongly agree) using the 4-item scale of pessimism about organizational change developed by Reichers, Wanous, and Austin (1997) and the 3-item scale of job satisfaction developed by Seashore, Lawler, Mirvis, and Cammann (1982). These scales were modified for this study in order to reflect employees? dissatisfaction about change processes. The items were reverse-scored so that higher scores reflected greater dissatisfaction with change processes. Example items are ?Most of the process through which the change has been implemented will not do much good,? and ?All in all, I am not satisfied with the current change implementation processes.? The reliability value of this scale (?) was .96. Affective commitment to change. Employees were asked to rate the extent to which they are affectively committed to change based on a 7-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree to 7= strongly agree) using the 4-item scale of affective commitment to change developed by Herskovitch and Meyer (2002) and used in previous studies (e.g., Seo et al., 2012; Shin et al., 2012). Example items include: ?I believe in the value of this change,? and ?This change initiative serves an important purpose.? The scale reliability (?) was .88. Change efficacy. Employees reported the degree of their change efficacy on a 7-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree to 7= strongly agree) using the 4-item scale developed by Wanberg and Banas (2000). Example items are ?Wherever the change initiative takes me, I?m sure I can handle it,? and ?I have reason to believe I may perform well in my job situation following the change initiative.? The reliability of the scale (?) was .77. 37 Change-related voice behavior. Work-unit leaders were asked to rate the degree to which each of their employees engages in change-related voice behavior based on a 7-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree to 7= strongly agree) using the 10-item scale of voice behavior developed by Liang et al. (2012) and modified for this study to reflect the change context. This scale consists of two dimensions of voice behavior ? promotive (making suggestions) and prohibitive (reporting problems) ? using 5 items to measure each dimension. Example items include: ?This employee proactively develops and makes suggestions for issues that may influence the change implementation processes? (promotive aspect); ?This employee advises others against the undesirable change implementation processes that would hamper the change implementation? (prohibitive aspect). The scale reliabilities for promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors (?) were .96 and .90, respectively. Voice instrumentality. Employees were asked to rate the extent to which their voice efforts have been integrated into the change implementation processes based on a 6-point Likert scale (1= never (0%), 2 = rarely (20%), 3 = sometimes (40%), 4 = often (60%), 5 = frequently (80%), 6 = very frequently (100%)) using two items to reflect the two dimensions of the voice behavior scale (i.e., promotive and prohibitive aspects). These items were developed by modifying the measure of voice instrumentality used in a previous study (Avery & Qui?ones, 2002). Sample items are ?Indicate the extent to which your suggestions to improve the change implementation processes were incorporated in the processes? (promotive voice instrumentality) and ?Indicate the extent to which your speaking up with problems in the change 38 implementation processes was incorporated in the processes? (prohibitive voice instrumentality). Performance of change tasks. Work-unit leaders were asked to rate their individual employees? performance of change tasks based on a 7-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree to 7= strongly agree) using the 4-item scale of in-role behavior developed by Van Dyne and LePine (1998) and adapted for this research to take into account the change context. Example items include: ?This employee performs the change-related tasks that are expected as part of his/her job,? and ?This employee fulfills his/her change-related responsibilities.? The reliability of the scale (?) was .95. Control variables. Several variables were included in the data collection in order to rule out possibilities that other factors beyond the study variables influence the hypothesized relationships among the study variables. First, I measured and controlled for employees? age. This is because previous research suggested that more experienced employees are more likely to be resistant to organizational change than younger employees (cf. Van Dam, Oreg, & Schyns, 2008) while tending to feel easier to speak up (Stamper & Van Dyne, 2001). Second, it is likely that employees? general organizational attitudes influence their attitudes and behaviors during organizational change (Herold et al., 2008). Thus, employees? generic organizational commitment was assessed based on a 7-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree to 7= strongly agree) to control for using the four- item scale of affective organizational commitment developed by Mowday, Steers, and Porters (1979) and shortened by Simons and Roberson (2003). An example item is ?I 39 am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization.? The scale reliability of this measure (?) was .87. Third, according to prior findings, employees? perceived impact of organizational change tends to influence employees? attitudes and behaviors toward change (e.g., Fedor, Caldwell, & Herold, 2006; Herold et al., 2008). Therefore, I controlled for employees? perceived impact of change on their job routines by measuring individual employees? perceived impact of change using the six-item scale of individual job impact that was developed by other scholars (Caldwell, Herold, & Fedor, 2004) on a 7-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree to 7= strongly agree). An example item is ?I find greater demands placed on me at work because of this change.? The scale reliability (?) of this measure was .77. Fourth, I controlled for the extent to which employees expect their efforts to speak up will make changes (voice expectation) as it has been found to be positively correlated with employees? actual enactment of voice behavior (cf. Burris et al., 2008). To measure it, I adapted Burris and colleagues? voice futility scales to reflect the change context and both promotive and prohibitive aspects of voice. A sample item is ?It is useless for me to suggest new ways of doing things to increase the efficiency of the change implementation processes.? The scale reliability (?) was .93. Last, as some organizations have in-house formal communication media for employees to communicate their suggestions and complaints with organizational managers (e.g., suggestion box, employee forum, etc.), I controlled for employees? usage of such official media to better examine the effects of change-related voice behaviors on the consequence variable. 40 Work-unit Level Measure To measure a work-unit level construct ? empowering leader behavior ? I obtained data from individual employees and aggregated their data to the work-unit level. To better reflect work-unit members? shared perceptions, a referent shift consensus model of aggregation (Chan, 1998) was applied. In other words, individual employees were asked to report their perception about their leader?s empowering leader behavior toward their work-unit members. Empowering leader behavior. To measure work-unit leaders? empowering behavior toward the work-unit members, employees were asked to rate the extent to which their work-unit leaders exhibited empowering leader behavior during organizational change based on a 7-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree to 7= strongly agree) using the 12-item scale of empowering leader behavior developed by Ahearn et al. (2005b). This scale consists of four dimensions ? enhancing the meaningfulness of work, fostering participation in decision making, expressing confidence in high performance, and providing autonomy from bureaucratic constraints ? using three items to measure each dimension. Example items include: ?Your manager helps members of your team understand how their objectives and goals relate to that of the company? (enhancing the meaningfulness of work); ?Your manager makes many decision together with members of your team? (fostering participation in decision making); ?Your manager believes that members of your team can handle demanding tasks? (expressing confidence in high performance); and ?Your manager allows members of your team to do their job their way? (providing 41 autonomy from bureaucratic constraints). The scale reliability of this measure (?) was 96. Analyses The scores of empowering leader behavior assessed by individual employees were aggregated to the work-unit level. To verify the appropriateness of aggregating these scores at the work-unit level of analysis, I conducted a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the work-unit membership as the classification variable and the aggregated scores as the dependent variables to examine between-groups variation. Average inter-member agreement (rwg score) across work-unit members as well as ICC(1) and ICC(2) scores were calculated as statistics. ICC(1) is an index of the intraclass correlation coefficient that indicates the proportion of variance that is explained by group membership (work-unit membership) (Bliese, 2000; James, 1982). ICC(2) indicates the extent to which group means (work-unit means) are reliably different (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992). According to prior researchers? recommendations, an acceptable level of rwg is .70 or higher (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984), an acceptable range of ICC(1) is between .05 and .20 (Bliese, 2000), and a recommended cutoff value for ICC(2) is .60 (Glick, 1985). For the empowering leader behavior at the work-unit level, the result of ANOVA showed that F was 2.64 (p < .001), and the average inter-member agreement score (rwg score) was .81. Furthermore, ICC(1) and ICC(2) scores for empowering leader behavior were .17 and .62, respectively. These scores reflected reasonable within-group agreement (LeBreton & Senter, 2008) and sufficient within- and between-group reliability (Bliese, 2000; Glick, 1985). 42 Upon matching individual employees? data with their work-unit data, I tested the hypothesized relationships using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992) as the primary statistical approach for data analyses given that the set of measured variables was hierarchically structured. In other words, individuals were nested within their work-units. HLM allows analyses of the relationships between variables at different levels of analysis by modeling both individual and work-unit level variance in individual outcome variables. In this study, empowering leader behavior was treated as work-unit level (level-2) variables, while all other variables were analyzed as individual level (level-1) variables. To build the HLM models, I entered both the level-1 predictors and control variables in the level-1HLM equations after centering their scores around the corresponding work-unit mean (i.e., group-mean centering) as grand-mean centering can yield a spurious cross-level interaction effect (Hofmann & Gavin, 1998). Also, in examining the effects of empowering leader behavior on the level-1 dependent variables (i.e., voice behaviors), the scores of empowering leader behavior were centered relative to the mean of the entire sample (i.e., grand-mean centering) in order to obtain estimates based on between-group variances (Enders & Tofighi, 2007). Next I estimated intercept-as-outcomes models by regressing the intercept estimates obtained from level-1 analyses on the level-2 predictor (i.e., empowering leader behavior) and then estimated whether the level-1 relationships (i.e., the within group slope) between the level-1 predictor (i.e., dissatisfaction with change implementation processes) and level-1 outcome variables (i.e., voice behaviors) vary as a function of 43 the cross-level moderator (i.e., empowering leader behavior) (called slope-as- outcomes model). 44 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations among the study variables. ------------------------------- Insert Table 1 about here -------------------------------- Hypothesis Testing Hypothesis 1 predicted that employees who are discontent with the current change implementation process are more likely to speak up with constructive suggestions (Hypothesis 1a: promotive voice) as well as concerns (Hypothesis 1b: prohibitive voice). As presented in Table 2, Model 1 and Model 2, the relationship between dissatisfaction with change implementation processes and promotive change- related voice behavior was not significant whereas the relationship between dissatisfaction with change implementation processes and prohibitive change-related voice behavior was positive and significant as hypothesized (? = .11, p < .01). Thus, Hypothesis 1b was supported while Hypothesis 1a was not. ------------------------------- Insert Table 2 about here -------------------------------- Table 3 summarizes the results of the interactional effects between dissatisfaction with change implementation processes and the three hypothesized moderators on change-related voice behavior. Hypothesis 2 predicted that employees who are dissatisfied with change implementation processes will be more likely to speak up with helpful suggestions to improve the change process (Hypothesis 2a) and 45 report harmful factors and concerns (Hypothesis 2b) when they have a strong affective commitment to change. As shown in Model 2 and Model 6 of Table 3, affective commitment to change was found to significantly strengthen the relationship between dissatisfaction with change implementation processes and promotive change- related voice behavior as hypothesized (? = .07, p < .05) but not the relationship between dissatisfaction and prohibitive change-related voice behavior. Figure 2 illustrates the interaction patterns. As expected, the relationship between dissatisfaction and promotive change-related voice behavior was stronger for those who are strongly committed to change. Therefore, Hypothesis 2a was supported while Hypothesis 2b was not. --------------------------------------------------- Insert Figure 2 about here ---------------------------------------------------- Hypothesis 3 suggested that the relationships between dissatisfaction with change implementation processes and promotive (Hypothesis 3a) and prohibitive (Hypothesis 3b) voice behaviors will be stronger when employees? change efficacy is high. As shown in Model 3 and Model 7 of Table 3, change efficacy significantly moderated the relationships between dissatisfaction with change implementation processes and both promotive and prohibitive of change-related voice behaviors (? = - .10, p < .05; ? = -.10, p < .05, respectively). These interactional effects are illustrated in Figure 3 and Figure 4. As shown in the figures, although the interaction effects were significant, the patterns were different from the hypotheses. In both figures, the generally-positive slopes between dissatisfaction and the two types of voice behavior 46 were steeper for those with low, rather than high, levels of change efficacy (dotted lines). However, the average levels of the enactment of voice behaviors were higher for those with high change efficacy (solid lines) in both figures. Therefore, Hypothesis 3a and Hypothesis 3b were partially supported. Additionally, although not formally hypothesized, as shown in Model 1 and Model 5 of Table 3, change efficacy was found to be significantly and positively related with promotive change-related voice behavior (? = .13, p < .05). --------------------------------------------------- Insert Figure 3 and Figure 4 about here ---------------------------------------------------- Next, I predicted that empowering leader behavior would strengthen the relationships between dissatisfaction with change implementation processes and promotive (Hypothesis 4a) and prohibitive (Hypothesis 4b) change-related voice behaviors. Contrary to the hypotheses, empowering leader behavior was not found to significantly moderate the relationships between dissatisfaction and change-related voice behaviors; hence, Hypothesis 4a and 4b were not supported as shown in Model 4 and Model 8 of Table 3. However, the results show that empowering leader behavior is positively and significantly associated with both promotive and prohibitive change-related voice behaviors (? = .43, p < .01; ? = .48, p < .001, respectively) although these patterns were not formally hypothesized. Furthermore, I additionally tested the interactional effects between dissatisfaction and the three moderating variables on voice behaviors with the three interactional terms being included in the equation simultaneously. The results 47 indicated that the significant interactional effects discussed above still remained significant. ------------------------------- Insert Table 3 about here -------------------------------- I next tested the hypotheses with respect to the consequence of change-related voice behavior. Hypothesis 5 predicted that increased levels of both promotive (Hypothesis 5a) and prohibitive (Hypothesis 5b) voice behaviors will be positively related with change performance. As shown in Table 4, I tested these hypotheses with all the variables up to change-related voice behavior being included as control variables in the equation. As presented in Model 1 and Model 2, both promotive and prohibitive change-related voice behaviors were positively and significantly related with performance of change tasks when tested independently (? = .70, p < .001; ? = .58, p < .001, respectively). In contrast, when the two types of voice behavior were included simultaneously into the equation, only promotive voice was found to be significantly related with performance of change tasks as seen in Model 3 (? = .60, p < .001). This suggests that a significant amount of variance explained by prohibitive change-related voice behavior is accounted for by promotive voice in the presence of it. Therefore, Hypothesis 5a was supported and Hypothesis 5b was partially supported as the significance of the effect of prohibitive voice on performance depended on the presence of promotive voice. Last, Hypothesis 6 regards a moderating role of voice instrumentality in the relationship between voice behavior and performance. Model 4 and Model 5 in Table 4 present the results of the interactional effects tests. As shown in Model 5, the 48 interactional effect of prohibitive change-related voice behavior and prohibitive voice instrumentality on performance of change tasks was found to be marginally significant (? = .07, p < .055). The pattern of this significant interactional effect is illustrated in Figure 5. As expected, the generally-positive relationship between prohibitive voice behavior and change performance was stronger for those who reported high levels, rather than low levels, of prohibitive voice instrumentality (solid line). However, the promotive type of voice instrumentality was not found to significantly moderate the relationship between dissatisfaction and promotive voice behavior. Therefore, Hypothesis 6b was supported while Hypothesis 6a was not. Figure 6 summarizes the significant findings reported above. ------------------------------------------------------------- Insert Table 4, Figure 5, and Figure 6 about here -------------------------------------------------------------- In addition to the series of hypothesis testing discussed above, I tested whether empowering leader behavior at the work-unit level predicts the three moderating variables (affective commitment to change, change efficacy, and voice instrumentality). Previous research demonstrated that benefits of empowering leader behavior include not only increased levels of employees? participation in organizational decision making but also increased levels of their adaptability and flexibility at work and self-efficacy (Arnold, Arad, Rhoades, & Drasgow, 2000). This suggests that empowering leader behavior may play a significant role in shaping employees? perceptions associated with organizational change. Employees whose leaders exhibit empowering behaviors may better adapt to a change context, which 49 will positively influence their attitudes toward change. Also, they may perceive increased levels of their impact and influence on their job and organizational decision making during change owing to feelings of self-efficacy. Therefore, it makes sense that work-unit leaders? empowering behavior will influence not only employee voice behavior but also employees? commitment to change, change efficacy, and voice instrumentality. The results showed that given the control variables (age, organizational commitment, impact of change, and voice expectation), empowering leader behavior was positively related with affective commitment to change and change efficacy (? = .33, p < .05; ? = .30, p < .05, respectively) but not with the two types of voice instrumentality. Post-hoc Simple Slope Tests I additionally tested the circumstances in which the relationships above between dissatisfaction with change processes and employees? voice behaviors are significant at different levels of the moderating variables (i.e., commitment to change and change efficacy) by conducting post-hoc tests of simple slopes. The results suggest that employees who are dissatisfied with the current change processes are more likely to engage in promotive voice behaviors when their affective commitment to change is high (? = .17, p < .01). This relationship between dissatisfaction with change processes and promotive voice behavior was not significant when affective commitment to change is low. In addition, regarding the moderating effects associated with change efficacy, the positive relationships between dissatisfaction with change processes and both promotive and prohibitive of voice behavior are 50 significant only when the levels of change efficacy are low (? = .21, p < .001; ? = .26, p < .001, respectively). Furthermore, I conducted post-hoc tests of simple slopes for the significant interactional relationship between prohibitive change-related voice behavior and prohibitive voice instrumentality on performance of change task. The results indicate that this relationship is significant only when the level of prohibitive voice instrumentality is high rather than low (? = .27, p < .01). 51 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION Taking the perspectives of employees? four reactions to job dissatisfaction (Farrell, 1983; Hirschman, 1970; Rusbult et al., 1988) and the planned behavior theory (Ajzen, 1988, 1991), this study examined the role of employee voice behavior during organizational change as a mechanism through which employees? dissatisfaction with change implementation processes can be converted to a positive outcome in the workplace using a survey design and multiple data sources. The findings of this study suggest that the role of voice behavior during change varies depending on the type of voice, and voice behavior indeed can play a constructive role during organizational change. In particular, I found that employees who are dissatisfied with the way change is being implemented in their organization are more likely to suggest innovative ideas and solutions in order to improve the status quo of the change processes (promotive voice) if they are more strongly committed to the purpose of the change (affective commitment to change). Also, employees who are not dissatisfied with the change implementation processes are less likely to exhibit promotive voice when they strongly believe it will be difficult to perform well after the change is completed (low change efficacy). Furthermore, employees with low levels of dissatisfaction tend not to speak up with their concerns to address problems associated with the way change is implemented in their organization (prohibitive voice), and this tendency is more likely to occur for those with low change efficacy than with high change efficacy. Additionally, the analysis results report that those employees who are high in change efficacy tend to engage in promotive voice behavior more frequently than those with 52 low change efficacy after controlling for the effect of dissatisfaction with change implementation processes on the two voice behaviors. I also found that work-unit leaders? empowering behaviors toward their employees tend to increase the likelihood of employees? enactment of promotive voice behavior and prohibitive voice behavior. Moreover, although not formally hypothesized, empowering leader behavior was found to be positively associated with employees? affective commitment to change and change efficacy. With respect to the consequence of voice behavior during change, I found that employees who engage in voice behavior during change are more likely to perform better on their change-related tasks. This tendency is robust for promotive voice as it was found to be a significant predictor of change performance regardless of the presence of the other type of voice, which is prohibitive voice. In contrast, prohibitive voice behavior was found to be positively related with performance of change tasks only when promotive voice was not included simultaneously in the analysis. Theoretical and practical contributions and implications of the findings of this study are discussed in the next section. Theoretical Contributions Theoretical implications and contributions of this study to the existing literatures of organizational change and voice are threefold. First, it reveals a potential important role of employees? voice behavior during organizational change in converting employees? discontent with change implementation processes to their increased levels of performance of change tasks. As pointed out earlier, many employees are prone to be negative about the processes through which large-scale 53 organizational change is implemented in their workplaces (Burke, 2002; DeCelles et al., 2013; Wanous et al., 2000). Given this tendency, this study?s findings shed light on the important role of voice behavior as a means to deal with employees? dissatisfaction in a constructive way, which is also in line with prior researchers? attempt to conceptualize employees? resistance to change as a resource for successful change management since the absence of resistance or dissatisfaction may imply employees? disengagement or unthoughtful acceptance of the change (Ford et al., 2008). Although there have been accumulating research efforts about antecedents of voice in the workplace, most of the work tends to focus on the positive aspect of the antecedents (e.g., Burris et al., 2008; Detert & Burris, 2007; Liang et al., 2012; Morrison et al., 2011; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008a; Venkataramani & Tangirala, 2010). In contrast, this study focuses on employees? dissatisfaction while they are experiencing organizational change as a factor that is related with employees? voice. Therefore, this study contributes to the both voice and organizational change body of literature by showing how employees? dissatisfaction with change implementation processes can result in positive consequences such as performance through voice. Furthermore, this study also contributes to the research stream about the framework of employees? four types of reactions to their unpleasant jobs (Farrell, 1983; Hirschman, 1970; Rusbult et al., 1988) by taking it to the organizational change context. This study suggests that change-related voice ? which is a more specific form of voice than a generic form of voice ? can be a kind of employees? reaction to their dissatisfaction with change implementation processes ? which is change-specific dissatisfaction rather than general job dissatisfaction ? even in the midst of 54 organizational change and that voice is positively associated with performance of change tasks. Second, the findings of this study show that employees? voice behaviors during change need to be examined with consideration of the content and purpose behind the voice behavior. By revealing different patterns associated with antecedents and consequences of voice behavior between the promotive and prohibitive types of voice, this study builds on the studies of Liang and associates (2012) that introduced the two types of voice behavior as well as other prior scholars (Morrison, 2011; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008b; Van Dyne et al., 2003) who broadened the definition of voice behavior to include the prohibitive aspect of it. In particular, the positive relationship between dissatisfaction with change implementation processes and promotive change-related voice holds only when employees are strongly committed to change (high affective commitment to change) and believe they are not capable of successfully dealing with change demands (low change efficacy). This implies that strong affective commitment to the inherent values and benefits of change is the driving force that motivates employees who are not satisfied with the current change processes to proactively work to improve them. Also, the interactional effects associated with change efficacy suggest that the extent to which employees are dissatisfied with change implementation processes matters only for those who believe they are not in a strong position during or after change implementation in terms of their capabilities of handling change demands. It means that for employees with high change efficacy, the variation in the frequency of their enactment of voice is low between employees with high dissatisfaction and 55 employees with low dissatisfaction; however, for employees with low change efficacy, those who are strongly dissatisfied tend to speak up while those with low dissatisfaction are not strongly motivated to do so. As employees with low change efficacy have stronger dissatisfaction with the change processes, they may be more likely to engage in voice behavior in order to improve the processes probably because they believe improved change processes will assist them in better adapting to the change demands. In contrast, those employees with high change efficacy may tend to actively engage in promotive voice behavior regardless of their levels of their dissatisfaction probably because they are motivated to help their organization successfully implement the change since they believe they are able to perform well after change. Supporting this argument, prior voice scholars suggested that employees who feel a weak sense of personal control over their work and work outcomes tend to be driven to speak up when they are dissatisfied with the status quo whereas those with high levels of personal control tend to be motivated to voice by their belief that they can positively influence their work and work outcomes (Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008b). Regarding the observed main effect of change efficacy on promotive voice, this finding suggests that the extent to which employees perceive they are capable of handling change tasks and demands successfully influences the likelihood employees exercise promotive voice above and beyond the effect of dissatisfaction with change processes on voice. According to the planned behavior theory (Ajzen, 1988, 1991), an individual must perceive that he or she is able to achieve the purpose of a particular focal planned behavior in order to intend to engage in the focal behavior. Thus, 56 employees with high change efficacy may believe they are able to successfully speak up with innovative solutions and helpful suggestions to improve change processes due to their perceived capability and confidence during change. When it comes to prohibitive voice, the findings indicate that, unlike the case of promotive voice, there is a robust direct relationship between dissatisfaction and prohibitive voice during change. This makes sense in that employees may feel comfortable reporting problematic approaches and errors involving change processes when they are actually experiencing those harmful factors as indicated by their high levels of dissatisfaction with change implementation processes. Moreover, other findings suggest that, similarly to promotive voice, employees with strong change efficacy tend to engage in prohibitive voice regardless of their dissatisfaction levels whereas those with low change efficacy are more sensitive about the level of their dissatisfaction with the change implementation processes. Regarding affective commitment to change, I did not find any association of it with prohibitive voice during change. I speculate that the fact that employees with strong commitment to change tend to be very enthusiastic and excited about change may lead them to overlook or underrate errors or problems in the change implementation processes due to their strong focus on positive aspects of the change and strong belief that the change will bring lots of benefits to them and to the organization. In addition to the roles of affective commitment to change and change efficacy, this study?s findings also reveal that leaders? empowering behavior is an effective trigger for employees? voice behaviors during change. Furthermore, the additional data analysis suggested that employees tend to be strongly committed to 57 organizational change and confident about their capabilities in performing their change-related work when their leaders exhibit empowering behaviors. Given that empowering leaders tend to emphasize employees? proactive participation in decision making, it is reasonable to argue that more attention should be given to the role of empowering leadership during organizational change. Furthermore, empowering leaders foster employees? attachment to their job and organization by enhancing the meaningfulness of work, and emphasize confidence in their employees? high quality work performance (Ahearne et al., 2005b), which may increase employees? commitment to organizational change and change efficacy. It is also in line with the prior literature on psychological empowerment suggesting that employees who are empowered tend to have strong perceptions of meaningfulness, competence, self- determination, and impact about their work role (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990), all of which are likely to increase employees? positive perceptions and attitudes such as commitment to change and change efficacy during organizational change. This study contributes to the organizational change literature by emphasizing the importance of empowering leadership during change given that prior change researchers tend to only focus on the role of transformational leadership during change (e.g., Hill, Seo, Kang, & Taylor, 2012; Seo et al., 2012; Wu, Neubert, & Yi, 2007). Although empowering leader behavior was found to be a significant predictor of both promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors, it did not significantly moderate the relationships between dissatisfaction with change implementation processes and the two types of voice. This finding occurs probably because empowering leader 58 behavior strongly influences both promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors above and beyond the effect of dissatisfaction on voice. Even when employees are not dissatisfied with change processes, they may be strongly motivated to engage in both promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors if their leaders encourage their participation in decision making and enlarge the scope of their responsibilities during change. Third, this study shows that employees? change-related voice behaviors are positively associated with their change performance reported by their work-unit leaders. Even though voice behavior has been treated as an extra-role behavior as a consequence of employees? perceptions and attitudes in many prior studies, this study indicates that it is significantly related to a performance measure rated by leaders. This may be because employees who have opportunities to speak up during change are likely to be motivated to work harder to help the organization successfully implement the change. The findings show that promotive voice is more strongly related with change performance than is prohibitive voice probably because employees are more likely to be visible in a positive way when suggesting innovative ideas and solutions while prohibitive voice involves risk-taking and potential negative reactions from listeners (Liang et al., 2012; Whiting et al., 2008). This point also supports the finding that the relationship between prohibitive voice and change performance was significant only when employees experience that their speaking up with concerns and problems are well received and actually incorporated in the process. Therefore, this study builds on prior research about the two types of voice (Liang et 59 al., 2012) by showing that the two types of voice are differentially related with other outcome variables such as performance during organizational change. Practical Contributions In addition to the theoretical contributions discussed above, this study provides several important implications to organizational managers who are interested in successful management of organizational change. First, it calls managers? attention on employees? discontent and dissatisfaction with change processes as a factor that potentially produces employees? positive outcomes during change. In order to benefit from having ?grumblers? during organizational change, managers need to provide them with opportunities to express their opinions to those with power and authority to address them, rather than to bottle up their discontent and dissatisfaction which may harm the employee?s health without providing any benefit to the organization?s change effort. In this way, organizational managers will be able to improve change implementation processes, which in turn will lead to successful completion of it. Second, I suggest managers invest organizational resources in increasing employees? affective commitment to change. Many scholars have consistently emphasized the importance of commitment to change of employees during change (e.g., Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Seo et al., 2012; Shin et al., 2012). In line with it, I suggest organizational managers invest their time and resources to increase employees? commitment to change by effectively communicating the purpose and benefits of upcoming or ongoing organizational change as this study?s findings show that strong affective commitment to change helps employees engage in promotive 60 voice behaviors when they are dissatisfied with change processes. Prior research supports this argument by suggesting that when employees possess abundant resources and inducements from their organization, they are likely to take favorable attitudes toward the change and perform positive behaviors to support the change (Shin et al., 2012). Third, this study also recommends organizational managers understand and pay attention to the benefits of empowering leadership during organizational change. Consistent with many other scholars who emphasize benefits of empowering leadership in the workplace (e.g., Ahearne, Bhattacharya, & Gruen, 2005a; Kirkman & Rosen, 1997, 1999; Srivastava, Bartol, & Locke, 2006; Strauss, 1963; Zhang & Bartol, 2010), this study also suggests that managers need to delegate their power and enlarge employees? responsibilities especially when the organizational change requires strong engagement of employees in its implementation process. By doing so, managers will benefit from innovative suggestions and solutions that are likely to improve the process as well as be able to prevent harmful factors that can potentially lead to a change failure through their employees? voice behaviors. Fourth, the findings of this study suggest that organizational managers need to listen to employees? voices carefully and incorporate their suggestions as they will potentially improve employees? work attitudes and change performance. If employees experience that speaking up is useless even if they take risks and speak up with concerns in order to improve change processes, they will be demotivated to pay attention to the successful implementation of change. Therefore, I recommend managers address the problems and errors reported by their employees when they are 61 reasonable in order to help employees feel that they are valued and subsequently more motivated to perform well during change. Limitations Despite the interesting findings and considerable implications of this study, it is not free from methodological limitations that need to be addressed in future research work in order to more effectively examine the findings of this study. First, in spite of the fact that this study?s research design was based on multi- source data collection, all survey measures were assessed at a single point in time. This implies that reversed or unexpected causal relationships among the variables may be also possible. For example, although this study?s findings suggest that employees with low change efficacy tend to more frequently speak up when they are not satisfied with change processes, it is also possible that those with low change efficacy are more likely to be dissatisfied with change processes due to feelings of fear and anxiety as well as lack of self-confidence during change. Also, although the two important behavioral measures ? voice behavior and performance behavior during change ? were obtained from work-unit leaders, the single time design yields the possibility that the relationships among the variables can be reversed in their direction. Moreover, the two behavioral outcome variables (i.e., voice behavior and change performance) were obtained from the same source (i.e., work-unit leaders). The usage of HLM as a primary analytical tool helps reduce the likelihood that the common source bias influences the nature of the relationships between the two outcome variables by taking into account work-unit membership variance. However, to better examine causal relationships among the antecedents and consequence of 62 employees? change-related voice behavior, I recommend future research efforts obtain data at least two different points in time from multiple sources. Second, although this study examined empowering leader behavior as a work- unit level factor that influences employees? voice behavior, other contextual factors at multi-level need to be examined. Given that organizational change involves a number of dynamic factors (Herold et al., 2007), various contextual factors such as work-unit climates, leader-member relationships, organizational HR practices, and the type of organizational change may benefit the research on the role of voice during organizational change. Third, several hypotheses were not supported by this study?s data and more in-depth examination about the mixed findings is worth being conducted in future studies. In spite of interesting findings of this study, it was not fully examined why some variables were related with one type of voice behavior but not the other type of voice. I recommend future research more systematically examine differential antecedents, psychological mechanisms, and consequences involving promotive and prohibitive change-related voice behaviors. Last, in terms of the sample characteristics of this study, there are several limitation points that need to be addressed in future studies. Most of the sampled employees and work-unit leaders were male, which suggests that the findings of this study may possibly not be replicated in the same way with other samples consisting of female employees. Also, the study organization has multiple divisions to which multiple work-units belong. Thus, it is likely that division membership and division- related factors such as division leadership, division climates, and change impacts on 63 work routines and practices in each division nuance the examined relationships among the study variables. More systematic examination in multiple levels with a larger sample size will be fruitful to extend the findings of this study. Conclusion In conclusion, despite increasing scholarly efforts in examining employees? voice behavior in the workplace, relatively little is known about the role of voice behavior during organizational change. My dissertation study highlights the important role of voice in potentially converting employees? dissatisfaction with change implementation processes to positive work outcomes during change by examining the factors that help employees perform voice behaviors in order to improve change implementation processes as well as how employees? voice behavior is related with their performance of change tasks. Given that employees? dissatisfaction with change processes is frequently observed in the modern organizations that are going through change, my dissertation helps organizational managers learn how to effectively address their employees? dissatisfaction and further benefit from it. I hope my dissertation fuels the emergence of future research that replicates this study?s findings in other settings and extends this study by investigating other factors in multi-level that can increase the likelihood employees engage in voice behaviors and maximize benefits of voice during organizational change. This will greatly enhance the chances for its success. 64 TABLE 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations among Study Variablesa M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1. Proactive voice behavior 4.37 0.98 ? 2. Prohibitive voice behavior 4.26 0.98 .76** ? 3. Affective commitment to change 5.3 1.03 .18* .07 ? 4. Change efficacy 5.06 0.92 .26** .23** .43** ? 5. Dissatisfaction with change implementation processes 3.36 1.27 -.03 .13 -.55** -.29** ? 6. Promotive voice instrumentality 2.58 1.62 .09 .05 .2** .21** -.19** ? 7. Prohibitive voice instrumentality 2.44 1.54 .01 -.02 .17* .17* -.15* .86** ? 8. Change performance 5.04 0.95 .76** .62** .19* .23** -.03 .04 -.02 ? 9. Empowering leader behavior 5.2 0.8 .46* .54** .44* .57** -.49* .29 .40* .55** ? 10. Age 32.64 4.64 .17* .24** .11 .27** -.01 .04 .04 .06 .25 ? 11. Organizational commitment 5.14 0.99 .12 .03 .40** .36** -.41** .29** .25** .16* .38* .15* ? 65 12. Change impact 3.77 1.1 .14 .03 .01 -.07 -.02 .19** .24** .08 .10 .10 .10 ? 13. Voice expectation 3.38 1.29 .06 -.05 .43** .17* -.64** .17* .15* .06 .58** -.05 .44** -.01 ? 14. Other communication media (promotive) 1.51 1.02 -.07 -.09 .07 .03 -.12 .46** .47** -.05 -.39* -.07 .27** .17* .17* ? 15. Other communication media (prohibitive) 1.47 0.97 -.06 -.1 .16* .02 -.17* .45** .47** -.03 -.40* -.06 .30** .19** .24** .84** aN = 192 at level-1 and 27 at level-2. For empowering leader behavior, its mean, standard deviation, and correlations were calculated between groups using aggregated scores for level-1 variables. *p < .05, **p < .01. 66 TABLE 2 The Main Effect of Dissatisfaction with Change Implementation Processes on Change-related Voice Behaviora DV = Promotive voice behavior DV = Prohibitive voice behavior Model 1 Model 2 ? SE ? SE Level-1 Ageb .04*** .01 .06*** .01 Organizational commitmentb .03 .04 .00 .04 Change impactb -.02 .06 -.09 .06 Voice expectationb .08 .06 .08 .05 DCIP .06 .06 .11** .04 aN = 192 at level-1 and 27 at level-2. Unstandardized coefficients are reported. DCIP = dissatisfaction with change implementation processes. bControl variables. **p < .01, ***p < .001. 67 TABLE 3 The Interactional Effects between Dissatisfaction with Change Implementation Processes and Moderating Variables (Affective commitment to Change, Change Efficacy, and Empowering Leader Behavior) on Change-related Voice Behavior a DV = Promotive change-related voice behavior DV = Prohibitive change-related voice behavior Model1 Model2 Model3 Model4 Model5 Model6 Model 7 Model8 ? (SE) ? (SE) ? (SE) ? (SE) ? (SE) ? (SE) ? (SE) ? (SE) Level-1 Ageb .04** (.01) .04*** (.01) .04** (.01) .04** (.01) .06*** (.01) .06*** (.01) .06*** (.01) .06*** (.01) Organizational commitmentb -.01 (.05) .00 (.05) .00 (.05) -.01 (.05) -.03 (.05) -.03 (.04) -.03 (.04) -.03 (.05) Change impactb .00 (.03) .01 (.03) -.01 (.03) .00 (.03) -.07 (.05) -.07 (.05) -.08 (.05) -.07 (.05) Voice expectationb .09 (.06) .11 (.06) .09 (.05) .09 (.06) .08 (.04) .10 (.06) .09* (.04) .08 (.05) DCIP .11 (.06) -.27 (.19) .61** (.21) .11 (.06) .15** (.04) -.15** (.22) .69** (.23) .15** (.05) Affective commitment to change .07 (.07) -.21 (.17) .09 (.07) .06 (.07) .05 (.07) -.17 (.16) .07 (.08) .05 (.07) 68 Change efficacy .13* (.06) .13* (.06) .42** (.16) .13* (.05) .09 (.06) .09 (.05) .41* (.18) .09 (.06) DCIP X affective commitment to change .07* (.03) .05 (.04) DCIP X change efficacy -.10* (.05) -.10* (.04) Level-2 Empowering leader behavior .43** (.13) .43** (.13) .43** (.13) .43** (.13) .48*** (.11) .48*** (.11) .48*** (.11) .48*** (.11) DCIP X empowering leader behavior .04 (.05) -.03 (.03) aN = 192 at level-1 and 27 at level-2. Unstandardized coefficients are reported. DCIP = dissatisfaction with change implementation processes. bControl variables. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. 69 TABLE 4 The Effects of Change-related Voice Behavior and Voice Instrumentality on Performance of Change Tasks DV = Performance of Change Task Model1 Model2 Model3 Model4 Model5 ? (SE) ? (SE) ? (SE) ? (SE) ? (SE) Level-1 Ageb -.03* (.01) -.04** (.01) -.04** (.01) -.03** (.01) -.03** (.01) Organizational commitmentb .03 (.08) .04 (.08) .03 (.07) .03 (.08) .03 (.07) Change impactb -.01 (.03) .04 (.03) .00 (.03) .01 (.03) .01 (.03) Voice expectationb -.01 (.04) .01 (.04) -.01 (.04) -.01 (.04) -.01 (.04) Usage of formal communication media (promotive)b -.09** (.03) -.07 (.07) -.05 (.07) -.06 (.07) Usage of formal communication media (prohibitive)b -.11** (.03) -.04 (.07) -.02 (.07) -.01 (.06) DCIP .04 (.05) .03 (.05) .03 (.04) .03 (.04) .03 (.04) Affective commitment to change .03 (.07) .07 (.07) .04 (.07) .04 (.07) .06 (.07) Change efficacy .04 (.05) .08 (.06) .04 (.05) .06 (.05) .05 (.05) Promotive change-related voice .70*** (.10) .60*** (.15) .60*** (.15) .73*** (.19) Prohibitive .58*** .15 .15 -.02 70 change-related voice (.07) (.11) (.11) (.15) Promotive voice instrumentality -.02 (.04) .22 (.18) Prohibitive voice instrumentality -.02 (.05) -.32* (.16) Promotive change- related voice X promotive voice instrumentality -.06 (.04) Prohibitive change-related voice X prohibitive voice instrumentality .07? (.04) Level-2 Empowering leader behavior .27 (.19) .29 (.19) .27 (.19) .27 (.18) .27 (.19) aN = 192 at level-1 and 27 at level-2. Unstandardized coefficients are reported. DCIP = dissatisfaction with change implementation processes. bControl variables. ?p < .055, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. 71 FIGURE 1 Hypothesized Theoretical Model Performance of Change Tasks Empowering Leader Behavior Change- related Voice Behavior - Promotive - Prohibitive Dissatisfaction with Change Implementation Processes Affective commitment to Change Change Efficacy Work-unit level Individual level H1a & b H2a & b H5a & b H4a & b H6a & b Voice Instrumentality H3a & b 72 FIGURE 2 Interaction Effect between Dissatisfaction with Change Implementation Processes and Affective Commitment to Change on Promotive Change-related Voice 73 FIGURE 3 Interaction Effect between Dissatisfaction with Change Implementation Processes and Change Efficacy on Promotive Change-related Voice 74 FIGURE 4 Interaction Effect between Dissatisfaction with Change Implementation Processes and Change Efficacy on Prohibitive Change-related Voice 75 FIGURE 5 Interaction Effect between Prohibitive Change-related Voice and Prohibitive Voice Instrumentality on Performance of Change Tasks 76 FIGURE 6 Summary of Findingsa aStandardized coefficients are reported for significant effects. Unstandardized coefficients are reported in parentheses. ?p < .055, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. Performance of Change Tasks Empowering Leader Behavior Promotive Change- related Voice Behavior Dissatisfaction with Change Implementation Processes Affective commitment to Change Change Efficacy Work-unit level Individual level .12* (.13) .14** (.11) .72*** (.70) .11? (.07) Voice Instrumentality Prohibitive Change- related Voice Behavior .09* (.07) -.09* (-.10) -.09* (-.10) .52** (.43) .58*** (.48) .60*** (.58) 77 APPENDIX Survey Measures and Items Construct Survey Items Dissatisfaction with change implementation processes 1. In general, I don't like the processes that have been used to implement the organizational change. 2. In general, I don?t like the way the change is implemented in this organization. 3. All in all, I am not satisfied with the current change implementation processes. 4. Most of the process through which the change has been implemented will not do much good. 5. The process that has been used to implement the change will not produce good results. 6. The current way to implement the change will not produce much real change. 7. The current process for change implementation will not amount to much. Affective commitment to change 1. I believe in the value of this change initiative. 2. This change initiative is a good strategy for this organization. 3. I think that management is making a mistake 78 by introducing this change initiative. (reversed) 4. This change initiative serves an important purpose. 5. Things would be better without this change initiative. (reversed) 6. This change initiative is not necessary. (reversed) Change efficacy 1. Wherever the change initiative takes me, I'm sure I can handle it. 2. I get nervous that I may not be able to do all that is demanded of me by the change initiative. (reversed) 3. I have reason to believe I may not perform well in my job situation following the change initiative. (reversed) 4. Though I may need some training, I have little doubt I can perform well following the change initiative. Change-related voice behavior Promotive voice: 1. This employee proactively develops and makes suggestions for issues that may influence the change implementation processes. 79 2. This employee proactively suggests new approaches which are beneficial to the change implementation processes. 3. This employee raises suggestions to improve the change implementation processes. 4. This employee proactively voices out constructive suggestions that improve the change implementation processes. 5. This employee makes constructive suggestions to improve the change implementation processes. Prohibitive voice: 6. This employee advises others against the undesirable change implementation processes that would hamper the change implementation. 7. This employee speaks up honestly with problems in the change implementation processes that might cause serious loss to the organization, even when/though dissenting opinions exist. 8. This employee dares to voice out opinions on things that might affect efficiency of the 80 change implementation processes in the organization, even if that would embarrass others. 9. This employee dares to point out problems in the change implementation processes when they appear, even if that would hamper relationships with other colleagues. 10. This employee proactively reports coordination problems in the change implementation processes to the management. Voice instrumentality Promotive voice: Indicate the extent to which your suggestions to improve the change implementation processes were incorporated in the processes. Prohibitive voice: Indicate the extent to which your speaking up with problems in the change implementation processes was incorporated in the processes. Performance of change tasks 1. This employee fulfills his/her change-related responsibilities. 2. This employee performs the tasks that are expected as part of the change-related job. 81 3. This employee meets change-related performance expectations. 4. This employee adequately completes change- related responsibilities. Empowering leader behavior Enhancing the meaningfulness of work: 1. Your manager helps members of your team understand how their objectives and goals relate to that of the company. 2. Your manager helps members of your team understand the importance of their work to the overall effectiveness of the company. 3. Your manager helps members of your team understand how their job fits into the bigger picture. Fostering participation in decision making: 4. Your manager makes many decisions together with members of your team. 5. Your manager often consults members of your team on strategic decisions. 6. Your manager solicits opinions of members of your team on decisions that may affect them. Expressing confidence in high performance: 82 7. Your manager believes that members of your team can handle demanding tasks. 8. My manager believes in the ability of members of your team to improve even when they make mistakes. 9. My manager expresses confidence in the ability of members of your team to perform at a high level. Providing autonomy from bureaucratic constraints: 10. Your manager allows members of your team to do their job their way. 11. Your manager makes it more efficient for members of your team to do their job by keeping the rules and regulations simple. 12. Your manager allows members of your team to make important decisions quickly to satisfy customer needs. Organizational commitment 1. For me this is the best of all possible organizations for which to work. 2. I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization. 83 3. I really care about the fate of this organization. 4. I find that my values and the organization's values are very similar. 5. This organization really inspires the very best in me in the way of job performance. 6. I talk up this organization to my friends as a great organization to work for. Usage of other organizational formal communication media Promotive communication 1. Indicate the extent to which you have used formal communication channels [e.g., suggestion box] to express your suggestions to improve the change implementation processes. Prohibitive communication 1. Indicate the extent to which you have used formal communication channels [e.g., suggestion box] to speak up with problems in the change implementation processes. Impact of change 1. I am expected to do more work than I used to. 2. The nature of my work has changed. 3. My job responsibilities have changed. 4. I find greater demands placed on me at work because of this change. 84 5. I am experiencing more pressure at work because of this change. 6. The work processes and procedures I use have changed. Voice expectation 1. It is useless for me to suggest new ways of doing things to increase the efficiency of the change implementation processes. 2. It will not give significant influence over how the change plans are carried out around here even if I make constructive suggestions. 3. Trying to point out problems in the way change programs are executed by speaking up is a waste of time. 4. Nothing changes even if I speak up about problems in the current change implementation processes. 85 REFERENCES Ahearne, M., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Gruen, T. 2005a. Antecedents and consequences of customer-company identification: Expanding the role of relationship marketing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 574-585. Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. 2005b. To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 945-955. Ajzen, I. 1988. Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Chicago: Dorsey Press. Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50: 179-211. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. 1978. Organizational learning: A theory of action approach. Reading, MA: Addision Wesley. Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. 2009. Reflections: Our journey in organizational change research and practice. Journal of Change Management, 9: 127-142. Arnold, J. A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J. A., & Drasgow, F. 2000. The empowering leadership questionnaire: The construction and validatioin of a new scale for measuring leader behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21: 249- 269. Avery, D. R., & Qui?ones, M. A. 2002. Disentangling the effects of voice: The incremental roles of opportunity, behavior, and instrumentality in predicting procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 81-86. Beer, M., Eisenstat, R. A., & Spector, B. 1990. Why change programs don't produce change. Harvard Business Review, November-December: 158-166. Bliese, P. D. 2000. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein, & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions: 349-381. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bommer, W. H., Rich, G. A., & Rubin, R. S. 2005. Changing attitudes about change: Longitudinal effects of transformational leader behavior on employee cynicism about organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26: 733-753. Brislin, R. W. 1970. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology, 1: 185?216. 86 Brislin, R. W. 1981. Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C. Triandis, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: 389-444. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Brotheridge, C. M. 2003. The role of fairness in mediating the effects of voice and justification on stress and other outcomes in a climate of organizational change. International Journal of Stress Management, 10: 253-268. Brown, M., & Cregan, C. 2008. Organizational change cynicism: The role of employee involvement. Human Resource Management, 47: 667-686. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. 1992. Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Burke, W., & Litwin, G. 1992. A causal model of organizational performance and change. Journal of Management Studies, 18: 523?545. Burke, W. W. 2002. Organization change: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Burris, E. R., Detert, J. R., & Chiaburu, D. S. 2008. Quitting before leaving: The mediating effects of psychological attachment and detachment on voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 912-922. By, R. T., Burnes, B., & Oswick, C. 2011. Change Management: The Road Ahead. Journal of Change Management, 11: 1-6. Caldwell, S. D., Herold, D. M., & Fedor, D. B. 2004. Toward an understanding of the relationships among organizational change, individual differences, and changes in person-environment fit: A cross-level study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 868-882. Cascio, W. F. 1995. Whiter industrial and organizational psychology in a changing world of work? American Psychologist, 50: 928-939. Chan, D. 1998. Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53: 234-246. Chen, G., & Tesluk, P. E. 2011. Team participation and empowerment: A multilevel perspective. In S. W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.): Oxford I-O Psychology Handbook. Choi, J. N. 2007. Change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior: Effects of work environment characteristics and intervening psychological processes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28: 467-484. 87 Cohen, A., & Caspary, L. 2011. Individual values, organizational commitment, and participation in a change: Israeli teachers' approach to an optional educational reform. Journal of Business & Psychology, 26: 385-396. Colquitt, J. A. 2001. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 386-400. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. 1988. The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13: 471-482. Cropanzano, R., & Folger, R. 1991. Procedural justice and worker motivation. In R. M. Steers, & L. M. Porter (Eds.), Motivation and work behavior. New York: McGraw Hill. DeCelles, K. A., Tesluk, P. E., & Taxman, F. S. 2013. A field investigation of multilevel cynicism toward change. Organization Science, 24: 154-171. Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. 2007. Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50: 869-884. Edmondson, A. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 350-383. Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. 2007. Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12: 121-138. Farrell, D. 1983. Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect as responses to job dissatisfaction: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 26: 596-607. Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S. D., & Herold, D. M. 2006. The effects of organizational changes on employee commitment: A multilevel investigation. Personnel Psychology, 59: 1-29. Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. K. 1989. Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 115- 130. Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D'Amelio, A. 2008. Resistance to change: The rest of the story. Academy of Management Review, 33: 362-377. Fugate, M., & Kinicki, A. J. 2008. A dispositional approach to employability: Development of a measure and test of implications for employee reactions to organizational change. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81: 503-527. 88 Fuller, J. B., Marler, L. E., & Hester, K. 2006. Promoting felt responsibility for constructive change and proactive behavior: exploring aspects of an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27: 1089-1120. Furst, S. A., & Cable, D. M. 2008. Employee resistance to organizational change: Managerial influence tactics and leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 453-462. George, J. M., & Zhou, J. 2002. Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and good ones don't: The role of context and clarity of feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 687-697. Glick, W. H. 1985. Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate: Pitfalls, in multi-level research. Academy of Management Review, 10: 601-616. Greenberg, J. 1993. The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management: 79-103. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Herold, D. M., & Fedor, D. B. 2008. Change the way you lead change: Leadership strategies that really work. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., & Caldwell, S. D. 2007. Beyond change management: A multilevel investigation of contextual and personal influences on employees? commitment to change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 942-951. Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S. D., & Liu, Y. 2008. The effects of transformational and change leadership on employees' commitment to a change: A multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 346-357. Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. 2002. Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 474-487. Hill, N. S., Seo, M., Kang, J., & Taylor, M. S. 2012. Building employee commitment to change across organizational levels: The influence of hierarchical distance and direct managers' transformational leadership. Organization Science, 23: 758-777. Hirschman, A. O. 1970. Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 89 Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. 1998. Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24: 623-641. Howard, A. 1995. The changing nature of work. San Franscisco: Jossey-Bass. James, L. R. 1982. Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67: 219-229. James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. 1984. Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 85-98. Kickul, J., Lester, S. W., & Finkl, J. 2002. Promise breaking during radical organizational change: Do justice interventions make a difference? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23: 469. Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. 2003. Fair process: Managing in the knowledge economy. Harvard Business Review, 81: 127-136. Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. 1997. A model of work team empowerment. In R. W. Woodman, & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development, Vol. 10: 131?167. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. 1999. Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 58-74. Korsgaard, M., & Roberson, L. 1995. Procedural justice in performance evaluation: The role of instrumental and non-instrumental voice in performance appraisal discussions. Journal of Management, 21: 657-669. Korsgaard, M. A., Sapienza, H. J., & Schweiger, D. M. 2002. Beaten before begun: The role of procedural justice in planning change. Journal of Management, 28: 497-516. Kotter, J. P., & Cohen, D. S. 2002. The heart of change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. 2008. Answers to twenty questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11: 815-852. LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. 1998. Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 853-868. 90 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. Levinson, H. 1965. Reciprocation: The relationship between man and organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9: 370-390. Liang, J., Farh, C. I. C., & Farh, J. L. 2012. Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice behavior: A two-wave longitudinal examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55: 71-92. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. 1988. The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum. Liu, W., Zhu, R., & Yang, Y. 2010. I warn you because I like you: Voice behavior, employee identifications, and transformational leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 21: 189-202. Malone, T. W. 2004. The future of work: How the new order of business will shape your organization, your management style, and your life. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. 1987. Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32: 106-129. Marks, M. L. 2006. Workplace recovery after mergers, acquisitions, and downsizing: Facilitating individual adaptation to major organizational transformations. Organizational Dynamics, 35: 384-398. McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. 1996. Does having a say matter only if you get your way? Instrumental and value-expressive effects of employee voice. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18: 289-303. Meaney, M., & Pung, C. 2008. McKinsey global results: Creating organizational transformations. McKinsey Quarterly, August: 1-7. Meyer, J. P., Srinivas, E. S., Lal, J. B., & Topolnytsky, L. 2007. Employee commitment and support for an organizational change: Test of the three- component model in two cultures. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 80: 185-211. Michel, A., Stegmaier, R., & Sonntag, K. 2010. I scratch your back - You scratch mine. Do procedural justice and organizational identification matter for employees' cooperation during change? Journal of Change Management, 10: 41-59. 91 Morrison, E. W. 2011. Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 5: 373-412. Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. 2000. Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25: 706-725. Morrison, E. W., Wheeler-Smith, S. L., & Kamdar, D. 2011. Speaking up in groups: A cross-level study of group voice climate and voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 183-191. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. 1979. The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14: 224-247. Nemeth, C. J. 1997. Managing innovation: When less is more. California Management Review, 40: 59-74. Neubert, M. J., & Cady, S. H. 2001. Program commitment: A multi-study longitudinal field investigation of its impact and antecedents. Personnel Psychology, 54: 421-448. Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A. J., & Tamkins, M. M. 2003. Organizational culture and climate. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology, Vol. 12: 565-594. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Paper, D., & Chang, R. 2005. The state of business process reengineering: A search for success factors. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 16: 121-133. Piderit, S. K. 2000. Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25: 783-794. Pierce, J., Gardner, D., Cummings, L., & Dunham, R. 1989. Organization-based self- esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 622-648. 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. Pollard, T. M. 2001. Changes in mental well-being, blood pressure, and total cholesterol levels during workplace reorganization: The impact of uncertainty. Work and Stress, 15: 14-28. 92 Quinn, R. E. 2004. Building the bridge as you walk on it: A guide for leading change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Raub, S. 2008. Does bureaucracy kill individual initiative? The impact of structure on organizational citizenship behavior in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27: 179-186. Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P., & Austin, J. T. 1997. Understanding and managing cynicism about organizational change. Academy of Management Executive, 11: 48-59. Riolli, L., & Savicki, V. 2006. Impact of fairness, leadership, and coping on strain, burnout, and turnover in organizational change. International Journal of Stress Management, 13: 351-377. Robertson, P. J., Roberts, D. R., & Porras, J. I. 1993. Dynamics of planned organizational change: Assessing empirical support for a theoretical model. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 619-634. 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. Schwartz, J., & Wald, M. L. 2003. The Nation: NASA's curse?: Groupthink is 30 years old, and still going strong. New York Times, March 9: 5. Seashore, S. E., Lawler, E. E., Mirvis, P., & Cammann, C. 1982. Observing and measuring organizational change: A guide to field practice. New York: Wiley. Seo, M., Taylor, M. S., Hill, S. N., Zhang, X., Tesluk, P., & Lorinkova, N. M. 2012. The role of affect and leadership during organizational change. Personnel Psychology, 65: 121-165. Shin, J., Taylor, M. S., & Seo, M. 2012. Resources for change: The relationships of organizational inducements and psychological resilience to employees?attitudes and behaviors toward organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 55: 727-748. Simons, T., & Roberson, Q. 2003. Why managers should care about fairness: The effects of aggregate justice perceptions on organizational outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 432-443. Sminia, H., & Van Nistelrooij, A. 2006. Strategic management and organization development: Planned change in a public sector organization. Journal of Change Management, 6: 99-113. 93 Spreitzer, G. M. 1995. Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 1442- 1465. Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. 2006. Empowering leadership in management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 1239-1251. Stamper, C. L., & Van Dyne, L. 2001. Work status and organizational citizenship behavior: A field study of restaurant employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22: 517-536. Strauss, G. 1963. Some notes on power equalization. In H. Levitt (Ed.), The social science of organizations: 40?84. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Strebel, P. 1996. Why do employees resist change? Harvard Business Review, May- June: 86-92. Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. 2008a. Employee silence on critical work issues: The cross level effects of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 61: 37-68. Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. 2008b. Exploring nonlinearity in employee voice: The effects of personal control and organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 1189-1203. Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. 1990. Cognitive elements of empowerment: An ?interpretive? model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15: 666-681. Vales, E. 2007. Employees can make a difference. Involving employees in change at Allstate Insurance. Organization Development Journal, 25: P27-P31. Van Dam, K., Oreg, S., & Schyns, B. 2008. Daily work contexts and resistance to organisational change: The role of leader-member exchange, development climate, and change process characteristics. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57: 313-334. Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. 2003. Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40: 1359-1392. Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean Parks, J. 1995. Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 17: 215?285. Greenwich, CT: JAI. 94 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. Van Knippenberg, B., Martin, L., & Tyler, T. 2006. Process-orientation versus outcome-orientation during organizational change: The role of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27: 685-704. 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. Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. 2009. Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 1275-1286. Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. 2000. Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 132-142. Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Austin, J. T. 2000. Cynicism about organizational change. Group and Organization Management, 25: 132-153. Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. 2001. Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Whelan-Berry, K. S., Gordon, J. R., & Hinings, C. R. 2003. Strengthening organizational change processes: Recommendations and implications from a multi-level analysis. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39: 186-207. 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. Withey, M. J., & Cooper, W. H. 1989. Predicting exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34: 521-539. Wu, C., Neubert, M. J., & Yi, X. 2007. Transformational leadership, cohesion perceptions, and employee cynicism about organizational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43: 327-351. Yukl, G. 2002. Leadership in organization (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: NJ: Prentice Hall. Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. 2010. Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, 95 and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 107-128. Zhou, J., & George, J. M. 2001. When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 682-696.