0% found this document useful (0 votes)

35 views21 pages

Duan 2016

klkl

Uploaded by

nidamah

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

35 views21 pages

Duan 2016

klkl

Uploaded by

nidamah

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 21

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav.

(2016)
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.2157

Research Article
Transformational leadership and employee voice
behavior: A Pygmalion mechanism
JINYUN DUAN1, CHENWEI LI2*, YUE XU3 AND CHIA-HUEI WU4
1
Department of Psychology, School of Education, Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China
2
Department of Management, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, California, U.S.A.
3
Department of Psychology, School of Education, Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China
4
Department of Management, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK

Summary We theorized and examined a Pygmalion perspective beyond those proposed in past studies in the relation-
ship between transformational leadership and employee voice behavior. Specifically, we proposed that
transformational leadership influences employee voice through leaders’ voice expectation and employees’
voice role perception (i.e., Pygmalion mechanism). We also theorized that personal identification with
transformational leaders influences the extent to which employees internalize leaders’ external voice
expectation as their own voice role perception. In a time-lagged field study, we found that leaders’ voice
expectation and employees’ voice role perception (i.e., the Pygmalion process) mediate the relationship
between transformational leadership and voice behavior. In addition, we found transformational leadership
strengthens employees’ personal identification with the leader, which in turn, as a moderator, amplifies the
proposed Pygmalion process. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed. Copyright © 2016 John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Keywords: transformational leadership; leaders’ voice expectation; voice role perception; personal
identification; voice behavior; Pygmalion mechanism

Introduction

Employee voice refers to informal, discretionary, and upward communication by an employee of ideas, solutions, or
concerns about work-related problems (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Morrison, 2014). It is a type of proactive work
behavior that aims to improve the status quo (Parker & Collins, 2010). Employees’ voice behavior has been
positively linked to desirable outcomes such as individual job performance and work unit or organizational
effectiveness (e.g., Frazier & Bowler, 2015; Kim, MacDuffie, & Pil, 2010; Lam & Mayer, 2014; Ng & Feldman,
2012; Whiting, Podsakoff, & Pierce, 2008). Because of the potential benefits of voice, scholars have turned their
attention to promoting voice behavior in organizations (see Morrison, 2011, 2014 for a review). As leaders are
usually the target for voice and their attitudes and behavior directly shapes employees’ willingness to speak up
(Morrison, 2014), leadership has been identified as an important factor that largely determines employees’ voice
behavior. In particular, transformational leadership that involves developing, supporting, and intellectually stimulat-
ing employees to strive for a shared vision of the future (Kark & Shamir, 2002; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, &
Fetter, 1990) has been theorized and reported as an important antecedent of employees’ voice behavior (e.g., Detert
& Burris, 2007; Liu, Zhu, & Yang, 2010).
The link between transformational leadership and employees’ voice behavior has been examined from a
cost–benefit analysis perspective and a self-concept perspective. As speaking up could bring negative personal
consequences, such as jeopardized relationship and less chance of promotion (Detert & Edmondson, 2011; Seibert,

*Correspondence to: Chenwei Li, Department of Management, San Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway Avenue, San Francisco, California
94132, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected]

Received 6 July 2015

Kraimer, & Crant, 2001), engaging in voice can be risky. Based on a cost–benefit analysis perspective, Detert and
Burris (2007) indicated that transformational leaders are more likely to cultivate employees’ psychological safety, or
a belief that engaging in risk-taking behaviors will not lead to personal harms (Edmondson, 1999; Liang, Farh, &
Farh, 2012), which alleviates negative concerns about speaking up and thus motivates employees’ voice behavior.
From a self-concept perspective (van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, De Cremer, & Hogg, 2004; Walumbwa,
Avolio, & Zhu, 2008), Liu and colleagues (2010) indicate that transformational leaders are more likely to evoke em-
ployees’ identification with the leader personally (i.e., personal identification, the extent to which the followers’
beliefs about a leader become self-defining; Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003) and build a strong relational self that
motivates employees to speak up. From this perspective, the relational link between employees and transformational
leaders is the key to employees’ voice behavior. However, these two perspectives only consider external reasons
(i.e., consequences of voice or the relational link between employees and transformational leaders) but ignore inter-
nal reasons why transformational leadership could motivate employees’ voice behavior. Morrison (2014) has sug-
gested that internal reasons that drive employees to engage in voice within their work roles should be given
central attention and not taken as a given in the voice process. As transformational leaders can influence followers’
beliefs, values, and aims (e.g., Bass, 1985; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Podsakoff et al., 1990), it is very likely that they
strengthen followers’ internal commitment to take challenges and devote effort to bringing about changes (Parker,
Bindl, & Strauss, 2010; Parker & Wu, 2014), such as by making constructive suggestions.
In this study, we draw on Pygmalion theory (Eden, 1984, 1990; Livingston, 2003) and propose that transforma-
tional leaders can motivate employees’ voice behavior via the Pygmalion process through which employees inter-
nalize leaders’ expectation about their work roles. We propose that transformational leaders are more likely to
send an expectation of voice to followers (i.e., leaders’ voice expectation), which strengthens followers’ voice role
perception (the extent to which employees view and classify voice behaviors as in-role; Van Dyne, Kamdar, &
Joireman, 2008), and thus voice behavior. This Pygmalion process is likely to be operated to shape voice behavior
because the Pygmalion effect is pronounced when desired performance or behaviors involve a high degree of uncer-
tainty and risk (e.g., Tierney & Farmer, 2004) such as voice behavior (Burris, 2012; Morrison, 2011).
Pygmalion theory (Karakowsky, DeGama, & McBey 2012; White & Locke, 2000) also indicates that followers
are not passive recipients of leaders’ expectations but active agents who can determine whether they will accept
and internalize leaders’ expectations. As White and Locke (2000) suggested, “Pygmalion effect may not be due
to just the actions and behaviors of the leaders, but rather to an interaction between the leader and the followers”
(p. 400). Thus, important factors that will determine followers’ internalization of leaders’ expectations are followers’
perceptions of their leader such as attitude toward the leader, trust in the leader, and affection for the leader. These
factors will impact followers’ interpretation and internalization of leader expectations and determine the emergence
of the Pygmalion effect. Because followers tend to perceive transformational leaders as role models and identify
with the leaders by incorporating their characteristics (e.g., values, beliefs, attitudes) as part of their self-concept
(i.e., personal identification; Kark et al., 2003; Liu et al., 2010), they will be willing to internalize and rely on
leaders’ expectation to define their work role. In other words, we suggest that transformational leadership can
strengthen followers’ personal identification, which in turn enhances the association between leaders’ voice expec-
tation and followers’ voice role perception and thus the aforementioned Pygmalion effect on employees’ voice
behavior. Overall, we propose that transformational leadership can promote employees’ voice behavior by evoking
the Pygmalion process via setting voice expectations and strengthening the process via establishing followers’
personal identification. Figure 1 illustrates the proposed moderated mediation model.
Our investigation brings a number of unique contributions to the research on both voice behavior and the
Pygmalion effect. First, we extend previous voice research by identifying a different mechanism (i.e., Pygmalion
mechanism) linking transformational leadership and voice behavior. Specifically, we suggest that transforma-
tional leadership can influence employee voice by triggering a Pygmalion process that strengthens internal
motivation for speaking up. Our study thus responds to the call for more research on leader-related mechanisms
for voice (Grant & Ashford, 2008; Morrison, 2014). Second, we identify antecedents of employees’ voice role
perception, which have been rarely explored. Our investigation suggests that leadership can be a means to shape

Figure 1. Hypothesized Model

employees’ voice role perception and specifically indicates that transformational leaders and their voice expec-
tations of followers can strengthen employees’ voice role perception. Third, our investigation of the moderating
effect of personal identification with leaders brings an alternative perspective to understand the function of per-
sonal identification with leaders in shaping employees’ voice behavior or proactive behavior broadly. Personal
identification with leaders, especially transformational leaders, has been linked to followers’ dependence (Kark
et al., 2003) and employees’ voice behavior (Liu et al., 2010), rendering inconsistent findings on how personal
identification could shape employees’ proactivity at work. Our study helps to solve the puzzle by suggesting that
while transformational leaders set up an expectation of being proactive, they also intensify followers’ personal
identification with themselves, which in turn strengthens followers’ internalization of the expectation for
proactivity. Fourth, our study extends applications of the Pygmalion mechanism to employees’ organizational
behavior. To date, the Pygmalion mechanism has been largely used to understand how leaders’ expectation
can facilitate employees’ task performance (Kierein & Gold, 2000; McNatt, 2000; Whiteley, Sy, & Johnson,
2012). We suggest that such a mechanism can be more critical to employees’ proactive, challenge-oriented
behavior that involves personal risks and is not part of the job requirement (e.g., Tierney & Farmer, 2004). Fifth,
our focus on employees’ voice role perception extends Pygmalion research by delineating how leaders’
expectations can be translated into employees’ behaviors via a role perception process. Previous research on
the Pygmalion effect of leadership has paid less attention to the intervening mechanisms (Natanovich & Eden,
2008; Whiteley et al., 2012). Our research fills the gap by indicating how the Pygmalion effect could occur
in a role perception process. Finally, as indicated by Karakowsky et al. (2012), prior research on the Pygmalion
phenomenon might be overly simplistic because it assumed that managerial expectations always translate into
better employee performance and that the target employees play passive roles in the Pygmalion process. Our
investigation addresses this concern directly by suggesting that the Pygmalion effect can be contingent upon
an individual’s identification with the target who sets up the expectation and examining this proposition.

Theory and Hypotheses

Pygmalion theory

The Pygmalion effect is a form of self-fulﬁlling prophecy that emphasizes the inﬂuence of positive expectations on
enhancing performance and productivity (Ambady & Rosenthal, 1993). In management studies, manager expec-
tancy and its positive effects on employee performance and productivity have been realized from a Pygmalion per-
spective (e.g., Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2007; Farmer, Tierney, & Kung-Mcintyre, 2003; Qu, Janssen, & Shi, 2015;
Tierney & Farmer, 2004, 2011). This is because “the very act of leadership—any leadership—is interpreted by the
subordinate as an expression of manager expectancy” (Eden, 1984, p. 68) and leaders’ positive expectations of their
followers can be communicated, internalized, and ultimately translated into followers’ high performance and pro-
ductivity (e.g., Eden, 1984). A typical Pygmalion process in leadership starts with leaders’ positive expectations,
followed by effective communication of these expectations to employees and the development of the employees’

self-expectations at work, by which enhanced employee performance is ultimately obtained (Eden, 1984; White &
Locke, 2000). This Pygmalion process in leadership has been supported in meta-analytic studies (Avolio, Reichard,
Hannah, Walumbwa, & Chan, 2009; Kierein & Gold, 2000; McNatt, 2000).
Nevertheless, having leaders’ positive expectations may not be enough to induce a Pygmalion process because
employees are active agents in accepting expectations from leaders or not (e.g., Johanson, 1999; Karakowsky
et al., 2012; Sutton & Woodman, 1989; White & Locke, 2000). In other words, the extent to which employees
internalize leaders’ expectations determines the operation of the Pygmalion process and thus the Pygmalion ef-
fect (Eden, 1990, 1992). How followers perceive their leaders has been theorized as an important factor that will
determine followers’ internalization of leaders’ expectations. For example, White and Locke (2000) suggested
that a follower’s positive attitude, affect, or belief toward their leader impacts the strength of the Pygmalion ef-
fect. Karakowsky et al. (2012) posited that when targeted followers perceive their leaders as being credible, be-
nevolent, and capable, they are more likely to trust their leaders and willing to accept and internalize leaders’
expectations. Taken together, the Pygmalion effect in a managerial context implies that if leaders expect more
they get more because followers behave in accordance with the expectations leaders maintain for them; more-
over, the Pygmalion effect will be enhanced for leaders who are well received among followers.
Drawing on Pygmalion theory, we propose that transformational leadership will influence employee voice
behavior through leaders’ voice expectation and employees’ voice role perception. We also propose that trans-
formational leadership will shape how employees perceive their leaders in defining themselves and evoke
stronger personal identification from employees, which in turn strengthens the link between leaders’ voice
expectation and employees’ voice role perception. We now turn to an elaboration of our proposed research
model.

Transformational leadership and leaders’ voice expectation

Transformational leadership is characterized as developing, intellectually stimulating, and inspiring followers to
transcend their self-interests for a collective purpose of vision (Podsakoff et al., 1990). There are clear ties
between transformational leadership and the Pygmalion effect in a managerial context (Eden, 1992; White &
Locke, 2000). Theoretically, transformational leaders deliberately project confidence in the abilities of followers
and inspire them to pursue a better future (Bass, 1985, 1999). Transformational leadership theories have recog-
nized the importance of high leader expectations in motivating followers, and leaders of this type can effectively
use the Pygmalion effect as a means of facilitating a more effective leadership process (Eden, 1992; Podsakoff
et al., 1990). We have several reasons to argue that voice expectation could be embedded in specific transfor-
mational leader behaviors. First, as transformational leaders are future-oriented, they tend to intellectually chal-
lenge followers’ perspectives and assumptions about work (Podsakoff et al., 1990) and expect followers to
provide alternative views to understand the work situation. Second, by articulating the problems in the current
organization and advocating possible changes to solve problems (Bass, 1999), transformational leaders will
heighten followers’ awareness of change-oriented goals and expect followers to offer constructive solutions or
suggestions to advance the development of the organization. Third, while emphasizing the collective good of
the group and organization (Bass & Avolio, 1994), transformational leaders will expect followers to focus on
collective benefit and regulate their effort and behavior accordingly, such as making recommendations regarding
issues that can influence the entire work group. Moreover, as transformational leaders demonstrate individualized
consideration and are willing to listen to followers’ concerns and can behave flexibly to match the needs of
specific individuals (e.g., Kark & Shamir, 2002; Wu et al., 2010), those leaders will also expect followers to
express their concerns and opinions. As such, we suggest that transformational leaders are more likely to hold
strong voice expectations of their followers:

H1: Transformational leadership will be positively related to leaders’ voice expectation.

Leaders’ voice expectation and voice role perception

We then propose that leader’s voice expectation can shape employees’ voice role perception. Voice role
perception refers to the extent to which employees believe that voice is part of their job (Van Dyne et al.,
2008). It is worth noting that voice role perception is conceptually different from felt responsibility for change
(e.g., Fuller, Marler, & Hester, 2006; Morrison & Phelps, 1999) because the former focuses on a specific role
definition concerning voice, whereas the latter focuses on a sense of felt responsibility to bring about construc-
tive changes in general. For example, a sense of responsibility to bring changes can result from different reasons
than role definition such as having greater accessibility to resources (Fuller et al., 2006). In addition, voice role
perception should be differentiated from flexible role orientation (Parker, Wall, & Jackson, 1997; Parker,
Williams, & Turner, 2006) in that flexible role orientation is a much broader construct capturing employees’ role
perception about problems, tasks, and competencies.
Leaders are legitimate sources of normative expectations. There are several reasons why their expectations can
shape how an employee perceives her/his roles at work. As leaders have higher positions in organizational hierar-
chies than followers, their expectations can greatly influence employees’ beliefs about their role expectations toward
a set of behaviors because leaders are guides who set standards and evaluate how followers ought to behave
(Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2007; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). In addition, in order to establish and maintain good
social exchange relations with the leaders, employees tend to embrace leader expectations because “obligations of
social exchange relations, anchored in each party’s beliefs about what the other party expects, help frame or define
roles for relationship members” (Kamdar, McAllister, & Turban, 2006, p. 842). Role theory provides further
arguments that followers act in relation to and in response to the expectations of leaders because these expectations
are sent from a legitimate source in explicit and continuous ways (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Role expectations of impor-
tant “social others” such as leaders emphasize responsibilities and requirements associated with successfully
performing specific jobs and are a major source of followers’ internalized role perceptions (Farmer et al., 2003).
In the context of voice, we therefore suggest that when leaders send voice expectations, followers are likely to
internalize these external requirements and incorporate them into their voice role definition. This leads to the
following hypothesis:
H2: Leaders’ voice expectation will be positively related to employees’ voice role perception.

Transformational leadership and the moderating effect of personal identiﬁcation

We next propose that transformational leadership strengthens employees’ personal identification with the leader,
which in turn enhances the association between the leader’s voice expectation and employees’ voice role perception
or the internalization mechanism in the Pygmalion process.
One way that transformational leaders could exert influence is through changing followers’ self-concepts such as
personal identification (Kark & van Dijk, 2007; Kark et al., 2003; van Knippenberg et al., 2004). Transformational
leaders not only articulate a compelling vision and constitute a role model but also pay close attention to followers’
needs, intellectually challenge them, and express high expectations for personal development and excellence (Bass
& Avolio, 1994; Podsakoff et al., 1990). In other words, transformational leadership appeals to followers’ values and
their sense of higher purpose (Bass, 1999; Kark & Shamir, 2002). Therefore, followers tend to form strong personal
identification with transformational leaders, that is, their beliefs about transformational leaders become self-
referential and self-defining. Empirically, a positive association between transformational leadership and employees’
personal identification has been reported in studies (e.g., Kark et al., 2003; Liu et al., 2010; Zhu, Wang, Zheng, Liu,
& Miao, 2013).
In turn, employees who have higher personal identification are more likely to turn leaders’ voice expectation
into their role perception because they share similar beliefs and values with the leader and treat the leader’s

interests as their own (e.g., Kark et al., 2003; Sluss & Ashforth, 2007; van Knippenberg et al., 2004; Wang &
Rode, 2010) and thus tend to use leaders’ perspectives, beliefs, and values to understand their work roles. At the
same time, they are more considerate of the leader’s needs and more sensitive to the leader’s expectations about their
behavior (Qu et al., 2015; van Knippenberg et al., 2004) partly because they have a stronger motivation to establish and
maintain good social exchange relations with the identified leaders. In addition, personal identification facilitates the
impact of hierarchical leaders because of followers’ enhanced sensitivity toward the leader’s behaviors and expecta-
tions. Moreover, as suggested by Pygmalion theory (Karakowsky et al., 2012; White & Locke, 2000), strong confor-
mity to leaders’ role expectations can be aroused when the followers see role expectation from a legitimate and trusted
source. Thus, we believe that when employees have a high level of personal identification with their leader, they are
more likely to trust their leader and conform to the leader’s voice expectation and thus are more likely to develop voice
role perceptions that are congruent to these expectations.
Taken together, we expect employee personal identification with the leader to amplify the effects of the leader’s
role expectation on employees’ voice role perceptions. We posit:
H3: Transformational leadership will be positively associated with personal identification, which in turn will
moderate the relationship between the leader’s voice expectation and employees’ voice role perception such that
the positive relationship will be stronger when personal identification with leaders is higher.

Voice role perception and voice behavior

Finally, we propose a positive link between employees’ voice role perception and actual voice behavior. Role per-
ception is employees’ internalized interpretation that determines their allocation of attention among various behav-
iors. In-role perception of a particular behavior is a determining factor of an individual’s engagement in such
behavior (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Morrison, 1994). In other words, in-role perception provides an internal reason
for employees to take responsibility for a speciﬁc behavior. Parker and colleagues (2010) explain that reason to
motivation reﬂects the reality that although people may have the ability to act proactively, they may refrain from
doing so until they are motivated by a particular reason. Employees’ belief that a behavior is part of the job is such
a reason (i.e., internal rationale) particularly relevant to their engagement in proactive behavior (Parker & Wu,
2014). Previous studies on organizational citizenship behaviors have consistently found that employees tend to en-
gage in citizenship behaviors more when they believe these behaviors are part of their job (e.g., Coyle-Shapiro,
Kessler, & Purcell, 2004; McAllister, Kamdar, Morrison, & Turban, 2007; Tepper, Moss, & Lockhart, 2007). With
regard to voice behavior, employees develop their own role perception of how worthwhile it is to speak up. When
employees have a high level of voice role perception and view voice as in-role, they tend to engage in voice be-
haviors more frequently than when voice behavior is viewed as extra-role (Morrison, 1994; Parker et al., 1997).
Empirical evidence on the positive link between voice role perception and actual voice behavior has been reported
in previous studies (Tangirala, Kamdar, Venkataramani, & Parke, 2013; Van Dyne et al., 2008). Thus, we
hypothesize:
H4: Voice role perception is positively related to voice behavior.

A moderated-mediation model
Taken together, we propose that transformational leaders can encourage employees’ voice behavior by setting up
voice expectations and thus developing employees’ voice role perception through a Pygmalion mechanism. At
the same time, we suggest transformational leadership can enhance employees’ personal identiﬁcation, which in turn
strengthens the inﬂuence of leaders’ voice expectations on employees’ voice role perception and thus the Pygmalion
effect. We therefore propose a moderated mediation model to understand the impact of transformational leadership

on employees’ voice behavior from a Pygmalion perspective. In order to formally test the moderated mediation
effect of personal identification specifically, we propose:
H5: Personal identification with the leader will moderate the strength of the mediated relationship between
transformational leadership and employee voice behavior via leader voice expectation and employee voice role
perception, such that the mediated relationship will be stronger when personal identification is high.

Methods

Sample and procedures

Data for the current study were obtained from surveys filled out by matched pairs of subordinates and their direct
leader in Southeastern China. We conducted a survey of 43 private companies in the industries of finance, technol-
ogy, food, and manufacturing to increase the external validity of the proposed relationships. With the assistance of
human resource managers, a list of 500 randomly selected subordinates was compiled. Two of the researchers visited
their work sites and invited employees to participate in a study focused on leadership effectiveness. Questionnaires
were then administered to both leaders and subordinates. One leader rated three subordinates who were randomly
selected by the researchers rather than by the supervisors. Both the organizations and the participants were assured
that they would stay anonymous and that the data collected would be kept confidential. Respondents were asked to
place completed surveys in sealed envelopes and return them directly to the designated researchers.
In order to reduce common method bias, three waves of data collection were conducted over a 10-week period
(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff, 2003). In the first wave survey, we administered questionnaires to the
500 subordinates and their direct leader. Subordinates were asked to provide demographic information as well as
their ratings of the transformational leadership of their direct leader. Meanwhile, leaders were asked to report
demographic information and their voice expectation toward each subordinate. We obtained 478 usable matched
responses that represented a response rate of 95.8%. Two months later, in the wave-two survey (Time 2), the 478
employees who provided usable data in the Time 1 survey were invited to report their voice role perception, per-
sonal identification, and control variables such as psychological safety and felt responsibility to change. Because
of the turnover and other reasons, we received 459 usable questionnaires for a response rate of 91.8%. The
third-wave survey was conducted two weeks later, when we invited the direct leaders of the 459 employees
who had completed the Time 2 survey to provide ratings on each subordinate’s voice behaviors. Because 19
subordinates had left, 146 leaders with 440 subordinates returned questionnaires. Finally, we used 394 matched
samples in the data analysis after dropping questionnaires with missing data or repeated answers (usable response
rate: 89.55%).
Among 394 subordinates, 57.60% were male, with an average age of 32 years (SD = 8.08). The average organiza-
tional tenure was 4.82 years, 3.70 years in current position and 3.54 years of working together with their direct
leader; 76.4% had a college degree or above. Of the 146 matched leaders, 63.20% were male. The average age
was 36 years old, and average organizational tenure was 7.74 years and 5.69 years in current status. Of the leaders,
85.3% had received a college degree or above.

Measures

As all measures used in this study were originally composed in English, they were ﬁrst translated into Chinese, and
then back translated to English by a panel of bilingual experts, following the translation and back translation
procedures advocated by Brislin (1980). Any resulting discrepancies were then discussed and resolved. All

measures employed here use a 5-point Likert-type scale with 1 = “strongly disagree” and 5 = “strongly agree”
unless otherwise indicated.

Transformational leadership
Kirkman, Chen, Farh, Chen, and Lowe’s (2009) 14-item scale was used to measure transformational leadership.
Sample items include: “My leader articulates a vision” and “My leader shows respect for my personal feelings.”
The Cronbach’s alpha for this measure is 0.87.

Leaders’ voice expectation

We adapted the leader creativity expectation scale developed by Carmeli and Schaubroeck (2007) to create a 4-item
scale for leaders’ voice expectations. Sample items were “I expect this subordinate to speak up” and “I think voice is
important to this subordinate.” Because leaders reported their voice expectations for individual subordinates, we
calculated the intraclass correlation or ICC1 for leaders’ voice expectation, and its value is 0.52. The Cronbach’s
alpha for this scale was 0.76.

Voice role perception

LePine and Van Dyne (1998) six-item voice scale was used to measure voice role perception. We asked employees
to indicate if they agree that the six items in the original voice scale were part of their job. This approach was
consistent with previous research on measuring role perceptions (McAllister et al., 2007; Tangirala et al., 2013).
A sample item for this scale is: “Developing and making recommendations concerning issues that affect this work
group is part of my job.” The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.81.

Personal identification
We used a 6-item scale to measure personal identification with the leader. This scale was adapted by Chen (2001)
based on Mael and Ashforth’s (1992) organizational identification scale and Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, and Popper’s
(1998) study. Sample items include: “My leader’s success is my success” and “When someone criticizes my leaders,
it feels like a personal insult to me.” The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.80.

Voice behavior
We used leader assessment to measure employee voice behavior in our research. LePine and Van Dyne (1998)
6-item scale was used. A sample item is: “This subordinate develops and makes recommendations concerning issues
that affect this work group to me.” A 5-point Likert-type scale with 1 = “never” and 5 = “always” was used. The ICC
(1) value for voice behavior is 0.53. The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.91.

Control variables
We controlled for participants’ characteristics that have potential effects on key relationships in our model: gender,
age, and working tenure with leader. Gender was dummy-coded, with male respondents coded as “1” and female
respondents coded as “2.” Age and tenure were self-reported in years. Prior research has documented that gender
inﬂuences employees’ voice behavior, with a possibility that females are less likely to speak up than males
(e.g., Morrison, 2011; Tangirala et al., 2013). Similarly, having more experience or a longer-term relationship
with their leader (reﬂected in age and tenure) may impact employees’ capability and comfort level with speaking up
(e.g., Ng & Feldman, 2008; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008).
In addition, we measured psychological safety and felt responsibility to change and controlled both in our anal-
yses. Psychological safety was measured using Liang et al.’s (2012) 4-item scale. A sample item for this scale is:
“In my work unit, I can express my true feelings regarding my job.” Cronbach’s alpha for psychological safety
was 0.82. Given the purpose of our study (Pygmalion mechanism as an alternative mechanism beyond psychological
safety) and the established importance of psychological safety as a foundation for voice (e.g., Detert & Burris, 2007;
Detert & Edmondson, 2011; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009), we controlled psychological safety in the analysis

to rule out alternative explanations. Felt responsibility to change was measured using Fuller et al.’s (2006) 5-item
scale. Sample items include: “I feel a personal sense of responsibility to bring about change at work” and “It’s up
to me to bring about improvement in my workplace.” Cronbach’s alpha for felt responsibility to change was
0.83. Liang et al. (2012) found that felt responsibility to change is signiﬁcantly related to employees’ voice behavior,
and controlling it allows us to capture the unique variance of our variable of interest (i.e., voice role perception) in
the current study.

Data analysis

In this study, all constructs were conceptualized and measured at the individual level. However, our data may lack
independence as the supervisor responses were nested (i.e., a single supervisor provided expectation and behavioral
assessments for three subordinates). We therefore employed a mixed model (also known as hierarchical linear model
or multilevel random coefﬁcient model) to test all the hypotheses while taking into account the random variance
effect from supervisor level and the correlated structure of the data (Foo, Uy, & Baron, 2009).

Results

Conﬁrmatory factor analyses

Before testing our hypotheses, we conducted a series of confirmatory factor analysis procedures to examine the mea-
surement model fit and the distinctiveness among our study variables. We first carried out Harman’s one-factor test,
which included all variable measures in a single-factor analysis as recommended by Podsakoff and Organ (1986).
The results indicated that neither a single factor nor a general factor could account for the majority of covariance
in the variables (the eigenvalue of the first factor was 11.79 and the percentage of variance explained by the first
factor was 26.19). This finding provided evidence that common source bias was not a severe issue in the current
sample. Furthermore, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the variables in our model, utilizing
maximum-likelihood estimation. We tested a model that consisted of seven factors: transformational leadership,
leaders’ voice expectation, personal identification, voice role perception, voice behavior, psychological safety,
and felt responsibility to change. Results showed that the seven-factor model fit the data well (χ 2/df = 2.07,
TLI = 0.90, CFI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.05).
The discriminant validity tests of the seven constructs were conducted by contrasting the seven-factor model
against a series of alternative models. As reported in Table 1, the seven-factor model fitted the data considerably
better than any of the alternative models did (Bentler & Bonett, 1980; Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). Thus, the
distinctiveness of the seven constructs in this study was supported. Given the results, all seven constructs were
applied in further analyses.

Descriptive statistics
Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations of all key variables. As shown in the table,
transformational leadership was positively correlated with leaders’ voice expectation (r = 0.16, p < 0.001) and
personal identiﬁcation (r = 0.39, p < 0.001). In addition, leaders’ voice expectation was positively correlated with
voice role perception (r = 0.29, p < 0.001), and voice role expectation was positively correlated with employee voice
behavior (r = 0.33, p < 0.001). These results were consistent with and provided initial support for our hypotheses.

Table 1. The results of conﬁrmatory factor analysis (N = 394).

χ2 df χ 2/df AIC BIC CFI TLI SRMR RMSEA(90%CI)

Seven-factor model 1118.05 539 2.07 27 727.99 28 229.01 0.91 0.90 0.05 0.05 [0.05, 0.06]
Six-factor model a 1564.10 545 2.87 28 162.04 28 639.20 0.84 0.83 0.08 0.07 [0.06, 0.07]
Six-factor model b 1258.45 545 2.31 27 856.39 28 333.55 0.89 0.88 0.05 0.06 [0.05, 0.06]
Six-factor model c 1195.90 545 2.19 27 793.84 28 271.00 0.89 0.89 0.05 0.06 [0.05, 0.06]
Six-factor model d 1231.28 545 2.26 27 829.21 28 306.38 0.89 0.88 0.05 0.06 [0.05, 0.06]
Five-factor model e 1322.98 550 2.41 27 910.92 28 368.20 0.88 0.87 0.05 0.06 [0.05, 0.06]
Five-factor model f 1803.46 550 3.28 28 391.40 28 848.68 0.80 0.79 0.07 0.08 [0.07, 0.08]
Four-factor model g 1597.24 554 2.88 28 177.17 28 618.55 0.84 0.83 0.06 0.07 [0.06, 0.07]
Three-factor model h 2041.53 557 3.67 28 615.47 29 044.91 0.77 0.75 0.07 0.08 [0.08, 0.09]
One-factor model i 3524.90 560 6.29 30 092.84 30 510.36 0.54 0.51 0.11 0.12 [0.11, 0.12]
Note: AIC = Akaike Information Criterion; BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion.
a
Combine transformational leadership and leader voice expectation into one latent factor.
b
Combine voice role perception and psychological safety into one latent factor.
c
Combine voice role perception and felt responsibility to change into one latent factor.
d
Combine psychological safety and felt responsibility to change into one latent factor.
e
Combine voice role perception, psychological safety, and felt responsibility to change into one latent factor.
f
Combine transformational leadership, voice role perception, and personal identification into one latent factor.
g
Combine voice role perception, personal identification, psychological safety, and felt responsibility to change into one latent factor.
h
Combine transformational leadership, voice role perception, personal identification, psychological safety, and felt responsibility to change into
one latent factor.
i
Combine all variables into one latent factor.

Test of hypotheses

We ran mixed regression models to test the hypotheses in separate steps. To test Hypothesis 1, we regress leader’s
voice expectation on leader gender, leader age, subordinate gender, subordinate age and years of working together
(Model 11) and then transformational leadership additionally (Model 12). As shown in Table 3, there is a positive
relationship between transformational leadership and leader’s voice expectation (β = 0.13, S.E. = 0.05, p < 0.01)
while controlling for leader gender, leader age, subordinate gender, subordinate age and years of working together.
Hypothesis 1 is supported.
To test Hypothesis 2, we regress voice role perception on leaders’ voice expectation while controlling for demo-
graphic variables, psychological safety, felt responsibility to change, and transformational leadership (Model 21 and
22 in Table 3). Results indicate that leader’s voice expectation was positively and significantly associated with voice
role perception (β = 0.07, S.E. = 0.04, p < 0.05), supporting Hypothesis 2.
Regarding Hypothesis 3, we first regress personal identification on transformational leadership while controlling
for demographic variables, psychological safety and felt responsibility to change (Model 31, 32, and 33 in Table 4)
and found that transformational leadership was positively associated with personal identification (β = 0.16, S.E.
= 0.07, p < 0.01). Next, we examined an interaction effect between leaders’ voice expectation and personal
identification on voice role perception (Model 23 and 24 in Table 3). All interaction variables were mean centered
to minimize multicollinearity (Aiken & West, 1991). Results indicate that the interaction was positively related to
voice role perception (β = 0.10, S.E. = 0.05, p < 0.05).1 To determine the nature of the moderating effect, we plotted
the interaction using Preacher, Curran, and Bauer’s (2006) procedure of computing simple slopes at high (1 SD

1
Although we did not hypothesize it directly, Hypothesis 3 also implies that transformational leadership can moderate the leader’s voice expec-
tation ➔ voice role perception linkage, and such moderation effect is mediated by personal identification. Therefore, we regressed voice role per-
ception on the interaction effect between leader’s voice expectation and transformational leadership with all other control variables included;
however, the results show that the interaction effect is not significant. When we additionally included the interaction effect between leaders’ voice
expectation and personal identification, only the interaction effect between leader’s voice expectation and personal identification was positively
significant.

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. (2016)
DOI: 10.1002/job
Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and correlations (N = 394).
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Leader gender 1.37 0.48

2. Leader age 36.00 8.09 0.20***
3. Subordinate 1.42 0.50 0.24*** 0.07

gender
4. Subordinate 32.00 8.10 0.07 0.43*** 0.20***
age
5. Years of work 3.54 3.63 0.21*** 0.46*** 0.23*** 0.42***
with leader
6. Felt 3.90 0.60 0.01 0.13* 0.04 0.09+ 0.06 0.84
responsibility
to change
7. Psychological 3.61 0.71 0.05 0.12* 0.02 0.09+ 0.05 0.65*** 0.82
safety
8. Transformational 3.77 0.54 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.10+ 0.44*** 0.43*** 0.87
leadership
+
9. Leader voice 3.93 0.64 0.08 0.11* 0.09 0.04 0.05 0.34*** 0.29*** 0.16** 0.76
expectation
10. Personal 3.33 0.66 0.03 0.08 0.05 0.12* 0.11* 0.45*** 0.55*** 0.39*** 0.26*** 0.80
identiﬁcation
11. Voice role 3.90 0.50 0.05 0.13** 0.08 0.13** 0.02 0.69*** 0.60*** 0.46*** 0.29*** 0.46*** 0.81
perception
12. Voice behavior 3.32 0.77 0.11* 0.00 0.09+ 0.01 0.01 0.25*** 0.27*** 0.18*** 0.37*** 0.30*** 0.33*** 0.91

Note: N = 394; M = mean; SD = Standard deviation.

Gender: 1 = male, 2 = female.
Cronbach’s alpha in italics.
***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; +p < 0.10.
A PYGMALION MECHANISM

DOI: 10.1002/job
J. Organiz. Behav. (2016)
J. DUAN ET AL.

Table 3. Results of mixed models (N = 394).

Leader voice expectation Voice role perception

M11 M12 M21 M22 M23 M24
Intercept 3.22(.20)*** 2.64(.33)*** 1.74(.17)*** 1.15(.20)*** 1.07(.20)*** 1.14(.20)***
Leader gender .12(.06)+ .16(.09)+ .03(.04) .03(.04) .03(.04) .04(.04)
Leader age .01(.00)* .01(.01)+ .00(.00) .00(.00) .00(.00) .00(.00)
Subordinate gender .11(.05)* .10(.06)+ .10(.04)** .11(.04)** .10(.04)** .10(.04)**
Subordinate age .00(.00) .00(.00) .00(.00) .00(.00)+ .00(.00)+ .00(.00)+
Work tenure with leader .01(.01) .01(.01) .01(.01) .01(.01) .01(.01) .01(.01)
Psychological safety .12(.03)*** .10(.03)** .08(.03)* .09(.03)**
Felt responsibility to change .45(.04)*** .41(.04)*** .40(.04)*** .39(.04)***
Transformational leadership .13(.05)** .14(.04)** .14(.04)** .14(.04)**
Leaders’ voice expectation .07(.04)* .07(.04)+ .06(.04)+
Personal identiﬁcation .04(.03) .04(.03)
Leaders’ voice expectation × Personal .10(.05)*
identiﬁcation
2 restricted Log likelihood 779.60 712.19 309.08 300.26 303.33 303.82
Residual .19(.02)*** .17(.01)*** .09(.01)*** .09(.01)*** .09(.01)*** .09(.01)***
Intercept F 268.76*** 63.37*** 106.34*** 32.06*** 28.30*** 31.68***
Note: N = 394. All data are unstandardized estimates. Gender: 1 = male, 2 = female.
***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; +p < 0.10.

DOI: 10.1002/job
J. Organiz. Behav. (2016)
Table 4. Results of mixed models (N = 394).
Personal identiﬁcation Voice behavior

M31 M32 M33 M41 M42 M43
Intercept 3.83(.26)*** 1.97(.27)*** 1.60(.30)*** 2.67(.42)*** 1.59(.46)** 1.00(.43)*
Leader gender .04(.08) .03(.07) .03(.07) .06(.12) .05(.11) .08(.10)
Leader age .01(.01) .01(.00)* .01(.01)* .00(.01) .01(.01) .01(.01)
Subordinate gender .10(.07)* .12(.06)* .12(.06)* .02(.06) .00(.06) .06(.06)
Subordinate age .00(.00) .01(.00)* .01(.00)+ .00(.00) .00(.00) .00(.00)
Work tenure with leader .01(.01) .00(.01) .00(.01) .00(.01) .00(.01) .00(.01)
Psychological safety .39(.05)*** .36(.05)*** .03(.05) .03(.05) .04(.06)
Felt responsibility to change .18(.06)** .14(.07)* .09(.07) .06(.07) .07(.08)
Transformational leadership .16(.07)** .06(.07) .11(.07)
Leaders’ voice expectation .42(.07)*** .38(.07)***
Personal identiﬁcation .14(.06)*
Voice role perception .28(.08)**
2 restricted Log likelihood 631.67 628.72 631.67 811.39 780.07 765.20
Residual .20(.02)*** .20(.02)*** .20(.02)*** .16(.01)*** .16(.02)*** .19(.02)***
Intercept F 52.93*** 27.62*** 52.93*** 41.29*** 11.79*** 5.36*
Note: N = 394. All data are unstandardized estimates. Gender: 1= male, 2 = female.
***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; +p < 0.10.
A PYGMALION MECHANISM

DOI: 10.1002/job
J. Organiz. Behav. (2016)
J. DUAN ET AL.

above mean) and low (1 SD below mean) levels of the moderator (personal identification with leader). Figure 2
shows that the interaction pattern is consistent with our hypothesis; that is, leaders’ voice expectation was positively
related to voice role perception when personal identification was high (β = 0.32, S.E. = 0.09, p < 0.001), but was not
significant at a low level of personal identification (β = 0.05, S.E. = 0.12 n.s.). Hypothesis 3 is therefore supported.
To test Hypothesis 4, we regress voice behavior on voice role perception while controlling for demographic var-
iables and all other research variables (Model 41, 42, and 43 in Table 4). As shown in Table 4, voice role perception
was positively associated with employee voice behavior (β = 0.28, S.E. = 0.08, p < 0.01), supporting Hypothesis 4.
Finally, to test Hypothesis 5, we follow a nested-equation path analytic approach (Edwards & Lambert, 2007;
Hayes, 2013) and use coefficients obtained in M12, M24, and M43 to test conditional indirect effects of leader voice
expectation and employee voice role perception on the association between transformational leadership and em-
ployee voice behavior when personal identification was high or low. We used the R Mediation program to calculate
Monte Carlo and asymptotic normal theory confidence intervals (Tofighi & MacKinnon, 2015) to estimate the con-
ditional indirect effects. We found the indirect effect is positive and significant when personal identification was high
(conditional indirect effect = 0.012, 95% confidence interval = [0.002, 0.028]) and the indirect effect is not significant
when personal identification was low (conditional indirect effect = 0.002, 95% confidence interval [ 0.011,
0.007]). These results provided support for Hypothesis 5.

Discussion

The goal of the current study was to deepen our understanding of why and when transformational leadership
promotes employee voice behavior from a Pygmalion perspective. We proposed that transformational leadership
could facilitate employee voice behavior through a Pygmalion mechanism. Supporting our hypotheses, results from
a ﬁeld study in China revealed that transformational leaders elicited higher levels of leaders’ voice expectation,
which indirectly facilitated voice behavior through employee voice role perception. We also proposed that
transformational leadership strengthens the Pygmalion process by intensifying employees’ personal identiﬁcation
and thus the positive relationship between leaders’ voice expectation and employee voice role perception, which
is also supported in our study. Below we elaborate the contributions of this study to literature on voice behavior
and the Pygmalion effect.

Figure 2. Two-way interaction between leaders’ voice expectation and personal identiﬁcation on voice role perception

Theoretical implications
Our study contributes to the voice literature in three ways. Our main contribution is to offer an alternative view based
on Pygmalion theory to understand the impact of transformational leadership on employees’ voice behavior. In con-
trast to the focus on a psychological safety or self-concept mechanism (Detert & Burris, 2007; Liu et al., 2010), we
suggest that transformational leaders can evoke a Pygmalion process to promote employees’ voice behavior by
translating their voice expectations into employees’ role perception. Empirically, we found that the Pygmalion
mechanism drives employees to exhibit voice behavior above and beyond the direct influence of psychological
safety and personal identification (as well as felt responsibility to change) that was controlled for in the analyses.
This finding reflects a Pygmalion process that when transformational leaders hold expectations for voice behavior,
employees report being more likely to consider voice as in-role and ultimately engage in more upward voice behav-
ior. We therefore highlight a Pygmalion mechanism that originates inherently from the intention of transformational
leadership (Avolio et al., 2009; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Eden, 1984; Podsakoff et al., 1990), which has been neglected
in voice behavior research when the role of transformational leadership was discussed.
Second, as we hypothesized, employee voice role perception was found to mediate the relationship between
leader voice expectation and employees’ actual voice behavior. On the one hand, we explored transformational
leaders and their voice expectations as antecedents of employee voice role perception. Researchers have suggested
that voice role perception is a determining factor for employees to speak up (Chiaburu et al., 2008) and called for
more studies on why or when this broadening of roles occurs in the workplace (Tangirala et al., 2013; Van Dyne
et al., 2008). On the other hand, our study joins an emerging research stream on the importance of role perceptions
or definitions of proactive behaviors (e.g., Kamdar et al., 2006; McAllister et al., 2007; Tepper et al., 2007) and
provides additional empirical support for the positive impact of role perceptions on these behaviors. Our results
are consistent with those of previous citizenship behavior studies that stress the importance of viewing a specific
behavior as in-role in order to promote such behavior (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2002; Coyle-Shapiro, Kessler,
& Purcell, 2004; Morrison, 1994).
Third, in addition to indicating that transformational leaders can evoke a Pygmalion mechanism to promote em-
ployees’ voice behavior by setting up voice expectations, we found that transformational leaders can strengthen this
mechanism by intensifying employees’ personal identification with them. In other words, we found that personal
identification with the leader is a boundary condition for when transformational leadership facilitates employee
voice behavior more effectively through a Pygmalion mechanism. Specifically, relative to those with low personal
identification, employees with high personal identification were found to be more responsive to transformational
leaders’ voice expectation, leading them to form higher levels of voice role perception and engage in more voice
behavior. Our finding on the moderating effect of personal identification thus helps reconcile the inconsistent views
about how personal identification could shape a transformational leader’s impact on employee voice behavior at
work (Kark et al., 2003; Liu et al., 2010). Specifically, Kark et al. (2003) reported that personal identification with
a transformational leader increases employees’ dependence on the leader, suggesting that employees with higher
personal identification with a transformational leader will be more passive and less proactive. In contrast, Liu
et al. (2010) reported that personal identification with transformational leaders could directly promote voice behavior
as people tend to express their concerns and make suggestions to those who care. Our study reconciles these
different findings by suggesting that personal identification with a transformational leader helps boost employees’
proactivity as it could increase employees’ dependence on the leader as indicated by Kark et al. (2003) and thus
motivate employees to internalize leaders’ voice expectations and then engage in more voice behavior as observed
by Liu et al. (2010). Our investigation based on Pygmalion theory therefore provides a broader picture to understand
the function of personal identification with transformational leaders in shaping employees’ proactivity. At the same
time, our approach also indicates the importance of examining how different mechanisms of transformational
leadership can jointly shape employees’ behavior. For example, by examining the interactive effects of employees’
personal identification with the leader and the leader’s expectation, our study offers a broader understanding of how
transformational leaders can shape employees’ behavior in a synergic way.

Our investigation also extends the organizational behavior research on the Pygmalion effect. First, the present
study demonstrates that the Pygmalion effect can be applied to the context of proactive behavior such as employee
voice. Prior studies on the Pygmalion effect in management have exclusively focused on identifying how the
leader’s performance or creativity expectations facilitate employee task and creativity performance (e.g., Natanovich
& Eden, 2008; Tierney & Farmer, 2004; 2011; Yuan & Woodman, 2010). Our study addresses an underexplored but
valuable research need by highlighting the impact of leader voice expectation on employee voice behavior. We made
the very first attempt to extend the Pygmalion effect to employees’ voice behavior in the workplace and extended the
nomological network of constructs for the Pygmalion effect.
Second, we articulate a viewpoint that the triggered Pygmalion effect in the voice context can be explained
through a role perception process. For example, we found support for the positive relationship between leader voice
expectation and employee voice behavior through voice role perception, suggesting that whether employees will in-
corporate a leader’s expectations as part of role perception is critical to generate a Pygmalion effect on employees’
behavior. Our findings thus provide empirical support for Karakowsky et al.’s (2012) proposition that employees
should play an active role in the Pygmalion process. To further support their proposition, our finding on the
moderating effect of employees’ personal identification with the leader suggests the importance of employees’
perception of leaders in shaping the Pygmalion process. As “the link between leader support and subordinate
self-expectations remains largely a blank box with no real explanation for the conditions under which leader
expectations and support can effectively trigger the Pygmalion effect” (Karakowsky et al., 2012, p. 580), our study
made the first attempt to design a field study to examine these potential boundary conditions. Our findings
thus contribute a better understanding of the dynamic process between leaders and followers involved in the
Pygmalion effect.

Practical implications
The results of our study offer practical implications for managers with regard to the use of transformational
leadership to stimulate employee voice behavior. First, our findings indicate that leaders who use transformational
strategies can send clear voice expectations to stimulate more employee voice behavior. Managers need to bear in
mind that employees generally conform to role expectations to obtain rewards and avoid sanctions (Eden, 1984;
Katz & Kahn, 1978). Thus, to encourage employee voice, in addition to creating a safe environment or appealing
to employees’ self-concept, managers could also clearly state their voice expectations and effectively communicate
those expectations to their employees through a Pygmalion mechanism. Previous researchers have suggested that
managers generally provide the most relevant and important contextual cues for employee voice in organizational
settings (Detert & Burris, 2007; Morrison, 2011, 2014). When employees believe that managers expect them to
speak up more, they tend to regard engaging in voice as in-role prescribed.
At the same time, prior research on the Pygmalion effect suggests that there could be a gap between leaders’ actual
expectations and followers’ perceived expectations from leaders (Karakowsky et al., 2012). Our study suggests that
transformational leaders and their voice expectations should first be internalized into followers’ voice role percep-
tions before they exert influences on followers’ actual voice behaviors. Thus, transformational leaders need to be
well aware of how their voice expectations are conveyed. Communication strategies such as two-way feedback col-
lection should be adopted to ensure that followers interpret transformational leaders’ voice expectation accurately.
Moreover, the moderating role of personal identification in the effects of transformational leadership on employee
voice through a Pygmalion mechanism suggests that managers should not assume all employees would react simi-
larly to their transformational leadership behaviors. Managers may find that followers with higher levels of personal
identification are more receptive to their voice expectations and thus are likely to internalize leaders’ external voice
expectation as voice role perception, which ultimately leads to actual voice behavior. Our study suggests that man-
agers should also pay attention to how employees perceive their direct managers because a high level of personal
identification with their leader motivates employees to internalize the manager’s voice expectations more accurately

and frequently. To make the Pygmalion effect more effective, managers should lead by example and form healthy
work relationships with employees in order to enhance employees’ personal identiﬁcation with the leader.

Limitations and future research directions

The theoretical and practical contributions of our study should be addressed in terms of several limitations that open
up new opportunities for future research. First, the time-lagged data used in the current study preclude causal infer-
ences. Specifically, this limitation precludes us from ruling out the possibility of reverse and reciprocal causality.
Thus, our hypotheses could be better examined with longitudinal data in future field studies or laboratory experi-
ments to establish a causal relationship.
Second, it is possible that the common method bias may artificially inflate the demonstrated relationships. How-
ever, we made great efforts to minimize common method bias by collecting independent and dependent variables,
mediators, and moderators from different sources and multiple time points. For example, leaders rated voice expec-
tation at Time 1 and employee voice behavior at Time 3 with a roughly 10-week time lag. Employees evaluated
transformational leadership at Time 1 and employee voice role perception and personal identification at Time 2 with
a 2-month time lag. Furthermore, in case of interaction effects, such common method variance can only deflate in-
teraction effects (Siemsen et al., 2010). Therefore, common method variance is unlikely to bias the demonstrated
moderation effect of personal identification with the leader, which further strengthens our confidence in the results.
Third, our data were collected from various business organizations in China, which could potentially limit the
extent to which our findings can be generalized to other cultures. Particularly, leaders could have a more significant
impact on employees because of the paternalism and power distance that are common in Chinese culture (Farh,
Earley, & Lin, 1997; Hui, Lee, & Rousseau, 2004; Pellegrini & Scandura, 2008). The dependence of employees
on leaders makes transformational leaders themselves a key influence on followers’ interpretation of leader voice
expectation and actual voice behavior. Notwithstanding, setting the field study context in different Chinese
organizations boosts the external validity of the Pygmalion effect. The Pygmalion effect has been found in Western
cultures, but its influence in Eastern cultures is less clear. Our study shows that the Pygmalion effect could be
generalizable to Chinese culture. Moreover, the importance of voice has long been recognized in Chinese history.
However, some cultural elements in classic Confucian culture, such as power distance, face-saving, and harmony,
make Chinese people less likely to speak up (Wei, Zhang, & Chen, 2015). So it is valuable to examine how leaders
in Chinese organizations can promote more voice by setting voice expectations and shaping voice perceptions. Our
findings should be applicable to any contexts where both leadership and voice play important roles. Future
researchers should examine similar models in other cultures and attempt to replicate our results.
Fourth, this study explored voice expectations only from leaders as the source. Carmeli and Schaubroeck (2007)
suggested that expectations could come from different reference groups and could be positively or negatively
associated with employees’ self-expectations and behaviors. Therefore, it would be interesting to examine multiple
sources of voice expectations (e.g., other team members, subordinates, customers, and family) and how they may
impact or interact with each other to determine employees’ voice role perception and voice behavior. In addition,
it could be fruitful to include leader expectation and employee role perception with regard to a broader set of
voice-related behaviors (Liang et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2010; Maynes & Podsakoff, 2014), as this would help us better
understand whether the Pygmalion mechanism suggested in the current study would differentially influence different
types of voice.
Fifth, this study merely explored personal identification as a boundary condition of our proposed Pygmalion
mechanism. Kark et al. (2003) suggested that personalized identification and socialized identification are distinct
concepts and have different impacts on employee behaviors. Whereas personalized identification with the leader
anchors dependence on the leader, socialized identification with the leader anchors employee empowerment. Future
empirical research should explore whether socialized identification has a stronger moderating effect on the
Pygmalion mechanism in the context of voice behavior.

Lastly, our study only examined the type of voice expressed as a positively intended challenge to the status quo and
generally in a supportive manner. Burris (2012) proposed that employees could speak up in either a challenging or
supportive way. Recently, Maynes and Podsakoff (2014) suggested an expanded set of employee voice behaviors in-
cluding supportive, constructive, defensive, and destructive types of voice. Differentiating between these different
types of voice behavior could be a fruitful way for future researchers to explore the potentially different impacts of
the Pygmalion mechanism on these distinct forms of voice or different paths from transformational leadership to these
voices. Additionally, we follow the conventional approach to deﬁne voice and only measure the “frequency” of voice
behavior in our study and thus cannot tell the issue of “quality” of voice behavior. It is possible that two employees
would have the same amount of voice but different consequences. Future research could adopt qualitative study to
capture the inﬂuence of voice role perception on both the “frequency” and “quality” of employees’ voice behavior.

Conclusion

A Pygmalion mechanism was examined to test the influence of transformational leadership on employee voice
behavior. Our research effort demonstrates that transformational leadership is positively related to employee voice
through leader voice expectations and voice role perception. Moreover, employees’ personal identification with their
transformational leader could influence the development of voice role perception, and increased feelings of
identification with their transformational leader can strengthen such positive impact. These findings provide new
knowledge regarding the Pygmalion effect in organizational settings and offer important practical implications to
help managers better use the Pygmalion mechanism to motivate employees’ voice behaviors within groups.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the National Science Foundation of China for the support (no.71372180).

Author biographies

Jinyun Duan (Ph.D., Zhejiang University) is a professor of industrial and organizational psychology at Soochow
University. His research interests include employee voice behavior and behavioral decision-making.
Chenwei Li (Ph.D., The University of Alabama) is an assistant professor of management at San Francisco State
University. Her research interests include leadership, creativity, and voice behavior.
Yue Xu is a PhD candidate of psychology at Soochow University. Her research interests include employee voice, etc.
Chia-Huei Wu (Ph.D., The University of Western Australia) is an assistant professor of management at London
School of Economics and Political Science. His research interests include proactive behavior, personality develop-
ment, work design and employees’ subjective well-being.

References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1993). Half a minute: Predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and
physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 431–441.

Avolio, B. J., Reichard, R. J., Hannah, S. T., Walumbwa, F. O., & Chan, A. (2009). A meta-analytic review of leadership impact
research: Experimental and quasi-experimental studies. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 764–784.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 8, 9–32.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. The International Journal of Public
Administration, 17, 541–554.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.
Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C. Triandis, & J. W. Berry (Eds.),
Methodology: Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 349–444). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Burris, E. R. (2012). The risks and rewards of speaking up: Managerial responses to employee voice. Academy of Management
Journal, 55, 851–875.
Carmeli, A., & Schaubroeck, J. (2007). The influence of leaders’ and other referents’ normative expectations on individual
involvement in creative work. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 35–48.
Chen, Z. X. (2001). Further investigation of the outcomes of loyalty to supervisor: Job satisfaction and intention to stay. Journal
of Managerial Ps.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural
Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255.
Chiaburu, D. S., Marinova, S. V., & Van Dyne, L. (2008). Should I do it or not? An initial model of cognitive processes
predicting voice behaviors. In L. T. Kane, & M. R. Poweller (Eds.), Citizenship in the 21st century (pp. 127–153). France:
Nova Science Publishers.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A., & Kessler, I. (2002). Exploring reciprocity through the lens of the psychological contract: Employee and
employer perspectives. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 69–86.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A., Kessler, I., & Purcell, J. (2004). Exploring organizationally directed citizenship behavior: Reciprocity or
“it’s my job”? Journal of Management Studies, 41, 85–106.
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management
Journal, 50, 869–884.
Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. (2011). Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted rules of self-censorship at work. Academy of
Management Journal, 54, 461–488.
Eden, D. (1984). Self-fulfilling prophecy as a management tool: Harnessing Pygmalion. Academy of Management Review, 9, 64–73.
Eden, D. (1990). Pygmalion in management: Productivity as a self fulfilling prophecy. D. C. Heath: Lexington.
Eden, D. (1992). Leadership and expectations: Pygmalion effects and other self-fulfilling prophecies in organizations. Leadership
Quarterly, 3, 271–305.
Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383.
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework
using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 1–22.
Farh, J. L., Earley, P., & Lin, S. C. (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship
behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 421–444.
Farmer, S. M., Tierney, P., & Kung-Mcintyre, K. (2003). Employee creativity in Taiwan: An application of role identity theory.
Academy of Management Journal, 46, 618–630.
Foo, M. D., Uy, M. A., & Baron, R. A. (2009). How do feelings influence effort? An empirical study of entrepreneurs’ affect and
venture effort. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1086–1094.
Frazier, M. L., & Bowler, W. M. (2015). Voice climate, supervisor undermining, and work outcomes: A group-level examination.
Journal of Management, 41, 841–863.
Fuller, J. B., Marler, L. E., & Hester, K. (2006). Promoting felt responsibility for constructive change and proactive behavior:
Exploring aspects of an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 1089–1120.
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 perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247.
Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach.
Journal of Educational Measurement, 51, 335–337.
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for
innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891–902.
Hui, C., Lee, C., & Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Psychological contract and organizational citizenship behavior in China:
Investigating generalizability and instrumentality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 311–321.
Johanson, J. C. (1999). Effect of target’s sex on manipulations of self-fulfilling prophecy. Psychological Reports, 84, 413–423.

Kamdar, D., McAllister, D. J., & Turban, D. B. (2006). “All in a Day’s Work:” How follower individual differences and justice
perceptions predict OCB role definitions and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 841–855.
Karakowsky, L., DeGama, N., & McBey, K. (2012). Facilitating the Pygmalion effect: The overlooked role of subordinate
perceptions of the leader. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85, 579–599.
Kark, R., & Shamir, B. (2002). The influence of transformational leadership on followers’ relational versus collective
self-concept. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 2002(1), D1–D6.
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 88, 246–255.
Kark, R., & Van Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the self-regulatory focus in leadership
processes. Academy of Management Review, 32, 500–528.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.
Kierein, N. M., & Gold, M. A. (2000). Pygmalion in work organizations: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
21, 913–928.
Kim, J., MacDuffie, J. P., & Pil, F. K. (2010). Employee voice and organizational performance: Team versus representative
influence. Human Relations, 63, 371–394.
Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J. L., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B. (2009). Individual power distance orientation and follower re-
actions to transformational leaders: A cross- level, cross-cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 744–764.
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 853–868.
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. I. C., & Farh, J. L. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave
examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 71–92.
Liu, W., Zhu, R., & Yang, Y. (2010). I warn you because I like you: Voice behavior, employee identifications and transforma-
tional leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 189–202.
Livingston, J. S. (2003). Pygmalion in management. Harvard Business Review, 81, 97–106.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational
identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103–123.
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, 87–112.
McAllister, D. J., Kamdar, D., Morrison, E. W., & Turban, D. B. (2007). Disentangling role perceptions: How perceived role breadth,
discretion, instrumentality, and efficacy relate to helping and taking charge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1200–1211.
McNatt, D. B. (2000). Ancient Pygmalion joins contemporary management: A meta-analysis of the result. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85, 314–322.
Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the employee’s perspective.
Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1543–1567.
Morrison, E. W. (2011). Voice and silence within organizations: Literature review and directions for future research. Academy
Management Annual, 5, 373–412.
Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational
Behavior, 1, 173–197.
Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extra-role efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of
Management Journal, 42, 403–419.
Natanovich, G., & Eden, D. (2008). Pygmalion effects among outreach supervisors and tutors: Extending sex generalizability.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1382–1389.
Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2008). The relationship of age to ten dimensions of job performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93, 392–423.
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2012). Employee voice behavior: A meta-analytic test of the conservation of resources
framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 216–234.
Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of
Management, 36, 827–856.
Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of
Management, 36, 633–662.
Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. (1997). “That’s not my job”: Developing flexible employee work orientations.
Academy of Management Journal, 40, 899–929.
Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91, 636–652.
Parker, S. K., & Wu, C. H. (2014). Leading for proactivity: How leaders cultivate staff who make things happen. In D. Day (Ed.),
The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations (pp. 1–34). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A. (2008). Paternalistic leadership: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of
Management, 34, 566–593.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method variance in behavioral research: A
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on
followers, trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107–142.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of
Management, 12, 531–544.
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression,
multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448.
Qu, R., Janssen, O., & Shi, K. (2015). Transformational leadership and follower creativity: The mediating role of follower
relational identification and the moderating role of leadership creativity expectations. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 286–299.
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive
personality and career success. Personnel Psychology, 54, 845–874.
Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: Subordinates’
attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors’ appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 387–409.
Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction
effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 456–476.
Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2007). Relational identity and identification: Defining ourselves through work relationships.
Academy of Management Review, 32, 9–32.
Sutton, C. D., & Woodman, R. W. (1989). Pygmalion goes to work: The effects of supervisor expectations in a retail setting.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 943–950.
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, 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, 1189–1203.
Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., & Lockhart, D. E. (2007). Abusive supervision, upward maintenance communication, and
subordinates’ psychological distress. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1160–1180.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2004). The Pygmalion process and employee creativity. Journal of Management, 30, 413–432.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2011). Creative self-efficacy development and creative performance over time. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 96, 277–293.
Tofighi, D., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2015). Monte Carlo confidence intervals for complex functions of indirect effects. Structural
Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23, 194–205.
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, 1195–1207.
Van Knippenberg, D., Van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2004). Leadership, self, and identify: A review and
research agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 825–856.
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., & Zhu, W. (2008). How transformational leadership weaves its influence on individual job
performance: The role of identification and efficacy beliefs. Personnel Psychology, 61, 793–825.
Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical
leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1275–1286.
Wang, P., & Rode, J. (2010). Transformational leadership and follower creativity: The moderating effects of identification with
leader and organizational climate. Human Relations, 63, 1105–1128.
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, 1641–1652.
White, S. S., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Problems with the Pygmalion effect and some proposed solutions. The Leadership
Quarterly, 11, 389–415.
Whiteley, P., Sy, T., & Johnson, S. K. (2012). Leaders’ conceptions of followers: Implications for naturally occurring Pygmalion
effects. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 822–834.
Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Pierce, J. R. (2008). Effects of task performance, helping, voice, and organizational loyalty
on performance appraisal ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 125–139.
Wu, J. B., Tsui, A. S., & Kinicki, A. J. (2010). Consequences of differentiated leadership in groups. Academy of Management
Journal, 53, 90–106.
Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of performance and image outcome
expectations. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 323–342.
Zhu, W., Wang, G., Zheng, X., Liu, T., & Miao, Q. (2013). Examining the role of personal identification with the leader in
leadership effectiveness: A partial nomological network. Group & Organization Management, 38, 36–67.

2017 Chamberlin, M., Newton, D. W., & Lepine, J. a. (2017). a Meta‐Analysis of Voice and Its Promotive and Prohibitive Forms
No ratings yet
2017 Chamberlin, M., Newton, D. W., & Lepine, J. a. (2017). a Meta‐Analysis of Voice and Its Promotive and Prohibitive Forms
61 pages
Core Self-Evaluations and Employee Voice Behavior: Test of A Dual-Motivational Pathway
No ratings yet
Core Self-Evaluations and Employee Voice Behavior: Test of A Dual-Motivational Pathway
21 pages
Felicia Tandiani: Hospitality Graduate
No ratings yet
Felicia Tandiani: Hospitality Graduate
1 page
NSTP1-MODULE-3_Week-3-5-Leadership-1
No ratings yet
NSTP1-MODULE-3_Week-3-5-Leadership-1
6 pages
NSTP - 1 Chapter 4
No ratings yet
NSTP - 1 Chapter 4
49 pages
1415-16433-1-RV (3)
No ratings yet
1415-16433-1-RV (3)
31 pages
Annotated Revisions (2)
No ratings yet
Annotated Revisions (2)
31 pages
Clean Annotated (2)
No ratings yet
Clean Annotated (2)
31 pages
2011 Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee Voice Behavior Integration and Directions for Future Research
No ratings yet
2011 Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee Voice Behavior Integration and Directions for Future Research
40 pages
J-Stage Literature Review (1)
No ratings yet
J-Stage Literature Review (1)
29 pages
8. Positive-affective-tone-as-an-underlying-mechanism-between-leaders-motivating-language-and-career-outcomesManagement-Decision
No ratings yet
8. Positive-affective-tone-as-an-underlying-mechanism-between-leaders-motivating-language-and-career-outcomesManagement-Decision
23 pages
35. Transformational_leadership_an
No ratings yet
35. Transformational_leadership_an
23 pages
admsci-14-00199
No ratings yet
admsci-14-00199
18 pages
Base paper II
No ratings yet
Base paper II
18 pages
2018, The Social Consequences of Voice
No ratings yet
2018, The Social Consequences of Voice
25 pages
High-Commitment Work Systems and Employee Voice A Multilevel and Serial Mediation Approach Inside The Black Box
No ratings yet
High-Commitment Work Systems and Employee Voice A Multilevel and Serial Mediation Approach Inside The Black Box
17 pages
voice behavior of teachers
No ratings yet
voice behavior of teachers
17 pages
Fostering Innovative Performance Through Ethical Leadership
No ratings yet
Fostering Innovative Performance Through Ethical Leadership
21 pages
Jansen Gao Employree
No ratings yet
Jansen Gao Employree
19 pages
Should I Speak Up How Supervisory Communication, Team Culture, And Team Relationships Determine Employees’
No ratings yet
Should I Speak Up How Supervisory Communication, Team Culture, And Team Relationships Determine Employees’
31 pages
Could Transformational Leadership Predict
No ratings yet
Could Transformational Leadership Predict
10 pages
Leader Trait Learning Goal Orientation and Employee Voice Behavior
No ratings yet
Leader Trait Learning Goal Orientation and Employee Voice Behavior
25 pages
tranformational leadership nd vb
No ratings yet
tranformational leadership nd vb
14 pages
Lai Et Al 2020 Transformational Leadership and Job Performance The Mediating Role of Work Engagement
No ratings yet
Lai Et Al 2020 Transformational Leadership and Job Performance The Mediating Role of Work Engagement
11 pages
Leadership Behavior and Employee Voice
No ratings yet
Leadership Behavior and Employee Voice
18 pages
Transformational Leadership and Employee Voice Behavior
No ratings yet
Transformational Leadership and Employee Voice Behavior
29 pages
IJMS - Volume 15 - Issue 4 - Pages 759-772
No ratings yet
IJMS - Volume 15 - Issue 4 - Pages 759-772
14 pages
Yang 2019
No ratings yet
Yang 2019
11 pages
Behavioral Sciences
No ratings yet
Behavioral Sciences
17 pages
Basnet 23232023 AJEBA109193
No ratings yet
Basnet 23232023 AJEBA109193
17 pages
3 Lider 2019
No ratings yet
3 Lider 2019
14 pages
Voice Behavior4
No ratings yet
Voice Behavior4
15 pages
Theoretical Model & Draft Questionaire
No ratings yet
Theoretical Model & Draft Questionaire
6 pages
Employee Voice Behavior, MORRISON
100% (3)
Employee Voice Behavior, MORRISON
42 pages
Teacher As An Organizational Leader
80% (10)
Teacher As An Organizational Leader
30 pages
Amj 2
No ratings yet
Amj 2
50 pages
Fpsyg 09 01718
No ratings yet
Fpsyg 09 01718
10 pages
NSTP 2 Lesson 3-Leadership and Training
100% (1)
NSTP 2 Lesson 3-Leadership and Training
34 pages
Script Courtship
No ratings yet
Script Courtship
4 pages
"Organisational Behaviour CIA-I Project": Full APA Reference Citation Article Title Journal Name Findings
No ratings yet
"Organisational Behaviour CIA-I Project": Full APA Reference Citation Article Title Journal Name Findings
6 pages
Ob Cia PDF
No ratings yet
Ob Cia PDF
6 pages
MODULE 3 Transformational Leadership
No ratings yet
MODULE 3 Transformational Leadership
12 pages
Assignment-Employee Voice Behaviour Group 70
No ratings yet
Assignment-Employee Voice Behaviour Group 70
8 pages
Jurnal 2
No ratings yet
Jurnal 2
16 pages
20240617_RISE With SAP - Value Framework
No ratings yet
20240617_RISE With SAP - Value Framework
47 pages
MODULE-3 Leadership
No ratings yet
MODULE-3 Leadership
32 pages
FCL 5 REVIEWER (Lesson 1 - 4)
No ratings yet
FCL 5 REVIEWER (Lesson 1 - 4)
10 pages
2017 Effects of Inclusive Leadership On Employee Voice Behavior and Team Performance The Mediating Role of Caring Ethical Climate
No ratings yet
2017 Effects of Inclusive Leadership On Employee Voice Behavior and Team Performance The Mediating Role of Caring Ethical Climate
9 pages
The Impact of Transformational Leadership On Employee Voice Behavior: The Role of Organizational Identification and Procedural Justice
No ratings yet
The Impact of Transformational Leadership On Employee Voice Behavior: The Role of Organizational Identification and Procedural Justice
5 pages
ghzZr33wFjhKdKcHr3Qh 2
No ratings yet
ghzZr33wFjhKdKcHr3Qh 2
12 pages
Impact of Leadership Styles On Employee Adaptability in Call Center: A Perspective of Telecommunication Industry in Malaysia
No ratings yet
Impact of Leadership Styles On Employee Adaptability in Call Center: A Perspective of Telecommunication Industry in Malaysia
11 pages
529179502-Teacher-as-an-Organizational-Leader
No ratings yet
529179502-Teacher-as-an-Organizational-Leader
30 pages
Concepts of Leadership
No ratings yet
Concepts of Leadership
17 pages
Leadership & Organization Development Journal
No ratings yet
Leadership & Organization Development Journal
15 pages
Supporting LGBTQ+ Students in K-12 Mathematics
No ratings yet
Supporting LGBTQ+ Students in K-12 Mathematics
14 pages
IJLS V4Is1 Modassir Singh
No ratings yet
IJLS V4Is1 Modassir Singh
19 pages
CEO Succession Planning
No ratings yet
CEO Succession Planning
8 pages
Intelligent Transport System
0% (1)
Intelligent Transport System
23 pages
Ridwanul Sir Emergency
No ratings yet
Ridwanul Sir Emergency
22 pages
Report Group 10
No ratings yet
Report Group 10
20 pages
Chapter 7 - Leadership 1.0
No ratings yet
Chapter 7 - Leadership 1.0
36 pages
Leading The AI-Driven Organization
No ratings yet
Leading The AI-Driven Organization
2 pages
Lesson6 Criminal Profiling
No ratings yet
Lesson6 Criminal Profiling
30 pages
Session 9 - Leadership Skills For Young Managers
No ratings yet
Session 9 - Leadership Skills For Young Managers
22 pages
Marketing Department Analysis of Dabur
No ratings yet
Marketing Department Analysis of Dabur
35 pages
CFP-ICSSR-RGU-NE Lit Seminar
No ratings yet
CFP-ICSSR-RGU-NE Lit Seminar
4 pages
John Paul Coron WPS Office
No ratings yet
John Paul Coron WPS Office
4 pages
Accidents Report - Transport Commissiner - AP
No ratings yet
Accidents Report - Transport Commissiner - AP
2 pages
Research Paper Writing Notes
No ratings yet
Research Paper Writing Notes
3 pages
Chapter 2
No ratings yet
Chapter 2
39 pages
Transformational and Transactional Leadership in Mental Health and Substance Abuse Organizations
From Everand
Transformational and Transactional Leadership in Mental Health and Substance Abuse Organizations
Dr. B.G. Nash Sr. Ph.D. Th.D.
No ratings yet
Authentic Leadership and Employee Voice Behavior: A Multi-Level Psychological Process
No ratings yet
Authentic Leadership and Employee Voice Behavior: A Multi-Level Psychological Process
13 pages
SGC Roles and Responsibilities
100% (6)
SGC Roles and Responsibilities
2 pages
Research Proposal 1stdraft
50% (2)
Research Proposal 1stdraft
20 pages
Chapter 4
No ratings yet
Chapter 4
22 pages
Individual Perspective On Leadership
No ratings yet
Individual Perspective On Leadership
3 pages
Chapter 1
No ratings yet
Chapter 1
35 pages
Pre and Post Colonial Goals in Curriculum Development
No ratings yet
Pre and Post Colonial Goals in Curriculum Development
2 pages
HUM-102. Adversity and Challenge: The Fourteenth-Century Transition
No ratings yet
HUM-102. Adversity and Challenge: The Fourteenth-Century Transition
42 pages
Crim Pro 10 Cases Digest
No ratings yet
Crim Pro 10 Cases Digest
18 pages
Environmental Science Assignment 01
No ratings yet
Environmental Science Assignment 01
10 pages
NMC Case
0% (1)
NMC Case
2 pages
Vision of Microfinance in India
No ratings yet
Vision of Microfinance in India
28 pages
321 Ethics Theory
No ratings yet
321 Ethics Theory
5 pages
FT50 Journals List
100% (1)
FT50 Journals List
1 page
(The "Author") of The First Part: 1. Background
No ratings yet
(The "Author") of The First Part: 1. Background
3 pages
The History of Land Use and Development in Bahrain
No ratings yet
The History of Land Use and Development in Bahrain
345 pages
Public Speaking The Effect of Gkobal Warming
No ratings yet
Public Speaking The Effect of Gkobal Warming
2 pages
Impact of Financial Liberalization On Agricultural Growth: A Case Study of Pakistan
No ratings yet
Impact of Financial Liberalization On Agricultural Growth: A Case Study of Pakistan
19 pages
Thesis Template Guide
No ratings yet
Thesis Template Guide
18 pages
1 s2.0 S1566014113000587 Main
No ratings yet
1 s2.0 S1566014113000587 Main
23 pages
Front
No ratings yet
Front
30 pages
L05 MBA Port Thry
No ratings yet
L05 MBA Port Thry
53 pages
Research Proposal
100% (2)
Research Proposal
23 pages
CH01MGMT1362004
No ratings yet
CH01MGMT1362004
14 pages
Journal Title/Link (FTS0)
No ratings yet
Journal Title/Link (FTS0)
3 pages
Chapter-2 Role of Logistics in Supply Chain
No ratings yet
Chapter-2 Role of Logistics in Supply Chain
29 pages
International Monetary Fund
No ratings yet
International Monetary Fund
8 pages
Chapter-3 SC Vs Demand Chain
No ratings yet
Chapter-3 SC Vs Demand Chain
12 pages
Final Project of Binani Cement DOC 2003
100% (1)
Final Project of Binani Cement DOC 2003
67 pages
What Is Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT) ?
No ratings yet
What Is Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT) ?
6 pages
Risk and Return
No ratings yet
Risk and Return
31 pages
Irfan Shah Environmental Science
No ratings yet
Irfan Shah Environmental Science
9 pages
Advanced Quantative Techniques: "Determinates of Capital Structure"
No ratings yet
Advanced Quantative Techniques: "Determinates of Capital Structure"
1 page
Saqib
No ratings yet
Saqib
2 pages
22 - Current Limitations and Challenges in The Global Textile Sector
No ratings yet
22 - Current Limitations and Challenges in The Global Textile Sector
1 page
6 Paramitas
100% (1)
6 Paramitas
10 pages
Value Chain Analysis
No ratings yet
Value Chain Analysis
4 pages
Brealey-Fundamentals-Of-Corporate-Finance-10e ch13-ppt-XdPG
No ratings yet
Brealey-Fundamentals-Of-Corporate-Finance-10e ch13-ppt-XdPG
32 pages
Educational and Ethical Leadership - Best Practice
From Everand
Educational and Ethical Leadership - Best Practice
SAM ELDAKAK
No ratings yet
Research Proposal: A Comparative Analysis of Risk Management Practices in Banking & Insurance Sector
No ratings yet
Research Proposal: A Comparative Analysis of Risk Management Practices in Banking & Insurance Sector
22 pages
Foolonthehill SATB (C Majeur)
100% (1)
Foolonthehill SATB (C Majeur)
8 pages
Value Chain Analysis
No ratings yet
Value Chain Analysis
3 pages
Course Outline Quantitative Techniques Course Prescription
0% (1)
Course Outline Quantitative Techniques Course Prescription
4 pages
SWJTU Study Plan Swjtu
No ratings yet
SWJTU Study Plan Swjtu
3 pages
Iso Tolerances For Holes
No ratings yet
Iso Tolerances For Holes
3 pages