解構建言行為的中介效果---以個人與群體配適、心理安全機制來預測建言行為

行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫 成果報告

解構建言行為的中介效果：以個人與群體配適、心理安全 機制來預測建言行為

研究成果報告(精簡版)

計 畫 類 別 ： 個別型

計 畫 編 號 ： NSC 98-2410-H-011-007-

執 行 期 間 ： 98 年 08 月 01 日至 99 年 07 月 31 日 執 行 單 位 ： 國立臺灣科技大學企業管理系

計 畫 主 持 人 ： 鄭仁偉

計畫參與人員： 碩士班研究生-兼任助理人員：魏瑞芬 博士班研究生-兼任助理人員：盧國銘

處 理 方 式 ： 本計畫可公開查詢

中 華 民 國 99 年 09 月 15 日

Disentangling the Mediating Effect of Voice Behavior: Person-Group Fit and Psychological Safety Mechanism in Predicting Voice Behavior

Introduction

With today the rapid changes, uncertain and keen business competition in the

work environment, it is not enough for employee to complete their assign task (Grant,

Parker, & Collins, 2009). Organizations need employee anticipatory input of voice for

“doing things better” (Botero & Van Dyne, 2009; Janssen, De Vries, & Cozijnsen,

1998; Fuller, Barnett, Hester, Relyea, & Frey, 2007). Employee voice of ideas has

impact on improving a process, task, and solving work-related problems (Botero &

Van Dyne, 2009; Liu, Zhu, & Yang, 2010). Employee voice is defined as “promotive

behavior that emphasizes expression of constructive challenge intends to improve

rather than merely criticize” (VanDyne & LePine, 1998, p.109). It makes innovative

suggestion for change and recommending modifications to operation procedures

(Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009), and play a central role in determinant effective

organizational functioning, organizational success and survival (Janssen et al, 1998;

Detert & Burris, 2007; LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Morrison & Phelps, 1999).

Given the importance of voice, not surprisingly, many scholars have contributed

greatly to our understanding of the nature of voice behavior and its antecedent.

Individual factors such as self-esteem (LePine & Van Dyan, 1998; Premeaux &

Bedeian, 2003), big five (Nikolaou, Vakola, & Bourantas, 2008), and self-efficacy

(Morrison & Phelps, 1999), and the contextual factor such as transformational

leadership (Detert & Burris, 2007), supportive leadership (choi, 2007), and ethical

leadership (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009) have been found to be positive

relationship in voice behavior. However, the research on voice is growing, there are

two questions unanswered: (1) the level of fit perception may drive employee to

express their opinions? (2) by what mediating process may drive subordinate to speak

up. These questions result in incomplete picture of the process of voice behavior.

Therefore, the present study addressed the gap in the voice literature by

proposing the voice process. First, as work groups gradually become widely used in

the business (DeSanctis & Poole, 1997; Devine, Clayton, Philips, Dunford, & Melner,

1999; Stewart, 2006). The heterogeneity of work group and quickly changing work

condition have diminish the fit in work group (Hopkins, Hopkins, & Mallette, 2001;

Shin & Choi, 2010). Group managers hope to understand fit with group value or

culture when hiring employee who can speak up to give sensible comments to

improve situation in the future. Thus, managing Person-Group (P-G) fit constitutes an

important challenge and issue to work group. Moreover, previous studies have

indicated P-G fit influence individual positive attitude and behavior (Kristof-brown,

Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005). These findings suggested P-G fit have critical impact

on subordinate behavior. Surprising, however, insufficient attention has been paid to

aspects characterizing the relationship between P-G fit and voice behavior. In order

to fill the limited prior theory and research gaps in voice literature, the present study

attempt to explore the relationship P-G fit and voice.

Second, psychological safety defined as the employee’s “feeling able to show

and employ self without fear of negative consequences to self-image, status, or

career” (Kahn, 1990, p. 708). Previous studies on voice behavior have been indicated

that psychology safety was important antecedent linking to voice behavior (Detert &

Burris, 2007; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009). However, relatively little is known

about the mechanism in employee voice behavior process. In addition, existing

research on perceived P-G fit ignores how and why affects display of employee voice.

We examine how P-G fit influences voice behavior by psychological safety

mechanism in this study.

Taken together, the purpose of the present study extends previous research by

investigating the mediating process of psychological safety in the relationship

between P-G fit and voice behavior. We contribute to the extant literature on voice by

clarifying the mediating mechanism and explain why and how P-G fit lead to voice

behavior.

Theory and Hypotheses

P-G fit and voice behavior

Person-Environment (P-E) fit perspective posits that “the compatibility between

an individual and a particular work environment that occurs when their characteristics

are well matched” (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005, p. 281). Various fit

perception conceptions, such as a person fit with organization, group, job, and

supervisor was development in P-E literature (Kristof, 1996; Kristof-Brown,

Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005). As team-based structure has gradually spread in

organizations (Werbel & Johnson, 2001; Stewart, 2006), fit perception has become

important in team context (DeRue & Morgeson, 2007). Thus, our focus is limited to

P-G fit.

P-G fit which means to the perceived value compatibility between individuals

and their work groups (Kristof, 1996; DeRue & Morgeson, 2007). From P-E fit

perspective suggested that “positive responses will occur when individuals fit or

match the requirements of a situation” O’Reilly, Chatman, and Caldwell, 1991, p.

489). For example, Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson (2005) argued that P-G

fit has been influenced on positive attitude (e.g., job satisfaction, organizational

commitment, and turnover intention) and performance (e.g. in-role performance and

extra role performance). Several empirical findings have also suggested that value

congruence would be positively work-related behavior such as organizational

citizenship behaviors (Cable & DeRue, 2002; Kristof, 1996; O'Reilly & Chatman,

1986), job performance (Hoffman & Woehr, 2006; Tziner, 1987), willingness to

recommend the organization (Shantz, 2003; Vigoda & Cohen, 2003). Base on the

findings and above points, we argued that in the team context, when employees

believe that their values match group’s value that take as one of group members, they

would feel willing to involve group affairs and more likely to contribute to the group

in constructive ways such as voice behavior in order to foster group effectiveness and

efficiency. Therefore, the hypothesis following is proposed:

Hypothesis 1: P-G fit will be positively related to voice behavior.

The mediating role of psychological safety

As noted previously, we anticipant that employee engages in voice behavior by

P-G fit perception influenced. However, it is possible existing mediating process

between P-G fit and voice behavior. Value congruence (fit) make the individuals

have similarly belief, philosophy and norm, and then facilitate the team censuses

(Chatman, 1991), and true each other. In a trusting relationship, individuals perceive

that they will not suffer ill effects from expressing their true selves at work, and they

will feel psychological safety (May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004; Kahn, 1990). For

instance, Vogel and Feldman (2009) suggested that fit with team has been related

positively to the quality of work relationships. The higher quality relationship increase

interpersonal trust without fearing, and embarrassing. Zhang, Fang, Wei, and Chen

(2010) indicated that when individual have trust in the team, they believe that other

members will not blame or punish them, and diminish their concerns about the

possible negative consequences of their behavior. Hence, the feeling of psychological

safety will increase. Likewise, Kahn (1990) implied that in trust and safety

relationship helps promote employee’s feeling of the level of psychological safety. In

contrast, a poor or incompatible value fit will produce a psychological strains, which

lead to greater illness and interpersonal entrust (Barling, Kelloway, & Frone, 2005),

and then it will reduce their feeling of psychological safety.

Voice behavior promotes change and challenges the status quo, sometime it is a

potentially risky behavior and upset interpersonal relationship for employee (LePine

& Van Dyne, 1998; Stamper & Van Dyne, 2001). Thus, employee often calculate and

evaluate the cost-benefit before engage in voice behavior (Liu et al., 2010). The cost

perception was one’s feeling of psychological safety. A shared belief that it is safe to

speak up in groups without suffering potential embarrassment and interpersonal threat

(Edmondson, 1999). When employees perceived that psychological safety in their

mind, they will loss their fear feeling and willing to speaking up to the group. Some

evidence found that psychological safety has positive impact on voice behavior. For

example, in Detert and Burris (2007) research, found that psychological safety was a

significant cognition associated with voice behavior (Detert & Burris, 2007).

Nembhard and Edmonson (2006) examine the effect on a health care team and find

that psychological safety is a key antecedent for both voice and learning behaviours.

Moreover, the finding from Walumbwa and Schaubroeck (2009) indicates that the

psychological safety was positively related to voice behavior, and mediated the

relationship between ethical leadership and voice behavior. Base on these studies,

Employees who feel more psychologically safe tend to be more engaged in their work

roles (Kahn, 1990; May et al., 2004). Psychological safety was key factor in

determine willing or unwilling to speak up of subordinate.

Taken together, when employees perceived their belief and value fit with their

group, increasing share cognition and identification with group, enhancing personally

non-threatening perception, and more likely to take risk of proposing new ideas,

constructive suggestions(West, 1990) such as voice behavior. Thus, the following

hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 2: Psychological safety will mediate the relationship between P-G fit

and voice behavior.

Method

The survey used in this study was conducted in a large trucking company in

Taiwan. Participants were frontline employees, whose interact with customer and

gather firsthand information from customer. If employees take the initiative to

integrate customer’s opinions, and then speak upward to supervisor, the group will

increase both its effectiveness and performance. Therefore, we chose frontline

employee in single trucking company as our study participants to test our hypothesis

relationship.

We contacted the headquarters of the sample firm to ascertain its willingness to

participate. After receiving their consent, 800 employees were invited to fill out the

survey. During the process, we asked the HR personnel to assist us by selecting

respondents randomly, and we guaranteed that the participants’ responses would

remain anonymous to ensure confidentiality. Data were eventually collected from 721

responses. After deleting 42 incomplete responses, we obtained 679 valid responses to

test our measures, giving a valid response rate of 84.9%. Of the respondents for this

study, 86.4％ were male with the majority being between 26 and 35 years in age

(61.8％). Married respondents comprised 60.8％ of the total. Some 20.0％ held

associate or technical degrees and 59.9％ had a high school education. The average

organizational tenure was 77.6 months.

Measures

Since the original survey instrument were developed in English, we followed

Brislin (1980)’s suggestion to translate all items into Chinese and then back-translated

into English by two independent bilingual individual to ensure the semantic

equivalency. All instrument measures were self-reported by employee participants and

all items were rated on a 6-point Likert-scale that ranged from 1, “strongly disagree”

to 6, “strongly agree”.

Person-Group fit

We used a modified version of Cable and DeRue’s (2002) three-item scale for

person-organization fit to measure P-G fit. It is developed and used prior research in

P-G fit measure (e.g. DeRue & Morgeson, 2007). We adopt DeRue & Morgeson’s

(2007) version, changing the word “organization” to “team” of the three items.

Sample items included “my personal values match my team’s values and culture”,

“this things that I value in life are very similar to the things that my team values”. The

Cronbach’s alpha for this construct was .94.

Psychological safety

We measured psychological safety with a 7-item scale derived from Brown and

Leigh (1996). Example items included, “My manager is supportive of my ideas and

ways of getting things done,” “The feelings I express at work are my true feelings,”

The Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was .86.

Voice behavior

To measure employee’s voice behavior, we adopt six indicators developed by

Van Dyne and LePine (1998). Sample items were “I develop and make

recommendations concerning issues that affect this work group,” “I speak up and

encourage others in this group to get involved in issues that affect the group,” The

Cronbach’s alpha for this variable was .91.

Data analysis

LISREL 8.51 serves as structural equation modeling (SEM) (Joreskog & Sorbom,

1993) with maximum-likelihood estimation, and we followed the two-stage analytical

procedure recommend by Anderson & Gerbing (1988) to test our hypothesized

relationships. First, a series of confirmatory factor analyses to ensure distinct factors

assessed the discriminate validity of the P-G fit, psychological safety, and voice

behaviour scales. The second step performed a model comparison procedure to assess

the structural model and overall model fit.

Results

Descriptive statistics

Table 2 reports the means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliability of the

study variables. The results shown that P-G fit had significantly positive association

with psychological safety and voice behavior (r=.62 and .62, p<.01, respectively), and

provided preliminary evidence to support Hypothesis 1.Psychological safety

correlated positively with voice behavior (r=.59, p<.01).

Table 1 Measurement Model Comparisons

Model χ² df Δχ² Δdf CFI GFI RMSEA NFI

Baseline 541.11 101 -- -- .94 .90 .08 .93

Alternative 1 1676.65 103 1135.54** 2 .80 .68 .19 .79

Alternative 2 2612.50 104 2071.39** 3 .68 .60 .22 .67 Note. The values of Δχ² and Δdf were differences between baseline model and other models.

Baseline model: three factor (i.e, P-G fit, psychological safety, and voice behavior) Alternative 1 model: combine P-G fit and psychological safety into one factor Alternative 2 model: combine all variable into one factor

**p<.01

Confirmation factor analyses

Before testing the empirical hypotheses, we followed Wang, Law, Hackett,

Wang and Chen’s (2005) approach to assess discriminant validity between the

constructs by comparing our measurement model to various alternative models,

moving from our three-factors of interest to a restricted single-factor structure. Table

1 presents the models and gives fit statistics results. The results suggest that the

hypothesized three-factor model (X²=541.11; CFI=.94; GFI=.90; RMSEA=.08;

NFI=.93) yielded a better fit than the other alternative model with a large and

significant change in chi-square difference tests. Moreover, in the three-factor model,

summary, these results provide evidences of the discriminant and convergent validity

for this study.

Table 2 Mean, Standard Deviations, and Correlations among study Variables

Variables

Mean SD

1.P-G fit 4.66 .91 (.94)

2.Psychological safety 4.50 .78 .62** (.86)

3.Voice behaviour 4.75 .76 .62** .59** (.91) Note. Cronbach’s α coefficients appear on the diagonal;

**p<.01

Hypotheses testing

This study employed structural equation modeling to evaluate the hypothetical

structural model fit the data well(X²=541.11; CFI=.94; GFI=.90; NFI=.93;

RMSEA=.08). However, Hayduk (1987) suggested testing and comparing other

competing models while conducting structural equation analysis. Therefore, the

plausibility of three other competing models was estimated as well. In competing

Model 1, we tested one alternative structural model by removing the direct path from

P-G fit to voice behaviour. The differences between chi-squares were significant for

the baseline Model as for competing Model 1. These comparison circumstances

suggest that the competing Model 1 (X²=541.11; CFI=.94; GFI=.90; NFI=.93;

RMSEA=.08) was better than our hypothesized model(X²=653.13; CFI=.93; GFI=.88;

NFI=.92; RMSEA=.09). All of the standardized path coefficients are shown in figure

1. The results showed that P-G fit was positively related to voice behaviour (β＝0.46,

p<0.01), and psychological safety (β ＝ 0.63, p<0.01), supporting Hypothesis

1 .Psychological safety was positively associated with voice behavior (β＝0.34,

p<0.01). We further tested the mediation effect (hypothesis 2) using Sobel’s (1982)

test of indirect effect. The result showed that P-G fit had a statistic significant

influence on voice behavior by psychological safety (Z=6.0, p<0.01).Thus,

Hypothesis 2 received support.

Figure 1 Standardized Path Coefficients for the Final Model

**p<.01

Discussion

The present study extends previous studies of voice behavior by empirically

examining whether P-G fit predict voice behavior, and its relationship through

psychological safety. As expected, the results of empirical analysis provide support to

P-G fit Psychological

Safety

Voice Behavior .34**

.63**

.46**

our hypotheses relationship. We found that P-G fit had a positive influence on voice

behavior. The finding is similar prior study (Kristof-brown et al., 2005), and has

implication for voice literature. This expands knowledge of the role of P-G fit in

relation to proactive behavior in the form of voice behavior. In addition, psychological

safety mediate the relationship between P-G fit and voice behavior. This extends and

advances our understanding in the voice behavior process, and indicates that P-G fit

can predict psychological safety, which in turn facilitates their engagement on voice

behavior.

This study makes two significant contributions to the extant literatures. First,

most of the extant literature on voice devotes to explore its antecedents. However,

these studies place less emphasis on fit perspective. In order to rich voice literature,

we extend the voice research in take notice of P-G fit on voice behavior. Second, P-G

fit literature put less attention on understanding how and why affects employee voice.

We expand the P-G fit literature on examining how P-G fit influences voice behavior

by psychological safety mechanism in our study.

Practical implications

From a practical point of view, our results suggest that employee voice behavior

can be motivated by P-G fit. For example, group provide communication and share

mechanism between employee and group on values and organizational responsiveness.

Moreover, employeees’ selection process might include a P-G fit screening in the

stages of the selection process which value fit the group vale and norm, and thus

promote their displays of voice behavior. Besides, managers should offer safe work

environment to build trust perception of employee. For example, managers encourage

and tell employees to speak up without negative outcome (e.g. blaming, punishment),

reduce the fear of voice, and communication with employee. This knowledge should

be especially relevant to managers in organizations with dynamic environment where

change and new ideas are essential for organizational adaptation, innovation, survival,

and success.

Limitations and recommendation for future research

The findings of the present study should be interpreted in light of its limitations.

First, from empirical perspective, cross-sectional study was conducted in the current

study, and the causal conclusions were not unambiguously determined. Hence, future

study should consider longitudinal method for data collection to explore the more

accurately the causality. In addition, all instrument of the research was using

self-report survey, and single source data may be existing potential common method

bias rather than true relationships among the study variables. We followed Korsgaard

and Roberson’s (1995) and Hung, Chi and Lu’s (2009) suggestion, and employed CFA

to check the severity of common method problems (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, &

Podsakoff, 2003; Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Our results showed that three-factor

model provides a better fit than the one-factor model. The findings suggest that

common method bias may not be severely our results. However, further study should

collect data from different source to minimize the influence of common method bias.

Third, all data for the present study were gathered within a single organization with

mostly male participants, which limits the observed variability and decreases external

validity. It would be examined for future research to replicate the present findings to

enhance generalizability in other types of organizational settings.

Future research may examine other additional mediating process linking P-G fit

to voice behavior. For instance, Kristof-brown et al. (2005) indicated that P-G fit has

positive associated with organizational commitment. Past research indicated that

organizational commitment is an important antecedent on extra-role behavior (Organ

& Ryan, 1995) such as voice behavior. Hence, further studies may consider

organizational commitment in mediating process in linking the relationship between

P-G fit and voice behavior.

Conclusion

Despite these limitations, the results of this study advance our knowledge and

understanding of voice behavior is influenced by P-G fit, and offering explanations

how and why psychological safety mediate the relationship between P-G fit and voice

behavior. This research has confirmed that the perception of psychological safety

does indeed play an important role in employees displaying voice behavior. This

present work provides new and deeper insights into disentangling employee voice

behavior through strengthening the role of psychological safety. These results provide

applied implications and thus enrich the extant voice behavior literature.

References

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A

review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103,

411-423.

Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K., & Frone, M. R. (2005). Handbook of work stress. Sage

publication.

Botero, I. C., & Van Dyne, L. (2009). Employee voice behavior interactive effects of

LMX and power distance in the United States and Colombia. Management

Communication Quarterly, 23, 84-104.

Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In

H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology:

methodology (Vol. 2, pp. 389-444): Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at psychological climate and its

Psychology, 81, 358-368.

Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of

subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 875-884.

Chatman, J. A. (1991). Matching people and organizations-Selection and socialization

in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459-484.

Choi, J. N. (2007). Change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior: Effects of

work environment characteristics and intervening psychological process.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 467-484.

DeRue, D. S., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Stability and change in person-team and

person-role fit over time: The effects of growth satisfaction, performance, and

general self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1242-1253.

DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1997). Transitions in teamwork in new organizaitonal

forms. IN B. Markovsky, M.J. Lovaglia, & L. Troyer (Eds.), Advances in

group processes (Vol. 14, pp. 157-176): Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the

door really open. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 869-884.

Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Philips, J. L., Dunford, B. B., & Melner, S. B. (1999).

Teams in organizations: Prevalence, characteristics, and effectiveness. Small

Group Research, 30, 678-711.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350-383.

Fuller, J. B., Barnett, T., Hester, K., Relyea, C., & Frey, L. (2007). An exploratory

examination of voice behavior from an impression management perspective.

Journal of Managerial Issues, 19, 134-151.

Grant, A. M., Parker, S., & Collins, C. (2009). Getting credit for proactive behavior:

supervisor reactions depend on what you value and how you feel. Personnel

Psychology, 62, 31-55.

Hayduk, L.A. (1987). Structural equation modeling with LISREL: Essential and

advances, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Hoffman, B., J., & Woehr, D., J. (2006). A quantitative review of the relationship

between person-organization fit and behavioral outcomes. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 68, 389.

Hopkins,W., Hopkins, S., & Mallette, P. (2001). Diversity and managerial value

commitment: A test of some proposed relationships. Journal of Management

Issues, 13, 288-306.

Hung, T. K., Chi, N. W., & Lu, W. L. (2009). Exploring the relationships between

perceived coworker loafing and counterproductive work behaviors: the

mediating role of a revenge motive. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24,

257-270.

Janssen, O., De Vries, T., & Cozijnsen, A. J. (1998). Voicing by adapting and

innovating employees: An empirical study on how personality and

environment interact to affect voice behavior. Human Relations, 51, 945-967.

Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago:

Scientific Software International.

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and

disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724.

Korsgaard, M. A., & Roberson, L. (1995). Procedural justice in performance

evaluation: The role of instrumental and non-instrumental voice in

performance appraisal discussions. Journal of Management, 21, 657-669.

Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its

conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49,

1-49.

Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of

individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization,

person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281-342.

LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 853-868.

Liu, W., Zhu, R., & Yang, Y. (2010). I warn you because I like you: Voice behavior,

employee identifications and transformational leadership. The Leadership

Quarterly, 21, 489-202.

May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of

meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human

spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77,

11-37.

Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to

initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 403-419.

Nembhard, I.M., and Edmondson, A.C. (2006), ‘Making it safe: The effects of leader

inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and

improvement efforts in health care teams’, Journal of Organizational Behavior,

27, 941-966.

Nikolaou, I., Vakola, M., & Bourantas, D. (2008). Who speaks up at work?

Dispositional influences on employees’ voice behavior. Personnel Review, 37,

666-679.

O’Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational

culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit.

Academy of Management Journal, 34, 487-516.

O'Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological

attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on

prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492-499.

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. 1995. A meta analytic review of attitudinal and

dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel

Psychology, 48, 775-802.

Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research:

Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531-544.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common

method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and

recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.

Premeaux, S. F., & Bedeian, A. G. (2003). Breaking the silence: The moderating

effects of self-monitoring in predicting speaking up in the workplace. Journal

of Management Studies, 40, 1537-1562.

Shantz, C. A. (2003). Person-organization fit: Individual differences, socialization

and outcomes. Wayne State University, Michigan.

Shin, Y., & Choi, J. N. (2010). What makes a group of good citizens? The role of

perceived group-level fit and critical psychological states in organizational

teams. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 531-552.

Stamper, C. L., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Work status and organizational citizenship

behavior: A field study of restaurant employees. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 22, 517-536.

Stewart, G. L. (2006). A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design

features and team performance. Journal of Management, 32, 29-55.

Tziner, A. (1987). Congruency issue resettled using Finean's achievement climate

notion. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 2, 63-78.

Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors:

Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management

Journal, 41, 108-119.

Vigoda, E., & Cohen, A. (2003). Work congruence and excellence in human resource

management: Empirical evidence from the Israeli nonprofit sector. Review of

Public Personnel Administration, 23, 192-216.

Vogel, R. M., & Feldman, D. C. (2009). Integrating the levels of person-environment

fit: The roles of vocational fit and group fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior,

75, 68-81.

Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits and employee

voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group

psychological safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1275-7286.

Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (2005).

Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between

transformational leadership and followers’ performance and organizational

citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 420-432.

Werbel, J. D., & Johnson, D. J. (2001). The use of person-group fit for employment

selection: A missing link in person-environment fit. Human Resource

Management, 40, 227-240.

Zhang, Y., Fang, Y., Wei, K. K., & Chen, H. (2010). Exploring the roles of

psychological safety in promoting the intention to continue sharing knowledge

in virtual communities. International Journal of Information Management, 30,

425-436.

無研發成果推廣資料

98 年度專題研究計畫研究成果彙整表

計畫主持人：鄭仁偉 計畫編號：98-2410-H-011-007-

計畫名稱：解構建言行為的中介效果：以個人與群體配適、心理安全機制來預測建言行為 量化

成果項目 ^{實際已達成}

數（被接受 或已發表）

預期總達成 數(含實際已

達成數)

本計畫實 際貢獻百

分比

單位

備 註 （ 質 化 說 明：如 數 個 計 畫 共 同 成 果、成 果 列 為 該 期 刊 之 封 面 故 事 ...

等）

期刊論文 0 0 0%

研究報告/技術報告 0 0 0%

研討會論文 0 0 0%

論文著作 篇

專書 0 0 0%

申請中件數 0 0 0%

專利 已獲得件數 0 0 0% 件

件數 0 0 0% 件

技術移轉

權利金 0 0 0% 千元

碩士生 0 0 0%

博士生 0 0 0%

博士後研究員 0 0 0%

國內

參與計畫人力

（本國籍）

專任助理 0 0 0%

人次

期刊論文 0 1 100%

研究報告/技術報告 0 0 0%

研討會論文 0 0 0%

論文著作 篇

專書 0 0 0% 章/本

申請中件數 0 0 0%

專利 已獲得件數 0 0 0% 件

件數 0 0 0% 件

技術移轉

權利金 0 0 0% 千元

碩士生 0 0 0%

博士生 0 0 0%

博士後研究員 0 0 0%

國外

參與計畫人力

（外國籍）

專任助理 0 0 0%

人次

其他成果

(

果如辦理學術活動、獲 得獎項、重要國際合 作、研究成果國際影響 力及其他協助產業技 術發展之具體效益事 項等，請以文字敘述填 列。)

無

成果項目 量化 名稱或內容性質簡述

測驗工具(含質性與量性) 0

課程/模組 0

電腦及網路系統或工具 0

教材 0

舉辦之活動/競賽 0

研討會/工作坊 0

電子報、網站 0

科 教 處 計 畫 加 填 項

目 計畫成果推廣之參與（閱聽）人數 0

國科會補助專題研究計畫成果報告自評表

請就研究內容與原計畫相符程度、達成預期目標情況、研究成果之學術或應用價 值（簡要敘述成果所代表之意義、價值、影響或進一步發展之可能性） 、是否適 合在學術期刊發表或申請專利、主要發現或其他有關價值等，作一綜合評估。

1. 請就研究內容與原計畫相符程度、達成預期目標情況作一綜合評估

■達成目標

□未達成目標（請說明，以 100 字為限）

□實驗失敗

□因故實驗中斷

□其他原因 說明：

2. 研究成果在學術期刊發表或申請專利等情形：

論文：□已發表 □未發表之文稿 ■撰寫中 □無 專利：□已獲得 □申請中 ■無

技轉：□已技轉 □洽談中 ■無 其他：（以 100 字為限）

3. 請依學術成就、技術創新、社會影響等方面，評估研究成果之學術或應用價 值（簡要敘述成果所代表之意義、價值、影響或進一步發展之可能性）（以 500 字為限）

本研究透過探討建言行為的歷程，進一步了解人與群體配適對於建言行為有正面的影響，

而且也會透過員工心理安全感，進而影響建言行為的產生。運用此研究結果，對於團隊管 理者欲提升與增進員工建言行為時，提供有價值的實務參考價值，可從形塑人與群體配適 以及心理安全感兩方面來著手: 第一、在形塑人與群體配適上：團隊管理者應提高團隊成 員共享的價值觀，例如主管宣達、角色模範、獎賞制度等，以傳達團隊的價值觀與文化給 予員工，內化為員工的基本信念，才會認同團隊並極力的投入熱情，促進員工展現建言行 為。另外，在人員的聘用或選擇員工時，應考慮適配團隊價值或文化的成員列為甄選的首 要考量，方能促進員工認同感，進而願意犧牲奉獻給組織，提供有利於組織改善的各式工 作建議。第二、建構員工心理安全感：團隊管理者應以鼓勵而非責備或懲罰的方式，降低 員工想要建言的恐懼感，平時也要形塑信任與安全感的工作環境，才能讓員工無後顧之憂 的提出批評與建議，促使員工願意從事建言行為。