According to my theoretical framework, PS value congruence should be positively related to employees’ promotive and prohibitive voice, but not all high perceived value congruence employees will engage in both promotive and prohibitive voice. One possible factor should determine whether higher levels of perceived value congruence employees engage in promotive or prohibitive voice is followers’ regulatory focus, which includes both promotion and prevention focus. While researchers have long recognized that regulatory focus may display a direct effect on individuals’ decision making, attitude, and behavior (e.g., Friedman & Förster, 2001; Markovits, Ullrich, van Dick, & Davis, 2008; Neubert et al., 2008),
such regulatory focus may also play a moderating role in the relationship between individual factors and behaviors (e.g., Cremer, Mayer, van Dijke, Schouten, & Bardes, 2009). Thus, I propose that followers’ regulatory focus may serve as another boundary condition that
augments the relationship between PS value congruence and employee voice in my theoretical model.
Higgins (1997, 1998) developed regulatory focus theory, which explains important differences in the processes through which all goal-directed behavior is motivated and
regulated by two basic goal-striving strategies: promotion focus and prevention focus. People differ in the chronic accessibility of these two self-regulatory strategy (Shah, Higgins, &
Friedman, 1998). Promotion focus regulates the pleasure seeking process that focuses on the accomplishment of rewards and is characterized by setting ideal and hope-for goals, while prevention focus regulates the pain avoidance process that focuses on the avoidance of punishments and is characterized by setting ought and feared goals (Carver & Scheier, 1998;
Johnson et al., 2010; Kark & van Dijk, 2007). Higgins (1987) pointed out that there are three basic domains of the self: (a) the actual self, which represents people’s beliefs of what they actually possess; (b) the ideal self, represents people’s beliefs of what they would like ideally to possess, such as hopes, aspirations, or wishes; and (c) the ought self, which represents people’s beliefs of what they should or ought to possess, such as duty, obligations, rules, or responsibilities. In this manner, promotion goals reflect the “ideal self” and prevention goals reflect the “ought self” (Kark & van Dijk, 2007). As noted by Meyer, Becker, and
Vandenberghe (2004, p. 996), the conception that “people are motivated to minimize
discrepancies between actual and desired end states (i.e., seek pleasure) and to minimize the discrepancies between actual and undesired end states (i.e., avoid pain)” is at the heart of regulatory focus theory. Hence, people who seek to attenuate discrepancies with their “ideal self” are called to possess a promotion focus. Conversely, people who seek to lessen
discrepancies with their “ought self” are named to have a prevention focus.
As I noted earlier, when followers perceive their values are congruent with their supervisors’ values, this perception can be construed as an important signal that they can feel freely and safely to express themselves because they clearly understand their supervisors highly encourage them to act according to their true thoughts. Consequently, they are more willing to share information and express concerns. Thus, I argue the positive influence of PS value congruence on the motivation of followers to speak up their ideas (i.e., promotive voice) or concerns (i.e., prohibitive voice) should be most likely to emerge when followers have clear self-regulatory strategy. Following this line of reasoning, I expect that followers high in promotion focus should be motivated the most to speak up their suggestions by the
perceptions of PS value congruence. Indeed, followers with a promotion focus are concentrated more on gains, ideals, accomplishments and aspirations. Under such
circumstance, when followers perceive that their values are compatible with their supervisors’
values, they would have strong desire to share new ideas and express suggestion to improve existing work practices and procedures to benefit the unit. Similarly, followers high in prevention focus should be motivated the most to speak up their concerns by the perceptions of PS value congruence. Followers with a promotion focus are concerned more with duty, obligations, rules, and responsibilities. When followers perceive that their values are consistent with their supervisors’ values, they would feel that they ought to speak up their concerns to impede practices, incidents or behaviors that may harm the unit.
The above arguments can be integrated with my theory development in Hypothesis 5 to yield an elaborated process model that accounts for the mediating (i.e., PS value
congruence) and moderating (i.e., leadership strength and followers’ regulatory focus)
mechanisms by which unit-level authentic leadership leads to employee voice (i.e., promotive voice and prohibitive voice). In other words, I propose that the relationship between unit-level
authentic leadership and PS value congruence is stronger when leadership strength is high.
However, the relationship between PS value congruence and employee voice can be divided into two different aspects. One is that the relationship between PS value congruence and promotive voice is stronger when followers are high in promotion focus, while the other is that the relationship between PS value congruence and prohibitive voice is stronger when followers are high in prevention focus. Taken together and stated in terms of Edwards and Lambert’s (2007) theorizing, the indirect effect of unit-level authentic leadership on employee voice through PS value congruence will be strongest when leadership strength is high (a first-stage moderator) and when followers’ regulatory focus is high (a second-stage moderator). The hypotheses are stated below:
Hypothesis 6a. The strength of the mediated relationship between authentic leadership
and followers’ promotive voice (via person-supervisor value congruence) will vary depending on the extent of leadership strength and followers’ promotion focus; the indirect effect of authentic leadership via person-supervisor value congruence on followers’ promotive voice will be stronger when both leadership strength and followers’ promotion focus are higher.
Hypothesis 6b. The strength of the mediated relationship between authentic leadership
and followers’ prohibitive voice (via person-supervisor value congruence) will vary depending on the extent of leadership strength and followers’ prevention focus; the indirect effect of authentic leadership via person-supervisor value congruence on followers’ prohibitive voice will be stronger when both leadership strength and followers’ prevention focus are higher.
CHAPTER THREE: METHOD