LITERATURE REVIEW - The Relationships among Leader-Member Exchange, Employee Voice Behavior, Ps

This chapter provides a brief overview of El Salvador and the private sector, it reviews the literature about Leader-Member Exchange (LMX), Employee Voice Behavior, Psychological Safety, and Gender. Also, the relationship among LMX, Employee Voice Behavior, and Psychological Safety, and the relationship among LMX, Employee Voice Behavior, and Gender.

Later, hypotheses are derived.

El Salvador and the Private Sector

El Salvador is a Spanish-speaking country located in Central America, bordering Guatemala, Honduras, and the Pacific Ocean. It has a total land area of 21,041 square kilometers with an estimated population of 6,377,853 by the end of the year 2017.

El Salvador has been classified by The World Bank as a developing, low middle-income country. It has the third largest economy in Central America and by 2017 it had an estimated total labor force of 2,844,047 people and an unemployment rate of 7%, one of the highest in the Central American area (GlobalEDGE, 2017).

The private sector is a key catalyst for growth in a country due to its massive influence in a country’s economy, especially for the creation of jobs. In El Salvador most of what it is produced and consumed comes from the private sector. El Salvador highly depends on the private sector for its economic development to improve; the state has proven to be less effective and efficient by itself as the private sector, there needs to be a coexistence of the two to complement each other.

However, in the past decades the private sector has lost competitiveness, it’s not keeping up with trends and globalization which consequently greatly affects the economic growth of El Salvador (Silva, 2010).

According to data collected by The World Bank, El Salvador has one of the lowest economic growth in Central America with a real GDP growth average of 2.6% between the years of 2010 and 2016.

By 2017 real GDP growth reached 2.3%, mainly driven by private sector wages and remittances from abroad. El Salvador’s economy highly depends on agriculture, manufacturing and mining, forestry and fisheries, restaurants and hotels, livestock, and commerce as they are reported to be the main drivers of the economy, the private sector accounts as 60%.

Due to the country’s low growth, there still exist high levels of poverty rate and public debt.

The poverty rate is estimated at 31% by 2016 and public debt accounts over 70% of GDP (WB, 2018). In addition, high levels of crime and violence are a significant impediment for economic growth and social development, affecting Salvadorans quality of life. Gangs and violence negatively impact investment decision and affect job creation (WB, 2018).

By 2018, the president of the nation, Salvador Sanchez Ceren, announced that the total foreign direct investment had reached $413 million by the end of the first semester of the year, and that private investment accounted $1,705 million by the date. Proving to be one of the strongest drivers of the overall economy. Only by 2016, 23 new private organizations were opened in the country and 18 more expanded their investments (El Salvador’s Government, 2017).

Employee Voice Behavior

For the last decades, the interest of scholars to study Employee Voice Behavior has increased significantly. Many articles and articles have been executed to identify those possible factors that may result in employees engaging in voice behavior.

It is important to mention the name of Albert Hirschman, an influential German economist of the 20th century, considered to be the pioneer of Employee Voice Behavior studies.

Hirschman described Employee Voice Behavior in his Exit, Voice, and Loyalty (1970):

Any attempt at all to change, rather than to escape from, an objectionable state of affairs, whether through individual or collective petition to the management directly in charge, through appeal to a higher authority with the intention of forcing a change in management, or through various types of actions or protests, including those that are meant to mobilize public opinion. (p. 30)

From Hirschman’s definition, Employee Voice Behavior has taken many shapes and forms, defined in multiple ways depending on the field of application. However, after 1994 the number of studies focused on Employee Voice Behavior increased significantly, most likely due to the influence of Van Dyne and LePine’s (1998) study. Both scholars developed a scale to measure the variable and worked on clarifying its definition. Also, they argued that Employee Voice Behavior has a positive impact on organizations because it provides new or improved ideas on how to run things more smoothly, it provides new opportunities of growth as managers can recognize critical issues that need to be solved (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998).

According to Hirschman (1970), voice should not be limited to only verbal behaviors. Based on the literature, it also includes such actions as writing memos or sending emails (Withey &

Cooper, 1989). Van Dyne, Ang, and Botero (2003) developed a list of requirements to take into consideration to consider behavior as voice. First, it has to be openly communicated. Second, it should be information relevant to the organization. Third, must be directly focused to influence the work environment. Lastly, the information communicated must be received by someone inside the organization. The use of voice behavior is beneficial for organizations because it aids management to identify and solve organizational problems. It is considered to be a constructive and active way of helping organizations (Burris, Detert, & Chiaburu, 2008; Rusbult, Farrell, Rogers, & Mainous, 1988; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998).

The vast majority of studies carried on up to date focused on Employee Voice Behavior are based on the Social Exchange Theory (Ng & Feldman, 2012). Whenever leaders or superiors treat their employees with respect, it encourages employees to behave and reciprocate with the same type of respect. The Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964) is mainly characterized by the exchange of behaviors between two or more individuals nourishing a sense of trust and at the same time encouraging emotional engagement. Scholars who have studied this theory argue that satisfied employees or those who are emotionally committed to their superiors show more motivation to engage in Employee Voice Behavior and provide constructive ideas or suggestions. This behavior is caused as a result of the positive way in which employees have been treated by their employers or superiors in their daily work relationships, a response to reciprocating such positive treatment.

(Burris, Detert, & Chiaburu, 2008; Fuller, Marler, & Hester, 2006; Withey & Cooper, 1989).

Employees will engage in voice behavior whenever they feel they are in a relationship based on respect, trust, and satisfaction (Turnley & Feldman, 1999).

Nevertheless, other scholars argue that it is important to take into consideration other reasons as triggers for Employee Voice Behavior. Van Dyne, Ang, and Botero (2003) argue that voice can be other‐directed or it can be self‐directed. When other-directed, a person chooses to do good deeds as a response to a similar-positive behavior. On the other side, when self-directed, people decide to engage in voice behavior seeking to get the most significant benefit for the own self. Most existing Employee Voice Behavior studies have used a between-individual approach to explore and understand the reasons why employees decide to engage or avoid such behavior (Morrison, 2011). The literature also argues that both employees’ personality traits (LePine & Van Dyne,

1998) and leaders’ characteristics, as well as leadership styles (Detert & Burris, 2007; Tangirala

& Ramanujam, 2012; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009), have proven to be significant predictors to Employee Voice Behavior.

Walumbwa and Schaubroeck (2009) study, argues that perceived safety is an essential antecedent of Employee Voice Behavior. The fact that an employee feels that he or she faces no potential risk of losing anything when voicing their ideas or suggestions. On the other hand, leader trust is also a frequent topic related to Employee Voice Behavior, if an employee has a strong relationship with superiors it is more likely that such employee will not hesitate to raise his or her voice (Gao, Janssen, & Shi, 2011). At the same time, openness from leaders increases the chances of Employee Voice Behavior (Detert & Burris, 2007). Most importantly, this study focuses on the LMX relationship that leaders develop with employees and that will lead them to participate in Employee Voice Behavior (Botero & Van Dyne, 2009; Burris, Detert, & Chiaburu, 2008).

Previous Human Resource Management/ Employment Relations studies suggest that most of the time top management are the ones in charge of designing Employee Voice Behavior systems with employees. Managers and superiors’ behaviors towards employees define whether employees will feel comfortable enough to speak up when they know their suggestions are taken into consideration and listen (Boxall & Purcell, 2011; Dundon & Rollinson, 2004). These relationships are established and maintained by supervisors and line managers (Marchington, Wilkinson, Ackers,

& Goodman, 1993). Drawing from the literature previously discussed, the current study aimed to prove whether LMX influence employees to participate in Employee Voice Behavior.

Leader-Member Exchange

This theory is mainly based on two significant theories, The Role Theory (Graen & Cashman, 1975), and Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964). According to role theory, individuals have specific expectations about other individuals within organizations, expected roles to fulfill.

Therefore, individuals act upon those expectations while doing their work. It also emphasizes the importance of the relationship between supervisor-subordinate when performing such expectations (Hofmann, Morgeson, & Gerras, 2003).

Previous literature shows that Leader-Member Exchange theory aims to explain the core concept and the results of high and low LMX relationships developed between leaders and subordinate employees. It is argued that in high-LMX relationships leaders provide employees with more attention and support. As a result, employees are more willing to perform better during work by devoting more time and effort to the assigned job (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). These relationships are based on respect, mutual trust, liking, and loyalty (Liden & Maslyn, 1998). On the other hand, in low-LMX relationships, the relationship is seen as a contract-based exchange with rigid and limited interactions, defined roles, and a top to bottom hierarchy (Janssen &Van Yperen, 2004).

Leader-Member Exchange had been traditionally studied as a single dimension construct (Graen & Cashman, 1975; Graen & Scandura, 1987). However, many theorists such as Liden, Saparrowe, and Wayne (1997) argue that it is more accurate to treat LMX as a multidimensional construct. This multidimensional approach allows for a better understanding of the relationship with individual, and organizational variables (Liden & Maslyn, 1998).

Currently, there is a vast number of studies that provide evidence of the positive results associated with high-LMX relationships, benefiting not only subordinates, but also leaders and the organization itself (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Harris, Wheeler, & Kacmar, 2011; Ilies, Nahrgang, &

Morgeson, 2007). Besides building trust-based relationships, the literature shows several benefits as a result of the development of high Leader-Member Exchange. Including a greater sense of autonomy for subordinates, better job satisfaction for both parties. Also, the development of more challenging and exciting assignments, employees are promoted more frequently, and there is a higher potential for an increase in earnings (Culbertson, Huffman, & Alden-Anderson, 2010;

Graen & Scandura, 1987; Schyns & Croon, 2006; Van Dam, Oreg, & Schyns, 2007). In addition, previous studies have shown that high-quality leader-member relationships are linked to the

improvement of positive organizational outcomes such as job commitment, increased performance, and job satisfaction (Gerstner & Day, 1997).

Some research studies argue that one of the most relevant consequences of high-quality leader-member relationships is that subordinates have better performance ratings when in high-quality relationships and lower ratings when involved in low leader-member relationships (Dunegan, Uhl-Bien, & Duchon, 2002; Kacmar, Zivnuska, Gully, & Witt, 2003). According to Social Exchange Theory and Leader-Member Exchange Theory, individuals involved in high-quality LMX relationships tend to receive articulated expectations, orders, and role-related information from their supervisors (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Also, they receive feedback related to their performance (Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, & Ferris, 2012), which allows them to identify weaknesses to change their behavior enabling them to perform better than those involved in low-quality LMX relationships.

Gathered information from different studies provides a guideline for the process and development of LMX relationships. This process begins as soon as an employee is hired in an organization (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975). In the first stage of development, the leader must provide the new employee with the opportunities to show his or her capabilities, knowledge, and skills that will define the expected roles, this preliminary stage serves as an early evaluation.

During this stage, leaders can observe and identify how employees are able to communicate with others but also how well they receive information (Jablin, 2001).

The next stage is defined as role making, in this stage leaders can negotiate and build trust with employees (Miller, Johnson, Hart, & Peterson, 2009). At this level both leaders and subordinates are involved in a two-way bargaining process, developing and shaping roles and positions and trying to adapt to them. They work together to shape the relationship into one that watches over the individual needs of both parties. It is essential to build trust with one another to create a relationship that will be accountable for both. At this stage, leaders assess and observe how the new employee assimilates and adapts to the new relationship which in the long run will determine the dynamics of the relationship, the level of LMX relationship (Graen, 1976).

Accordingly, as leaders assign roles and tasks to subordinates, through this process of information exchange, it is possible that additional conversations may result that will aid subordinates to assimilate, develop professionally, and finally lay down the ground for a trusting interpersonal relationship with superiors. Thereby, communication is said to be the primary tool

to build and maintain fulfilling relationships; it may also be the key to fulfilling successful high Leader-Member Exchange relationships.

However, studies argue that there must always be any communication at the heart of all work-related relationships (Fairhurst, 2016; Fairhurst & Uhl-Bien, 2012; Uhl-Bien, 2006). Hence, a communicative view does not necessarily approve the division and classification of LMX into high and low context LMX relationships; instead, it suggests that relationships develop as people spend time together in the workplace reaching for common goals. After a systematic review on the previous literature, the study aimed to identify the direct relationship between LMX and Employee Voice Behavior.

Leader-Member Exchange and Employee Voice Behavior

Leader-Member Exchange theory focuses on the two-way exchange of information between leaders and subordinates, and the quality of the resulting relationships (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975). Leaders built high-quality LMX relationships and low-quality relationships with different subordinates, depending on the interaction that they have and the strong base that they nurture since the beginning of the relationship. A high- quality LMX relationship is characterized by respect, loyalty, mutual trust, reciprocal influence, and a high sense of commitment between the two parties (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Literature suggests that depending on the quality of relationships that leaders achieve with their subordinates, the quality of information exchange and interaction it profoundly affects leader and subordinate behaviors and attitudes (Ilies, Nahrgang,

& Morgeson, 2007; Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997).

Previous studies argue that high-quality LMX relationships aid in the development of Employee Voice Behavior. In high-quality LMX relationships, both leaders and subordinates show a high level of respect, loyalty, and mutual liking encouraging reciprocity and mutual obligation (Gouldner, 1960; Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997). Those employees who feel deeply involved and invested in the relationship put more effort and energy into it and will most likely work beyond their assigned job description. For instance, they may engage in Employee Voice Behavior to improve the work environment, to help other employees (Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007) or to trigger a change that will benefit both the company and its employees (Van Dyne, Kamdar, &

Joireman, 2008).

Also, employees who are in trustworthy relationships are more drawn to express their voice because they perceive less potential risk in doing so. Even when they think their ideas may not receive the acceptance that they expect, subordinates are comfortable enough to voice them because they know leaders will not criticize them, as their relationship is based on respect. Instead, leaders will take into consideration the suggestions that seemed beneficial.

Botero and Van Dyne (2009) claim that high-quality LMX influence Employee Voice Behavior because of two reasons. First, employees have a greater chance to express their ideas due to the closeness and access between them and their supervisors. Second, since employees have greater trust in their leaders, they receive greater work support and responsiveness from them.

Therefore, employees’ perception is that their opinions and thoughts will be heard and be taken into consideration (Botero &Van Dyne, 2009).

Even though, many studies have indicated that leaders are capable of developing high and low-quality LMX relationships, it is critically emphasized by some scholars that leaders have the responsibility to establish such high-quality exchange relationships with each subordinate to avoid bias and discrimination, and to be as partial as possible when developing such work relationships (Dunegan, Uhl-Bien, & Duchon, 2002; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). When leaders can cultivate and nurture honest, two-way relationships with each subordinate, they manage to achieve a work environment of self-management, evolving from an I oriented behavior towards a more inclusive we behavior (Omilion-Hodges & Baker, 2013). Therefore, based on previous literature the following hypothesis was developed:

Hypothesis 1. Leader-Member Exchange is related to Employee Voice Behavior.

The Role of Psychological Safety as Mediator

Brown and Leigh (1996) defined Psychological Safety in the organization as the perception employees have about their organizational environment characteristics, taking into consideration how much support they have from supervisors, how clear job roles and expectations are transmitted to them, and how much autonomy and self-expression they get in the workplace. Psychological Safety happens whenever employees feel their work environment allows them to express themselves freely without facing the risk of being criticized or judged. Whenever an employee feels comfortable enough to voice opinions, engage in creative ideas, and so on, it is said to have a high level of Psychological Safety.

A critical factor that has been discussed as a relevant cause for the development of Psychological Safety is the level of reciprocal care in work relationships. According to the literature, there are some reasons why reciprocal care allows individuals to feel more psychologically safe. Referring to Kahn (1990), in caring relationships individuals demonstrate genuine care and concern for others in particular ways, people pay more attention to others’

emotions and feelings nurturing in individuals a greater sense of self-worth and strengthening the self within a group. In such environments, individuals feel a sense of belongingness in which they play an important role (Wrzesniewski, Dutton, & Debebe, 2003). An environment in which supervisors promote a culture of learning and experimentation, promoting healthy conflict and placing great importance on giving employees’ a voice.

In a review of the literature on organizational creativity, George (2008) argued that Psychological Safety is one of the most important factors positively related to creativity. Also, West and Richter (2008) discussed that when individuals face psychological threats and have feelings of psychologically unsafety, they are more likely to avoid engaging in creative and innovative behaviors. Similarly, Psychological Safety should be a critical determinant of employees’ voice behavior as well, as voice behavior essentially involves challenging the current status of the organization by pointing out potential opportunities or problematic practices that managers are unable to identify. This implies the important role of LMX on employees’

Psychological Safety, which as a consequence might affect their voice behavior. A systematic review on the literature inferred Psychological Safety might be an important mediator in the relationship between LMX and Employee Voice Behavior. Previous literature has proven that any interpersonal relationship in the workplace has an enormous impact on employees’ behaviors

在文檔中 The Relationships among Leader-Member Exchange, Employee Voice Behavior, Psychological Safety, and Gender: A Study in the Private Sector in El Salvador (頁 16-28)