Journal of Applied Psychology 2015, Vol. 100, No. 3, 976 –989

© 2014 American Psychological Association 0021-9010/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038066

RESEARCH REPORT

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

How and When Peers’ Positive Mood Influences Employees’ Voice Wu Liu

Subrahmaniam Tangirala

Hong Kong Polytechnic University

University of Maryland

Wing Lam

Ziguang Chen

Hong Kong Polytechnic University

City University of Hong Kong

Rongwen Tina Jia and Xu Huang Hong Kong Polytechnic University Employees often assess whether the social context is favorable for them to speak out, yet little research has investigated how the target’s mood might influence the actor’s voice behavior. From an affect-associal-information perspective, we explored such potential effects of the target’s mood on the actor’s promotive voice in 2 empirical studies. In a scenario-based study with 142 MBA students (Study 1), the target’s positive mood was positively associated with the actor’s intentions to engage in promotive voice toward that target, mediated by the actor’s perceived psychological safety. This mediated relationship was stronger when (a) the quality of the relationship between the actor and the target was poor or (b) the actor had a lower social status than the target. We replicated these results in Study 2, a correlational field study with 572 dyads nested within 142 members of 30 teams, where the actor’s promotive voice behaviors (rather than intentions) were measured. Keywords: employee voice, affect, team, relationship quality, social status

Podsakoff, 2011). Accordingly, extensive research has sought to identify the antecedents of voice (Morrison, 2014). We sought to extend this research by examining how a target’s mood influences an actor’s voice. Employees engaging in voice are seen as implicitly criticizing the way others are performing their work; hence, voice can lead to damaged relationships and even elicit ostracism or retaliation at the workplace (Morrison, 2011). To minimize such risks, employees often “read the wind” or assess the favorability of their social context before speaking out (Dutton, Ashford, O’Neill, Hayes, & Wierba, 1997). Research on interpersonal function of moods potentially provides a perspective on how this phenomenon unfolds. Specifically, the target’s mood is said to serve as a social cue that influences the behaviors initiated by the actor (Van Kleef, De Dreu, & Manstead, 2010). According to this affect-as-social-information perspective, the target’s mood allows the actor to infer the target’s attitudes, relationship orientation, and behavioral intentions (Keltner & Haidt, 1999; Van Kleef, 2009). For example, an actor typically deduces that the target is open to social interactions when he or she expresses happiness and thereby becomes more inclined to engage in a conversation with that target (Fridlund, 1994). Adopting this perspective, we argue that the positive mood of the target allows the actor to infer that the target is willing to listen to rather than negatively respond to the actor’s voice. Hence, we propose that positive mood of the target enhances the actor’s willingness to speak out to that target with opinions or suggestions.

Voice refers to the expression of constructive opinions, suggestions, or concerns about work-related issues (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). When employees engage in voice, work units can achieve continuous process improvements (Nemeth, 1997); respond promptly to changing environmental demands (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001); become innovative in their approaches to customers, products, or services (Ryan & Oestreich, 1998); and, in general, perform better (Lam & Mayer, 2014; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, &

This article was published Online First November 3, 2014. Wu Liu, Department of Management and Marketing, Hong Kong Polytechnic University; Subrahmaniam Tangirala, Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland; Wing Lam, Department of Management and Marketing, Hong Kong Polytechnic University; Ziguang Chen, Department of Management, City University of Hong Kong; Rongwen Tina Jia and Xu Huang, Department of Management and Marketing, Hong Kong Polytechnic University. This paper was partially supported by Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China Grants 141111 and PolyU 5445/12H, awarded to Wing Lam and Ziguang Chen. We thank J. J. Po-An Hsieh, Zhenjiang Qi, and Guofeng Wang for their help in data collection and Cynthia Lee, Jian Liang, Zhaoli Song, and Riki Takeuchi for their helpful comments on drafts of this paper. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Wu Liu, Department of Management and Marketing, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong. E-mail: wu.liu@polyu .edu.hk 976

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

VOICE

In this article, we focus on promotive voice, which involves highlighting opportunities for better work practices and improved performance (Liang, Farh, & Farh, 2012). In contrast to other forms of voice such as prohibitive voice that focus on stopping undesirable practices in the team, promotive voice involves visualizing future ideal situations and proposing solutions that guide the team toward such possibilities (Liang et al., 2012). By examining promotive voice, we pair the target’s positive mood with a similarly positive and approach-oriented form of voice by the actor. Furthermore, this choice enables us to connect our article to a large body of literature on promotive voice (e.g., Van Dyne & LePine, 1998) and helps us establish the incremental validity of a target’s positive mood over other antecedents established in that literature (e.g., target’s behavioral openness; Detert & Burris, 2007). In addition, voice can have different targets, such as top management, supervisors, or peers (Liu, Tangirala, & Ramanujam, 2013; Liu, Zhu, & Yang, 2010). We examine promotive voice targeted at peers, in line with prior work (e.g., Morrison, WheelerSmith, & Kamdar, 2011; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008b). Many organizations seek to break down traditional hierarchies and encourage flexible interactions among peers when they work on empowered tasks (e.g., Benko & Anderson, 2010). In such a context, free and unhindered peer-to-peer flows of information, opinions, and suggestions are critical, and voice by employees targeted at their peers represents a useful research focus. On the basis of the affect-as-social-information perspective, we propose that the target’s positive mood provides interpersonal security to the actor in his or her interactions with the target (cf. Elfenbein, 2007). Consequently, we argue that the target’s positive mood enhances the actor’s promotive voice by increasing his or her perceived psychological safety, or belief that the social context is safe for interpersonal risk taking (e.g., Detert & Burris, 2007; Tangirala, Kamdar, Venkataramani, & Parke, 2013). Further, according to this perspective, the actor’s motivation to attend to the target’s mood influences the extent to which such mood affects the actor’s behaviors (Van Kleef et al., 2010). Accordingly, we propose that the target’s positive mood exerts a stronger influence on the actor’s promotive voice in situations when (a) the relationship quality between the actor and the target is low—that is, when the actor and the target do not have a cooperative and emotionally invested relationship (Sherony & Green, 2002), and/or (b) the actor has a lower status than the target—that is, lower prominence, respect, and influence than the target (Anderson, John, Keltner, & Kring, 2001). These situational contingencies reflect the affect-as-

977

social-information perspective, because an adversarial relationship between the actor and the target, as well as low status for the actor, should increase the actor’s social uncertainty in interactions with the target and enhance his or her motivation to attend to the target’s mood when considering whether to speak out. Figure 1 illustrates our conceptual model.

Theory and Hypotheses We propose that a target’s positive mood may be an important antecedent of an actor’s promotive voice. Moods are diffuse, affective experiences that are not “typically identified with a particular stimulus and not sufficiently intense to interrupt ongoing thought processes” (Brief & Weiss, 2002, p. 282). Moods are distinct from emotions, which are cognitively disruptive, but shortlived affective states associated with specific events (Frijda, 1986). Moods are not as stable as affective dispositions, which represent people’s traitlike tendencies to experience affective states with a particular valance or activation level (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). We selected mood as an antecedent because, in organizations, mood displays might be more widespread than expressions of emotions, which are often more intense and, hence, implicitly discouraged (e.g., Hochschild, 1983). By examining mood rather than affective dispositions, we can also isolate the transient characteristics of the social environment as key determinants of voice from the traitlike characteristics of the target. Finally, we focus on positive mood and promotive voice as exemplars of mood and voice, respectively, because promotive voice, a constructive and approach-oriented behavior, is potentially more likely to be elicited in response to the target’s mood that represents an approachoriented mind-set of positive valence (e.g., enthusiasm).

Effects of the Target’s Positive Mood According to the affect-as-social-information perspective, a target’s positive mood signals to the actor that this target is seeking to affiliate and socialize (Fridlund, 1994). In that context, the actor would likely assume that the target is willing to pay attention to communication from the actor. Further, the actor would infer that a target in a positive mood may be more receptive to new ideas (cf. Fredrickson, 2001) and make more favorable attributions about the actor’s behaviors (cf. Forgas, 1998; Van Kleef, De Dreu, & Manstead, 2004). Hence, when the target is in a positive mood, the actor would be more likely to deduce that the dyadic context is

Actor’s Relationship Quality with Target

H3 (-) Target’s Positive Mood

H1 (+)

Actor’s Psychological Safety with Target

H2 (+)

H4 (+) Actor’s Lower Status vis-à-vis the Target

Figure 1.

Hypothesized model. H ⫽ Hypothesis.

Actor’s Promotive Voice toward Target

LIU ET AL.

978

favorable for making suggestions that promotively challenge the status quo. Finally, the actor tends to “mirror” or automatically mimic the target’s positive mood (Iacoboni, 2008). Hence, when the target expresses activated positive mood, the actor likely becomes contagiously more approach oriented in his or her own behavior and attuned to opportunities for improving the status quo, an aspect that is linked to promotive voice (Liang et al., 2012). Hence, we predict: Hypothesis 1: The target’s positive mood is positively associated with the actor’s promotive voice to the target.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Mediating Effects of Perceived Psychological Safety Research from the affect-as-social-information perspective suggests that the target’s mood often influences actors’ behaviors by first affecting their cognitions about the social appropriateness of such behaviors (Van Kleef et al., 2010). We thus propose that an actor’s perceived psychological safety can help explain the effects of the target’s positive mood on the actor’s promotive voice. We define psychological safety as the actor’s cognitions regarding whether the context is safe for risk taking during interactions with the target (Detert & Burris, 2007; Tangirala et al., 2013). That is, it represents the actor’s belief that the target will welcome new ideas that challenge the status quo rather than embarrass or reject the actor for speaking out about such ideas (cf. Edmondson, 1999). The target’s positive mood should offer a favorable cue to the actor and signals that social rewards, rather than adverse consequences, would result if the actor speaks out to the target about ideas that challenge the current state of affairs. This occurs because, in the actor’s eyes, the target’s positive mood minimizes the chances that the target will misinterpret the actor’s voice as personal criticism (cf. Forgas, 1992) and enhances the target’s receptivity to challenges to the status quo (cf. Fredrickson, 2001). Hence, the target’s positive mood should enhance the actor’s perceptions that it is psychologically safe to express changeoriented ideas to the target. Such psychological safety perceptions, in turn, should enhance the actor’s promotive voice to the target. Thus, we predict: Hypothesis 2: The actor’s perceived psychological safety with the target mediates the positive association between the target’s positive mood and the actor’s promotive voice toward the target.

Moderating Effects of Relationship Quality and Status Differences Using an affect-as-social-information perspective, we anticipate that the effects of the target’s mood on the actor are contingent on the actor’s motivation to pay attention to transient social signals, such as the target’s mood (Van Kleef et al., 2010). Good quality relationships usually build through a history of positive interactions; hence, they represent low interpersonal risk and high expectations of social rewards and instrumentality (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). When an actor has a good quality relationship with the target, he or she likely is confident that he or she does not need to monitor the target closely to garner clues about the target’s intentions toward the actor (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). Therefore, the target’s mood, as a transient cue, should have a less

salient influence on the actor’s sense of psychological safety and be less likely to affect whether the actor engages in promotive voice toward the target. In contrast, a poor quality relationship may lead the actor to worry that the target might adversely construe even constructive behaviors such as promotive voice (Liu et al., 2013) or dismiss the actor in social interactions. Hence, under such a situation, the actor would pay more attention to transient social cues, such as the target’s positive mood displays, to gauge the favorability of the interpersonal context before speaking out to the target. Therefore, based on the above discussions, we propose a “first-stage” mediated moderation: The effects of the target’s positive mood on the actor’s perceived psychological safety and, thereby, on the actor’s promotive voice are stronger when the quality of relationship between the actor and the target is poor. Hypothesis 3: The indirect effect of the target’s positive mood on the actor’s promotive voice toward the target (via the actor’s perceived psychological safety) is stronger when the actor has a lower quality relationship with the target. In addition, high-status differentials between the actor and the target would also enhance the actor’s motivation to pay attention to the social cues issued by the target (Anderson, Keltner, & John, 2003; Van Kleef et al., 2004). Employees have different endowments (e.g., knowledge, experience), which allow some of them to attain higher social status than others on a team (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). Those with higher status achieve more prominence and, thereby, have more capability to influence the attitudes, behaviors, and decisions of other team members (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009). An actor with lower status than the target may be concerned about the risks of speaking up to that target because, if promotive voice gets misconstrued, the target can impose social consequences on the actor, such as ostracism or ridicule in the team (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008a). To avoid such risks, the lower status actor likely pays attention to the target’s mood to discern whether the situation is favorable for speaking out (cf. Fiske, 2010; Van Kleef et al., 2004). In contrast, the risks associated with promotive voice are lower if the actor’s status is higher than the target’s. In such a situation, the high-status actor has less need to read the wind before speaking out and in turn should be less influenced by the target’s positive mood. Therefore, based on the above discussions, we propose a “first-stage” mediated moderation: The effects of the target’s positive mood on the actor’s perceived psychological safety and, thus, on the actor’s promotive voice are stronger when the actor has lower social status. Hypothesis 4: The indirect effect of the target’s positive mood on the actor’s promotive voice toward the target (via the actor’s psychological safety perceptions) is stronger when the actor has lower status than the target.

Study 1 Method Design, task, and manipulations. Part-time MBA students (N ⫽ 142) from two universities located in Mainland China participated in Study 1. Their average age was 30.16 years (SD ⫽

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

VOICE

6.42), their average work experience was 8.35 years (SD ⫽ 4.98), and 42% of the participants were women. We used a 2 ⫻ 2 ⫻ 2 factorial design, with the target’s mood (positive vs. neutral), actor–target relationship quality (high vs. low), and the actor’s status relative to the target’s (high vs. low) as between-subject factors. In this scenario-based study, participants took the perspective of an actor who had been working on implementing a certain plan (Plan I) to design a solar power system for a technology company. After a chance meeting with some experts in this field, the actor came to realize that another plan (Plan II) would offer more benefits. One of the team’s main advocates for Plan I is Li Ping (target), with whom the actor is about to meet. Therefore, the actor must decide whether to propose the better, more effective plan (i.e., Plan II) in the meeting. The scenario emphasized to participants that suggesting the new plan could determine their team’s overall success and effectiveness in designing the solar power system. With the manipulations, we varied the background information provided together with the scenarios.1 For example, participants in the target positive mood, high relationship quality, high-status condition read: Recently, Li Ping has been in a particularly good mood (i.e., delighted), always with a smile on his face. Your colleagues posit that something really good has happened to Li Ping. You have enjoyed a good relationship with Li Ping. Both of you are emotionally invested in your relationship, and you trust him. Li Ping is a relatively new employee who had joined the company two years back. His performance has been mediocre, and consequently, his influence and prestige in the team are limited. In contrast, you are a senior employee who has been with the company for more than seven years. You have much more influence and prestige than Li Ping.

Participants in the target neutral mood, low relationship quality, low-status condition instead read: Recently, Li Ping has been in a neutral mood, neither positive nor negative. Nobody knows what has been happening in Li Ping’s life. You and Li Ping have a weak relationship. Although both of you work on the same team and must interact at work, you do not have much to talk about personally with Li Ping. Li Ping is a senior employee with seven years of tenure with the company. He has been an outstanding performer, is widely recognized by upper managers, and has influence on all kinds of decisions. You are a new employee with only two years of tenure with the company. Your influence and prestige in the team are very limited.

Measures. The actor’s perceived psychological safety was measured with three items adapted from Liang et al. (2012; e.g., “In the current situation, I feel that expressing my true opinion is welcomed by Li Ping”). We used five items, also adapted from Liang et al. (2012) to measure intentions to engage in promotive voice (e.g., “I will discuss suggestions to improve team effectiveness when I meet Li Ping”). We also included manipulation checks for positive mood (e.g., “Li Ping has been in a positive mood recently”), relationship quality (e.g., “You have a good relationship with Li Ping”), and status (e.g., “Li Ping has higher status in the team than you do”). All the measures used 7-point Likert scales (1 ⫽ strongly disagree; 7 ⫽ strongly agree).

979

Results The manipulation checks revealed that the manipulations of the target’s mood, dyadic relationship quality, and status differences were all successful (p ⬍ .01). Table 1 provides descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations of the measures. We used ordinary least squares regression, in which the predictors were standardized, in our analysis (see Table 2). The target’s positive mood had a positive effect on the actor’s promotive voice intentions (␤ ⫽ .38, p ⬍ .01; Model 3, Table 2), in support of Hypothesis 1. Further, the target’s positive mood was positively related to the actor’s perceived psychological safety (␤ ⫽ .23, p ⬍ .01; Model 1, Table 2). Moreover, perceived psychological safety was in turn positively related to the actor’s voice intentions (␤ ⫽ .36, p ⬍ .01; Model 4, Table 2), even when we controlled for the effect of the target’s positive mood. A Monte Carlo-based simulation (20,000 repetitions; Selig & Preacher, 2008) revealed that the indirect path from the target’s positive mood to the actor’s voice intentions through the actor’s perceived psychological safety was significant (.09; 95% CI [.02, .16]). Thus we found support for Hypothesis 2. The target’s positive mood interacted with relationship quality to predict perceived psychological safety (␤ ⫽ ⫺.21, p ⬍ .05; Model 2, Table 2; see Figure 2a). As we predicted, when relationship quality was poor, participants in the target positive mood condition (M ⫽ 4.30, SD ⫽ 1.11) felt safer than did those in the target neutral mood condition (M ⫽ 3.41, SD ⫽ .93), t(70) ⫽ 3.63, p ⬍ .01; when relationship quality was high, though, we found no difference in participants’ safety perceptions across the positive mood (M ⫽ 4.44, SD ⫽ 1.00) or neutral mood (M ⫽ 4.36, SD ⫽ 1.00), t(68) ⫽ .34, ns, conditions. Further, the target’s positive mood interacted with relationship quality to predict promotive voice intentions (␤ ⫽ ⫺.24, p ⬍ .01; Model 5, Table 2; see Figure 2b), in an interaction pattern similar to that we discovered for psychological safety. A Monte Carlo-based simulation (20,000 repetitions) indicated that the indirect path from the target’s positive mood to the actor’s promotive voice intentions via the actor’s perceived psychological safety was significant for poor (.15; 95% CI [.05, .24]), but not for good, relationship quality (.03; 95% CI [⫺05, .10]), in support of Hypothesis 3. Finally, the target’s positive mood interacted with status differences to predict perceived psychological safety (␤ ⫽ .15, p ⬍ .05; Model 2, Table 2; see Figure 3a). As we predicted, when the actor had lower status than the target, participants in the target positive mood condition (M ⫽ 4.31, SD ⫽ .98) felt safer than did those in the target neutral mood condition (M ⫽ 3.59, SD ⫽ 1.08), t(70) ⫽ 3.00, p ⬍ .01, but when an actor had higher status than a target, there was no difference between participants in the target positive mood (M ⫽ 4.43, SD ⫽ 1.14) and those in the target neutral mood (M ⫽ 4.22, SD ⫽ .97), t(68) ⫽ .82, ns, conditions. Furthermore, similar to the pattern for perceived psychological safety, the target’s positive mood interacted with status differences to predict promotive voice intentions (␤ ⫽ .17, p ⬍ .01; Model 5, Table 2; see Figure 3b). Another Monte Carlo-based simulation (20,000 repetitions) revealed a significant indirect path from the target’s positive mood to the actor’s promotive voice intentions via the 1

The entire set of scenarios and measures is available upon request.

LIU ET AL.

980

Table 1 Study 1: Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Measure Reliabilities Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Target’s positive mood Relationship quality Lower status than target Psychological safety Voice intentions to target

M

SD

1

2

3

4

.54 .49 .49 4.15 4.93

.50 .50 .50 1.08 .91

— ⫺.04 ⫺.01 .22ⴱⴱ .38ⴱⴱ

— ⫺.07 .23ⴱⴱ .02

— ⫺.16ⴱ ⫺.25ⴱⴱ

— .44ⴱⴱ

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Note. n ⫽ 142. This table presents standardized coefficients. For “Target’s positive mood,” 1 ⫽ positive mood condition, and 0 ⫽ neutral mood condition; for “Relationship quality,” 1 ⫽ high-quality condition, and 0 ⫽ low-quality condition; and for “Lower status,” 1 ⫽ lower status condition, and 0 ⫽ higher status condition. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

actor’s perceived psychological safety when the actor had lower status than the target (13; 95% CI [.04, .22]), but not when the actor’s status was higher than the target’s (.04; 95% CI [⫺.05, .12]). We thus found support for Hypothesis 4.

Study 2 Method Sample and procedure. To replicate the results from our scenario-based Study 1 in a field setting and to examine actual voice behaviors (rather than voice intentions), we contacted 155 employees working in all of the 31 teams maintained by a bank in a northwestern city in Mainland China (the data presented in this article were part of a broader data collection effort). We used a round-robin survey design, in which each employee rated his or her teammates and, in turn, was rated by each of them (Warner, Kenny, & Stoto, 1979). To ensure that respondents did not have to rate an excessive number of their colleagues, for teams with six or more members, we randomly selected five members for participation (see de Jong, Van der Vegt, & Molleman, 2007, for a similar procedure). The final sample included 572 dyads, involving 142 members of 30 teams (91.6% response rate). The mean age was 27.76 years, 60% were women, and their average tenure was 36.49 months. Measures. All measures were administered in Chinese.2 We translated and back-translated any measures originally published in English to ensure their validity (Brislin, 1980). Respondents reported the frequency with which every other member (i.e., target) exhibited a positive mood in the previous month (1 ⫽ not at all; 4 ⫽ very frequently), using four items (enthusiastic, excited, happy, and delighted; Tellegen, Watson, & Clark, 1999) that reflected an activated positive mood. They rated their relationship quality with those members (targets) using Sherony and Green’s (2002) coworker exchange scale (e.g., “How would you describe your relationship with this colleague?” 1 ⫽ very bad; 5 ⫽ very good), and they indicated social status using a three-item status scale (Anderson et al., 2001; e.g., “How well respected is this person in this team?” 1 ⫽ not respected at all; 7 ⫽ respected a great deal). The status ratings assigned to each employee by all teammates exhibited high agreement (ICC1 ⫽ .45, ICC2 ⫽ .76, median rwg ⫽ .90), so we averaged these ratings to derive each employee’s social status score. By comparing the status scores of the actor and the target in each dyad, we could assign a value of 1 if the actor had lower status and ⫺1 if the actor had higher status.

The respondents also rated their perceived psychological safety in interactions with each other member of their team during the previous month, using three items from Liang et al. (2012; e.g., “In the past month, I felt that expressing my true feelings would be welcomed by this peer,” 1 ⫽ strongly disagree; 7 ⫽ strongly agree). To measure the actor’s promotive voice, we used three items that represent promotive communication in Van Dyne and LePine’s (1998) voice scale3 (e.g., “During the specified period, this particular employee often speaks out and encourages me to get involved in issues that improve my work,” 1 ⫽ strongly disagree; 7 ⫽ strongly agree). We adapted the items slightly to focus on the actor’s promotive voice in the dyadic relation with the target in the previous month (see Liu et al., 2010). To address possible alternative explanations and establish the incremental predictive validity of our independent variables, we controlled for several variables. First, we controlled for the actors’ and targets’ gender, educational level, organizational tenure, and dyadic tenure. Second, we controlled for other variables that might influence actors’ promotive voice, namely, their proactive personality (10-item scale, Seibert, Crant, & Kraimer, 1999), powerdistance orientation (six-item scale, Dorfman & Howell, 1988), job autonomy (three-item psychological empowerment subscale from Spreitzer, 1995), and separate reports of a team leader’s and the target’s openness to voice (four and three items, respectively, adapted from Ashford, Rothbard, Piderit, & Dutton’s, 1998, top management openness scale). Third, we controlled for variables that might possiblly influence the actor’s affective experience, including the actors’ own positive mood in the previous period (using the same items we used to measure targets’ positive mood), actors’ emotional appraisal ability (subscale of Wong & Law’s, 2002, emotional intelligence measure), targets’ trait positive affectivity (self-ratings on the trait version of the 10-item positive affectivity scale, Tellegen et al., 1999), and targets’ negative mood (four items representing activated negative affect [distressed, angry, upset, and nervous]; Tellegen et al., 1999). Data analysis. We used the hierarchical linear modeling macro of the social relations model (Kenny, 1994) in MLwin 2.0 2 Due to space considerations, we provide only example items for the substantive variables. The full scales used in the study (including those to measure the control variables) are available upon request. 3 Our results remained unchanged when we used the full voice scale (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). We present the results with the promotive voice items only, to be consistent with our theoretical focus on promotive voice.

VOICE

981

Table 2 Study 1: Hierarchical Regression Results Psychological safety

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Step and variable Main effects Target’s positive mood (PM) Relationship quality (RQ) Lower status than target (ST) Interactions PM ⫻ RQ PM ⫻ ST Mediator Psychological safety R2 ⌬R2a

Voice intentions

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Model 5

Model 6

.23ⴱⴱ .25ⴱⴱ ⫺.18ⴱ

.23ⴱⴱ .26ⴱⴱ ⫺.19ⴱ

.38ⴱⴱ .02 ⫺.26ⴱⴱ

.30ⴱⴱ .08 ⫺.19ⴱⴱ

.38ⴱⴱ .02 ⫺.27ⴱⴱ

.32ⴱⴱ .05 ⫺.21ⴱⴱ

⫺.24ⴱⴱ .17ⴱ

⫺.17ⴱ .15ⴱ

⫺.21ⴱ .15ⴱ

.14ⴱⴱ

.20ⴱⴱ .06ⴱ

.21ⴱⴱ

.36ⴱⴱ .32ⴱⴱ .11ⴱⴱ

.29ⴱⴱ .08ⴱⴱ

.30ⴱⴱ .36ⴱⴱ .07ⴱⴱ

Note. n ⫽ 142. This table presents standardized coefficients. For “Target’s positive mood,” 1 ⫽ positive mood condition, and 0 ⫽ neutral mood condition; for “Relationship quality,” 1 ⫽ high-quality condition, and 0 ⫽ low-quality condition; and for “Lower status,” 1 ⫽ lower status condition, and 0 ⫽ higher status condition. a Model 1 was the basis of comparison for Model 2; Model 3 was the basis of comparison for Models 4 and 5; Model 5 was the basis of comparison for Model 6. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

(Goldstein et al., 1998), which takes the nested structure of the data into consideration and can partition variance into different levels, including actor, target, dyad, and group. The independent variables were standardized prior to the analyses.

Results In Table 3, we provide the descriptive statistics and reliabilities of the measures. The confirmatory factor analyses indicated that the five-factor model with the focal variables—target’s positive mood, relationship quality, social status, psychological safety, and promotive voice—fit the data well (␹2 ⫽ 490.97, ␹2/df ⫽ 3.92, root-mean-square error of approximation ⫽ .07, nonnormed fit index ⫽ .95, comparative fit index ⫽ .96). It also fit the data better than alternative models that combined (a) psychological safety and promotive voice (⌬␹2 ⌬[4] ⫽ 893.85, p ⬍ .01); (b) relationship

quality and psychological safety (⌬␹2 ⌬[4] ⫽ 749.46, p ⬍ .01); (c) target’s positive mood and psychological safety (⌬␹2 ⌬[4] ⫽ 121.06, p ⬍ .01); (d) target’s positive mood and relationship quality (⌬␹2 ⌬[4] ⫽ 1207.52, p ⬍ .01); or (e) all five variables in a single factor (⌬␹2 ⌬[10] ⫽ 3694.19, p ⬍ .01). Thus, we obtained evidence of discriminant validity. The target’s positive mood was positively related to the actor’s promotive voice to the target (b ⫽ .13, SE ⫽ .05, p ⬍ .05; Model 2, see Table 5), in support of Hypothesis 1. Further, the target’s positive mood was positively related to actor’s perceived psychological safety with the target (b ⫽ .19, SE ⫽ .05, p ⬍ .01; Model 2, see Table 4). Moreover, the actor’s perceived psychological safety was positively related to actor’s promotive voice toward the target (b ⫽ .29, SE ⫽ .04, p ⬍ .01; Model 7; see Table 5), even after controlling for the effects of the target’s positive mood.

Figure 2. Interactive effects of the target’s positive mood and relationship quality on psychological safety and voice intentions (Study 1).

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

982

LIU ET AL.

Figure 3. Interactive effects of the target’s positive mood and status difference on psychological safety and voice intentions (Study 1).

Therefore, perceived psychological safety (partially) mediated the effect of the target’s positive mood on the actor’s promotive voice toward the target. A Monte Carlo-based simulation (20,000 repetitions) indicated that the indirect path from the target’s positive mood to the actor’s voice via perceived psychological safety was significant (.06; 95% CI [03, .11]). We thus found support for Hypothesis 2. Further, the target’s positive mood interacted with relationship quality to predict perceived psychological safety (b ⫽ ⫺.06, SE ⫽ .03, p ⬍ .05; Model 3, see Table 4; see Figure 4a). Specifically, when the relationship quality between the actor and the target was poor (⫺1 SD), the association between the target’s positive mood and the actor’s perceived psychological safety was positive (b ⫽ .24, SE ⫽ .06, p ⬍ .01), whereas this association was not significant when the relationship quality was good (⫹1 SD; b ⫽ .09, SE ⫽ .07, ns). Similar to the pattern for safety perceptions, the target’s positive mood interacted with relationship quality to predict the actor’s promotive voice (b ⫽ ⫺.07, SE ⫽ .03, p ⬍ .05; Model 3, see Table 5; see Figure 4b). In this case, the Monte Carlo-based simulation (20,000 repetitions) revealed that when relationship quality was poor (⫺1 SD), the indirect effect of the target’s positive mood on the actor’s promotive voice (via the actor’s perceived psychological safety) was significant (.08; 95% CI [.04, .12]), but it was not significant when the relationship quality was good (⫹1 SD; .01; 95% CI [⫺.04, .05]), in line with Hypothesis 3. Finally, the target’s positive mood interacted with status difference to predict perceived psychological safety (b ⫽ .08, SE ⫽ .04, p ⬍ .05; Model 4, see Table 4; see Figure 5a). Specifically, when the actor had lower status than the target, the association between the target’s positive mood and the actor’s perceived psychological safety was positive (b ⫽ .20, SE ⫽ .07, t ⫽ 2.93, p ⬍ .05); this association was not significant when the actor had higher status than the target (b ⫽ .09, SE ⫽ .07, t ⫽ 1.31, ns). Further, the target’s positive mood interacted with status difference to predict the actor’s promotive voice (b ⫽ .08, SE ⫽ .04, p ⬍ .05; Model 4, see Table 5; see Figure 5b), in an interaction pattern similar to that for perceived psychological safety. The Monte Carlo-based simu-

lation (20,000 repetitions) revealed that when the actor had lower status than the target, the indirect effect of the target’s positive mood on the actor’s voice (via the actor’s perceived psychological safety) was significant (.07; 95% CI [.03, .12]), but this effect was not significant when the actor had higher status than the target (.03; 95% CI [⫺.01, .07]), in support of Hypothesis 4.

Discussion We have examined, from an affect-as-social-information perspective, how and when a target’s mood influences an actor’s promotive voice toward that target. In our scenario-based Study 1, the target’s positive mood was positively associated with the actor’s intentions to engage in promotive voice, and the actor’s perceived psychological safety mediated this association. Further, this association was stronger when (a) the quality of the relationship between the actor and the target was poor or (b) the actor had lower social status than the target. We replicated these findings in a correlational field study, in which we measured the actor’s promotive voice behaviors, rather than intentions.

Theoretical Implications We make several key theoretical contributions. First, we demonstrate that employees ascertain the favorability of the social context for promotive voice by observing the mood of their target. This result highlights the utility of the target’s positive mood as a predictor of promotive voice and responds to recent calls for “further theory building and empirical work on the role of affect” in facilitating voice (Morrison, 2011, p. 403). Second, we extend the larger literature on proactive behaviors of which voice is a component (Parker & Collins, 2010). Within that literature, scholars have conceptually noted that the target’s positive mood is likely associated with the actor’s feedback seeking (Morrison & Bies, 1991)—a form of employee proactivity in which employees improve themselves by seeking performancerelevant information about themselves from others in their work environment (Parker & Collins, 2010). Some suggestive evidence

A’s gender A’s education A’s organizational tenure T’s gender T’s education T’s organizational tenure A & T’s dyadic tenure A’s proactive personality A’s power distance A’s emotional intelligence A’s job autonomy Leader’s openness A’s own positive mood T’s positive affectivity T’s negative mood T’s positive mood T’s openness Relationship quality A’s lower status than T A’s psychological safety A’s promotive voice to T

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

1.60 .48 3.95 .21 ⫺.06 36.49 27.54 .18 ⫺.10 1.60 .48 ⫺.12 ⫺.01 ⫺.10 3.95 .21 ⫺.01 .00 .02 ⫺.04 36.49 27.54 ⫺.11 .01 ⫺.01 .18 ⫺.10 17.15 15.32 ⫺.06 ⫺.04 .27 ⫺.10 ⫺.02 .18 5.68 .60 .08 .02 .04 .03 .06 ⫺.08 2.77 .94 .05 .02 ⫺.13 .04 ⫺.04 ⫺.05 4.99 .94 ⫺.01 ⫺.01 .04 .04 .00 .06 5.36 .98 .14 ⫺.12 .15 .01 .08 .01 4.21 .60 .05 ⫺.10 ⫺.03 .06 ⫺.05 .04 1.71 .59 .08 ⫺.04 .01 .02 ⫺.07 ⫺.01 3.17 .65 .07 .01 ⫺.03 ⫺.05 .13 ⫺.13 1.20 .70 ⫺.05 .04 .04 ⫺.05 .14 ⫺.09 1.97 .60 .02 .00 ⫺.02 .00 ⫺.09 ⫺.01 5.26 1.28 .04 .03 ⫺.10 .02 .06 .01 3.34 .75 ⫺.11 .06 .00 .01 .02 .00 .00 1.00 ⫺.07 .02 ⫺.20 .11 ⫺.03 .18 5.12 1.29 ⫺.02 ⫺.01 .01 .03 ⫺.02 ⫺.03 4.97 1.17 .04 ⫺.01 ⫺.01 ⫺.13 ⫺.07 ⫺.04

M

⫺.02 ⫺.05 .05 .02 .03 ⫺.01 ⫺.04 ⫺.01 .00 ⫺.07 .07 .04 .04 .04

7

(.80) ⫺.12 .13 .17 .20 .20 .01 ⫺.05 .20 .13 .21 .07 .23 ⫺.02

8

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

(.79) ⫺.17 (.86) ⫺.09 .25 (.90) ⫺.03 .26 .34 (.93) ⫺.06 .05 .05 .14 (.94) ⫺.03 ⫺.02 .01 ⫺.04 .10 (.87) .04 ⫺.03 ⫺.11 ⫺.18 ⫺.27 ⫺.07 (.88) .00 .04 .05 .12 .32 .03 ⫺.42 (.90) ⫺.27 .16 .05 .09 .02 ⫺.02 ⫺.14 .23 (.97) ⫺.04 .07 .11 .04 .15 ⫺.07 ⫺.06 .33 .31 (.88) ⫺.03 .03 ⫺.04 .10 .08 ⫺.11 ⫺.19 .16 .12 .18 ⫺.12 .15 .06 .09 .04 .10 ⫺.10 .28 .36 .59 ⫺.18 (.94) .02 .09 .10 .01 .04 .10 ⫺.05 .15 .15 .18 ⫺.25 .22 (.94)

9

Note. A refers to the actor; T indicates the target. Intercorrelations are based on the matched sample of N ⫽ 572 dyads, including 142 members of 30 teams. Correlations stronger than or equal to ⫾.08 are significant at p ⬍ .05. Correlations stronger than or equal to ⫾.11 are significant at p ⬍ .01. Internal consistency reliabilities appear bold and italicized in parentheses along the diagonal. For “gender,” 1 ⫽ male, and 2 ⫽ female; for “education,” 1 ⫽ middle school or below, 2 ⫽ high school or below, 3 ⫽ junior college or below, 4 ⫽ college or below, and 5 ⫽ more than college; for “A’s lower status than T,” 1 ⫽ A has lower status, ⫺1 ⫽ A has higher status. Mood and affectivity were measured on 4-point scales, relationship quality on 5-point scales, and the other variables on 7-point scales.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

Variable

Table 3 Study 2: Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Measure Reliabilities

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

VOICE

983

LIU ET AL.

984

Table 4 Study 2: Results of Social Relation Model Analyses Predicting Actor’s Psychological Safety With Target

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Variable Control variables A’s gender A’s education A’s organizational tenure T’s gender T’s education T’s organizational tenure A & T’s dyadic tenure A’s proactive personality A’s power distance A’s emotional intelligence A’s job autonomy Leader’s openness to voice A’s own positive mood T’s positive affectivity T’s negative mood Main effects T’s positive mood (T’s PM) A’s relationship quality with T (RQ) A’s lower status than T (ST) Interactions T’s PM ⫻ RQ T’s PM ⫻ ST R2 (deviance) ⌬R2 (change of deviancea)

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Model 5

⫺.15 ⫺.15 ⫺.01 ⫺.04 ⫺.11 ⫺.01 .01 .52ⴱ ⫺.16ⴱ .13 ⫺.07 .04 .02 .22ⴱ ⫺.15

.12 ⫺.35 .00 .01 ⫺.15 ⫺.01 .01 .22ⴱ ⫺.14ⴱ .13 ⫺.12 .08 .23ⴱ .06 ⫺.01

.12 ⫺.35 ⫺.01 .01 ⫺.15 ⫺.01 .01 .22ⴱ ⫺.14ⴱ .13 ⫺.12 .08 .22 .05 ⫺.02

.11 ⫺.34 ⫺.01 .01 ⫺.16 ⫺.01 .01 .21ⴱ ⫺.15ⴱ .12 ⫺.12 .09 .23ⴱ .06 ⫺.01

.11 ⫺.35 ⫺.01 .01 ⫺.16 ⫺.01 .01 .22ⴱ ⫺.14ⴱ .12 ⫺.12 .09 .21 .05 ⫺.03

.19ⴱⴱ .72ⴱⴱ ⫺.07ⴱ

.17ⴱⴱ .71ⴱⴱ ⫺.07ⴱ

.19ⴱⴱ .72ⴱⴱ ⫺.07ⴱ

.16ⴱ .72ⴱⴱ ⫺.07ⴱ

.08ⴱ .37 (1496.96) .01 (5.67ⴱ[1])

⫺.07ⴱ .07ⴱ .38 (1493.00) .02 (9.63ⴱⴱ[2])

⫺.06ⴱ .06 (1723.35)

.36 (1502.63) .30 (220.72ⴱⴱ[3])

.37 (1497.22) .01 (5.41ⴱ[1])

Note. N ⫽ 572 dyads with 142 members of 30 teams. A indicates the actor, and T represents the target. For “gender,” 1 ⫽ male, and 0 ⫽ female; for “A’s lower status than T,” 1 ⫽ A has lower status, and ⫺1 ⫽ A has higher status. a Model 2 was the basis of comparison for Models 3, 4, and 5. ⴱ p ⱕ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⱕ .01.

from laboratory studies also hints at such a link (Ang, Cummings, Straub, & Earley, 1993). However, proactivity research has not previously established whether others’ mood expressions can influence promotive voice, as a specific class of proactive behaviors that actors use to seek change in the environment (rather than the self; Parker & Collins, 2010). Nor has proactivity literature systematically explored the mediators and moderators of the associations between targets’ mood expressions and the actors’ proactivity. We add to this research stream in two main ways: by examining promotive voice, a previously unexplored, proactive consequence of the target’s positive mood, and by explicating the mediators (psychological safety) and moderators (relationship quality and social status difference) of the effects of a target’s positive mood. Third, we extend research on psychological safety, relationship quality, and status differences. Although it is known that psychological safety is influenced by the target’s behaviors, such as solicitation of input (e.g., Detert & Burris, 2007), prior research has not examined its connection to affective cues from the target such as mood displays. Further, some studies have demonstrated that the quality of the relationship between the target and the actor is linked to the actor’s promotive voice (e.g., Liu et al., 2013). We extend this work by demonstrating that more stable attributes of the dyad, such as relationship quality, do not have unconditional effects but rather interact with transient states, such as mood expressions within the dyad, to influence promotive voice. In this context, we also help resolve a contradiction. On the one hand, prior research has indicated that employees seek to speak up to

targets with high social status, because those targets have the potential to change the organization (unlike those with low social status; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2012). On the other hand, employees confront psychological hurdles when speaking up to targets with high social status, because they fear creating offense with their suggestions (e.g., Morrison & Milliken, 2000; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008a). Our findings can explain both competing effects, because they reveal that the negative effects of the target’s high social status on the actor’s promotive voice can be mitigated when the target displays a positive mood. Fourth, we contribute to the affect-as-social-information perspective. Prior research offers substantive support for the proposition that actors are sensitive to affective cues from their targets (e.g., Van Kleef et al., 2010) but does not examine directly how the actor’s psychological states or cognitions might mediate the link between the target’s mood expressions and the actor’s behavior. We extend this view by demonstrating that employee perceptions of the favorability of the social context (i.e., psychological safety) can explain such effects of the target’s mood.

Limitations Our article has several limitations. First, the effect sizes of our interaction effects are not large (especially for the field study). Although these effect sizes are in the range of typical effect sizes found for moderated relationships (see Aguinis, Beaty, Boik, & Pierce, 2005) and are meaningful given the consequentiality of promotive voice (e.g., within-team promotive voice often has

VOICE

985

Table 5 Study 2: Results of Social Relation Model Analyses Predicting Actor’s Promotive Voice Toward Target

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Variable

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Model 5

Model 6

Model 7

Model 8

Control variables A’s gender ⫺.06 .02 .03 ⫺.01 .01 .00 .05 .04 A’s education .03 ⫺.05 ⫺.08 ⫺.05 ⫺.09 .10 .03 ⫺.02 A’s organizational tenure .00 .00 .00 .00 ⫺.01 .00 .00 .00 T’s gender ⫺.36ⴱ ⫺.30ⴱ ⫺.31ⴱ ⫺.30ⴱ ⫺.30ⴱ ⫺.36ⴱ ⫺.31ⴱ ⫺.30ⴱ T’s education ⫺.55 ⫺.50 ⫺.48 ⫺.51 ⫺.49 ⫺.39 ⫺.37 ⫺.35 T’s organizational tenure .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 A & T’s dyadic tenure .00 .00 .00 .00 .01 .00 .00 .00 A’s proactive personality ⫺.07 ⫺.08 ⫺.07 ⫺.10 ⫺.09 ⫺.04 ⫺.07 ⫺.07 A’s power distance .06 ⫺.01 .01 ⫺.01 ⫺.01 .05 ⫺.01 ⫺.01 A’s emotional intelligence .08 .09 .09 .08 .09 .06 .06 .06 A’s job autonomy .10 .05 .04 .04 .03 .04 .03 .01 Leader’s openness to voice ⫺.11 ⫺.09 ⫺.09 ⫺.07 ⫺.07 ⫺.15 ⫺.11 ⫺.10 A’s own positive mood ⫺.02 ⫺.07 ⫺.06 ⫺.06 ⫺.04 .05 ⫺.02 .01 T’s positive affectivity .32ⴱ .29ⴱ .29ⴱ .29ⴱ .30ⴱ .27ⴱ .22ⴱ .22ⴱ T’s negative mood ⫺.06 ⫺.01 ⫺.01 ⫺.01 ⫺.01 ⫺.07 ⫺.06 ⫺.03 T’s openness .12ⴱⴱ .08ⴱ .08ⴱ Main effects T’s positive mood (T’s PM) .13ⴱ .11ⴱ .12ⴱ .10ⴱ .17ⴱ .13ⴱ A’s relationship quality with T (RQ) .25ⴱⴱ .26ⴱⴱ .24ⴱⴱ .27ⴱⴱ .18ⴱⴱ .19ⴱⴱ A’s lower status than T (ST) ⫺.27ⴱⴱ ⫺.27ⴱⴱ ⫺.27ⴱⴱ ⫺.28ⴱⴱ ⫺.29ⴱⴱ ⫺.30ⴱⴱ Interactions T’s PM ⫻ RQ ⫺.07ⴱ ⫺.10ⴱ ⫺.10ⴱ T’s PM ⫻ ST .08ⴱ .11ⴱ .08ⴱ Mediator A’s psychological safety with T .33ⴱⴱ .29ⴱⴱ .28ⴱⴱ 2 .03 (1606.78) .15 (1562.96) .16 (1557.86) .16 (1557.99) .17 (1551.86) .06 (1563.70) .17 (1514.23) .19 (1503.51) R (deviance) ⌬R2 (change of deviancea) .12 (43.82ⴱⴱ[3]) .01 (5.10ⴱ[1]) .01 (4.97ⴱ[1]) .02 (11.10ⴱⴱ[2]) .03 (43.08ⴱⴱ[2]) .11 (49.47ⴱⴱ[3]) .03 (10.72ⴱⴱ[2]) Note. N ⫽ 572 dyads with 142 members of 30 teams. A indicates the actor, and T represents the target. For “gender,” 1 ⫽ male, and 0 ⫽ female; for “A’s lower status than T,” 1 ⫽ A has lower status, and ⫺1 ⫽ A has higher status. a Model 2 was the basis of comparison for Models 3, 4, and 5. Model 1 was the basis of comparison for Model 6. Model 6 was the basis of comparison for Model 7. Model 7 was the basis of comparison for Model 8. ⴱ p ⱕ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⱕ .01.

implications for team effectiveness; MacKenzie et al., 2011), it is likely that other antecedents, beyond those we examine, could explain additional variance in promotive voice. Second, the findings from our scenario study should be interpreted with caution. A scenario study might not provide participants with an adequate sense of psychological realism. Moreover, we could only measure participants’ promotive voice intentions, not their promotive voice behaviors, in Study 1, and this approach can only weakly operationalize factors such as relationship quality, which draw on a history of positive interpersonal interactions between individuals. Such aspects might lead to minor divergences in the results of our field study compared

with our scenario study. For example, relationship quality interacted significantly with the target’s positive mood in both Studies 1 and 2, but the positive main effects of relationship quality on promotive voice were evident only in Study 2. Researchers should continue to replicate these findings and determine their robustness using various designs, such as field experiments, that provide high external and internal validity simultaneously. Third, our studies were conducted in China, which requires some caution when generalizing our results to very culturally distinct contexts. Chinese people typically define themselves in interdependent societal terms (Markus & Kitayama 1991) and

LIU ET AL.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

986

Figure 4. Interactive effects of the target’s positive mood and relationship quality on the actor’s psychological safety and promotive voice (Study 2).

express strong concerns about the quality of their interpersonal relationships. Moreover, Chinese culture is characterized by high power distance (Hofstede, 1980), which suggests that our Chinese respondents may have been especially deferential to high-status partners. The interactions depicted in Figures 2–5 indicate that even in this cultural setting, positive mood expressions by targets helped mitigate the negative effects of poor relationship quality and high-status differences on an actor’s promotive voice. In cultures that are more individualistic or egalitarian, the target’s mood displays could have an even stronger influence on actors’ behaviors. We leave the test of this proposition for further research.

Directions for Future Research Our studies suggest several opportunities for future research. First, we only examined the target’s activated positive mood (e.g., delight, enthusiasm), but a less activated positive mood (e.g., contentment, relaxation) could have distinct consequences. For

example, a less activated positive mood might signal the target’s satisfaction with the status quo (Bindl, Parker, Totterdell, & Hagger-Johnson, 2012), so its positive effect on the actor’s change-oriented behaviors, including promotive voice, might not be as prominent. Similarly, compared with their mood, the targets’ emotions represent not only more transient but also more intense affective expressions. Research designs such as experiencesampling methodologies (Bolger, Davis, & Rafaeli, 2003) might examine emotional displays by targets that are more variable than moods and thereby reveal the temporal dynamics between shortlived affective states and promotive voice (e.g., Grant & Ashford, 2008). Second, we focused on positive mood as our focal variable, because we sought to pair promotive voice (i.e., optimistically highlighting prospects for improvement at work) with a positive, approach-oriented affective state. However, a target’s negative mood might have greater predictive validity for an actor’s selfprotective behaviors, such as silence, because a negative mood

Figure 5. Interactive effects of the target’s positive mood and status difference on the actor’s psychological safety and promotive voice (Study 2).

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

VOICE

often signals a warning or threat (Elfenbein, 2007), which should trigger more defensive or fear-driven responses from employees (Kish-Gephart, Detert, Treviño, & Edmondson, 2009). We encourage research to explore such potential connections. Third, we call for research that explores other potential moderators. For example, employees differ in the degree to which they possess good situational judgment about initiating behaviors such as voice (Bledow & Frese, 2009). Employees with good situational judgment are likely more sensitive to targets’ mood. In addition, personal traits, such as agreeableness or need for closure, might influence an actor’s motivation to analyze social cues exhibited by the target (Van Kleef, Homan, Beersma, & van Knippenberg, 2010), such that they could moderate the effects of the target’s mood on the actor’s promotive voice. Fourth, we only examined psychological safety as a key exploratory variable. Targets’ positive moods also might enhance voice through other routes, such as by increasing perceptions that the target will act on the actor’s recommendations. In a related vein, when the actor’s behaviors are not interpersonally risky, the effects of the target’s mood might be mediated by different cognitions. For example, in a helping context, a target’s expressions of sadness or dejection might elicit assistance by enhancing the actor’s feelings of empathy or sympathy. Examining such mediators could extend applications of the affect-as-social-information perspective to understand the broader domain of citizenship behaviors at work.

Conclusion Our results indicate that when a target displays a positive mood, an actor perceives more psychological safety, which increases his or her willingness to engage in promotive voice toward the target. This association is stronger when the actor and target have a poor quality relationship or the target has higher status. This article thus highlights the usefulness of continued research into how employees assess the favorability of their social context before speaking out, and especially how affective displays at work inform this sense-making process.

References Aguinis, H., Beaty, J. C., Boik, R. J., & Pierce, C. A. (2005). Effect size and power in assessing moderating effects of categorical variables using multiple regression: A 30-year review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 94 –107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.94 Anderson, C., John, O. J., Keltner, D., & Kring, A. M. (2001). Who attains social staus? Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 116 –132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.116 Anderson, C., Keltner, D., & John, O. P. (2003). Emotional convergence between people over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1054 –1068. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.1054 Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G. J. (2009). Why do dominant personalities attain influence in face-to-face groups? The competence-signaling effects of trait dominance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 491–503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014201 Ang, S., Cummings, L. L., Straub, D. W., & Earley, P. C. (1993). The effects of information technology and the perceived mood of the feedback giver on feedback seeking. Information Systems Research, 4, 240 –261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.4.3.240 Ashford, S. J., Rothbard, N. P., Piderit, S. K., & Dutton, J. E. (1998). Out on a limb: The role of context and impression management in selling

987

gender-equity issues. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 23–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393590 Benko, C., & Anderson, M. (2010). The corporate lattice: Achieving high performance in the changing world of work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press. Bindl, U. K., Parker, S. K., Totterdell, P., & Hagger-Johnson, G. (2012). Fuel of the self-starter: How mood relates to proactive goal regulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 134 –150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ a0024368 Bledow, R., & Frese, M. (2009). A situational judgment test of personal initiative and its relationship to performance. Personnel Psychology, 62, 229 –258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009.01137.x Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 579 – 616. http://dx.doi .org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145030 Brief, A., & Weiss, H. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 279 –307. http://dx.doi .org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135156 Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of crosscultural psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 389 – 444). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. de Jong, S. B., Van der Vegt, G. S., & Molleman, E. (2007). The relationship among asymmetry in task dependence, perceived helping behavior, and trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1625–1637. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1625 Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 869 – 884. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.26279183 Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. (1988). Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. Advances in International Comparative Management, 3, 127–150. Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., O’Neill, R. M., Hayes, E., & Wierba, E. E. (1997). Reading the wind: How middle managers assess the context for selling issues to top managers. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 407– 423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199705)18: 5⬍407::AID-SMJ881⬎3.0.CO;2-J Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350 –383. http://dx .doi.org/10.2307/2666999 Elfenbein, H. A. (2007). Emotion in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 1, 315–386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/078559812 Fiske, S. T. (2010). Social beings: A core motives approach to social psychology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley. Forgas, J. P. (1992). Affect in social judgments and decisions: A multiprocess model. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 227–275). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Forgas, J. P. (1998). Asking nicely? Mood effects on responding to more or less polite requests. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 173–185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167298242006 Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218 –226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X .56.3.218 Fridlund, A. J. (1994). Human facial expression: An evolutionary view. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Goldstein, H., Rasbash, J., Plewis, I., Draper, D., Browne, W., Yang, M., . . . Healy, M. (1998). A user’s guide to MLwiN. London, England: University of London. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspec-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

988

LIU ET AL.

tive. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219 –247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/10489843(95)90036-5 Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. In B. M. Staw & A. Brief (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 28, pp. 3–34). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Iacoboni, M. (2008). Mirroring people: The new science of how we connect with others. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (1999). Social functions of emotions at four levels of analysis. Cognition and Emotion, 13, 505–521. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/026999399379168 Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Kish-Gephart, J. J., Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Edmondson, A. C. (2009). Silenced by fear: The nature, sources and consequences of fear at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 163–193. http://dx .doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2009.07.002 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, 637– 666. Liang, J., Farh, C., & Farh, L. (2012). A two-wave examination of the psychological antecedents of voice behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 71–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0176 Liu, W., Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2013). The relational antecedents of voice targeted at different leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 841– 851. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032913 Liu, W., Zhu, R. H., & Yang, Y. K. (2010). I warn you because I like you: Voice behavior, employee identifications, and transformational leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 189 –202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j .leaqua.2009.10.014 MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Challengeoriented organizational citizenship behaviors and organizational effectiveness: Do challenge-oriented behaviors really have an impact on the organization’s bottom line? Personnel Psychology, 64, 559 –592. Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The selfreinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management Annals, 2, 351–398. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19416520802211628 Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224 – 253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224 Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709 –734. Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 373– 412. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2011.574506 Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 173–197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091328 Morrison, E. W., & Bies, R. J. (1991). Impression management in the feedback-seeking process: A literature review and research agenda. Academy of Management Review, 16, 522–541. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ a0020744 Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety

and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 941–966. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.413 Nemeth, C. (1997). Managing innovation: When less is more. California Management Review, 40, 59 –74. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/41165922 Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Management, 36, 633– 662. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206308321554 Ryan, K. D., & Oestreich, D. K. (1998). Driving fear out of the workplace: Creating the high trust, high performance organization (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 416 – 427. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.416 Selig, J. P., & Preacher, K. J. (2008, June). Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation: An interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects [Computer software]. Available from http://quantpsy. org/ Sherony, K. M., & Green, S. G. (2002). Coworker exchange: Relationships between coworkers, leader–member exchange, and work attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 542–548. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00219010.87.3.542 Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442–1465. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256865 Tangirala, S., Kamdar, D., Venkataramani, V., & Parke, M. (2013). Doing right versus getting ahead: The effects of duty and achievement orientations on employees’ voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 1040 – 1050. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0033855 Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2008a). Employee silence on critical work issues: The cross level effects of procedural justice climate. Personal Psychology, 61, 37– 68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570 .2008.00105.x 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. http://dx.doi .org/10.5465/AMJ.2008.35732719 Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2012). Ask and you shall hear (but not always): An examination of the relationship between manager consultation and employee voice. Personnel Psychology, 65, 251–282. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01248.x Tellegen, A., Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1999). Further support for a hierarchical model of affect: Reply to Green and Salovey. Psychological Science, 10, 307–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00159 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256902 Van Kleef, G. A. (2009). How emotions regulate social life. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 184 –188. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01633.x Van Kleef, G. A., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2004). The interpersonal effects of emotions in negotiations: A motivated information processing approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 510 –528. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.4.510 Van Kleef, G. A., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2010). An interpersonal approach to emotion in social decision making: The emotions as social information model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 45–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601 (10)42002-X Van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., Beersma, B., & van Knippenberg, D. (2010). On angry leaders and agreeable followers: How leaders’ emotions and followers’ personalities shape motivation and team performance. Psychological Science, 21, 1827–1834. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/0956797610387438

VOICE

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Warner, R. M., Kenny, D. A., & Stoto, M. (1979). A new round robin analysis of variance for social interaction data. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1742–1757. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00223514.37.10.1742 Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2001). Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity. University of

989

Michigan business school management series. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Wong, C. S., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 243–274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S1048-9843(02)00099-1

Received September 30, 2012 Revision received August 7, 2014 Accepted August 25, 2014 䡲