SUBORDINATE-SUPERIOR UPWARD
COMMUNICATION: POWER,
POLITICS, AND POLITICAL SKILL
K U N A L K A M A L K U M A R A N D S U S H A N TA K U M A R
MISHRA
A multiphase study involving 1,285 respondents was conducted to answer an
important yet overlooked question: for a job requiring frequent informal communication with superiors, should an organization focus more on selecting
employees with higher trait-like willingness to communicate or on providing
an environment where the flow of communication is easy and aided? We found
support for the latter. Further, we observed that subordinates alter their communication behaviors based on the perception of superior’s power, politics in
the organization, and their own political skills. The study contributes to a better
understanding of how situational variables affect subordinate-superior upward
communication. Implications of the study are also discussed. © 2016 Wiley
Periodicals, Inc.
Keywords: communication, organizational politics, personality, supervisor/
subordinate relations
“I am much more excited about the efficiency or inefficiency of upward communication than of that which passes
downward through the channels. Why?
Because I hold the deep conviction that
the efficiency of downward communication is going to be improved significantly only when top management
better understands the attitudes, the
opinions, the ideas and the suggestions
of the people at the bottom of the whole
structure.”
hese are the words of late Professor
Emeritus Ralph G. Nichols (1962, p. 4).
What Nichols wrote in an article more
than 50 years ago remains relevant today.
Subordinate-superior communication
remains an underresearched area (Welbourne,
T
2011). Moreover, decoding the reasons why some
employees keep to themselves is a much needed
and an exciting area of research. It is to this area
that the study attempts to contribute.
Communication between a subordinate
and her/his superior is argued to have tremendous implications for the survival and growth
of the organization (Morrison, 2011). Studies
have highlighted the importance of subordinatesuperior communication for effective decision
making (Morrison & Milliken, 2000), organizational learning (Detert & Burris, 2007; Tangirala
& Ramanujam, 2008), and enhanced productivity
(Clampitt & Downs, 1993). Subordinates having
open lines of communication with their superiors are more likely to identify strongly with the
organization (Bartels, Pruyn, de Jong, & Joustra,
2007), deal effectively with job stressors (Tepper,
Correspondence to: Kunal Kamal Kumar, Associate Professor, Human Resource Management Area, T. A. Pai
Management Institute (TAPMI), Manipal, Karnataka India, PIN: 576104, Phone: +91-820-2701082,
E-mail: [email protected]
Human Resource Management 2016
© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
DOI:10.1002/hrm.21814
2
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Moss, Lockhart, & Carr, 2007), and contribute
to organizational productivity (Tsai, Chuang, &
Hsieh, 2009). Given its importance, studies have
suggested various means to improve subordinatesuperior communication within the organization
(Atwater & Waldman, 2008; Downs, Adrian, &
Downs, 2004).
Communication originating from the subordinates and targeted toward their immediate
superiors is termed as upward communication.
We focus on immediate superiors for two reasons.
First, subordinate-superior relationship is believed
to be the most central dyadic unit in the organization (Dienesch & Liden, 1986) as subordinates
differentiate between the support received from
their immediate superiors and support from the
top management (Basford, Offermann, & Wirtz,
2012). Second, prior research has
indicated that immediate superiors
are better suited to perform menCommunication
toring roles (Scandura & Williams,
originating from the 2004) and several possibilities open
up for subordinates who speak up to
subordinates and
their most proximate leaders (Detert
& Treviño, 2010).
targeted towards
While immediate superiors are
their immediate
important both for structural and
systemic reasons, it is often the case
superiors is
that employees prefer not to speak
up (Morrison, See, & Pan, 2015).
termed as upward
The reasons behind the silence
communication.
may lie with individuals’ traits or
situational concerns. To illustrate, it
could be the case that subordinates
are reticent by nature and hence are nonwilling
to communicate their concerns (Richmond &
Roach, 1992); that is, their inhibition is trait-like.
Similarly, it could be argued that subordinates feel
a sense of inhibition in upward communication
because of situational concerns, such as speaking
up only when it is considered socially desirable
(Wei, Zhang, & Chen, 2015), limiting the act of
speaking up when faced with an abusive superior
(Xu, Loi, & Lam, 2015), or speaking up to a superior who displays positive affect (Liu, Song, Li, &
Liao, in press).
While scholars have long attested that both
traits and situational variables affect subordinate-superior upward communication (Bowen
& Blackmon, 2003; Premeaux & Bedeian, 2003),
focus on subordinates’ traits has attracted scant
attention. In light of this gap, we attempt to
answer the following question: Are subordinates
with high willingness to communicate more likely
to engage in upward communication? In addition, we intend to investigate which variables—
traits or situations—have a stronger effect on
subordinates’ upward communication behavior,
as this would help us answer an important yet
overlooked question: for a job requiring frequent
informal communication with superiors, should
an organization focus more on selecting employees with higher trait-like willingness to communicate or on providing an environment where the
flow of communication is easy and aided? To this
end we have adopted the interactionist model
of personality research. The interactionist model
studies individual traits, situations, and their varied interactions (George, 1992).
Subordinate-Superior Upward
Communication: Employee Voice
While literature on upward communication is
limited, we could trace the work of Saunders,
Sheppard, Knight, and Roth (1992) as one of the
early studies wherein upward communication in
an organization was studied with a strong focus
on situational variables. Saunders and colleagues
(1992) explored the dynamics of upward communication by examining employees’ perception of
their supervisors and their likelihood to engage
in upward communication. They termed the
act of upward communication as employee voice.
Employee voice has been conceptualized as a
behavioral construct that focuses on subordinatesuperior upward communication.
Employee voice has been studied by a number of disparate yet interrelated disciplines such
as human resource management, political science, psychology, law, and industrial relations
(Wilkinson & Fay, 2011). With such wide application range, there is no specific definition. Further,
the construct of employee voice has a long and
divergent history in organizational science
(Morrison, 2014; Wilkinson & Fay, 2011) adding
to a lack of conceptual clarity (Dietz, Wilkinson,
& Redman, 2010). In fact, there are attempts to
expand the conceptualization of employee voice
(see an interesting article by Maynes & Podsakoff,
2014).
Most of the research on employee voice has
adopted the framework proposed by Hirschman
(1970), which assumes voice to be a political
“unfolding art.” In contemporary debate, however, there is an increased emphasis on how
employees can communicate work related issues
within the organization (Wilkinson & Fay, 2011).
Moreover, there is a renewed interest in informal
voice. The day-to-day relationship between supervisors and their subordinates that allows subordinates to exert some influence over their work and
the condition under which they work is termed as
informal voice (Strauss, 2004).
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
SUBORDINATE-SUPERIOR UPWARD COMMUNICATION
In the present study employee voice is defined
as “informal and discretionary communication
by an employee, of ideas, suggestions, concerns,
information about problems, or opinions about
work-related issues, to persons who might be
able to take appropriate action, with the intent to
bring about improvement or change” (Morrison,
2014, p. 174). As stated earlier, we have focused on
the immediate superior as the target of employee
voice.
Theory and Hypotheses
Communication scholars have long held the idea
that an individual’s communication style and
communication orientation is relatively consistent across different situations. McCroskey and
Richmond (1987) observed that the communication behavior of an individual in terms of frequency and amount of talk is consistent across
various contexts (interpersonal, group and large
meetings) and across different kinds of receivers
(friends, acquaintances and strangers). They codified such behavioral tendency as “willingness to
communicate,” and described it as “personality
orientation which explains why one person will
talk and another will not under identical, or virtually identical, situational constraints” (McCroskey
& Richmond, 1987, p. 130). Further, communication scholars have evidenced that an individual’s
consistency in frequency and amount of talk are
suggestive of an underlying trait-like predisposition toward communication in personal, social,
and organizational spheres (Richmond & Roach,
1992). Such underlying trait-like predispositions
in communication behavior have been observed
across diverse populations such as hospital patients
(Wright, Frey, & Sopory, 2007), language learners
(MacIntyre, Baker, Clément, & Donovan, 2003),
learning communities (Cho, Gay, Davidson, &
Ingraffea, 2007), and employees in business organizations (Richmond & Roach, 1992).
communication behavior that is dependent on
individual traits as well as situational variables
(LePine & Van Dyne, 2001; Ohana, 2016). Based
on the above discussion, we argue that subordinates’ willingness to communicate, a trait-like
construct, is positively related to its state-like
form, “likelihood to voice” (see Saunders et al.,
1992).
Hypothesis 1: Subordinates’ willingness to communicate is positively related to their likelihood to voice.
Perceived Superior Power
Power is valued in any social setup. People are
perceived and treated differently according to
the power they possess (Tannenbaum, 1962).
Scholars have argued that subordinates prefer to voice their concerns
Subordinates
to superiors who they perceive to
be powerful (Detert & Burris, 2007).
are more likely to
Thus, immediate superiors who are
deemed powerful would attract a
communicate with
greater amount of communication
superiors who hold
from their subordinates.
In literature, power has been
expert power and
conceptualized in different ways.
We have considered the widely
hence are capable
accepted “five bases” of power
(French & Raven, 1959): expert of bringing changes
power (perception that the superior
suited to their
has expertise in a given area), referent power (subordinate’s identifiexpertise.
cation with the superior based on
personal liking and respect), reward
power (perception that the superior has the power
to reward desired behavior), coercive power (perception that superior has the power to punish for
failure in desired behavior), and legitimate power
(perception that the superior has the formal right
to prescribe desired behavior).
Trait-State Relation
Expert Power
While trait-like predispositions determine individual behavior, they may get overshadowed by
strong situational variables in organizational contexts (Judge & Zapata, 2015). In the context of
employee voice, LePine and Van Dyne (1998) put
forward the trait-situation interaction approach
to understand employees’ state-like communication behavior in organizations. The authors conceptualized self-esteem as trait-like antecedent,
style of management as situational antecedent,
and employee voice as state-like communication
behavior. Their study found a strong relationship
among the three. Subsequent studies reaffirmed
the notion that employee voice is a “state-like”
In an organization that was going through strategic reorientation, Lines (2007) found that change
recipients are likely to get influenced by change
agents if they perceive that the change agents hold
expert power. In a study on hair stylists, Bove and
Robertson (2005) found that stylists’ expert power
has a positive association with customer voice.
Stylists who are perceived as experts attracted more
voice from customers who believed that their concerns would be better addressed by an “expert.” As
voice is a “change-oriented behavior that focuses
on ideas and issues” (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998,
p. 854), it is possible that subordinates are more
likely to communicate with superiors who hold
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
3
4
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
expert power and hence are capable of bringing
changes suited to their expertise.
Referent Power
Applying a relational approach to social networks,
Pauksztat, Steglich, and Wittek (2011) found referent power, in terms of having better interpersonal
relationships, to be a major determinant of being
the recipient of voice in a dyadic relationship. In a
study done on Chinese employees, Liu, Zhu, and
Yang (2010) found that subordinates direct their
voice to such superiors with whom they have a
personal identification and liking. Thus, it could
be argued that subordinates prefer to voice to
superiors whom they admire and with whom they
have established close interpersonal relationships
(i.e., a superior who is seen as having referent
power). Within such dyads, subordinates would feel a sense of familSubordinates
iarity and would be more willing to
voice their concerns.
desirous of voicing
the workplace
Reward Power
Extant literature suggests that both
subordinates and superiors believe
that rewards are contingent upon
more willing to voice
organizational citizenship behaviors (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine,
to superiors whom
& Bachrach, 2000). It is argued that
they perceive as
employees prefer voice over other
forms of organizational citizenship
holding legitimate
behaviors as it is less time consuming (Bergeron, Shipp, Rosen, & Furst,
power.
2013). Superiors construe a positive
image of their employees whose
voice helps in facilitating the required change
in an organization and reciprocate by rewarding
them (Whiting, Podsakoff, & Pierce, 2008). In
their study, Whiting and colleagues (2008) found
a positive relationship between employee voice
and appraisal ratings. Thus, it is probable that
when subordinates perceive that their superiors
hold reward power, they have a greater likelihood
to voice.
concerns would be
Legitimate Power
Superiors wielding legitimate authority have the
power to take decisions and use organizational
resources to allocate desirable outcomes to others
(Astley & Sachdeva, 1984). Consequently, superiors possessing legitimate power are best suited
for receiving suggestions through employee voice
(Ellis & Dyne, 2009). Recent studies have also
evidenced that voice helps to improve the performance of a focal unit when it is targeted to
a legitimate authority (Detert, Burris, Harrison,
& Martin, 2013). Thus, subordinates desirous of
voicing the workplace concerns would be more
willing to voice to superiors whom they perceive
as holding legitimate power.
Hypotheses 2a–d: The relationship between willingness
to communicate and likelihood to voice is stronger for
subordinates who perceive that their superior has: (a)
expert power, (b) referent power, (c) reward power, and
(d) legitimate power.
Coercive Power
Voice could be related to organizational or workrelated issues (Milliken, Morrison, & Hewlin,
2003), such as a situation of unfairness or misconduct (Pinder & Harlos, 2001), a strategic issue of
importance (Dutton & Ashford, 1993), a suggestion on improvement (Dyne & LePine, 1998) or
an opinion that differs from the views of others
(Premeaux & Bedeian, 2003). Implicit in these
conceptualizations of voice is the idea that voice
behavior is dictated under a risk-reward asymmetry wherein rewards are primarily collective (organizational), whereas risks are at the individual
level (Detert & Edmondson, 2011). This way voice
entails risk; even offering a seemingly constructive
suggestion implies a challenge to the status quo
(Liu et al., 2010) that may attract backlash from
a superior who maintains a coercive relationship
with subordinates.
Graham (1991) interpreted coercive relationship as a special form of Gesellschaft relations
(comprising rational contractual, instrumental,
and task-oriented actions), where there is an involuntary obligation to comply with the terms set
by others. In such relationships, subordinates are
treated as slave laborers working under contractual obligations. According to Ryan and Oestreich
(1998), subordinates fear to speak up to such
superiors. In coercive relationships, subordinates
tend to psychologically detach themselves and
constrain their voice (Burris, Detert, & Chiaburu,
2008). It could thus be argued that subordinates
would be unwilling to voice to their superiors who
exercise coercive power.
Hypothesis 2e: The relationship between willingness to
communicate and likelihood to voice is weaker for subordinates who perceive that their superior has coercive
power.
Perceived Politics
Politics is inherent in organizations (Ferris, Russ, &
Fandt, 1989) and is a simple fact of organizational
life (Miller, Rutherford, & Kolodinsky, 2008). A
common notion in literature on organizational
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
SUBORDINATE-SUPERIOR UPWARD COMMUNICATION
politics is that “perception” of politics is extremely
important regardless of its “actual existence”
(Ferris & Kacmar, 1992). Perceived politics is the
“degree to which respondents view their work
environment as being political in nature, promoting the self-interests of others, and thereby unjust
and unfair from the individual point of view”
(Vigoda & Cohen, 2002, p. 311). Given its conceptual underpinnings (Ferris, Adams, Kolodinsky,
Hochwarter, & Ammeter, 2002), perception of
politics has been found to entail negative consequences for organizations and their employees. A
negative perception of political environment leads
to decrease in organizational commitment, job
satisfaction, in-role task performance, and organizational citizenship behavior (Chang, Rosen, &
Levy, 2009). Further, a negative perception of organizational politics increases withdrawal behavior,
frustration, and turnover intention (Abbas, Raja,
Darr, & Bouckenooghe, 2012).
A central issue related to employee voice is the
concern regarding why employees remain silent
even when they have organizationally relevant
information, ideas, or concerns. We draw from
the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Homans,
1958) to argue the complex linkage among willingness to communicate, likelihood to voice, and
perceived politics. Social exchange theory suggests
that relationships between two parties evolve
over a period of time based on certain rules of
exchange in which both parties provide benefits
to each other (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). In
an organizational context, the other party could
be the immediate superior (Farndale, Van Ruiten,
Kelliher, & Hope-Hailey, 2011), or the organization to which the employee may attribute humanlike characteristics (Levinson, 1965). Employees
who perceive supportive relationships with the
organization have favorable attitudes toward it
and engage in positive extra-role behaviors that
help it to succeed, whereas employees are unlikely
to hold favorable attitudes or exceed minimum
job requirements when organizational treatment
is perceived to be negative or neutral (Rhoades
& Eisenberger, 2002). Similarly, if employees feel
that organizational environment is conducive for
sharing their ideas, they are more likely to voice to
their immediate superiors, whereas in cases where
the organizational environment is perceived to be
risky and adverse, as in the case of a politically
charged environment, subordinates prefer to keep
to themselves.
The driving motive for voice is the desire to
help the organization or work-unit perform more
effectively, or to make a positive difference to
the collective (Ashford, Sutcliffe, & Christianson,
2009). When employees choose not to voice, the
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
5
motive to bring about improvement may exist, but
it could get overpowered by other organizationspecific situational variables (Milliken et al., 2003)
such as high level of “perceived politics” in the
organization, which is considered a dysfunctional
aspect of the social-exchange relationship (Gibney,
Zagenczyk, & Masters, 2009).
Hypothesis 3: The relationship between willingness to
communicate and the likelihood to voice is stronger for
subordinates when perceived politics is low, compared
to the situation when perceived politics is high.
Political Skill
Organizational politics is a necessary part of an
organization (Pettigrew, 1973; Tushman, 1977),
and political skills are needed to rise
through the ranks (Pfeffer, 1981,
In cases where
2010). While perceived politics is
viewed predominantly in a negative
the organizational
light, “political skill” is argued to
be a set of positive traits necessary
environment is
for survival in the organizational
environment (Ferris et al., 2007). perceived to be risky
Political skill is defined as the ability
and adverse, as in the
to effectively understand others at
work, and to use such knowledge to case of a politically
influence others to act in ways that
enhance one’s personal and/or orga- charged environment,
nizational objectives (Ahearn, Ferris,
subordinates
Hochwarter, Douglas, & Ammeter,
2004). Individuals high in political
prefer to keep to
skill possess an understanding of
themselves.
people along with a basic belief that
they can control the processes and
outcomes of interactions with others (Perrewé et al., 2004). Due to their high level
of social astuteness and networking ability, politically skilled individuals have a keen understanding of the workplace (Brouer, Harris, & Kacmar,
2011). Furthermore, they have the ability to read
people and situations well and act on that knowledge in ways that lead to interpersonal effectiveness (Ferris et al., 2007). Scholars pointed out that
politically skilled individuals are able to use their
social understanding, influence, and networking
abilities to garner important resources that may
assist in coping with negative situations (Harris,
Harris, & Brouer, 2009) such as organizational politics (Brouer, Ferris, Hochwarter, Laird, & Gilmore,
2006).
In their study, Brouer and colleauges (2011)
found that individuals possessing political skills
function effectively in a political environment.
Further, they found that when political skill interacts with perceived politics, the negative effect of
6
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
politics on job satisfaction is eliminated. As political skill operates as an antidote for the detrimental
effects of perceived politics, we argue that it would
moderate the relationship between willingness to
communicate and likelihood to voice in the context of organizational politics. For instance, subordinates having low political skill would be less
likely to voice if they perceive that politics is high,
as compared to a situation where they perceive
politics to be low.
Hypothesis 4: When subordinates’ political skill is low,
the relationship between willingness to communicate
and likelihood to voice will be stronger in case of a situation where perceived politics is low, compared to the
situation when perceived politics is high.
Methods
We conducted the study in India. Research on
employee behavior in India is argued to be scarce
(Budhwar & Bhatnagar, 2009). More
specifically, employee voice in the
As political skill
Indian context has been an underresearched area (Mellahi, Budhwar,
operates as an
& Li, 2010). As subordinates are
less likely to exhibit voice in the
antidote for the
Indian organizational space (Saini
detrimental effects
& Budhwar, 2008), a study in the
of perceived politics, Indian context would help in understanding how subordinate-superior
communication works in societies
we argue that it
where voicing is less frequent. A
would moderate
prime reason behind subordinates
suppressing their voice in the Indian
the relationship
context is related to the authoritabetween willingness tive and paternalistic relationship
governing the subordinate-superior
to communicate
dyad (Kakar, 1971; Ramaswami &
Dreher, 2010). Further, as India is
and likelihood to
a “high power distance country”
voice in the context (Budhwar & Sparrow, 2002), a study
located in India would highlight
of organizational
how subordinate-superior communication happens in high-power dispolitics.
tance countries.
The study was conducted in
four phases. In the first phase, the Willingness to
Communicate (WTC) scale was validated among
453 respondents. In the second phase, the questionnaire was translated to the Hindi language
by following the TRAPD method that involves
five stages: Translation, Review, Adjudication,
Pretesting, and Documentation (Harkness, 2010).
Validity of translation was checked through a pilot
study conducted on 23 respondents. In the third
phase, data were collected from 781 respondents.
In the fourth phase, after analyzing the data, 28
individuals were interviewed, including managers
and heads of HR departments.
Phase I
Three criteria were followed while choosing the
instruments for the study: (1) the suitability and
applicability of the instruments for the study; (2)
their validity and reliability records; and (3) the use
of the instruments in literature. To measure traitlike communication behavior, we used a 12-item
willingness to communicate (WTC-12) scale. The
WTC-12 scale measures the desire to initiate communication across general activities in daily life
(McCroskey & Richmond, 1987). While this scale
has been widely used in the Western world, its use
in the Indian context is limited. Western management measures are argued to be not ideal for the
Indian setting, owing to its unique sociocultural
background (Budhwar & Varma, 2010). Hence, we
checked for the validity of the WTC-12 scale in
the Indian cultural context.
As the WTC scale was initially focused on
measuring students’ willingness to communicate
to others, we approached respondents studying in
high schools and colleges. In this phase we collected data from 453 students across three educational institutions. Every respondent filled the
WTC-12 scale and a 44-item Big Five Inventory
(BFI) scale (John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008), which
is designed to measure the five dimensions of
personality: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness. The
44-item BFI is a widely used instrument that has
shown high internal reliability for the five-factor
scales across cultures (Schmitt, Allik, McCrae, &
Benet-Martínez, 2007). Prior studies have shown
a moderate relationship between WTC-12 scale
and the Big Five personality traits (MacIntyre &
Charos, 1996; Oz, 2014; Pavičić Takač & Požega,
2012). Further, as both WTC-12 and BFI are measures of personality traits (John & Srivastava,
1999; MacIntyre, 1994), we expected a moderate
positive correlation between them (except in the
case of neuroticism, wherein the direction should
be negative). As expected, WTC did maintain
moderate correlation with the Big Five personality
traits (see Table I) in the expected directions (all
positive, except in the case of neuroticism). Thus,
validity of the WTC-12 scale was established.
Phase II
For obtaining proper responses and a higher
response rate, we decided to translate the questionnaire into Hindi, the official language of India.
We did not follow Brislin’s (1970) “back-translation method,” as it fails to maintain semantic
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
SUBORDINATE-SUPERIOR UPWARD COMMUNICATION
TABLE
I
Correlation between WTC and Big Five Personality Traits
Sl. No
Variables
Mean
1.
WTC
51.70
14.22
SD
1
2
3
4
2.
Extraversion
3.35
0.59
.21**
3.
Agreeableness
3.95
0.55
.02
.01
4.
Conscientiousness
3.37
0.65
.15**
.13**
.31**
5.
Neuroticism
3.01
0.75
–.15**
–.30**
–.18**
–.33**
6.
Openness
3.91
0.55
.14**
.23**
.17**
.29**
5
–12**
Note: N = 453
SD: Standard Deviation; WTC: Willingness to Communicate.
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
equivalence at the item level. The back-translation method is more suitable for translating complete passages than questionnaires that are rarely
as coherent as passages. Moreover, this method
is often criticized for its methodological flaws
(see Holden & Michailova, 2014). While questionnaires look easy to translate, semantic and
pragmatic concerns are high. In such cases a bad
translation may fail to serve the communicative
function. Therefore, it is better to focus on translation as a process of intercultural interaction than
a bland lexical transfer of meaning (Chidlow,
Plakoyiannaki, & Welch, 2014). To address these
concerns we employed the TRAPD translation
protocol as suggested by Harkness (2010). TRAPD
translation protocol is a team approach consisting
of five stages: Translation, Review, Adjudication,
Pretesting, and Documentation. Following this protocol, we commissioned a multistage translation
process that involved six experts. Two translators,
two reviewers, and two adjudicators were commissioned to translate the complete questionnaire
set into Hindi. As part of the rigorous translation
evaluation process, we pilot tested the translated
questionnaire on a sample of 23 respondents that
culturally represented the target population.
Phase III
We collected the data from 910 working executives
from 12 different organizations representing both
the manufacturing and the service sectors. We
used dummy variables for different organizations
to control for the organization-specific effects
(Anand, Vidyarthi, Liden, & Rousseau, 2010). All
the respondents filled paper-and-pencil surveys.
While 474 respondents filled the surveys on-site,
the remaining 436 filled them off-site at a prominent management institute in India where they
had come to attend training programs. Out of 910
responses, 781 were found suitable for use, as the
remaining responses were mostly incomplete. The
respondents varied substantially in terms of their
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
age, gender, and tenure in the current organization. The age of the respondents ranged from 19
to 61 years, with an average age of 36 years. Out
of 781 respondents, 58 respondents were female
and the rest were male. The tenure of the respondents in the current organization varied between
1 and 586 months, with an average tenure of
73 months. To ensure confidentiality, we agreed
not to reveal the names of the respondents and
their organizations. They were informed that they
could leave the study at any time and were free
not to participate in the study.
Measures
We measured trait-like WTC using the WTC-12
Scale of McCroskey (1992). Sample situations
include “Talk in a large meeting of strangers”
and “Talk in a small group of friends.” For measuring employee voice, we used the eight-item
Likelihood to Voice (LTV) scale developed by
Saunders and colleagues (1992). An item of this
scale is “When something at work irritates (bothers) you, how likely are you to speak to your boss
about it?” To measure superiors’ power, we used
20 items of the Hinkin and Schriesheim (1989)
scale, which is designed to measure five bases of
social power as proposed by French and Raven
(1959). A sample item from the scale is “My boss
can influence my getting a promotion.” We measured perceived politics at the workplace through
the six-item perceived politics scale developed
by Hochwarter, Kacmar, Perrewé, and Johnson
(2003). One sample item reads as “Individuals
are stabbing each other in the back to look good
in front of others.” To measure subordinates’
political skill, we used the political skill inventory developed by Ferris and colleagues (1999).
A sample item from this scale is “I am good at
getting others to respond positively to me.” We
anchored the responses for questionnaire items
on a 5-point Likert scale. Higher scores indicate a
greater degree of the underlying construct.
7
8
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Although studies have demonstrated that
shared method variance is a nonissue in cases
where multiple predictors are used and where interaction effects are being studied (Siemsen, Roth, &
Oliveira, 2010), we have addressed this limitation
in several ways. Following Podsakoff, MacKenzie,
and Podsakoff (2012), we used multi-item constructs in the survey questionnaire, as response
biases are argued to be more problematic at the
item level than at the construct level (Harrison,
McLaughlin, & Coalter, 1996). Further, we reduced
item ambiguity by doing a pilot study to take care
of ambiguous items. To minimize common scale
properties (as suggested by Podsakoff et al., 2012)
we used different anchoring labels (WTC: Very
unwilling–Very willing; LTV: Very unlikely–Very
likely; Power/Politics/Political Skill: Strongly disagree–Strongly agree). Further, we divided the
questionnaire into three parts to maintain temporal separation. The dependent and independent
variables belonged to two different parts. We collected the responses directly from the respondents
in their natural settings and assured them of confidentiality of data. Prior to filling the questionnaire
sets, the respondents were also informed that the
questionnaires were designed to elicit individual
perceptions or preferences and that there were no
right or wrong answers.
consistency measures. Cronbach’s alpha values
are high (Table II), indicating high reliability of
our measures. Cronbach’s alpha is argued to be
sensitive to the number of items in the scale and
generally tends to underestimate the internal consistency. Due to the above limitations, we checked
composite reliability, a different measure of internal consistency. Composite reliability of the
instruments was found to range from .69 to .95;
the recommended threshold being .60 (Fornell &
Larcker, 1981). To examine the convergent and discriminant validity of our measures, we additionally
calculated the average variance extracted (AVE) for
our latent constructs (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Fornell
& Larcker, 1981; Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson,
2009). For convergent validity, the threshold of
each AVE score is recommended to be .50 (Fornell
& Larcker, 1981). The AVE scores of all the instruments used to measure the constructs were found
to be above .50. We employed the Fornell-Larcker
criterion to check discriminant validity. The square
root of each construct’s AVE was found to be
greater than its highest correlation with any other
construct. In summary, the composite reliabilities
and AVE scores provided support for reliability and
convergent and discriminant validity (Hair et al.,
2009). Table II shows descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients among the variables.
Control Variables
Procedure
We used dummy variables for firms as control variables at the group level. As respondents belonged
to 12 different firms (Firms A–L), we used 11
dummy variables. Individual-level control variables
included age (measured in number of years), tenure
(number of months in the current organization),
and gender (male = 0; female = 1) of the respondents. At Firm L, all respondents filled the questionnaire in Hindi at the on-site location; all others
(Firms A–K) filled the questionnaire in English at an
off-site location. This way, the Firm L variable acted
additionally as a proxy for on-site/off-site effect.
We applied hierarchical linear regression analysis
to test the hypotheses. The dummy variables for the
organizations were entered in Model 1 to control
for their effects. Other control variables (i.e., age,
gender, and tenure) were put in Model 2, followed
by the predictor variable in Model 3. To check
moderation effects, we entered the interaction
term in Model 4. For two-way interactions, we followed the suggestions of Baron and Kenny (1986)
for checking the moderation effect. Similarly, we
followed Dawson and Richter’s (2006) suggestions
for measuring the effect of three-way interactions.
As suggested by researchers (Aiken & West, 1991),
we mean-centered all the predictor and control
variables (excluding those that were categorical in
nature) before running regression tests.
Construct Validation
To test the dimensionality and factor structure of
the instruments, we put all the items of the predictor variables through an exploratory factor
analysis. As all the instruments had gone through
a translation process that could lead to major psychometric changes, exploratory factor analysis was
preferred over confirmatory factor analysis. All the
items were free to load on any factor. All the scales
maintained their dimensionality and factor structures. We dropped one item measuring employee
voice, as it failed to load on its respective factor
and had low loading scores. To examine reliability of the instruments, we calculated the internal
Results
Hypothesis 1 predicted that subordinates’ willingness to communicate would have a positive
relationship on their likelihood to voice. This
hypothesis got support from the data as WTC
explained a significant increase in variance in LTV
(ΔR2 = .03, F = 13.3, ΔF = 31.5, p < .001). Regression
results are reported in Table III.
Hypothesis 2a predicted that expert power of
the superior would act as a moderator for WTC–LTV
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
SUBORDINATE-SUPERIOR UPWARD COMMUNICATION
TABLE
II
Descriptive Statistics and Pearson Correlation Coefficients
Sl. No. Variables
Mean
SD
.59
.49
36.26
9.31
CR
AVE
1
2
3
1.
Language
2.
Age
3.
Gender
.07
.26
–.16**
–.21**
4.
Tenure
73.33
95.55
–.32**
.57**
–.11**
5.
Likelihood to
Voice
3.90
.63
.50
.40**
–.13**
–.09*
6.
WTC
3.52
.58
.69
NA
–.27**
7.
Expert Power
4.06
.76
.90
.70
.10**
8.
Referent Power
3.86
.75
.88
.65
9.
Reward Power
3.39
.95
.91
.71
4
–.41**
.85
.13**
–.05
–.05
.17**
.00
–.01
–.13**
.13**
–.07
.12**
–.04
.080*
–.12**
–.03
–.07
10.
Legitimate Power
3.87
.73
.88
.65
.02
–.01
–.03
–.02
11.
Coercive Power
2.70
.90
.78
.54
.03
–.07
–.01
.01
12.
Perceived Politics
3.36
.90
.90
.59
–.17**
–.02
.07
–.01
13.
Political Skill
4.01
.60
.83
.50
.15**
.00
–.04
.00
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Sl. No. Variables
5.
Likelihood to
Voice
6.
WTC
7.
Expert Power
.36**
.21**
8.
Referent Power
.23**
.22**
.57**
9.
Reward Power
.20**
.09*
.39**
13
(.80)
.07*
.18**
(.81)
10.
Legitimate Power
11.
Coercive Power
–.07
.13**
12.
Perceived Politics
–.13**
.15**
13.
Political Skill
.32**
.37**
–.01
(.86)
(.83)
.41**
.28**
.19**
–.19**
–.19**
–.09*
–.06
.23**
.21**
(.87)
.19**
(.83)
.02
.18**
–.06
.13**
.14**
.08*
(.81)
.29**
–.06
(.87)
.01
(.76)
Note: N = 781.
SD: Standard Deviation; WTC: Willingness to Communicate;
CR: Composite Reliability; AVE: Average Variance Extracted.
Figures in parentheses indicate Cronbach’s alpha score for respective scales.
**Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).
*Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).
relationship. This hypothesis got weak support
from the data (ΔF = 3.25; t = –1.8, p < .1) (see Figure
1). Results suggested that subordinates’ perception of superior’s referent (ΔF = .18; t = –.42, p =
ns), reward (ΔF = .67; t = –.82, p = ns), and coercive
power (ΔF = 1.71; t = –1.31, p = ns) fail to moderate
the WTC-LTV relationship. Hence, Hypotheses 2b
(referent power), 2c (reward power), and 2e (legitimate power) were not supported. Hypothesis 2d
(legitimate power) got support from data (ΔF = 8.25;
t = –2.87, p < .001) (see Figure 2).
Hypothesis 3 got support from data lending credence to the argument that subordinates’
perception of politics acts as a moderator for the
WTC-LTV relationship (see Figure 3). Table IV provides a brief of the regression tests done to check
the moderating effects of the interaction term.
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
The moderation effect of the interaction term
(perceived politics × political skill) was found to
moderate the WTC-LTV relationship (ΔF = 13.91; t
= 3.38, p < .001). Hypothesis 4 thus was supported.
The three-way interaction term (willingness to
communicate × perceived politics × political skills)
yielded six pairs of slopes, out of which only one
pair comprising high perceived politics and low
political skills, and low perceived politics and low
political skills, reached closer to acceptable significance level (.1 < p < .2; see Figure 4).
Post-Hoc Analysis
In a political environment, people would like to
exploit the power of the powerful. Putting it in a
subordinate-superior communication framework,
in a politically charged environment subordinates
9
10
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
TABLE
III
Effect of Two-Way and Three-Way Interaction Terms on Likelihood to Voice
Intercept
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
3.54***
3.52***
3.51***
3.52***
Step 1: Control Variables (Group)
Firm A#
Firm B
.13
.15
.16
.15
Firm C
–.24
–.26†
–.26†
–.26†
Firm D
.11
.13
.13
.13
Firm E
.02
.04
.05
.04
Firm F
.08
.10
.11
.10
Firm G
.06
.08
.09
.08
Firm H
.02
.04
.05
.04
Firm I
.13
.15
.15
.15
Firm J
.21
.24
.24
.24
Firm K
.00
.02
.03
.02
.57***
.59***
.59***
.59***
Age
.00
.00
.00
Gender
.06
.07
.06
Tenure
.00
.00
.00
.20***
.12***
##
Firm L
Step 2: Control Variables (Individual)
Step 3: Independent Variable
Willingness to Communicate
Step 4: Organization Specific Situational Variables
Expert Power
.19***
Referent Power
.06†
Reward Power
.00
Legitimate Power
.07*
Coercive Power
–.01
Perceived Politics
–.04†
Overall Model
F
14.3***
13.3***
15.4***
F Change
14.3***
1.14
31.5***
16.6***
.17
.17
.21
.30
.17
.00
.03
.09
Total R2
2
R Change
11.5***
Note: N = 781, †p < .1, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Unstandardized coefficients are reported.
#
Firm A acts as a baseline category for dummy variables for firms.
##
Firm L acts as a proxy for Language variable: correlation between Firm L and Language is 1.
##
Firm L acts as a proxy for on-site/off-site effect: Correlation between these two is 1.
would be more willing to voice to superiors who
seem powerful enough to turn the tide in their
favor. To test this argument, we ran regression
tests to check the moderation effect of the threeway interaction term (willingness to communicate × perceived politics × superior’s power) as a
post-hoc analysis. As superiors’ power comprises
five different bases of power, we calculated the p
value for slope difference for all the five bases of
superiors’ power. The value for slope difference
reached closer to an acceptable level of significance (.1 < p < .2) only in the following two cases:
(1) high perceived politics–low superior’s referent power, and low perceived politics–low superior’s referent power (see Figure 5); and (2) high
perceived politics–low superior’s reward power,
and low perceived politics–low superior’s reward
power (see Figure 6).
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
Likelihood to Voice
SUBORDINATE-SUPERIOR UPWARD COMMUNICATION
Low EX
High EX
Low WTC
High WTC
Likelihood to Voice
FIGURE 1. Interaction Effect of Expert Power
Low LG
High LG
Low WTC
High WTC
FIGURE 2. Interaction Effect of Legitimate Power
that their superior is devoid of the power that
could turn things in their favor. However, results
suggest that subodinates may exploit superior’s
reward and referent power in a politically charged
environment. The findings thus suggest a negative effect of perceived politics on the WTC–LTV
relationship.
Based on above discussion, it can be argued
that the five bases of power (French & Raven, 1959)
behave differently as moderators of the WTC-LTV
relationship. While expert and legitimate power
moderates the WTC-LTV relationship irrespective
of the perceived level of politics, referent and reward
power act as moderators only in the case of a politically charged environment. Coercive power does
not act as a moderator, irrespective of the political
environment. To make meaning of the findings, we
conducted the fourth phase of the study.
The prime purpose in the fourth phase was
“complementarity,” that is, to seek “elaboration,
enhancement, illustration, clarification of the
results from one method with the results from
the other method” (Greene, Caracelli, & Graham,
1989, p. 259). In recent years, complementarity has
guided many researchers to go for a mixed-methods
study wherein researchers use “interviews, archival
investigation, or participant observation to interpret results derived from large-sample data” (Small,
2011, p. 65). This trend is catching up across different disciplines (Bryman, 2006), including the field
of HRM (Weibel et al., 2016).
Likelihood to Voice
Phase IV
Low PP
High PP
Low WTC
High WTC
FIGURE 3. Interaction Effect of Perceived Politics
The results suggest that silent subordinates
(low WTC) are least likely to voice in an environment where perceived politics is low and referent/
reward power of their immediate superior is low.
In contrast, vocal subordinates (high WTC) are
least likely to voice in an environment where perceived politics is high but referent/reward power
of their immediate superior is low. It might be
the case that these subordinates see themselves
as being able to reap the rewards of a political
environment but are frustrated by the awareness
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
We employed Quantitative-Dominant Sequential
Mixed Analysis style (QUAN → Qual) (Leech &
Onwuegbuzie, 2009; Onwuegbuzie, Slate, Leech,
& Collins, 2007). This style is prominent where
researchers focus on complementarity and significance enhancement (Collins, Onwuegbuzie, &
Sutton, 2006). QUAN → Qual style helps enhance
the findings of quantitative analysis through qualitative data analysis techniques (Onwuegbuzie &
Leech, 2004). For sampling purpose, we employed
a “parallel” sampling design; that is, samples for
both quantitative and qualitative components of
the research were different, but were drawn from
the same population of interest (Onwuegbuzie &
Collins, 2007). The sampling technique was purposive and we focused on getting such cases that
would provide “saturated” information (Teddlie
& Yu, 2007). While no number can be considered high enough, past studies have argued that
responses may get saturated at about 12 cases
(Guest, Bunce, & Johnson, 2006). As our focus
was narrow (complementarity and significance
enhancement), we followed a structured format
for the interviews.
11
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
TABLE
Regression Results: Effect of Two-Way and Three-Way Interaction Terms on LTV
IV
β
R2 Change
F Change
WTC × EX
.00
3.25
18.28***
–.06
.03
–.06
–1.80†
WTC × RF
.00
.18
15.02***
–.02
.04
–.01
–.42
WTC × RW
.00
.67
12.74***
–.03
.04
–.03
–.82
WTC × LG
.01
8.25
13.70***
–.11
.04
–.09
WTC × CR
.00
1.71
12.17***
–.05
.04
–.04
–1.31
WTC × PP
.02
17.78
13.46***
–.14
.03
–.14
–4.22***
WTC × PP × PS
.01
11.41
13.91***
.10
.03
.15
3.38***
WTC × PP× EX
.01
8.23
16.30***
.08
.03
.10
2.87***
WTC × PP× RF
.01
5.99
13.93***
.08
.03
.08
2.45**
WTC × PP × RW
.01
12.74
12.61***
.10
.03
.12
3.57***
WTC × PP × LG
.00
3.15
12.62***
.05
.03
.08
1.78†
WTC × PP × CR
.00
.12
11.00***
.01
.04
.01
.34
F
B
SE
t
–2.87***
Note: N = 781. †p < .1, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
WTC = willingness to communicate; EX = expert power; RF = referent power; RW = reward power; LG = legitimate power; CR = coercive
power; PP = perceived politics; PS = political skill
High PP, Low RW
Low PP, Low RW
Likelihood to Voice
Likelihood to Voice
High PP, Low PS
Low PP, Low PS
Low WTC
High WTC
FIGURE 4. Interaction Effect of Perceived Politics and
Political Skills
High PP, Low RF
Low PP, Low RF
Likelihood to Voice
12
Low WTC
High WTC
FIGURE 5. Interaction Effect of Perceived Politics and
Referent Power
Two independent researchers coded interview responses. While the first coder was one of
the authors of this article, another coder was an
Low WTC
High WTC
Note: The Interaction slopes were tested for low (–1 standard deviation below the mean) and high (+1 standard deviation above the
mean) levels of the predictor variables.
FIGURE 6. Interaction Effect of Perceived Politics and
Reward Power
independent researcher who had no prior knowledge of the study but was briefed about the purpose prior to coding. Intercoder reliability, a
measure of agreement between multiple coders
about how they apply codes to the data (Kurasaki,
2000), was very high. The coders came up with
444 and 423 codes, respectively, leading to an
intercoder agreement of .95. Such high intercoder
agreement could be attributed to the nature of
the questions (specific) and the interview format
(structured). The next stage was to extract themes
from the codes and utilize them to complement
and enhance the interpretation of Phase III findings. Table V provides an outline of responses
summed up under broad themes.
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
V
Summary of Responses
The respondents reported that in a politically charged environment there is “heightened care before voicing” to a superior who holds
expert power. In such situations “voice is reduced” and subordinates try to “play it safe” before voicing their concerns. Due to politics,
there is an observed “difference in private and public communication” of subordinates as they become extra cautious and prefer to
choose formal means of communication with the superior. Moreover, often, there is “reluctance to communicate to the superior” if subordinates are not in the “closed circles of the superior.” Some respondents pointed out that if subordinates find out that the superior has
been engaging in political behavior then they constrain their voice and “focus on safe-guarding self-interest.” Nonetheless, those subordinates who “possess political acumen” continue to voice their concerns as they know how to handle things in such situations. However,
in majority of the cases, voice of these subordinates is just a reflection of “what the superior wishes to hear,” rather than a “reflection of
realities.”
The respondents stated that subordinates who are “adept at judging political situations” are able to voice in a politically charged environment. Such people know how to “take advantage of political situations” and engage in “gossiping and groupism”; they are good at “packaging information” so that they can build personal rapport with the superior. Often, their voicing behavior is “tactful and self-focused.”
The voicing behavior of such subordinates is dictated by the “quality of relationship with the superior” and superior’s status in the organization –better relationship and higher superior power drive high voice. However, voice in such cases is often targeted “to fuel politics”;
politically adept subordinates act as “mediators of ideas” wherein they filter information.
The respondents stated that such employees have high “networking abilities,” possess a “nonconfrontational attitude,” are very “careful
about their expressions,” and have high emotional intelligence. They often act as “intellectual surrogates” and are good at “managing and
averting negativities.”
Respondents pointed out that a superior, who has expert power, is often approached by the subordinates for “attending to problems” and
coming up with practical solutions. The subordinates look up to the superior and “seek advice on matters related to superior’s domain of
expertise.” Such superiors are often held in high regard by their subordinates, as they “provide support in time of need” by “solving problems through their experience”—the superior is seen as a problem solver.
On the flip side, voice to such superiors is specific and technical in nature. Subordinates “evaluate the worthiness of their ideas” before
voicing to such superiors. They are often hesitant to share ideas that have not been thought over for fear of ridicule. When they voice, they
prefer to “avoid unsure ideas” and are cautious and polite as they might be seen as challenging the superior’s expertise. Nonetheless,
respondents pointed out that in the case of expert power, voice is often genuine and focused upon “technical problems at hand.”
Almost all respondents suggested that organizational politics affects an employee’s willingness to voice her/his opinion to the immediate
superior. However, they were quick to point out that there are two dimension that need to be taken into account: first the qualities of the
superior, and second, the skills of the subordinate. If the superior is one who tries to build “a climate of trust,” practices “transparency in
communication” and establishes “clarity about matters,” then the prevailing organizational climate does not make much of a difference.
However, if the superior himself is the source of politics then even the most forthcoming employees would prefer to remain silent and
would think twice before voicing their opinions. Subordinates who have the “ability to read power equations” and behave in a “politically
correct way” rarely face any disadvantage in varied political conditions; contrarily, they are able to build a strong power base for themselves through building “quality relationship” with the “politically active superior.”
Respondents suggested that subordinates prefer to voice to a superior who is seen to be powerful as she/he is able to take action; a powerful superior is one to whom people look up to as they can provide “attention to ideas and implement them.” A powerful superior is seen
as one who has “capability to implement ideas” and can “resolve issues easily”: subordinates prefer to get into the “in-group” of such
superiors. Nonetheless, subordinates prefer to “exercise precaution” when voicing to powerful superiors; in such cases voicing is within
subordinates’ “comfort zone.”
Impact of
Organizational
Politics
Impact of
Expert Power
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
Expert Power in a
Political Climate
Impact of Subordinate’s
Political Skills
Impact of
Superior’s
Power
Broad Theme Outline of Responses
TABLE
SUBORDINATE-SUPERIOR UPWARD COMMUNICATION
13
V
(Continued)
Respondents suggested that subordinates prefer to remain silent when they feel that their superior uses coercive powers. In a politically charged environment, subordinates “refrain from using voice” and engage in “minimum communication.” There is a near complete
“avoidance of negative voice” as it may lead to punishment from the coercive superior who “pushes others into alignment.” In such situations, voice is seen as a “deviation from established norms” and one who voices is often punished. The “fear of punishment” leads the
subordinates into believing that “silence is golden.” Those who voice in such situations are either politically adept or themselves hold a
powerful position (for example, union leaders), but for all others, voice is “an act of deterrence” that must be avoided at all costs.
Respondents told that in a political environment, subordinates voice “in anticipation of rewards” from a superior who holds reward power.
The voicing is done with a “focus on benefits to the boss”; in return, they look out for “favor from the boss.” Some respondents suggested
that voicing in such situations is driven by sycophants who “voice to please,” “present others’ ideas as their own” and “present others
negatively.” This breeds “groupism and favoritism” which pushes others (who do not belong to the in-group of the superior) into silence.
These others remain unsatisfied and are demotivated to such an extent that they rarely voice; they “prefer to lay low” for “fear of rebuke.”
As per the respondents, superiors who command coercive power draw lesser voice. Voice in such cases is “bare minimum.” Subordinates
“prefer to remain silent” and are “reluctant to communicate” for “fear of whiplash for pointing out errors”; there is “prevalence of fear
psychosis,” which stops subordinates from sharing their opinions and ideas with the coercive superiors. Subordinates are “reluctant to
discuss things in the open” and have a “waning commitment to the larger goal.” There is a tendency to hide mistakes and the subordinates often “fake results” as their “focus in on conformity.”
The respondents suggested that voice is often made to a powerful superior “in expectation of reward”; in such cases, the prime focus of
voice is to “please the superior” and “play down negativities.” Voice, in such situations, is dependent upon the position of the superior and
is often centered to put a “positive image of oneself” in the eyes of the superior, for the sake of annual appraisal. Respondents were quick
to point that in such situations subordinates are “calculative in voicing” as they seek to “leverage benefits through voice” by “focusing on
personal achievements.”
The respondents pointed out that, in a political environment, a superior holding referent power is seen as one who can “provide extra
opportunity to develop ideas” by “circumventing formal processes.” In a political environment subordinates focus more on exploiting
available opportunities to do two things: “remain in the good books of the superior by building self-image” and focus on voice that would
bring “benefits to the superior.” In political situations, those subordinates who are in the in-group of the superior “voice even on trivial
issues” whereas those who are in the out-group display a tendency to “voice occasionally and indirectly.” In the long run, subordinates
belonging to the in-group “become a pampered lot” who “play to their self-advantage” by “seeking favor from the superior.” As some
respondents pointed out, voicing in such situations is merely an “act to improve psychological safety.”
Respondents underlined the nature of subordinate-superior relationship in situations where the superior holds referent power. In such
cases, the subordinates are more vocal and “feel free to express ideas,” as the relationship is based on trust. There is “clear and direct
communication” and subordinates become “proactive at work” as they gain “psychological safety.”
On the dark side, subordinates come up with “diluted voice” to a superior who holds referent power. In such situations, the superior is
approachable mainly to in-group members, making voice the “views of a small group.” The superior often “seeks political and confidential
information” from subordinates who themselves are “focused on future gains” with their voice behavior centered on “getting into the
good books of the superior”: voice in such situations is diluted, as subordinates exhibit self-control and their focus is on “providing politically correct ideas.” A few respondents suggested that voice in such situations often leads to overconfidence on the part of subordinates
who are close to the superior.
Broad Theme Outline of Responses
TABLE
Impact of
Referent Power
Referent Power
in a Political Climate
Impact of
Reward
Power
Reward
Power in
a Political
Climate
Impact of
Coercive
Power
Coercive
Power in a
Political Climate
14
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
Conducive Com- Individual Traits
munication Clior Situation –
mate
Which Is Important?
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
Legitimate
Power in
a Political
Climate
Impact of
Legitimate
Power
V
(Continued)
Respondents underlined the importance of conducive communication climate which comprises of “mutual trust,” “open work culture,”
and prevalence of practices such as “feedback sessions” and “anonymous forums.” Such practices help build confidence by removing fear
of reprisal from a powerful superior. In the absence of such practices, subordinates prefer to “voice selectively” and their voice is often
aimed to leave a favorable impression on the superior. Other characteristics of conducive environment, as identified by the respondents,
are a “strong and responsive leadership,” “top management support,” “suitable reward system,” and availability of “platforms of communication.” Platforms include regular meetings, group interactions, employee engagement, casual meetings, and anonymous feedback
system.
Respondents were near unanimous in emphasizing the importance of both communication climate as well as communication skills for
promoting employee voice in an organization. While respondents favored a “judicious mix of subordinate’s communication skills and
communication climate,” they emphasized the higher importance of “conducive environment” as compared to subordinate’s communication skills. Respondents pointed out that subordinates” skills were inherently linked to the environment, as even a vocal employee would
become reticent if she/he “fears speaking due to fear of ridicule.” If the superior focuses on “negativities of power,” then subordinates
would prefer to remain silent. In contrast, in a conducive environment, even the most silent ones may get excited to share their ideas.
Subordinates are forthcoming if ideas are welcomed, valued, and recognized.
Respondents underlined that, in a politically charged atmosphere, subordinates take a “cautious approach to voice.” The rise of politics
leads to “dilution of formal procedures” and the “formal communication channels get weakened.” There is an “increased tendency to violate formal rules” and both subordinates and superiors “play to their self-advantage.” Subordinates “voice for sake of self-image maintenance” or “share only required information.” Voicing in such situations depends on the relationship with the superior and those who are
not in the “closed circles of the superior” voice only when it is mandatory.
Respondents highlighted the fact that legitimate power confers “acceptance of superior’s authority.” There is “higher motivation to express
views and ideas” as the “superior is seen as a mentor” in whom the organization has vested “power to solve problems”; the superior is
seen as a “credible person with an intent to take action.” However, there is a flip side, too: in most cases, voicing is related to “specific job
related issues” only. There is “reduced transfer of ideas” as subordinates prefer to use “formal communication channels,” which makes
voice job-specific. Some respondents pointed out that such formal communication often leads to “higher obedience on the part of subordinates,” which “constrains challenging voice.” In such “conscious communication” subordinates sometimes hide information leading to
“reduced transfer of ideas.”
Broad Theme Outline of Responses
TABLE
SUBORDINATE-SUPERIOR UPWARD COMMUNICATION
15
16
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Discussion
The study found that subordinates with high willingness to communicate are more likely to engage
in upward communication with their immediate
superiors. In addition, we found that willingness
to communicate accounts for much less variance
in likelihood to voice (ΔR2 = .03) as compared
to the variance accounted for by organizationspecific situational variables, that is, superior’s
power and organizational politics (ΔR2 = .09).
Thus, it can be argued that organizations that wish
to increase subordinates’ upward communication behavior may be better guided if they direct
a larger part of their resources to manage organization-specific situational variables than to focus
exclusively on subordinates’ trait-like communication behavior. On the flip side, the results suggest
that adverse organizational environment can force a communicative
Respondents were
subordinate into silence. We raised
this question during the interviews.
of the view that
Respondents emphasized that while
while a conducive
both individual traits and situational
variables are important, situational
communication
variables play a larger and dominant
role. Respondents were of the view
climate can make
that while a conducive communicaeven the most
tion climate can make even the most
reticent employee come up with new
reticent employee
ideas and suggestions, a nonconducive climate can push even the most
come up with
vocal employee into silence.
new ideas and
Farmer and Aguinis (2005)
argued
that literature on power is
suggestions, a
generally silent regarding the prononconducive climate cesses that link perceived superior
power to subordinate outcomes.
can push even the
Our study highlighted an interesting
most vocal employee observation regarding the moderation effect of the five bases of power
on the WTC-LTV relationship.
into silence.
While expert and legitimate power
acted as moderators irrespective of
political conditions, referent and reward power
acted as moderators only in the case of political
conditions. Further, we do not find the moderation effect of coercive base of power on the WTCLTV relationship. We tried to understand these
phenomena during the interviews in Phase IV.
The respondents suggested that a superior holding expert power has excellent knowledge of her/
his domain of expertise. Subordinates look up to
these superiors for solutions to their problems. As
voicing to such superiors is highly specific (regarding technical matters), political conditions do not
play much of a role. Similarly, a superior holding
legitimate power is seen as an authority whose
position of power has been accepted by all. Such
superiors act as formal mentors and subordinates
voice to them mainly on specific job-related issues
using formal channels of communication. The
nature of voice (technical), choice of channel (formal), and the motivation of voice (solution seeking) in both cases (expert and legitimate power)
is such that prevalent political conditions rarely
affect the act of voicing.
Respondents suggested that in case of superiors holding referent power, voicing is either
done by members who belong to the in-group of
the superior or by those subordinates who want
to gain entry into the in-group. Voicing in such
cases is often on trivial issues that are focused on
providing politically correct ideas and suggestion
to the superior, with an eye on personal gains.
Moreover, subordinates prefer to circumvent formal routes of communication. Similarly, voicing
to a superior holding reward power is done with
an expectation of reward. Subordinates prefer to
get into the good books of superiors in order to
gain easy access to rewards. As rewards are limited,
the superiors also prefer to distribute the rewards
to in-group members. Voicing in such cases is
mainly to please the superior, who, through the
act of ingratiation, would be ready to share the
rewards. The nature of voice (nontechnical),
choice of channel (formal), and the motivation of
voice (reward seeking), in both cases (referent and
reward), is such that they are suitable mainly for
politically charged environments.
Contrary to Phase III findings, respondents
suggested a strong effect of coercive power on
employee voice. Respondents suggested that superiors who use coercive power create a sense of fear
psychosis among subordinates, who start believing that any voice would be dealt with whiplash.
Such superiors do not like any deviation from
established norms; for them voice comes up as a
deviation that must be crushed. The fear of punishment is so huge that presence or absence of political environment makes no difference. Therefore,
under coercive superiors, subordinates prefer to
remain silent and refrain from voicing. Future
studies may address this discrepancy between our
findings in Phase III and Phase IV.
Limitations, Strengths, and Directions for
Future Research
Even though the findings of the study attempt
to make significant contributions to research and
practice, the study is not without its set of limitations. We have conducted the study in a cultural
context that is not noted for individuals voicing
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
SUBORDINATE-SUPERIOR UPWARD COMMUNICATION
their concerns (Saini & Budhwar, 2008). Similar
studies should be encouraged in countries where
more voice is likely to occur. Prior research has
found that young and old Indians differ significantly in terms of adopting managerial practices
(Mellahi & Guermat, 2004). We have addressed
this issue by using a wider age group in the sample. In addition, wherever applicable, we have
included age as a control variable. Our sample is
dominated by male respondents, which may limit
the generalizability of our findings. However, our
sample is symptomatic of the skewed gender balance in the Indian organizational space (Budhwar,
Saini, & Bhatnagar, 2005).
During interviews, a few respondents stressed
that similarity of caste between the subordinatesuperior dyad could affect employee voice. The
respondents argued that similarity of caste leads
to better communication and sharing of ideas
among the subordinates and superiors. As caste
is an important marker of one’s identity in India
(Mishra & Kumar, 2014) affecting behavioral patterns in the Indian context (Chen, Chittoor, &
Vissa, 2015), future studies may focus on this variable. As in the case of caste, linguistic identity runs
deep in the Indian psyche (Kumar & Jain, 2013). A
superior who speaks the mother tongue of the subordinate may create a friendly space where flow of
voice is eased. On the flip side, subordinates may
prefer to keep to themselves if superiors choose a
language in which subordinates have low competence and fluency. We did not cover this issue
in our study, but the interplay of language choice
and linguistic identities within the subordinatesuperior dyad could be an interesting area of study.
Another limitation is the nature of the scales
used in this study. We used only self-report scales.
However, the nature of the study necessitated that
the “perceptions” of the respondents be taken
into account. Willingness falls in the realm of
cognition, and one’s cognitive abilities are best
measured in a practical way through self-report
mechanisms (McCroskey, 1997; McCroskey &
Richmond, 1987). Even though state-like behavior can be readily observed and one can apply
“other reports” to measure state-like behavior,
any study that analyzes trait-state relationship is
better placed if it focuses on similar types of measures for both trait-like and state-like behavior.
Furthermore, scholars who have worked in the
field of employee voice have found self-reports of
voice intention to be stable over time and positively related to supervisory ratings of voice behavior (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). These findings are
in line with the assertions by Ajzen (2005) that
attitude or intention to act is usually a good predictor of actual behavior. Use of self-report scales
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
to measure both criterion and predictor variables
have been argued to lead to biases (Organ & Ryan,
1995), though in many cases (like the present
one), they are the most suitable methods for measuring the variables in question. Self-report scales,
as scholars have reasoned, are not inherently
prone to biases (Conway & Lance, 2010; Spector,
2006); rather, when used in appropriate contexts,
they are valid, practical, and appropriate measurement tools available to the researcher.
We found some interesting observations
related to the control variables in our Phase III of
the study. All three control variables had negative
correlation with the dependent variable. The negative effect of age on voice has been found across
many studies (Dyne & LePine, 1998; Farndale
et al., 2011). Since age seems to affect voice in a
negative way, it could be possible that as employees grow older they prefer to keep their ideas and
suggestions to themselves. This would bring inefficiencies into organizations, as senior employees
may possess a better outlook to the challenges that
organizations face. Future studies may explore the
complex effect of age on employee voice.
Females are found less likely to voice their
concerns to the immediate superiors. While this
could be due to cultural concerns, as Indian organizational space is heavily male dominated, we
need more studies in the Indian context to get
better insights into this observed phenomenon.
Studies in the Western context have largely found
no such differences in voice behavior across gender groups (Conway, Fu, Monks, Alfes, & Bailey,
2016; Detert & Burris, 2007). If we find a consistent pattern (i.e., females suppressing their voice),
we may get a better understanding of why business organizations in India are not considered
women friendly (Jain & Mukherji, 2010).
During the interviews, some of the respondents raised the issue of gender difference between
the subordinate-superior dyad and emphasized its
possible effects. A female respondent was of the
view that gender difference within the dyad lowers the subordinate’s likelihood to voice concerns
to the superior. In the light of the preceding discussion, it might be reasoned that future studies
would be benefited if they include “gender” and
“gender difference within the subordinate-superior dyad” as predictor variables.
Our study found a negative relation between
tenure in current organization and employee
voice. Prior studies have found mixed results for
the two variables. For example, Detert and Burris
(2007) found a positive relation and no relation,
respectively, between tenure and employee voice
in their two-phase study. Farndale and colleauges
(2011) found a negative relation between tenure
17
18
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
and employee voice. These discrepancies need
more detailed research for a better understanding of the relation between tenure and employee
voice.
Conclusion
Upward communication acts as a primary means
for organizational members to process information, reduce ambiguity, and coordinate actions
(Johnson, 1993). It helps decision makers by
alerting them to key areas of needed change and
adjustment in organizational policy and strategy
(Glauser, 1984). Valuing upward communication restores employees’ perceptions of equity by
sending a message that the organization is willing to improve processes and enhance human
relationships (Dobbins & Dundon, in press;
Goldberg, Clark, & Henley, 2011). Furthermore,
upward communication, when valued, signals
that the organization is inclusive and is willing to
integrate diversity into its policies and practices
(Scott, Heathcote, & Gruman, 2011). As organizational success depends on undifferentiated and
equal treatment of employees (Clarkson, 2014),
listening to “the attitudes, the opinions, the
ideas and the suggestions of people at the bottom of the whole structure” (Nichols, 1962, p. 4)
becomes even more important. Our study analyzed some critical variables that constrain such
communication.
The study examined the effect of two organization-specific situational variables: organizational politics and superiors’ power on the
linkage between subordinates’ willingness to
communicate and their likelihood to voice to
their superiors. Politics is generally viewed as
a potentially negative activity (Aryee, Chen, &
Budhwar, 2004), and our results reconfirm this
view. The study suggests that if organizations
put a lid on negative politicking, they can claim
to have a communicative workforce that is more
likely to voice their concerns and ideas to their
immediate superiors. In addition, we found that
the two widely utilized powers—the power to
reward (reward power) and the power to punish
(coercive power)—are less effective in comparison
to expert and legitimate power; referent power,
too, was found to be misapplied in the context
of employee voice. Our study thus suggests that
organizations interested in promoting employee
voice should focus more on better management of
the expert and legitimate powers of superiors than
focussing on referent, reward, or coercive power.
The study found a prevalent but weak link
between employees’ trait-like (willingness to
communicate) and state-like (likelihood to communicate) behavior, suggesting that subordinate-superior upward communication is better
managed by focusing on organization-specific
situational variables. Going back to the question that we raised in the beginning—for a job
requiring frequent informal communication with
superiors, should an organization focus more on
selecting employees with higher trait-like willingness to communicate or on providing an environment where the flow of communication is
easy and aided?—the results of our study suggest
the latter.
KUNAL KAMAL KUMAR is Associate Professor in Human Resource Management at
T. A. Pai Management Institute (TAPMI), Manipal. His research and teaching interests
include upward communication, employee voice, organizational diversity, and cultural concerns. He prefers to bring in interdisciplinary perspectives spanning diverse field of studies
such as linguistics, philosophy, and management studies. His research publications have
touched distinct issues such as employee communication, virtue ethics, linguistic identity,
and LGBT issues.
SUSHANTA KUMAR MISHRA is Associate Professor in Organizational Behavior and Human
Resource Management at Indian Institute of Management, Indore. His research and teaching interests include voice behavior, diversity in organizations, workplace emotions, and
stress. His work has been published in Human Resource Management, Journal of World
Business, Studies in Higher Education, International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
Information Technology and People, Personnel Review, and Journal of Brand Management.
His work has been adjudged as the best accepted paper at the Academy of Management
Annual Meeting, 2009.
References
Abbas, M., Raja, U., Darr, W., & Bouckenooghe, D. (2012).
Combined effects of perceived politics and psychological
capital on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and performance. Journal of Management, 40(7), 1813–1830.
Ahearn, K. K., Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., Douglas,
C., & Ammeter, A. P. (2004). Leader political skill and
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
SUBORDINATE-SUPERIOR UPWARD COMMUNICATION
team performance. Journal of Management, 30(3),
309–327.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing
and interpreting interactions. London, England: Sage.
Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality, and behavior (2nd
ed.). Maidenhead, Berkshire, England: Open University
Press.
Anand, S., Vidyarthi, P. R., Liden, R. C., & Rousseau, D. M.
(2010). Good citizens in poor-quality relationships: Idiosyncratic deals as a substitute for relationship quality.
Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 970–988.
Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., & Budhwar, P. S. (2004). Exchange
fairness and employee performance: An examination
of the relationship between organizational politics and
procedural justice. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 94(1), 1–14.
Ashford, S. J., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Christianson, M. K. (2009).
Speaking up and speaking out: The leadership dynamics of voice in organizations. In J. Greenberg & M. S.
Edwards (Eds.), Voice and silence in organizations (pp.
175–202). Bingley, England: Emerald Group.
Astley, W. G., & Sachdeva, P. S. (1984). Structural sources of
intraorganizational power: A theoretical synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 9(1), 104–113.
Atwater, L. E., & Waldman, D. A. (2008). Leadership, feedback, and the open communication gap. New York, NY:
Erlbaum.
Bagozzi, R., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural
equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 16(1), 74–94.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator
variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
Bartels, J., Pruyn, A., de Jong, M., & Joustra, I. (2007). Multiple organizational identification levels and the impact of
perceived external prestige and communication climate.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(2), 173–190.
Basford, T. E., Offermann, L. R., & Wirtz, P. W. (2012). Considering the source: The impact of leadership level on
follower motivation and intent to stay. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19(2), 202–214.
Bergeron, D. M., Shipp, A. J., Rosen, B., & Furst, S. A. (2013).
Organizational citizenship behavior and career outcomes:
The cost of being a good citizen. Journal of Management,
39(4), 958–984.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New
York, NY: Wiley.
Bove, L. L., & Robertson, N. L. (2005). Exploring the role of
relationship variables in predicting customer voice to a
service worker. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 12(2), 83–97.
Bowen, F., & Blackmon, K. (2003). Spirals of silence: The
dynamic effects of diversity on organizational voice.
Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1393–1417.
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural
research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3),
185–216.
Brouer, R. L., Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., Laird, M. D.,
& Gilmore, D. C. (2006). The strain-related reactions to
perceptions of organizational politics as a workplace
stressor: Political skill as a neutralizer. In E. Vigoda-Gadot
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
& A. Drory (Eds.), Handbook of organizational politics
(pp. 187–206). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Brouer, R. L., Harris, K. J., & Kacmar, K. M. (2011). The moderating effects of political skill on the perceived politics–outcome relationships. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 32(6), 869–885.
Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative
research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6(1),
97–113.
Budhwar, P., & Bhatnagar, J. (Eds.). (2009). The changing
face of people management in India. London, England:
Routledge.
Budhwar, P., Saini, D. S., & Bhatnagar, J. (2005). Women
in management in the new economic environment:
The case of India. Asia Pacific Business Review, 11(2),
179–193.
Budhwar, P., & Sparrow, P. R. (2002). Strategic HRM through
the cultural looking glass: Mapping the cognition of British and Indian managers. Organization Studies, 23(4),
599–638.
Budhwar, P., & Varma, A. (2010). Guest editors’ introduction:
Emerging patterns of HRM in the new Indian economic
environment. Human Resource Management, 49(3),
345–351.
Burris, E. R., Detert, J. R., & Chiaburu, D. S. (2008). Quitting
before leaving: The mediating effects of psychological
attachment and detachment on voice. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93(4), 912–922.
Chang, C.-H., Rosen, C. C., & Levy, P. E. (2009). The relationship between perceptions of organizational politics and
employee attitudes, strain, and behavior: A meta-analytic
examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4),
779–801.
Chen, G., Chittoor, R., & Vissa, B. (2015). Modernizing without westernizing: Social structure and economic action
in the Indian financial sector. Academy of Management
Journal, 58(2), 511–537.
Chidlow, A., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Welch, C. (2014). Translation in cross-language international business research:
Beyond equivalence. Journal of International Business
Studies, 45(5), 562–582.
Cho, H., Gay, G., Davidson, B., & Ingraffea, A. (2007). Social
networks, communication styles, and learning performance in a CSCL community. Computers & Education,
49(2), 309–-329.
Clampitt, P. G., & Downs, C. W. (1993). Employee perceptions
of the relationship between communication and productivity: A field study. Journal of Business Communication,
30(1), 5–-28.
Clarkson, G. P. (2014). Twenty-first century employment
relationships: The case for an altruistic model. Human
Resource Management, 53(2), 253–269.
Collins, K. M., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Sutton, I. L. (2006). A
model incorporating the rationale and purpose for conducting mixed methods research in special education
and beyond. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 4(1), 67–100.
Conway, E., Fu, N., Monks, K., Alfes, K. and Bailey, C. (2016),
Demands or resources? The relationship between HR
practices, employee engagement, and emotional exhaustion within a hybrid model of employment relations.
Human Resource Management, 55(5), 901–917.
19
20
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Conway, J., & Lance, C. (2010). What reviewers should
expect from authors regarding common method bias in
organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 325–334.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange
theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900.
Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three-way
interactions in moderated multiple regression: Development and application of a slope difference test. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 917–926.
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and
employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of
Management Journal, 50(4), 869–884.
Detert, J. R., Burris, E. R., Harrison, D. A., & Martin, S. R.
(2013). Voice flows to and around leaders: Understanding
when units are helped or hurt by employee voice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(4), 624–668.
Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. (2011). Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted rules of self-censorship at work.
Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 461–488.
Detert, J. R., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Speaking up to higherups: How supervisors and skip-level leaders influence
employee voice. Organization Science, 21(1), 249–270.
Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader–member
exchange model of leadership: A critique and further
development. Academy of Management Review, 11(3),
618–634.
Dietz, G., Wilkinson, A., & Redman, T. (2010). Involvement
and participation. In A. Wilkinson, N. Bacon, T. Redman,
& S. Snell (Eds.), The Sage handbook of human resource
management (pp. 245–269). London, England: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Dobbins, T., & Dundon, T. (in press). The chimera of sustainable labour–management partnership. British Journal of
Management.
Downs, C. W., Adrian, A. D., & Downs, C. W. (2004). Assessing organizational communication: strategic communication audits. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Dutton, J. E., & Ashford, S. J. (1993). Selling issues to top
management. Academy of Management Review, 18(3),
397–428.
Dyne, L. V., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extrarole behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive
validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108–
119.
Ellis, J. B., & Dyne, L. V. (2009). Voice and silence as observer
reactions to defensive voice: Predictions based on communication competence theory. In J. Greenberg & M. S.
Edwards (Eds.), Voice and silence in organizations (pp.
37–61). Bingley, England: Emerald Group.
Farndale, E., Van Ruiten, J., Kelliher, C., & Hope-Hailey, V.
(2011). The influence of perceived employee voice on
organizational commitment: An exchange perspective.
Human Resource Management, 50(1), 113–129.
Ferris, G. R., Adams, G., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W.
A., & Ammeter, A. P. (2002). Perceptions of organizational
politics: Theory and research directions The many faces
of multi-level issues (Vol. 1, pp. 179–254): Emerald Group.
Ferris, G. R., Berkson, H. M., Kaplan, D. M., Gilmore, D. C.,
Buckley, M. R., Hochwarter, W. A., & Witt, L. A. (1999).
Development and initial validation of the political skill
inventory. Paper presented at the 59th Annual Meeting of
the Academy of Management, Chicago, IL.
Ferris, G. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (1992). Perceptions of
organizational politics. Journal of Management, 18(1),
93–116.
Ferris, G. R., Russ, G. S., & Fandt, P. M. (1989). Politics in
organizations. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.),
Impression management in the organization (pp. 143–
170). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Perrewé, P. L., Brouer, R. L.,
Douglas, C., & Lux, S. (2007). Political skill in organizations. Journal of Management, 33(3), 290–320.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social
power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp.
150–167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research,
University of Michigan.
George, J. M. (1992). The role of personality in organizational
life: Issues and evidence. Journal of Management, 18(2),
185–213.
Gibney, R., Zagenczyk, T. J., & Masters, M. F. (2009). The
negative aspects of social exchange: An introduction to
perceived organizational obstruction. Group & Organization Management, 34(6), 665–697.
Glauser, M. J. (1984). Upward information flow in organizations: Review and conceptual analysis. Human Relations,
37(8), 613–643.
Goldberg, C. B., Clark, M. A., & Henley, A. B. (2011). Speaking
up: A conceptual model of voice responses following the
unfair treatment of others in non-union settings. Human
Resource Management, 50(1), 75–94.
Graham, J. (1991). An essay on organizational citizenship
behavior. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal,
4(4), 249–270.
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward
a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation
designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
11(3), 255–274.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation
and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009).
Multivariate data analysis : A global perspective (7th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Harkness, J. A. (2010). Survey methods in multinational,
multiregional, and multicultural contexts. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
Harris, K. J., Harris, R. B., & Brouer, R. L. (2009). LMX and
subordinate political skill: Direct and interactive effects
on turnover intentions and job satisfaction. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 39(10), 2373–2395.
Harrison, D. A., McLaughlin, M. E., & Coalter, T. M. (1996).
Context, cognition, and common method variance:
Psychometric and verbal protocol evidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68(3),
246–261.
Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1989). Development and
application of new scales to measure the French and
Raven (1959) bases of social power. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 74(4), 561–567.
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
SUBORDINATE-SUPERIOR UPWARD COMMUNICATION
Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty; responses
to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C., Perrewé, P. L., & Johnson,
D. (2003). Perceived organizational support as a mediator of the relationship between politics perceptions and
work outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(3),
438–456.
Holden, N. J., & Michailova, S. (2014). A more expansive perspective on translation in IB research: Insights from the
Russian Handbook of Knowledge Management. Journal
of International Business Studies, 45(7), 906–918.
Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63(6), 597–606.
Jain, N., & Mukherji, S. (2010). The perception of “glass ceiling” in Indian organizations: An exploratory study. South
Asian Journal of Management, 17(1), 23.
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm
shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History,
measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W.
Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality:
Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 114–158). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of
personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Johnson, J. D. (1993). Organizational communication structure. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Judge, T. A., & Zapata, C. P. (2015). The person–situation
debate revisited: Effect of situation strength and trait
activation on the validity of the Big Five personality traits
in predicting job performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 58(4), 1149–1179.
Kakar, S. (1971). Authority patterns and subordinate behavior in Indian organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(3), 298–307.
Kumar, K. K., & Jain, K. K. (2013). Language conflicts in
social arenas: Reflections for the business world. Journal
of Asian and African Studies, 48(1), 64–80.
Kurasaki, K. S. (2000). Intercoder reliability for validating
conclusions drawn from open-ended interview data.
Field Methods, 12(3), 179–194.
Leech, N., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2009). A typology of mixed
methods research designs. Quality & Quantity, 43(2),
265–275.
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6),
853–868.
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative
behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with big five
personality characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 86(2), 326–336.
Levinson, H. (1965). Reciprocation: The relationship between
man and organization. Administrative Science Quarterly,
9(4), 370–390.
Lines, R. (2007). Using power to install strategy: The relationships between expert power, position power, influence
tactics and implementation success. Journal of Change
Management, 7(2), 143–170.
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
Liu, W., Song, Z., Li, X., & Liao, Z. (in press). Why and when
leader’s affective states influence employee upward
voice. Academy of Management Journal.
Liu, W., Zhu, R., & Yang, Y. (2010). I warn you because I like
you: Voice behavior, employee identifications, and transformational leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 21(1),
189–202.
MacIntyre, P. (1994). Variables underlying willingness to communicate: A causal analysis. Communication Research
Reports, 11(2), 135–142.
MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clément, R., & Donovan, L. A.
(2003). Sex and age effects on willingness to communicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and L2 motivation
among junior high school French immersion students.
Language Learning, 53(S1), 137–166.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, attitudes,
and affect as predictors of second language communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15(1),
3–26.
Maynes, T. D., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2014). Speaking more
broadly: An examination of the nature, antecedents,
and consequences of an expanded set of employee voice
behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(1), 87–112.
McCroskey, J. C. (1992). Reliability and validity of the willingness to communicate scale. Communication Quarterly,
40(1), 16–25.
McCroskey, J. C. (1997). Self-report measurement. In J. A.
Daly, J. C. McCroskey, J. Ayres, T. Hopf, & D. M. Ayres
(Eds.), Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and
communication apprehension (2nd ed., pp. 191–216).
Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1987). Willingness to
communicate. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 129–155).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Mellahi, K., Budhwar, P. S., & Li, B. (2010). A study of the
relationship between exit, voice, loyalty and neglect
and commitment in India. Human Relations, 63(3),
349–369.
Mellahi, K., & Guermat, C. (2004). Does age matter? An
empirical examination of the effect of age on managerial
values and practices in India. Journal of World Business,
39(2), 199–215.
Miller, B., Rutherford, M., & Kolodinsky, R. (2008). Perceptions of organizational politics: A meta-analysis of
outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22(3),
209–222.
Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An
exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that
employees don’t communicate upward and why. Journal
of Management Studies, 40(6), 1453–1476.
Mishra, S. K., & Kumar, K. K. (2014). Capitalism in the Indian
social environment: An ethnic perspective. In H. K. A.
Stachowicz–Stanusch (Ed.), Capitalism and the social
relationship: An organizational perspective (pp. 228–239).
New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration
and directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373–412.
Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual
Review of Organizational Psychology & Organizational
Behavior, 1(1), 173–197.
21
22
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational
silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25(4),
706–725.
Morrison, E. W., See, K. E., & Pan, C. (2015). An approachinhibition model of employee silence: The joint effects of
personal sense of power and target openness. Personnel
Psychology, 68(3), 547–580.
Nichols, R. G. (1962). Listening is good business. Human
Resource Management, 1(2), 1–10.
Ohana, M. (2016). Voice, affective commitment and citizenship behavior in teams: The moderating role of neuroticism and intrinsic motivation. British Journal of
Management, 27(1), 97–115.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Collins, K. M. (2007). A typology
of mixed methods sampling designs in social science
research. The Qualitative Report, 12(2), 281–316.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2004). Enhancing
the interpretation of significant findings: The role of
mixed methods research. The Qualitative Report, 9(4),
770–792.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Slate, J. R., Leech, N. L., & Collins, K. M.
(2007). Conducting mixed analyses: A general typology.
International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches,
1(1), 4–17.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review
of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48(4),
775–802.
Oz, H. (2014). Big Five personality traits and willingness to
communicate among foreign language learners in Turkey.
Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 42(9), 1473–1482.
Pauksztat, B., Steglich, C., & Wittek, R. (2011). Who speaks
up to whom? A relational approach to employee voice.
Social Networks, 33(4), 303–316.
Pavicˇic´ Takacˇ, V., & Požega, D. (2012). Personality traits, willingness to communicate and oral proficiency in English
as a foreign language. In L. Pon, V. Karabalic´, & S. Cimer
(Eds.), Applied linguistics today: Research and perspectives (pp. 67–82). Berlin, Germany: Peter Lang.
Perrewé, P. L., Zellars, K. L., Ferris, G. R., Rossi, A. M., Kacmar, C. J., & Ralston, D. A. (2004). Neutralizing job stressors: Political skill as an antidote to the dysfunctional
consequences of role conflict. Academy of Management
Journal, 47(1), 141–152.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1973). The politics of organizational decision-making. London, England: Tavistock.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA:
Pitman.
Pfeffer, J. (2010). Power: Why some people have it—and others don’t (1st ed.). New York, NY: HarperBusiness.
Pinder, C. C., & Harlos, K. P. (2001). Employee silence: Quiescence and acquiescence as responses to perceived
injustice. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and
human resources management (Vol. 20, pp. 331–369):
New York, NY: Elsevier Science, JAI.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach,
D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and
suggestions for future research. Journal of Management,
26(3), 513–563.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012).
Sources of method bias in social science research and
recommendations on how to control It. Annual Review of
Psychology, 63(1), 539–569.
Premeaux, S. F., & Bedeian, A. G. (2003). Breaking the
silence: The moderating effects of self-monitoring in predicting speaking up in the workplace. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1537–1562.
Ramaswami, A., & Dreher, G. F. (2010). Dynamics of mentoring relationships in India: A qualitative, exploratory
study. Human Resource Management, 49(3), 501–530.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698–714.
Richmond, V. P., & Roach, K. D. (1992). Willingness to communicate and employee success in U.S. organizations. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 20(1), 95–115.
Ryan, K., & Oestreich, D. K. (1998). Driving fear out of the
workplace: Creating the high-trust, high-performance
organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Saini, D. S., & Budhwar, P. S. (2008). Managing the human
resource in Indian SMEs: The role of indigenous realities.
Journal of World Business, 43(4), 417–434.
Saunders, D. M., Sheppard, B. H., Knight, V., & Roth, J.
(1992). Employee voice to supervisors. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 5(3), 241–259.
Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (2004). Mentoring and transformational leadership: The role of supervisory career
mentoring. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(3), 448–468.
Schmitt, D. P., Allik, J., McCrae, R. R., & Benet-Martínez, V.
(2007). The geographic distribution of Big Five personality traits: Patterns and profiles of human self-description
across 56 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
38(2), 173–212.
Scott, K. A., Heathcote, J. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2011). The
diverse organization: Finding gold at the end of the rainbow. Human Resource Management, 50(6), 735–755.
Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method
bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and
interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods,
13(3), 456–476.
Small, M. L. (2011). How to conduct a mixed methods study:
Recent trends in a rapidly growing literature. Annual
Review of Sociology, 37(1), 57–86.
Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational
research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research
Methods, 9(2), 221–232.
Strauss, G. (2004). An overview. In F. Heller, E. Pusic, G. Strauss,
& B. Wilpert (Eds.), Organizational participation: Myth and
reality (pp. 8–39). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2008). Exploring nonlinearity In employee voice: The effects of personal control and
organizational identification. Academy of Management
Journal, 51(6), 1189–1203.
Tannenbaum, A. S. (1962). Control in organizations: Individual adjustment and organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 7(2), 236–257.
Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A
typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, 1(1), 77–100.
Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., Lockhart, D. E., & Carr, J. C. (2007).
Abusive supervision, upward maintenance communication,
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
SUBORDINATE-SUPERIOR UPWARD COMMUNICATION
and subordinates’ psychological distress. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1169–1180.
Tsai, M.-T., Chuang, S.-S., & Hsieh, W.-P. (2009). An integrated process model of communication satisfaction and
organizational outcomes. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 37(6), 825–834.
Tushman, M. L. (1977). A political approach to organizations: A review and rationale. Academy of Management
Review, 2(2), 206–216.
Vigoda, E., & Cohen, A. (2002). Influence tactics and perceptions of organizational politics: A longitudinal study.
Journal of Business Research, 55(4), 311–324.
Wei, X., Zhang, Z.-X., & Chen, X.-P. (2015). I will speak
up if my voice is socially desirable: A moderated
mediating process of promotive versus prohibitive
voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5),
1641–1652.
Weibel, A., Den Hartog, D. N., Gillespie, N., Searle, R., Six, F.,
& Skinner, D. (2016). How do controls impact employee
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
trust in the employer? Human Resource Management,
55(3), 437–462.
Welbourne, T. M. (2011). 50 years of voice in HRM. Human
Resource Management, 50(1), 1–2.
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(1), 125–139.
Wilkinson, A., & Fay, C. (2011). New times for employee
voice? Human Resource Management, 50(1), 65–74.
Wright, K. B., Frey, L., & Sopory, P. (2007). Willingness to
communicate about health as an underlying trait of
patient self-advocacy: The development of the willingness to communicate about Health (WTCH) measure.
Communication Studies, 58(1), 35–51.
Xu, A. J., Loi, R., & Lam, L. W. (2015). The bad boss takes
it all: How abusive supervision and leader–member
exchange interact to influence employee silence. Leadership Quarterly, 26(5), 763–774.
23