Cited by 188Team Dynamics and PerformanceJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorOccupational Health and Safety Research

The content of the message matters: The differential effects of promotive and prohibitive team voice on team productivity and safety performance gains.

Li, Alex Ning, Liao, Hui, Tangirala, Subrahmaniam, Firth, Brady M.·2017·Journal of Applied Psychology

Abstract

We propose that it is important to take the content of team voice into account when examining its impact on team processes and outcomes. Drawing on regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997), we argue that promotive team voice and prohibitive team voice help teams achieve distinct collective outcomes-that is, team productivity performance gains and team safety performance gains, respectively. Further, we identify mechanisms through which promotive and prohibitive team voices uniquely influence team outcomes as well as boundary conditions for such influences. In data collected from 88 production teams, we found that promotive team voice had a positive association with team productivity performance gains. By contrast, prohibitive team voice had a positive association with team safety performance gains. The relationship between promotive team voice and team productivity performance gains was mediated by team innovation, and the relationship between prohibitive team voice and team safety performance gains was mediated by team monitoring. In addition, the indirect effect of prohibitive team voice on team safety performance gains via team monitoring was stronger when prior team safety performance was lower. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings. (PsycINFO Database Record

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/apl0000215

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, A. N., Liao, H., Tangirala, S., & Firth, B. M.
Affiliations
University of Iowa (US)
Venue
Journal of Applied Psychology
Published
2017-08
Volume
102
Issue
8
Pages
1259-1270
ISSN
  • 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1854
OpenAlex
W2600527138
Cited by
188
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 1
FWCI
16.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Applied Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Radiological and Ultrasound Technology › Occupational Health and Safety Research
Keywords
promotive voice, prohibitive voice, regulatory focus, team productivity, safety performance, team innovation, team monitoring, production teams, safety climate
MeSH terms
Work Performance, Adult, Female, Group Processes, Humans, Male, Efficiency, Organizational, Safety Management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review