Cited by 532Job Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorEmployee Performance and ManagementTeam Dynamics and Performance

A Meta‐Analysis of Voice and Its Promotive and Prohibitive Forms: Identification of Key Associations, Distinctions, and Future Research Directions

Chamberlin, Melissa, Newton, Daniel W., Lepine, Jeffery A.·2017·Personnel Psychology

Abstract

This article reports meta‐analyses intended to clarify and enhance our understanding of voice and its promotive and prohibitive forms. We find that undifferentiated constructive voice is associated with a wide range of antecedents that fit in Morrison's (2014) five categories: (a) dispositions, (b) job and organizational attitudes and perceptions, (c) emotions, beliefs, and schemas, (d) supervisor and leader behavior, and (e) contextual factors. However, relative weight analyses reveal a highly dominant variable within each category (personal initiative, felt responsibility, engagement, leader–member exchange, and positive workplace climate). We also find that undifferentiated constructive voice has a moderate zero‐order association with job performance that is nonsignificant when task performance and organizational citizenship behavior are also considered. Finally, we explore how associations vary as a function of whether voice is promotive or prohibitive. First, there are significant differences in associations with over a third of the antecedents (core self‐evaluations, felt responsibility, organizational commitment, detachment, psychological safety, ethical leadership, and leader openness). Second, although promotive voice has a positive association with job performance, the opposite is true for prohibitive voice. We conclude with suggestions to enhance our understanding of voice, especially with respect to efforts needed to clarify and distinguish promotive and prohibitive voice.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/peps.12185

Cites

305 of 305 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
Chamberlin, M., Newton, D. W., & Lepine, J. A.
Affiliations
Arizona State University (US)
Corresponding author
Chamberlin, Melissa
Venue
Personnel Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-11-08
Volume
70
Issue
1
Pages
11-71
ISSN
  • 0031-5826 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-6570
OpenAlex
W2506616676
Cited by
532
References
305
Citations by year
2026: 55 · 2025: 72 · 2024: 84 · 2023: 67 · 2022: 67 · 2021: 67 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 9
FWCI
44.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Personnel Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • Iowa State University Digital Repository (Iowa State University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Employee Performance and Management
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
Keywords
voice, promotive voice, prohibitive voice, constructive voice, employee performance, organizational citizenship behavior, task performance, leader-member exchange, psychological safety, ethical leadership, sense of responsibility, organizational commitment, detachment, core self-evaluation, organizational climate

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