CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,647Job Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorWorkplace Violence and BullyingLabor Movements and Unions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 85 of the 85 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Psychological Antecedents of Promotive and Prohibitive Voice: A Two-Wave Examination

Liang, Jian, Farh, Crystal I. C., Farh, Jiing-Lih·2012·Academy of Management Journal
DOI 10.5465/amj.2010.0176
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The present study demonstrates how three psychological antecedents (psychological safety, felt obligation for constructive change, and organization-based self-esteem) uniquely, differentially, and interactively predict supervisory reports of promotive and prohibitive “voice” behavior. Using a two-wave panel design, we collected data from a sample of 239 employees to examine the hypothesized relationships. Our results showed that felt obligation was most strongly related to subsequent promotive voice; psychological safety was most strongly related to subsequent prohibitive voice; and organization-based self-esteem was reciprocally related to promotive voice. Further, although felt obligation strengthened the positive effect of psychological safety on both forms of voice, organization-based self-esteem weakened this effect for promotive voice. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5465/amj.2010.0176

Cites

85 of 85 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 85 references

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Argyris C., 1978, Organizational learning: A theory of action approach
  2. Farh C. I. C., 2010, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Montreal
  3. Hackman J. R., 1980, Work redesign
  4. Kish-Gephart J. J., 2009, Research in organizational behavior, 29, 163
  5. Morrison E. W., 2000, Academy of Management Review, 25, 706, 10.5465/amr.2000.3707697 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Muthén L. K., 2007, Mplus user's guide
  7. Schwartz J., 2003, New York Times, 5
  8. Van Dyne L., 1995, Research in organizational behavior, 17, 215

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 601–700 of 1,000

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Liang, J., Farh, C. I. C., & Farh, J.-L.
Affiliations
  • Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN)
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HK)
ORCID
Venue
Academy of Management Journal
Publisher
Academy of Management
Published
2012-02
Volume
55
Issue
1
Pages
71-92
ISSN
  • 0001-4273 (ISSN-L)
  • 1948-0989
DOI
10.5465/amj.2010.0176
OpenAlex
W2106398471
Cited by
1,647
References
85
Citations by year
2026: 184 · 2025: 194 · 2024: 182 · 2023: 185 · 2022: 187 · 2021: 173 · 2020: 128 · 2019: 108 · 2018: 94 · 2017: 63 · 2016: 57 · 2015: 38 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 10
FWCI
58.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Academy of Management Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Rare & Special e-Zone (The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Workplace Violence and Bullying
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Industrial relations › Labor Movements and Unions
Keywords
promotive voice, prohibitive voice, psychological safety, organization-based self-esteem, employee voice behavior, supervisor perceptions, reciprocal effects, moderating effect

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