Understanding the Antecedents of Employee Voice: A Review of the Literature

ABSTRACT

Researchers across a variety of disciplines have studied employee voice, generating a considerable body of research on this topic. The main objective of this article is to conduct a systematic and comprehensive review of the academic research on employee voice with primarily focus on individual-level voice within the organizational behavior domain. First, I review the basic concepts of employee voice. Then, I review empirical findings related to the antecedents of voice. Finally, I provide suggestions for future research.

１． Introduction

Employee voice is among the central topics of interest in the human resource management （HRM）, industrial relations, and organizational behavior （OB） literature, and scholars from diverse fields and disciplines have shown that employee voice significantly benefits organizations （Morrison, 2011, 2014; Mowbray, Wilkinson, & Tse, 2015）. Generally, the concepts and methods researchers use to explore employee voice vary by field. For example, OB literature describes voice as speaking-up behavior, such as making constructive suggestions for change （e.g., LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Morrison, 2011, 2014; Van Dyne, Cummings, & Parks, 1995）. However, HRM scholars consider voice not a form of behavior, but ldquo;an opportunity to have a sayrdquo; （Mowbray et al., 2015, p. 385）. In this article, I review the employee voice research within the OB domain because some scholars have indicated that the OB voice literature's findings and theories are particularly distinct and divorced from those of other employment-related fields （Kaufman, 2015; Mowbray et al., 2015）.

The organization of this article is as follows. First, I introduce the basic concepts of voice. Second, empirical findings related to the antecedents of voice are reviewed. To gain a better understanding, I sought to identify all published empirical research that has examined factors that influence voice. Within the Web of Science database, I searched for empirical papers in the fields of management, applied psychology, and business using keywords employee voice and voice behavior. I only focused on top-tier journals to ensure the quality of research. At last, I provide several future directions.

２． Basic Concepts of Voice

2-1． Definition of Voice

Employee voice has a rich history in the organizational literature. To our knowledge, Hirschman's （1970） exit, voice, and loyalty model was the first research examining the dynamics of employee voice. In this research, the author defined voice as

any attempt at all to change, rather than to escape from, an objectionable state of affairs, whether through individual or collective petition to management directly in charge, through appeal to a higher authority with the intention of forcing a change in manage-ment, or through various types of actions or protests, including those that are meant to mobilize public opinion. （p. 30）

In this study, Hirschman（1970） conceptualized voice as a response to personal dissatisfaction at work.

In the late 1990s, scholars began to recognize that voice is not merely an expression of job dissatisfaction, but a crucial form of extra-role behavior. Van Dyne and LePine （1998） accordingly defined voice in terms of a topology of extra-role behaviors developed by Van Dyne et al. （1995）. The topology included two underlying dimensions—affiliative/challenging and promotive/prohibitive. Affiliative behavior is cooperative and interpersonal. Challenging behavior emphasizes criticism of the status quo's inefficiency. Promotive behavior emphasizes suggesting new ideas or new ways of doing things. Prohibitive behavior is protective and preventative. The authors perceived voice as challenging/promotive behavior and characterized it as ldquo;constructive expression of challenge with an intent to improve, rather than criticize the situationrdquo; （p. 252）. Based on this topology, Van Dyne and LePine （1998） defined voice as ldquo;promotive behavior that emphasizes expression of constructive challenge intended to improve rather than merely criticize. Voice is making innovative suggestions for change and recommending modifications to standard procedures even when others disagreerdquo; （p. 109）.

Van Dyne, Ang, and Botero （2003） argued that individuals mainly have three motives （disengaged, self-protective, and other-oriented） to determine whether they use their voice. Therefore, the authors broadened the definition of voice and differentiated three specific types of voice in terms of these three motives, which are prosocial voice, acquiescent voice, and defensive voice. Prosocial voice is defined as expressing work-related ideas, information, or opinions based on cooperative motives （p. 1371）. It emphasizes being other-oriented and aims to promote improvement. Defensive voice is defined as expressing work-related ideas, information, or opinions—based on fear—with the goal of self-protection （p. 1372）. It is self-protective and motivated by fear. Acquiescent voice is defined as the verbal expression of work-related ideas, information, or opinions based on feelings of resignation （p. 1373）. It is disengaged behavior and emphasizes the expression of support and agreement.

Following this study, Liang, Farh, and Farh （2012） argued that previous conceptualizations of voice （Van Dyne et al., 2003; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998） focused more heavily on ldquo;promotiverdquo; aspects of employee voice, and they suggested that it is essential to pay attention to ldquo;prohibitiverdquo; aspects of voice. Therefore, the authors proposed two types of voice, which are promotive voice and prohibitive voice. Promotive voice refers to employees' expression of new ideas or suggestions for improving the overall functioning of their work unit or organization （Liang et al., 2012, p. 74）. Prohibitive voice refers to employees' expressions of concern about work practices, incidents, or employee behavior that are harmful to their organization （Liang et al., 2012, p. 75）.

Maynes and Podsakoff （2014） recently expanded the conceptualization of voice and developed an overarching definition. They defined voice as ldquo;an individual's voluntary and open communication directed toward individuals within the organization that is focused on influencing the context of the work environmentrdquo; （p. 88）. Further, the authors identified four different types of voice, which are supportive voice, constructive voice, defensive voice, and destructive voice. Supportive voice emphasizes the voluntary expression of support for work-related procedures, policies, and so on. Constructive voice emphasizes the voluntary expression of ideas and opinions to improve the working environment. Defensive voice emphasizes the voluntary expression of opposition to preserving the status quo. Destructive voice emphasizes the voluntary expression of harsh criticism related to the status quo, such as hurtful or critical opinions regarding work-related practices. Different from the previous conceptualizations of voice （Liang et al., 2012; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998）, this framework incorporates negative attributes of voice （i.e., destructive voice）.

Although scholars have defined the conceptualizations of voice differently, these various definitions share several important attributes. Morrison （2011） summarized three commonalities: （a） voice is an act of verbal expression, （b） voice is a discretionary behavior, and （c） voice is constructive. Overall, employee voice refers to discretionary communication of ideas, suggestions, concerns, or opinions about work-related issues with the intent to improve organizational or unit functioning （Morrison, 2011, p. 375）.

2-2． Antecedents of Voice

In the prior research, scholars have identified a variety of factors from three categories: leader-related factors, employee-related factors, and factors in the working environment. In the following section, I review the findings of each category, starting from leader-related factors. I also provide detailed tables of articles within each category in Appendix 1.

2-3． Leader-Related Factors

Because leaders are often voice targets and they have power over critical outcomes such as performance evaluations, promotability, and rewards or punishments （Morrison, 2011, 2014）, leader-related factors （e.g., leadership styles, leader behaviors, and perceptions of relationships with leaders） have been identified as important for employees' willingness to exercise voice （Detert & Burris, 2007）.

Leadership styles. Prior research has examined a variety of leadership constructs with employee voice. For example, Chen and Hou （2016） found that ethical leadership is positively associated with employee voice. Similarly, Walumbwa and Schaubroeck （2009） demonstrated that ethical leadership fosters voice because ethical leaders interact with employees with truthfulness and openness, which makes employees feel a high level of psychological safety. Zhu, He, Treviño, Chao, and Wang （2015） found that ethical leadership enhances employee voice through dual social identification mechanisms, which are relationship identification and organizational identification. The authors emphasized that relational identification is an important mediator in understanding how ethical leadership influences employees' positive outcomes, along with organizational identification. Moreover, the findings showed that employees' moral beliefs influence how they react to ethical leaders.

Transformational leadership also influences employee voice. Detert and Burris （2007） found a positive relationship between transformational leadership and voice and showed that the positive relationship is partially attributable to employees' psychological safety. Liu, Zhu, and Yang （2010） examined the underlying psychological mechanisms of how transformational leadership influences employee voice in terms of self-concept and social exchange theory. The authors especially examined two types of voice: speak out and speak up. They demonstrated that perceived transformational leadership is positively related to employees' personal identification with supervisors and thus encourages employee to speak up to the supervisors not the peers. On the other hand, perceived transformational leadership can also evoke employees' social identification with organizations, which encourages employees to speak out their ideas to peers not to the supervisors.

In a recent study, Duan, Xu, and Wu （2017） demonstrated that Detert and Burris （2007） and Liu et al. （2010） have examined the relationship between transformational leadership and voice from a cost-benefit analysis perspective and a self-concept perspective, respectively, which means that these two perspectives only consider external reasons but ignore internal reasons. Duan et al. （2017） showed that the mechanism between transformational leadership and voice is a Pygmalion process, such that transformational leaders promote employee voice because they are more likely to elicit an expectation of voice to followers, which makes followers view voice behaviors as in-role, and thus facilitates subsequent voice. Moreover, the authors demonstrated that transformational leadership would shape employees' personal identification, which in turn strengthens the Pygmalion process.

Employee voice can also be influenced by servant leadership. Sun, Liden, and Ouyang （2019） showed that there is a sequential indirect relationship between servant leadership and upward voice. The findings revealed that when employees make low-level relational attributions to interpret servant leaders' intentions, they will have feelings of gratitude and then promote upward voice through daily interpersonal organizational citizenship behaviors.

Besides the research focused on positive leadership styles, some authors have examined relatively negative leadership styles. For example, Tepper （2007） focused on abusive leadership to voice, which reflects perceptions that one's supervisor displays sustained hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors. Peng, Schaubroeck, Chong, and Li （2019） argued that abusive supervision directed toward self and toward coworkers （coworker abusive supervision） interactively influence employees' discrete emotions and ultimately influence employees' voice. The findings showed that abusive supervision is negatively related to employee voice through the feeling of shame, and the negative indirect relationship tends to be stronger when coworker abusive supervision is low rather than high. Besides, Farh and Chen （2014） examined the effects of abusive leadership in team settings, and they found that team-level abusive leadership and individual-level abusive leadership simultaneously and interactively influence employee voice.

Furthermore, several authors have examined special leadership styles. For example, Li and Sun （2015） extended the understanding of how leadership influences voice by focusing on authoritarian leadership, which can be perceived as a traditional Chinese leadership. The findings showed that authoritarian leadership is negatively related to employee voice. The authors reasoned that authoritarian leadership requires absolute obedience from subordinates, and it may shape employees' decisions not to speak up because they may think voice may be unwelcome and futile.

Paternalistic leadership is also a specific leadership that is deeply rooted in Confucianism. Zhang, Huai, and Xie （2015） examined how paternalistic leadership （authoritarian, benevolent, and moral） influences employee voice in the Chinese context because paternalistic leadership is pervasive and dominant in China. The authors found that leader-member exchange （LMX） and status judgment mediate the relationships between paternalistic leadership and voice. More specifically, the findings showed that authoritarian paternalistic leadership has an indirect negative effect on employee voice mediated by reduced status judgment. Benevolent paternalistic leadership has an indirect positive effect on voice mediated by LMX and status judgment. Moral paternalistic leadership has an indirectly positive effect on voice mediated by LMX. Chan （2014） also investigated the impact of paternalistic leadership on employee voice and examined whether and how information sharing moderates the effects. The findings showed that authoritarian leadership has a negative effect and moral leadership has a positive effect on employee voice. Information sharing strengthens the positive relationship between moral leadership and voice.

Leader behaviors. Aside from leadership styles, other leader behaviors have shown to have effects on employee voice. One typical behavior that may be positively related to employee voice is openness, which reflects perceptions that leaders are willing to listen to employees' ideas, and the input from employees will be appreciated by them （Detert & Burris, 2007）. Prior studies have shown that managers' openness is positively related to employee voice （Detert & Burris, 2007; Gao, Janssen, & Shi, 2011; Premeaux & Bedeian, 2003）. Tröster and van Knippenberg （2012） conducted a study in an MNT, and they found that the positive relationship between leader openness and voice is more significant when middle managers' nationalities are different from their fellow team members.

Tangirala and Ramanujam （2012） examined a key managerial behavior as the antecedent of voice–manager consultation. Using data from nurses and their managers, the authors found that when employees' perceptions of manager consultation are high, they are more likely to engage in upward voice, and this relationship is mediated by employees' perceived influence. The authors reasoned that consultation represents a direct invitation from the manager, which signals to the employees that the manager values their ideas and knowledge, and thus enhances employees' sense of perceived influence.

Leaders' work-related supportive behaviors are related to employee voice. For example, Janssen and Gao （2015） focused on supervisory responsiveness and found that when employees receive responsive treatment by their supervisors, it can positively influence employees' status appraisal, thereby motivating them to engage in voice. Nifadkar, Wu, and Gu （2019） found that supervisors' information sharing behavior can enhance subordinates' work-related trust in supervisors, and then promotes employee engagement in voice behavior through employees' work-related information seeking from supervisors. Leaders' coaching and directing behaviors are especially important for voice in action teams. Farh and Chen （2018） examined the antecedents of voice in action teams, where eliciting voice may be difficult owing to the specific feature of the context （e.g., team membership is dynamic）. The authors demonstrated that there are two phases of work in action teams （i.e., preparation and action） and argued that leader behaviors might function differently in different phases, contingent on members' prior familiarity with one another. The findings showed that leaders' coaching behavior promotes team members' voice both in the preparation and action phases, especially when team members are familiar with each other. Leaders' directing behavior also facilitated voice in both phases regardless of familiarity. The authors also examined the effects of leaders' supporting behaviors, but they found that supportive leadership did not relate to voice, regardless of phase or familiarity.

Relationships with leaders. Social relationships with supervisors have effects on employees' discretionary behaviors （Spitzmuller, Van Dyne, & Ilies, 2008）. Research demonstrates that the quality of interpersonal relationships is a vital antecedent of voice （Morrison, 2011）. Empirical studies consistently show that employee voice can be influenced by employees' perceptions of the quality of the relationships they have with their supervisors. For example, Van Dyne, Kamdar, and Joireman （2008） found that when employees have a high-quality relationship with their supervisors, they are more likely to engage in voice. In particular, when employees perceive voice as their in-role behavior, the positive relationship between LMX and voice tends to be stronger. Burris, Detert, & Chiaburu （2008） similarly demonstrated employees are more likely to express their suggestions and opinions when they have a high LMX with supervisors and are less likely to engage in voice when supervisors are abusive.

Davidson, Van Dyne, and Lin （2017） argued that these studies related to LMX and voice are discussed from a Western perspective. However, various cultures have different types of supervisor–subordinate relationships. Therefore, they examined the relationship between the quality of supervisor–subordinate relationships and voice in a Chinese cultural context by integrating guanxi theory （Chen & Chen, 2004）. The findings showed that affective attachment dimension of supervisor–subordinate guanxi is positively related voice whereas the deference to the supervisor dimension of guanxi is negatively related to voice, when job control is low. The quality of interpersonal relationships with skip-level leaders also influences employee voice. In Liu, Tangirala, and Ramanujam's（2013） study, they found that employees are more likely to speak up to their direct leader when the direct leader has positive relationships with skip-level leaders.

Trust in leaders is also important for employee voice. Gao et al. （2011） found that trust in supervisors promotes employee engagement in voice. Lebel and Patil （2018） focused on distrust in supervisors, and they found that distrust in one' s supervisor inhibits an employee from engaging in voice and this negative relationship tends to be weak when employees are high in prosocial motivation. The authors reasoned that prosocially motivated employees maintain their efficacy （can-do motivation） to be proactive despite having discouraging supervisors.

Other leader-related factors. Previous research has also examined the relationships between leaders' personalities and employee voice. For example, a leader' s narcissism has been shown to be detrimental to employee voice. Carnevale, Huang, and Harms （2018） examined the relationship between leader narcissism and employee voice in terms of belongingness theory. They found that leader narcissism diminishes employees' willingness to engage in promotive voice. More specifically, employees tend to retaliate toward the narcissistic leader by reducing their citizenship behaviors such as voice, because leader narcissism threatens employees' organization-based self-esteem, which further negatively impacts their voice.

Sherf, Tangirala, and Venkataramani （2019） examined how and when managers' personal control influences employee voice. They demonstrated that managers vary in the extent to which they sense their control over the environment and argued that when managers possess both high sense of control and long-term orientation, they are more likely to solicit voice from employees, which influences employees' engagement of voice.

In addition, research has shown that employee voice may be influenced by their perceptions of supervisors' affect. Contrary to most previous studies that have examined voice focusing on relatively stable predictors, leaders' affect is a more fluctuating factor. Liu, Song, Li, and Liao （2017） examined how leaders' affect influences employee upward voice based on the emotion-as-social-information model. Using daily interactions between managers and employees as data, the findings showed that leaders' positive affect influences employees' positive affect （i.e., emotional contagion）, and in turn employees' perception of psychological safety tends to be higher. Thus, employees are more likely to express their ideas to the leaders.

2-4． Employee-Related Factors

Individual dispositions. Because employee voice is discretionary, it is also influenced by employees' dispositional factors. Prior research has examined a number of personalities as determinants of employee voice. For example, LePine and Van Dyne （2001） examined the relationship between Big Five personality dimensions and voice within work groups. Using a laboratory study, the findings showed that employees with high conscientiousness and extraversion are more likely to engage in voice. In addition, the authors also found inverse relationships such that employees with high neuroticism and agreeableness are less likely to engage in voice. This study was an important starting point in examining the relationship between Big Five personality factors and voice. Tangirala, Kamdar, Venkataramani, and Parke （2013） argued that LePine and Van Dyne's （2001） study did not examine the effects of duty and achievement orientations. They built on this prior work and examined how duty and achievement orientation influence voice. The findings showed that employees with high duty orientation tend to consider voice as part of their role at work and thus more likely to engage in voice. By contrast, employees with high achievement orientation tend not to view voice as part of their personal responsibility and thus less likely to engage in voice.

Furthermore, research has shown that proactive personality is positively related to employee voice （Detert & Burris, 2007; Fuller & Marler, 2009; Liang & Gong, 2013）. For example, Liang and Gong （2013） showed that employees with high proactive personality are more likely to state their ideas and opinions to initiate constructive changes at work. Compared with research that examined the effects of proactive personality only from employees' perspective, Xu, Qin, Dust, and DiRenzo （2019） argued that voice is not only driven by employee proactive personality, but by the supervisor–subordinate proactive personality congruence. The findings showed that when employees' proactive personality align with their supervisors', they tend to perceive higher levels of psychology safety, which ultimately influences employees' subsequent voice behavior. In particular, this indirect effect of proactive personality congruence on voice tends to be stronger when employee proactive personality is high rather than low.

In addition to personalities, employees' knowledge, skills, and abilities are likely to affect voice. Voice efficacy, which reflects the extent to which employees feel that they have the ability to engage in voice, is perceived as a critical predictor of voice （Lebel & Patil, 2018; Tangirala et al., 2013; Wei, Zhang, & Chen, 2015）. Grant （2013） examined the relationship between employees' emotion regulation knowledge and voice. The findings indicate that employees who have more knowledge about how to manage their emotions are more likely to engage in voice frequently. Premeaux and Bedeian （2003） identified self-monitoring as a critical variable for understanding voice. They found that the effects of dispositional factors （locus of control and self-esteem） and contextual factors （perceived top management openness and trust in supervisor） on voice are contingent on employees' self-monitoring, such that the relationships are positive for low self-monitors, but negative for high self-monitors.

Work status in the organization may also affects voice. Stamper and Van Dyne （2001） examined voice among part-time and full-time employees. They found that there is no difference in voice between full-time and part-time employees. However, using the sample of front-line hospital nurses, Tangirala and Ramanujam （2008） showed that nurses who worked full-time are more likely to state their opinions and suggestions at work, compared with those who worked part-time. The authors reasoned that full-time nurses have greater familiarity with hospital work and have more job responsibilities, which enhance their confidence to engage in voice.

Moreover, I observed a trend in research on regulatory focus and voice. Lin and Johnson （2015） showed that promotion-focused employees are more likely to engage in both promotive and prohibitive voice, whereas prevention-focused employees tend to engage in prohibitive voice. The authors reasoned that promotion-focused employees tend to set ideal goals and pay attention to potential opportunities, whereas prevention-focused individuals emphasize safety and minimizing inefficiencies. More recently, in Koopmann, Johnson, Wang, Lanaj, Wang, and Shi's （2019） study, the authors used a sample of nurses working in a hospital context, and they found that promotion focus is negatively related to voice, whereas prevention focus is positively related to voice. Other studies have pointed to the importance of employees' approach and avoidance orientations. Kakkar, Tangirala, Srivastava, and Kamdar （2016） found that approach orientation is positively associated with promotive voice, but negatively associated with prohibitive voice. On the contrary, avoidance orientation is positively related to prohibitive voice, but negatively related to promotive voice.

It is also critical to highlight employees' prosocial motives. Lebel and Patil （2018） argued that employees' prosocial motivation reduces the negative relationship between distrust in supervisor and voice. The authors reasoned that employees with high prosocial motivation are more likely to feel responsibility （reason to motivation） to take actions to address a negative situation when they perceive supervisors as unjust. Grant and Mayer （2009） similarly found that when employees have strong prosocial motives, their level of voice will be high.

Attitudes and perceptions. Attitudes have received a great deal of attention and discussion as antecedents of voice. Employees have various attitudes toward organizations or groups, such as job satisfaction and psychological detachment. Research has shown that when employees have high job satisfaction, they are more likely to engage in voice targeted at supervisors （Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2012）. Consistent with this perspective, LePine and Van Dyne's （1998） study also demonstrated satisfaction with the group to be positively related to voice. Burris et al. （2008） found that when employees' psychological detachment from the organization is high, they are less likely to engage in voice.

Voice can also be promoted by a variety of attitudinal factors that reflect employees' sense of commitment to the well-being of their organizations, work groups, or customers. A variety of research has shown that organizational concern （Kim, Van Dyne, Kamdar, & Johnson, 2013）, work group or organizational identification （Liu et al., 2010; Morrison, Wheeler-Smith, & Kamdar, 2011）, felt obligation for constructive change （Fuller, Marler, & Hester, 2006; Liang et al., 2012）, perceptions of interpersonal justice （Takeuchi, Chen, & Cheung, 2012）, identification with the organization （Fuller et al., 2006）, affective commitment （Tröster & van Knippenberg, 2012）, and customer orientation （Lam & Mayer, 2014） are positively associated with employee voice.

It is important to note that employees' personal control can also come into play. Tangirala and Ramanujam （2008） argued that there is a U-shaped relationship between personal control and voice. Using data from 586 nurses, they found that employees are prone to engaging in voice when they have high levels of personal control. The authors reasoned that high personal control makes employees believe that they are capable of influencing the work environment effectively. Yet they also demonstrated that employees tend to engage in voice more frequently when they have low levels of personal control because when employees perceive their control to be low, they will have a strong level of dissatisfaction, which motivates them to take actions to change the situations.

Employees' positions within the organization also influence voice. Fuller et al. （2006） showed that higher positions in organization hierarchy and greater access to resources tend to motive employees to feel a strong responsibility for constructive change, which in turn facilitates their engagement in voice. Venkataramani and Tangirala （2010） demonstrated that employees who are more central in the formal workflow network （i.e., work-flow centrality） garner a greater degree of personal influence, which in turn motives them to engage in voice. This positive effect of personal influence was particularly strong for employees when they have higher levels of work-group identification. Similarly, Venkataramani, Zhou, Wang, Liao, and Shi （2016） also showed that employees who hold central positions in the workflow network are more likely to engage in voice. Further, the authors found that team leaders' positions have effects on this positive relationship, such that when leaders hold central positions in the friendship network, the positive relationship tends to be stronger.

Emotions, affect, and beliefs. Voice is likely to be influenced by employees' positive affect. Lam, Spreitzer, and Fritz （2014） found that there is a curvilinear relationship between positive affect and employee voice. More specifically, the results showed that too little levels of positive affect at work are negatively related to voice because employees' action tendency will decrease. Too high levels of positive affect at work are also negatively related to voice because employees feel that they are doing well and that they are not necessary to take initiatives. Therefore, the authors suggest that the level of voice is the highest when positive affect is at an intermediate level.

Lebel （2016） argued that the relationship between fear and voice is complex. In terms of a functional view of emotions, the author proposed that fear of external threat may be positively related to voice contingent on supervisor openness. Contrary to the internal threat, such as fears of punishment by supervisors, employees' fear of external threats （e.g., economic or industry downtown or mergers and acquisitions） can motive employees to voice, especially when perceived supervisor openness is high.

2.5． Factors in the Working Environment

Information. Morrison（2011, 2014）emphasized that the voice literature lacks research examining the role of information in voice. Hussain, Shu, Tangirala, and Ekkirala （2019） filled this gap by integrating the theories of the bystander effect. The authors demonstrated that when multiple employees possess similar knowledge about work-related issues （i.e., information redundancy）, they are less likely to engage in voice. It is because each employee feels that they are not solely responsible for speaking up with that information, and this diffusion of responsibility diminishes employees' willingness to engage in voice. Moreover, the authors highlighted that the negative effect of information redundancy on voice via diffusion of responsibility tends to be stronger when employees perceive other peers having high-quality relationships with the manager.

Shepherd, Patzelt, and Berry（2019） similarly examined the effect of information on voice but focused on objective information about project flaws. The findings showed that when the amount of information about a project's flaws is high, it can promote project team members to state their concerns. This positive relationship tends to be more significant when team members' perceptions of managerial openness is high and when they are more prosocially motivated.

Team-level factors. Features of the group may influence employee voice. LePine and Van Dyne （1998） found that employees who are in small size groups are less likely to engage in voice. In addition, the authors also found that employees in self-managed groups are more likely to engage in voice. Moreover, they found that the effects of group-level factors tend to be stronger when employees are highly satisfied with their group, and when employees' self-esteem is low.

Social relationships with coworkers predict voice as well. Ng, Hsu, and Parker （2019b） examined the antecedents of voice focusing on received respect. The authors demonstrated that respect received from peers in the workplace tends to enhance employees' control beliefs, thereby motivating them to engage in voice. It is also because receiving respect can promote employees' positive mood, which can encourage employees to express their ideas and suggestions. Moreover, the authors found that perspective taking is a predictor of received respect, which has a positive indirect effect on employee voice.

Other contextual factors. Perceived organizational embeddedness reflects the extent to which employees feel involved in their organizations （Mitchell, Holtom, & Lee, 2001）. Ng and Lucianetti （2018） found that when employees' perceived embeddedness is high, it will increase their learning goal orientation, and thus promotes voice behavior. Ng and Feldman （2013） argued that employee voice is not only influenced by their organizational embeddedness but also influenced by perceived supervisor embeddedness. Using longitudinal data from 338 employees, the authors found that perceived supervisor embeddedness has an effect on employee voice by influencing their own embeddedness over time.

３． Suggestions for Future Research

In this article, I reviewed the literature on individual-level employee voice, focusing in particular on empirical studies that discussed the antecedents of voice. Our understanding of the antecedents of voice has become considerably deeper as a result. However, unexplored topics within this field remain. For example, the research related to antecedents of voice in the multinational workplace is limited. Although previous researchers have explored plenty of predictors, a majority of them have tacitly considered the employees sharing the same background and have remained silent about diversity existing in the workplace. Indeed, organizations have been increasingly changed because of the forces of globalization （Cascio, 1995）, such that it has become prevalent for employees who are different in nationality, culture, and language to work together. Scholars have indicated that voice poses a conundrum to contemporary organizations, and they suggest that it is vital to consider diverse perspectives in the voice research （Ng, Van Dyne, & Ang, 2019a）. Recently, scholars have begun to explore the antecedents of voice from these diverse perspectives. For example, Ng et al. （2019a） demonstrated that cultural differences tend to inhibit voice. Tröster and van Knippenberg （2012） found that employees are less likely to engage in voice toward their leader when they are culturally dissimilar to their team members unless the leader's nationality is similar to their own. Therefore, scholars can explore more deeply about the factors that may prohibit or promote employee voice in the diverse contexts, such as language differences, religion differences, and cultural differences.

Appendix 1: Detailed Examples of Articles Related to Antecedents of Voice（Table A to Table C）.

Table A: Studies that investigate antecedents involving leader-related factors

Table A （continued）

Table A （continued）

Table A （continued）

Table A （continued）

Table A （continued）

Table B. Studies that investigate antecedents involving employee-related factors

Table B （continued）

Table B （continued）

Table B （continued）

Table C. Studies that investigate antecedents involving working environment

Table C （continued）

（著者＝Graduate School of International Social Sciences, YokohamaNational University）

【References】

•   Aryee, S., Walumbwa, F. O., Mondejar, R., & Chu, C. W. （2017）. Core self-evaluations and employee voice behavior: Test of a dual-motivational pathway. Journal of Management, 43（3）, 946-966.
•   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（4）, 912-922.
•   Carnevale, J. B., Huang, L., & Harms, P. D. （2018）. Leader consultation mitigates the harmful effects of leader narcissism: A belongingness perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 146, 76-84.
•   Cascio, W. F. （1995）. Whither industrial and organizational psychology in a changing world of work?. American Psychologist, 50（11）, 928-939.
•   Chamberlin, M., Newton, D. W., & LePine, J. A. （2018）. A meta‐analysis of empowerment and voice as transmitters of high‐performance managerial practices to job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39（10）, 1296-1313.
•   Chan, S. C. （2014）. Paternalistic leadership and employee voice: Does information sharing matter?. Human Relations, 67（6）, 667-693.
•   Chen, A. S. Y., & Hou, Y. H. （2016）. The effects of ethical leadership, voice behavior and climates for innovation on creativity: A moderated mediation examination. The Leadership Quarterly, 27（1）, 1-13.
•   Chen, X. P., & Chen, C. C. （2004）. On the intricacies of the Chinese guanxi: A process model of guanxi development. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 21（3）, 305-324.
•   Davidson, T., Van Dyne, L., & Lin, B. （2017）. Too attached to speak up? It depends: How supervisor–subordinate guanxi and perceived job control influence upward constructive voice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 143, 39-53.
•   Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. （2007）. Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open?. Academy of Management Journal, 50（4）, 869-884.
•   Duan, J., Li, C., Xu, Y., & Wu, C. H. （2017）. Transformational leadership and employee voice behavior: A Pygmalion mechanism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38（5）, 650-670.
•   Farh, C. I., & Chen, G. （2018）. Leadership and member voice in action teams: Test of a dynamic phase model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103（1）, 97-110.
•   Farh, C. I., & Chen, Z. （2014）. Beyond the individual victim: Multilevel consequences of abusive supervision in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99（6）, 1074-1095.
•   Fast, N. J., Burris, E. R., & Bartel, C. A. （2014）. Managing to stay in the dark: Managerial self-efficacy, ego defensiveness, and the aversion to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 57（4）, 1013-1034.
•   Fischer, R., Ferreira, M. C., Van Meurs, N., Gok, K., Jiang, D. Y., Fontaine, J. R., ... & Hassan, A. （2019）. Does organizational formalization facilitate voice and helping organizational citizenship behaviors? It depends on（national）uncertainty norms. Journal of International Business Studies, 50（1）, 125-134.
•   Fuller, J. B., & Marler, L. E. （2009）. Change driven by nature: A meta-analytic review of the proactive personality literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75（3）, 329-345.
•   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（8）, 1089-1120.
•   Gao, L., Janssen, O., & Shi, K. （2011）. Leader trust and employee voice: The moderating role of empowering leader behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 22（4）, 787-798.
•   Grant, A. M. （2013）. Rocking the boat but keeping it steady: The role of emotion regulation in employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 56（6）, 1703-1723.
•   Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. （2009）. Good soldiers and good actors: Prosocial and impression management motives as interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94（4）, 900-912.
•   Hirschman, A.O. （1970）. Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
•   Hussain, I., Shu, R., Tangirala, S., & Ekkirala, S. （2019）. The voice bystander effect: How information redundancy inhibits employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 62（3）, 828-849.
•   Janssen, O., & Gao, L. （2015）. Supervisory responsiveness and employee self-perceived status and voice behavior. Journal of Management, 41（7）, 1854-1872.
•   Kakkar, H., Tangirala, S., Srivastava, N. K., & Kamdar, D. （2016）. The dispositional antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101（9）, 1342-1351.
•   Kaufman, B. E. （2015）. Theorising determinants of employee voice: An integrative model across disciplines and levels of analysis. Human Resource Management Journal, 25（1）, 19-40.
•   Kim, Y. J., Van Dyne, L., Kamdar, D., & Johnson, R. E. （2013）. Why and when do motives matter? An integrative model of motives, role cognitions, and social support as predictors of OCB. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121（2）, 231-245.
•   Koopmann, J., Johnson, R. E., Wang, M., Lanaj, K., Wang, G., & Shi, J. （2019）. A self-regulation perspective on how and when regulatory focus differentially relates to citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104（5）, 629-641.
•   Lam, C. F., & Mayer, D. M. （2014）. When do employees speak up for their customers? A model of voice in a customer service context. Personnel Psychology, 67（3）, 637-666.
•   Lam, C. F., Spreitzer, G., & Fritz, C. （2014）. Too much of a good thing: Curvilinear effect of positive affect on proactive behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35（4）, 530-546.
•   Lebel, R. D. （2016）. Overcoming the fear factor: How perceptions of supervisor openness lead employees to speak up when fearing external threat. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 135, 10-21.
•   Lebel, R. D., & Patil, S. V. （2018）. Proactivity despite discouraging supervisors: The powerful role of prosocial motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103（7）, 724-737.
•   LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. （1998）. Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83（6）, 853-868.
•   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（2）, 326-336.
•   Li, Y., & Sun, J. M. （2015）. Traditional Chinese leadership and employee voice behavior: A cross-level examination. The Leadership Quarterly, 26（2）, 172-189.
•   Liang, J., Farh, C. I., & Farh, J. L. （2012）. Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55（1）, 71-92.
•   Liang, J., & Gong, Y. （2013）. Capitalizing on proactivity for informal mentoring received during early career: The moderating role of core self-evaluations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34（8）, 1182-1201.
•   Lin, S. H. J., & Johnson, R. E. （2015）. A suggestion to improve a day keeps your depletion away: Examining promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors within a regulatory focus and ego depletion framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100（5）, 1381-1397.
•   Liu, W., Song, Z., Li, X., & Liao, Z. （2017）. Why and when leaders' affective states influence employee upward voice. Academy of Management Journal, 60（1）, 238-263.
•   Liu, W., Tangirala, S., Lam, W., Chen, Z., Jia, R. T., & Huang, X. （2015）. How and when peers' positive mood influences employees' voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100（3）, 976-989.
•   Liu, W., Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. （2013）. The relational antecedents of voice targeted at different leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98（5）, 841-851.
•   Liu, W., Zhu, R., & Yang, Y. （2010）. I warn you because I like you: Voice behavior, employee identifications, and transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 21（1）, 189-202.
•   Maynes, T. D., & Podsakoff, P. M. （2014）. Speaking more broadly: An examination of the nature, antecedents, and consequences of an expanded set of employee voice behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99（1）, 87-112.
•   Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., & Lee, T. W. （2001）. How to keep your best employees: Developing an effective retention policy. Academy of Management Perspectives, 15（4）, 96-108.
•   Morrison, E. W. （2011）. Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 5（1）, 373-412.
•   Morrison, E. W. （2014）. Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1（1）, 173-197.
•   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（1）, 183-191.
•   Mowbray, P. K., Wilkinson, A., & Tse, H. H. （2015）. An integrative review of employee voice: Identifying a common conceptualization and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17（3）, 382-400.
•   Ng, K. Y., Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. （2019a）. Speaking out and speaking up in multicultural settings: A two-study examination of cultural intelligence and voice behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 151, 150-159.
•   Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. （2013）. Changes in perceived supervisor embeddedness: Effects on employees' embeddedness, organizational trust, and voice behavior. Personnel Psychology, 66（3）, 645-685.
•   Ng, T. W., Hsu, D. Y., & Parker, S. K. （2019b）. Received respect and constructive voice: The roles of proactive motivation and perspective taking. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319834660
•   Ng, T. W., & Lucianetti, L. （2018）. Are embedded employees active or passive? The roles of learning goal orientation and preferences for wide task boundaries and job mobility in the embeddedness–voice link. Human Resource Management, 57（5）, 1251-1269.
•   Nifadkar, S. S., Wu, W., & Gu, Q. （2019）. Supervisors' work‐related and nonwork information sharing: Integrating research on information sharing, information seeking, and trust using self-disclosure theory. Personnel Psychology, 72（2）, 241-269.
•   Peng, A. C., M. Schaubroeck, J., Chong, S., & Li, Y. （2019）. Discrete emotions linking abusive supervision to employee intention and behavior. Personnel Psychology, 72（3）, 393-419.
•   Premeaux, S. F., & Bedeian, A. G. （2003）. Breaking the silence: The moderating effects of self‐monitoring in predicting speaking up in the workplace. Journal of Management Studies, 40（6）, 1537-1562.
•   Qin, X., DiRenzo, M. S., Xu, M., & Duan, Y. （2014）. When do emotionally exhausted employees speak up? Exploring the potential curvilinear relationship between emotional exhaustion and voice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35（7）, 1018-1041.
•   Rofcanin, Y., Bakker, A. B., Berber, A., Gölgeci, I., & Las Heras, M. （2019）. Relational job crafting: Exploring the role of employee motives with a weekly diary study. Human Relations, 72（4）, 859-886.
•   Schilpzand, P., Houston, L., & Cho, J. （2018）. Not too tired to be proactive: Daily empowering leadership spurs next-morning employee proactivity as moderated by nightly sleep quality. Academy of Management Journal, 61（6）, 2367-2387.
•   Shepherd, D. A., Patzelt, H., & Berry, C. M. （2019）. Why didn't you tell me? Voicing concerns over objective information about a project's flaws. Journal of Management, 45（3）, 1087-1113.
•   Sherf, E. N., Tangirala, S., & Venkataramani, V. （2019）. Why managers do not seek voice from employees: The importance of managers' personal control and long-term orientation. Organization Science, 30（3）, 447-466.
•   Spitzmuller, M., Van Dyne, L., & Ilies, R. （2008）. Organizational citizenship behavior: A review and extension of its nomological network. In C. L. Cooper & J. Barling （Eds.）, Handbook of organizational behavior （pp. 106-123）. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
•   Stamper, C. L., & Van Dyne, L. V. （2001）. Work status and organizational citizenship behavior: A field study of restaurant employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22（5）, 517-536.
•   Sun, J., Liden, R. C., & Ouyang, L. （2019）. Are servant leaders appreciated? An investigation of how relational attributions influence employee feelings of gratitude and prosocial behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40（5）, 528-540.
•   Takeuchi, R., Chen, Z., & Cheung, S. Y. （2012）. Applying uncertainty management theory to employee voice behavior: An integrative investigation. Personnel Psychology, 65（2）, 283-323.
•   Tangirala, S., Kamdar, D., Venkataramani, V., & Parke, M. R. （2013）. Doing right versus getting ahead: The effects of duty and achievement orientations on employees' voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98（6）, 1040-1050.
•   Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. （2008）. Exploring nonlinearity in employee voice: The effects of personal control and organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 51（6）, 1189-1203.
•   Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. （2012）. Ask and you shall hear （but not always）: Examining the relationship between manager consultation and employee voice. Personnel Psychology, 65（2）, 251-282.
•   Tepper, B. J. （2007）. Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33（3）, 261-289.
•   Tröster, C., & van Knippenberg, D. （2012）. Leader openness, nationality dissimilarity, and voice in multinational management teams. Journal of International Business Studies, 43（6）, 591-613.
•   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.
•   Van Dyne, L., Kamdar, D., & Joireman, J. （2008）. In-role perceptions buffer the negative impact of low LMX on helping and enhance the positive impact of high LMX on voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93（6）, 1195-1207.
•   Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. （1998）. Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41（1）, 108-119.
•   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（3）, 582-591.
•   Venkataramani, V., Zhou, L., Wang, M., Liao, H., & Shi, J. （2016）. Social networks and employee voice: The influence of team members' and team leaders' social network positions on employee voice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 132, 37-48.
•   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（5）, 1275-1286.
•   Ward, A. K., Ravlin, E. C., Klaas, B. S., Ployhart, R. E., & Buchan, N. R. （2016）. When do high-context communicators speak up? Exploring contextual communication orientation and employee voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101（10）, 1498-1511.
•   Wei, X., Zhang, Z. X., & Chen, X. P. （2015）. I will speak up if my voice is socially desirable: A moderated mediating process of promotive versus prohibitive voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100（5）, 1641-1652.
•   Weiss, M., Kolbe, M., Grote, G., Spahn, D. R., & Grande, B. （2018）. We can do it! Inclusive leader language promotes voice behavior in multi-professional teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 29（3）, 389-402.
•   Xu, M., Qin, X., Dust, S. B., & DiRenzo, M. S. （2019）. Supervisor-subordinate proactive personality congruence and psychological safety: A signaling theory approach to employee voice behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 30（4）, 440-453.
•   Zhang, Y., Huai, M. Y., & Xie, Y. H. （2015）. Paternalistic leadership and employee voice in China: A dual process model. The Leadership Quarterly, 26（1）, 25-36.
•   Zhang, Y., LePine, J. A., Buckman, B. R., & Wei, F. （2014）. It's not fair... or is it? The role of justice and leadership in explaining work stressor–job performance relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 57（3）, 675-697.
•   Zhu, W., He, H., Treviño, L. K., Chao, M. M., & Wang, W. （2015）. Ethical leadership and follower voice and performance: The role of follower identifications and entity morality beliefs. The Leadership Quarterly, 26（5）, 702-718.