Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 135 (2016) 10–21

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp

Overcoming the fear factor: How perceptions of supervisor openness

lead employees to speak up when fearing external threat
R. David Lebel
Katz School of Business, University of Pittsburgh, 364 Mervis Hall, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: While fear is generally assumed to powerfully limit employee voice, a functional view of emotions sug-
Received 26 March 2014 gests that responses to fear vary. Instead of assuming that fear is negatively associated with voice, I argue
Revised 26 April 2016 that this relationship may be more complex. Adopting a functional view of emotions, I hypothesize that
Accepted 5 May 2016
fears from external sources focus attention on shared threat to the organization and may be positively
Available online 18 May 2016
associated with employee voice. This effect is likely contingent: when employees perceive their supervi-
sors as open to input, they are motivated to speak up. Thus, perceptions of supervisor openness can help
Keywords:
transform other-focused motives resulting from fearing external threat into information-sharing. Results
Employee voice
Upward communication
from two studies suggest that fear of external threat positively relates to voice when employees perceive
Fear their supervisor as open to input. Additionally, results suggest that this interactive effect is mediated by
Discrete emotions prosocial motivation spurring employees to speak up when fearing external threat.
Layoffs Ó 2016 The Author. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Supervisor openness (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Prosocial motivation

1. Introduction ‘‘whiner” or ‘‘trouble-maker”), damage to one’s image, not being

Given growing economic uncertainty and competitive threat at
work, managers need feedback from employees at all levels in
order to implement strategy and make informed decisions
(Morrison & Milliken, 2000; Senge, 1990). A flow of information
from employees facilitates organizational learning (Edmondson,
1999) and enhances decision quality (Dooley & Fryxell, 1999). As
such, employee voice behavior—defined as discretionary commu-
nication of ideas, suggestions, or concerns intended to benefit the
organization (Morrison, 2011)—can help improve the organiza-
tion’s responses to the external competitive environment, as well
as its effectiveness and performance (Detert, Burris, Harrison, &
Martin, 2013; Lam & Mayer, 2014; Mackenzie, Podsakoff, &
Podsakoff, 2011).
Because employee voice is important for organizational func-
tioning, voice scholars have focused on the antecedents to this
behavior (Morrison, 2014). While much of this research has
emphasized the role of cognitive processes that influence whether
employees speak up, there is a lack of understanding as to how
emotions influence voice (Grant, 2013). An exception is a body of
work suggesting that employees often withhold their ideas and
suggestions, primarily due to fears of negative consequences, such
as supervisor retaliation or punishment, negative labels (e.g.,
E-mail address: rdlebel@katz.pitt.edu
supported, or harming work relationships (Detert & Edmondson,
2011; Kish-Gephart, Detert, Treviño, & Edmondson, 2009;
Milliken, Morrison, & Hewlin, 2003).
However, there is reason to believe that the relationship
between fear and voice may be more complex. A functional view
of emotions suggests that negative emotions, such as fear, can be
adaptive, motivating and coordinating action to deal with potential
or existing threats (Elfenbein, 2007; Frijda, 1986). The experience
of fear functions to protect a person from threat, often in the form
of ‘‘flight” responses such as withdrawal, freezing in place, or
avoiding a situation (Roseman, Wiest, & Swartz, 1994; Shaver,
Schwartz, Kirson, & O’Connor, 1987). Fear’s protective behavior,
however, may not always involve flight (Rosen & Schulkin, 1998;
Öhman, 2008). Responses to fear depend on the situation: ‘‘careful-
ness when the threat is transitory; protective effort when there is
no immediate way of escape or immediate need to escape; escape
when such is possible and the threat is more than protective
behavior can handle” (Frijda, 1986, p. 198). Therefore, whether
action is taken and the form this behavior takes depends on the
nature of threat and what is instrumental for seeking protection
from that threat (Blanchard & Blanchard, 2008; Frijda, Kuipers, &
ter Schure, 1989).
Adopting a functional view of emotions, I explore the conditions
under which fear may lead to voice. First, responding to fear of
external threats, such as economic downturn, employees may
make an effort to change the situation (George, 2011). Indeed,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.05.001
0749-5978/Ó 2016 The Author. Published by Elsevier Inc.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 R.D. Lebel / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 135 (2016) 10–21
employees fearing external changes often focus their attention on
shared threat to the organization, which sparks other-focused
motives and potential action to protect the collective (Vuori &
Huy, 2016). Second, cues from supervisors and leaders are particu-
larly important during times of uncertainty (Kish-Gephart et al.,
2009; Rachman, 1990). When employees perceive that their super-
visors are open to input, they believe they can approach them with
suggestions or problems and that such input will be listened to,
providing a means to cope with fears of external threat. Taken
together, I argue that employees are motivated to speak up when
they are fearful of external organizational threats and when they
perceive high levels of supervisor openness. I further argue that
the effect of this interaction on voice is mediated by prosocial
motives. These hypotheses are tested across two studies: a field
study in three organizations impacted by organizational and eco-
nomic uncertainty, and, to explore possible mediating mecha-
nisms, a lagged survey study of full-time employees from a range
of organizations.
This article makes several theoretical contributions to the liter-
atures on employee voice and emotions in organizations. First, it
examines when and why fear of external threat may motivate
employees to speak up. Doing so adds complexity to the notion
that all fear decreases voice. Second, this article contributes by
proposing a contingent relationship between fear and voice, argu-
ing that emotional factors interact with employee perceptions of
the situation. Despite indications from the emotions literature that
fear’s impact on employee behavior may vary (e.g., Roseman et al.,
1994), the voice literature has yet to explore this relationship’s
possible contingencies. Third, this article extends a growing and
nascent body of work exploring when negative emotions may have
constructive outcomes at work (Bohns & Flynn, 2012; Geddes &
Callister, 2007). The findings of this research also have practical
implications for understanding how supervisors and employees
can effectively manage and respond to fears of external threat.
2. Theory and hypotheses
2.1. Fear of external threat
Fear is an emotional state involving a sense of uncertainty and
the threat of harm or an undesirable event (Frijda, 1986; Smith &
Ellsworth, 1985). As an experience, fear involves subjective feelings
of apprehension, as well as associated physiological changes
including increased heart rate (Rachman, 1990). Fear is a discrete
emotion, which entails a distinct feeling state elicited by a specific
stimulus or event (Lazarus, 1991). Fear is thus source-specific, and
has an identifiable target (Öhman, 2008). Specifying the target is
important to understanding how people respond to fear, as the
source can influence the behavioral response to this emotion
(Blanchard & Blanchard, 2008).
In the workplace, employees can experience fear in response to
a variety of sources (Basch & Fisher, 2000), both external and inter-
nal (Menon & Pfeffer, 2003). Fear of external threat is defined as
feelings of uncertainty that result from sources outside an employ-
ee’s organization. These sources can include economic or industry
downturn, competitive threats, changes in technology, or mergers
and acquisitions (Ashford, Lee, & Bobko, 1989; Schweiger & DeNisi,
1991). Fears stemming from external sources can also involve
shared feelings of threat to an organization and potential organiza-
tional loss (Vuori & Huy, 2016). Fear of external threat is distinct
from fear of speaking up to one’s supervisor, one form of internal
threat, which involves interpersonal fears of retaliation, punish-
ment, negative labels, or harming relationships with others
(Ashford, Rothbard, Piderit, & Dutton, 1998; Detert &
Edmondson, 2011; Milliken et al., 2003). A primary distinction
11
between these two types of fear is the originating source of threat.
Additionally, whereas fear of speaking up focuses employee atten-
tion on the potential negative consequences of voice, fear of exter-
nal threat focuses attention on the negative consequences that
may arise if the source of threat is not addressed. Because of the
perceived negative consequences of speaking up, voice scholars
have primarily focused on how employees often remain silent
due to fears of speaking up (Kish-Gephart et al., 2009).
In this article, I focus on fears of external threat for two key the-
oretical reasons. First, fear of external threat is commonly experi-
enced in organizations (Huang, Zhao, Niu, Ashford, & Lee, 2013),
with assumed negative effects on employee behavior and health
(Ashford et al., 1989). Second, employees may respond differently
to fears of external threat than to fears of speaking up (Menon,
Thompson, & Choi, 2006). In particular, research suggests that
external threats can motivate information-sharing intended to pro-
tect the larger collective (Vuori & Huy, 2016), whereas fears of
speaking up can motivate information-withholding for self-
protective reasons (Kish-Gephart et al., 2009). This has important,
yet unexplored implications for research on employee voice, sug-
gesting that fear resulting from external sources may increase a
flow of information within an organization, and therefore the like-
lihood of speaking up.
2.2. Fear of external threat and voice: a functional emotions
perspective
Emotions can be functional, helping people adapt to events,
changes, or threats (Frijda, 1986). Emotions coordinate behavior
in social interactions and direct behavior toward addressing prob-
lems or the demands of the environment (Elfenbein, 2007). For
example, the function of fear is to motivate protection from psy-
chological or physiological threats (Izard & Ackerman, 2000;
Öhman, 2008). A functional perspective also suggests that emo-
tions prepare a person to take action, referred to as states of action
readiness (Frijda, 1986). States of action readiness involve auto-
matic or learned behavioral patterns following emotional experi-
ence, such as moving away from or towards a person or object
(Frijda et al., 1989). Discrete emotions, such as fear, are accompa-
nied by distinct patterns of action readiness (Frijda, 1986; Lazarus,
1991). The state of action readiness accompanying fear, for exam-
ple, often results in withdrawing from a situation, avoidance
behavior, or freezing in place, whereas anger often results in
aggressive action towards another individual (Shaver et al., 1987).
While fear generally motivates protection through flight or
withdrawal, a functional perspective suggests that the behavioral
consequences of emotional experience vary. Thus, individuals
may respond to fear with withdrawal (i.e., flight), protective effort
(i.e., fight), or increased attention towards a threat, depending on
what is appropriate for ensuring safety (Frijda, 1986). Indeed, func-
tional theorists argue that emotionally-directed behavior is contin-
gent and ‘‘dependent on the joint occurrence of an emotion and
specific external or internal stimulus conditions” (Roseman et al.,
1994, p. 216). That is, the experience of fear functions to direct a
person to seek safety, but the form that safety-seeking behavior
takes can vary based on perceptions of the situation.
Thus, from a functional view of emotions, there are circum-
stances when fear leads to increased effort and aggressive action
(fight), rather than flight (Blanchard & Blanchard, 2008). Following
this, I argue that there are certain situations when fears of external
threat can direct employees towards protecting the larger collec-
tive (fight). Different sources of threat invoke different patterns
of knowledge-sharing within an organization (Menon & Pfeffer,
2003). For example, fear of external threats can motivate employ-
ees to improve an organization’s position and performance relative
to other organizations (Vuori & Huy, 2016). This motivation can
12 R.D. Lebel / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 135 (2016) 10–21
spur employees to share information, innovative ideas, and sugges-
tions (Menon et al., 2006). Differing sources of threat also influence
who or what an employee is willing to protect. For example, fear-
ing external threat increases a person’s focus and attention on
others facing similar threat (Gump & Kulik, 1997; Schachter,
1959). This suggests that employees may be more outwardly
focused and motivated to take action on behalf of others or the
organization when fearing external threat.
Extrapolating this to the domain of voice, employees fearing
external threat and concerned about protecting others or the orga-
nization may be motivated to offer suggestions to improve organi-
zational functioning, or point out problems to help mitigate
potential harm (Hirschman, 1970; Liang, Farh, & Farh, 2012). In
other words, employees may speak up with the intention of help-
ing the organization overcome potential threat. In this case, fearing
external threat can motivate employee efforts to change the status
quo, which is consistent with proactive conceptualizations of
employee voice (Van Dyne, Ang, & Botero, 2003).
While fears of external threat may initially spark employee
motivation to speak up, a direct association between fear of exter-
nal threat and voice is unlikely, given fear’s tendency towards
avoiding or withdrawing from a situation (Shaver, Schwartz,
Kirson, & O’Connor, 1987). Moreover, the experience of fear damp-
ens an individual’s perceptions that they can take action or deal
with the situation (Ellsworth & Scherer, 2003; Lerner & Keltner,
2001). From a functional perspective of emotions, then, certain fac-
tors must be present to guide employees’ responses to fear towards
approach and away from avoidance, and also to help employees
cope with feelings of helplessness.
2.2.1. Perceptions of supervisor openness influence voice when
employees fear external threat
An employee’s perceptions of the extent to which their immedi-
ate supervisor listens to, considers, and occasionally takes action
based on their input and suggestions (Detert & Burris, 2007) likely
moderate the fear of external threat-voice relationship for at least
two important theoretical reasons. First, in times of uncertainty
marked by fear, employees look to cues from other individuals
for how to behave and respond (Gino, Brooks, & Schweitzer,
2012; Schachter, 1959). Specifically, employees experiencing fear
pay particular attention to their leader’s behavior (Rachman,
1990), looking for guidance about what to do, and learning which
actions are appropriate (Kish-Gephart et al., 2009). When supervi-
sors are open to input, they provide an important signal to employ-
ees that their suggestions and problems will be considered, and
possibly lead to change (Detert & Burris, 2007). Furthermore, view-
ing a supervisor as easily approachable can improve the likelihood
that an employee will speak up to change the situation (Saunders,
Sheppard, Knight, & Roth, 1992). Therefore, high levels of perceived
supervisor openness not only help to counteract fear’s tendency
toward withdrawal or avoidance, but also improve the likelihood
of alternative responses.
Second, in order to take constructive action following negative
emotions, employees need a means to deal, or cope, with threat
and fear’s characteristically intense emotional experience
(Lazarus, 1991). Leadership figures, such as supervisors, often pro-
vide the social resources employees need to cope (Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984). Supervisors who are open to input provide an out-
let for employees to express suggestions or concerns, and therefore
a potential path to change the situation (Tangirala & Ramanujam,
2012). Additionally, supervisors who are open to input help
employees cope with fears of external threat by focusing them
on positive rather than negative outcomes. Specifically, employees
believe that there is a higher probability of successful change when
they perceive their supervisor to be high versus low in openness to
input (Ashford et al., 1998). Thus, when perceived supervisor open-
ness is high, employees feel they can cope with fear of external
threat, which dampens pessimistic feelings of helplessness and
enhances positive feelings that the situation can be changed by
speaking up (Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2012). However, when per-
ceived supervisor openness is low, a relationship between fear of
external threat and voice is unlikely, as employees are unlikely
to view attempts to speak up as changing the situation or provid-
ing protection from external threats.
Hypothesis 1. Employee perceptions of supervisor openness mod-
erate the relationship between fear of external threat and voice,
such that there is a positive relationship when perceived super-
visor openness is high, and no relationship when perceived
supervisor openness is low.
2.2.2. The mediating role of prosocial motivation
Beyond understanding the interactive relationship between fear
of external threat and perceptions of supervisor openness toward
voice, it is important to understand potential mediating psycholog-
ical processes. Fearing external threat can increase prosocial moti-
vation, defined as the desire to expend effort to benefit other
people (Batson, 1987). Prosocial motivation is conceptualized here
as a psychological state arising from the work context, rather than
as a stable individual difference (Grant, 2008). When employees
fear external sources, they often focus on shared threats to the
organization, which increases their willingness and desire to help
protect the larger collective from threat (Vuori & Huy, 2016). For
example, Vuori and Huy found that managers fearing the introduc-
tion of new products from external rivals were motivated to take
action to defend the organization’s competitive position. Further-
more, fears of external threat can direct employee attention
towards other-focused motives, including taking action to protect
other people (Taylor, 2006). This can occur as a result of emotional
contagion processes, whereby an individual facing external threat
focuses on other people facing similar threats (Gump & Kulik,
1997). Employees fearing external threat can thus be other-
oriented, which is the hallmark of prosocial motivation (Grant &
Wrzesniewski, 2010).
The experience of prosocial motivation following external
threat is then enhanced by perceptions of supervisor openness.
Employees feel that they can take action on behalf of others when
they view their supervisors as open to input (Tangirala &
Ramanujam, 2012). That is, employees may believe a collective
threat can be addressed by speaking up when perceiving that their
supervisor will listen to and incorporate ideas. Therefore, feeling
high levels of external threat activates an initial desire to benefit
others, which is strengthened when employees believe their super-
visors are open to input. However, when employees perceive their
supervisor as closed to input, their prosocial motivation weakens;
they are less willing to expend effort on behalf of others because
they view the situation as unlikely to change.
Increased prosocial motivation when fearing external threat
and perceiving supervisor openness is then likely to take the form
of employee voice. Employees experiencing fear and feeling a
desire to benefit others often consider alternatives to withdrawing
from the situation (Taylor, 2006). For example, employees fueled
by prosocial motives are likely to respond to external threat with
extra effort to protect and promote the well-being of others or
the organization (Grant & Wrzesniewski, 2010). In this case,
employees may try to protect the organization by pointing out
problems that may hinder performance, or by speaking up with
suggestions to enhance performance and mitigate potential com-
petitive threat. Furthermore, employees with high levels of proso-
cial motivation are willing to place the interests of others ahead of
their own (Grant & Mayer, 2009), sparking action to benefit the
 R.D. Lebel / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 135 (2016) 10–21
larger organization even despite personal risk, thereby increasing
the likelihood of voice.
These arguments, combined with those for Hypothesis 1, sug-
gest a mediated moderation model. Fearing external threat and
perceptions of supervisor openness are positively associated with
prosocial motivation, which in turn is positively associated with
employee voice.
Hypothesis 2. Prosocial motivation mediates the moderated rela-
tionship between fear of external threat and perceptions of
supervisor openness predicting employee voice.
3. Overview of studies
These hypotheses were tested in two field studies. Study 1 was
designed to test Hypothesis 1 using multisource data in a survey of
three organizations. Study 2 was designed to replicate and extend
Study 1 by testing the interactive effect (Hypothesis 1), and also a
possible mediating mechanism (Hypothesis 2), in a lagged survey
of full-time employees from a range of organizations.
4. Study 1
4.1. Method
4.1.1. Sample and procedure
Study 1 involved a survey study of employees and their direct
supervisors in three organizations: ResearchCo (a pseudonym), a
medical research organization (e.g., cancer treatment and vaccine
development) in the Northeast United States; HealthCo, a health
services organization in the Northeast United States that provides
long-term inpatient nursing and rehabilitation care; and Mili-
taryCo, a branch of the Army in the Western United States tasked
with managing the day-to-day functioning of military bases (e.g.,
public works, human resources, and logistics).
These three organizations share common characteristics that
are particularly relevant for testing hypotheses regarding fear of
external threat. Preliminary interviews revealed that the post-
2008 economic downturn negatively affected each organization.
Specifically, ResearchCo received public funding to support a
majority of its research (e.g., from the National Institutes of
Health), and possible funding reductions threatened to cut posi-
tions there. HealthCo was similarly affected, since it received pub-
lic funding at the state and county level. Finally, since MilitaryCo
was funded by the federal government, announced federal budget
cuts also meant plans for a reduced workforce. Taken together, this
suggests that each organization’s employees had reason to fear
possible changes due to external sources.
Two voluntary surveys were administered at each organization:
employees provided ratings of the independent variables and con-
trols, and their direct supervisors provided ratings of the depen-
dent variable. Surveys were administered online via a
confidential survey link sent to employees at ResearchCo and Mil-
itaryCo, and administered via hard copy at HealthCo because sev-
eral employees lacked access to email at work. Supervisor
surveys were electronically administered at all three organizations.
The same surveys were used at each location, with only minor
wording changes (e.g., ‘‘reduction in force” versus ‘‘layoffs”).
Response rates were comparable across the three organizations.
At ResearchCo, 126 of 264 employees (47% response rate), and 38
of 50 (76%) direct supervisors completed the survey; at HealthCo,
75 of 167 employees (45%), and 8 of 10 direct supervisors (80%)
completed the survey; and at MilitaryCo, 74 of 117 (63%) man-
agers, and 21 of 28 (75%) direct supervisors (director-level person-
nel) completed it. In total, surveys were sent to 548 employees
13
with 275 responses (50% overall employee survey response rate),
and to 88 direct supervisors with 67 responses (76% overall super-
visor survey response rate). The recommendations of Rogelberg
and Stanton (2007) were used to examine possible nonresponse
bias. First, using data from ResearchCo and MilitaryCo, a wave
analysis was used to determine if early responders differed from
late responders (the HealthCo paper surveys were not marked by
date, and thus could not be used in this analysis). A one-way
ANOVA revealed no significant differences by wave for the inde-
pendent and dependent variables, all F’s(2, 172) < 1.25. Second,
the means for voice for responders vs. non-responders were com-
pared, as there was supervisor-rated data for some employees who
did not complete a survey. T-tests revealed no significant differ-
ence between responders (M = 3.82, SD = 1.57) versus non-
responders (M = 3.58, SD = 1.73, t = 1.48, p = 0.14).
After combining data from these three organizations and
accounting for missing data using listwise deletion, the final sam-
ple consisted of 183 employees (51% male). There were 56 super-
visors in this sample who rated an average of 3.3 employees
(range 1–15 employees).
4.2. Measures
4.2.1. Fear of external threat
Fear of external threat was measured using three items adapted
from Ashford et al. (1989) and Schweiger and DeNisi (1991).
Because the theoretical focus here is on the discrete emotion of
fear, these items were adapted to specify fear and not other nega-
tive emotions (e.g., anger, frustration) associated with potential
organizational loss and layoffs (Jordan, Ashkanasy, & Hartel,
2002). Starting with ‘‘during the last month, how frequently have
you felt fearful . . .,” the items were: ‘‘that the economic downturn
would negatively impact this organization,” ‘‘that there would be
layoffs at this organization,” and ‘‘that this organization would lose
sales or revenue,” a = 0.94. Participants rated the items on a 5-
point scale where 1 = not at all and 5 = very often.
These items were pre-tested to demonstrate internal reliability
and discriminant validity. The pre-test consisted of 244 full-time
employed individuals from a range of industries. Participants rated
the three items for fear of external threat along with items for
other sources of fear at work. The three items for fear of external
threat demonstrated high internal reliability in this sample,
a = 0.85. As a test of discriminant validity, participants also rated
items for fears when interacting with their immediate supervisor/-
boss (Shaver et al., 1987), and items rating the extent to which they
feared personal incompetence (Leary, 1983). I expected that these
survey items would form three distinct factors—fear of external
threat, fear of the boss, and fear of personal incompetence. A series
of confirmatory factor analyses were used to test this structure.
The three-factor model demonstrated acceptable fit to the data
(CFI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.09) based on standard cutoffs (Kline, 2005).
Furthermore, this three-factor model had superior fit to the one-
factor model (CFI = 0.81, RMSEA = 0.21), as well as the best-fitting
two-factor model, consisting of fear of external threat and of the
boss on one factor, and fear of personal incompetence on the other
factor (CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.11). Furthermore, a nested chi-square
difference test indicated that the three-factor solution was a supe-
rior fit to both the one-factor (Dv2[3] = 191.30, p < 0.001) and best-
fitting two-factor (Dv2[2] = 23.38, p < 0.001) models, respectively.
4.2.2. Perceptions of supervisor openness
Each employee’s perceptions of supervisor openness were mea-
sured with three items adapted from Detert and Burris (2007).
Employees rated the following items on a 7-point agree/disagree
scale: ‘‘my supervisor uses my suggestions,” ‘‘my supervisor
14 R.D. Lebel / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 135 (2016) 10–21

considers ideas from subordinates,” and ‘‘my supervisor rejects
new ideas” (reverse-coded), a = 0.80.
4.2.3. Voice
Supervisors rated each of their employee’s frequency of voice on
a 7-point scale (1 = not at all and 7 = always) with three items
adapted from Van Dyne and LePine (1998) and Liang et al.
(2012). Starting with ‘‘how often does this individual,” the items
were: ‘‘speak up with ideas for new work-related policies and pro-
cedures?,” ‘‘point out how we could make changes to make the
organization or group better?,” and ‘‘speak up with concerns about
work not being done effectively?,” a = 0.87.
4.2.4. Control variables
Negative affect, one’s trait disposition to experience negative
emotions, was used as a control because it could influence multiple
variables in the model. This variable has been shown to negatively
relate to voice (Venkataramani & Tangirala, 2010). Furthermore,
the effects of fear of external threat on voice could be explained
by one’s trait-level propensity to experience negative emotions,
such as fear, rather than the experience of fear of external threat
itself. Employees thus reported their levels of trait negative affect
using the ten-item scale from the PANAS (Watson, Clark, &
Tellegen, 1988), a = 0.86.
The personality traits conscientiousness and extraversion were
used as controls, because these traits generally positively associate
with voice (LePine & Van Dyne, 2001). These traits were self-
reported using the Mini-IPIP scales (Donnellan, Oswald, Baird, &
Lucas, 2006). I also controlled for tenure (years in the organization),
because higher levels of tenure associate with employee voice
(Botero, 2013). Additionally, because employees may be less likely
to speak up in larger groups (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998), group size
was included as a control.
4.3. Analytical strategy
Since individual employees were nested within supervisors, and
supervisor groups nested within the three organizations, I used
random intercept models to control for differences at the supervi-
sor and organization level (Singer, 1998). Following Aiken and
West’s (1991) recommendations, the independent and moderating
variables were grand-mean centered before creating the interac-
tion terms. The independent variables were theorized and ana-
lyzed at the individual level (i.e., level 1 predictors).
4.4. Results
Before testing the hypotheses, I evaluated the study variables’
distinctiveness through a series of confirmatory factor analyses.
The hypothesized six-factor model had acceptable fit to the data
(CFI = 0.92, SRMR = 0.07, RMSEA = 0.06, v2/df ratio = 1.84), and pro-
vided substantial improvement in fit indices over theoretically
plausible alternatives (see Table 1).
Descriptive statistics and correlations can be found in Table 2.
Null random coefficient models with no predictors were used to
examine the amount of variance accounted for by organization-
and supervisor-level effects. For voice, the ICC[1] for
organization-level effects was 0.19, and for supervisor-level effects
it was 0.50, suggesting that 19% and 50% of the variance in voice
resided between organizations and between supervisors, respec-
tively. Additionally, the ICC[1] for organizational-level effects of
fearing external threat was 0.38, indicating some level of agree-
ment among employees in each organization regarding a collective
threat from external sources.
Table 3 presents the results of the random intercept models. I
followed the moderated regression procedures recommended by
Aiken and West (1991), entering the control variables and inde-
pendent variables in Step 1 and the interaction term in Step 2.
Hypothesis 1 predicted that employee perceptions of supervisor
openness would moderate the relationship between fear of exter-
nal threat and voice. Model 2 shows a significant interaction for
supervisor openness and fear of external threat predicting voice
(t = 2.25, p < 0.05). Simple slopes were plotted to better understand
the nature of this interaction (Aiken & West, 1991). This analysis
revealed a positive relationship approaching statistical significance
between fear of external threat and voice when supervisor open-
ness is high (b = 0.16, p = 0.07), and no relationship when supervi-
sor openness is low (b = 0.08, p = 0.33). While neither simple
slope is significantly different from zero, the significant interaction
coefficient indicates that the two slopes are significantly different
from one another (Aiken & West, 1991). Fig. 1 indicates that the
form of the interaction is as predicted, with a positive relationship

Table 1
Study 1: Results of confirmatory factor analysis of survey items.

Model v2 df v2/df Dv2 RMSEA CFI SRMR

ratio
1. Fear of external threat, perceptions of supervisor openness, controls, and voice as distinct factors 567.70 309 1.84 0.06 0.92 0.07
2. Same as model 1 with fear of external threat and perceptions of supervisor openness as one factor 1048.25 314 3.34 96.11*** 0.11 0.68 0.12
3. One factor 1847.01 324 5.70 85.29*** 0.16 0.31 0.15
***
p < 0.001.

Table 2
Study 1: Means, standard deviations, and correlations.

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Tenure 5.84 5.51
2. Conscientiousness 5.69 1.02 0.03 (0.62)
3. Extraversion 4.87 1.11 0.20** 0.21** (0.66)
4. Group size 12.34 9.42 0.34** 0.01 0.07
5. Trait NA 2.23 0.69 0.10 0.21** 0.05 0.02 (0.86)
6. Fear of external threat 3.11 1.84 0.19** 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.07 (0.94)
7. Perceptions of supervisor openness 5.57 1.31 0.10 0.15* 0.25** 0.19** 0.14 0.02 (0.80)
8. Voice 3.92 1.63 0.10 0.06 0.08 0.05 0.16* 0.35** 0.04 (0.87)

Note. N = 183. Coefficients in the parentheses are Cronbach’s alpha values.

**
p < 0.01.
*
p < 0.05.
 R.D. Lebel / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 135 (2016) 10–21 15

Table 3 mediators (Hypothesis 2) using a lagged survey design with

Study 1: Results of multilevel models predicting voice. employees from a range of organizations.
Variables DV: Voice
Model 1 Model 2 5. Study 2
Intercept 4.32** (0.36) 4.31** (0.34)
Controls 5.1. Method
Tenure 0.02 (0.02) 0.02 (0.02)
Group size 0.02 (0.03) 0.02 (0.03)
Conscientiousness 0.11 (0.09) 0.09 (0.09) 5.1.1. Sample and procedure
Extraversion 0.01 (0.08) 0.02 (0.08) Study 2 used lagged survey data at two points in time from
Trait NA 0.24* (0.12) 0.25* (0.12) alumni of a MBA program at a university in the Northeastern
Main effects United States. To participate, the alumni had to be employed at
Fear of external threat 0.02 (0.07) 0.04 (0.07) the time of the study. In Fall 2014 (Time 1), surveys were emailed
Perceptions of supervisor openness 0.05 (0.06) 0.04 (0.06)
to 3410 alumni who graduated between the years 2000–2014.1 As
Interaction effects an incentive to complete the survey, participants were entered into a
Supervisor openness  fear of external 0.08* (0.04)
raffle for an iPad, and could also elect to receive a confidential per-
threat
2 log likelihood 595.90 590.80 sonalized feedback report based on their survey responses. Initial
D 2 log likelihood (df) 5.10* (1) responses at Time 1 were received from 636 alumni (an 18.7%
response rate). A total of 16 participants were not currently
Note: N = 183. Unstandardized coefficients are reported, with standard errors in
parentheses.
employed, and 50 did not provide complete data, resulting in a sam-
**
p < 0.01. ple of 570 at Time 1 (16.7% effective response rate). This response
*
p < 0.05. rate is similar to previous studies using alumni samples. For exam-
ple, Seibert, Kraimer, and Crant (2001) obtained an effective
response rate of 18% using similar methodology. Additionally, the
5 response rate reported here is superior to the response rate obtained
by the university’s alumni office (approximately 9–10%).
4.5 To reduce common method and source biases associated with
Low Percepons
self-reported data, Time 2 surveys were emailed six weeks after
4 of Supervisor Time 1, because research demonstrates that lags of at least four
Voice

Openness weeks can reduce common method variance (Ostroff, Kinicki, &
3.5 High Percepons Clark, 2002). At Time 2, 421 initial responses were received
of Supervisor (66.2% response rate from Time 1). The final sample consisted of
3 Openness
391 respondents (72% male) who had complete data for both time
periods.2 The participants worked in a range of occupations, includ-
2.5 ing professional or information technology services (25%), manufac-
Low Fear of External High Fear of External
Threat Threat turing (20%), finance (17%), health care (8%), and education (8%).

Fig. 1. Interaction between fear of external threat and perceptions of supervisor

openness on voice, Study 1. 5.2. Measures

The independent variables, mediating and moderating vari-

between fear of external threat and voice when employees per- ables, and controls were assessed at Time 1, and the dependent
ceive high levels of supervisor openness, and no relationship when variable (voice) was assessed at Time 2. Unless otherwise noted,
they perceive low levels of supervisor openness. Thus, Hypothesis participants rated these scales using a 7-point strongly disagree/
1 was supported. agree scale.

5.2.1. Fear of external threat

4.5. Discussion
This study revealed that fear of external threat was positively
associated with improvement-oriented voice, but only when
employees perceived their supervisor as open to input. In the mul-
tilevel regression analyses, there was no main effect of fear of
external threat on voice. This result is consistent with a functional
view of emotions, suggesting that the fear-behavior relationship is
contingent (Frijda, 1986; Roseman, 2011). In particular, Study 1’s
results identify supervisor openness as a key moderating factor
of this relationship, suggesting that employee perceptions of leader
behavior can be particularly important for shaping voice during
times of economic and organizational uncertainty. Although the
findings from Study 1 provide initial support for Hypothesis 1, it
was important to constructively replicate the finding in a different
sample in order to strengthen confidence in the result’s reliability
and generalizability. Furthermore, Study 1 involved a cross-
sectional design, making it difficult to explore mediating mecha-
nisms and to make causal claims. Therefore, Study 2 was designed
to replicate and extend the results from Study 1 by testing for
Employees reported how frequently (1 = not at all and 5 = very
often) they experienced fear of external threat at work using 5
items, a = 0.87. The scale included the same three items from
Study 1, plus two additional items to enhance the measure’s con-
tent validity in terms of involving competitive and industry threats
(please see the Appendix A for the full list of items). As a check of
this measure’s validity, participants forwarded a separate survey to
a significant other, friend, or family member to rate the extent to
which the participant had ‘‘discussed being fearful about . . .” the
same five items. A total of 76 usable responses were received.
1
A power calculation revealed that using alumni graduating in these years would
provide a sufficient sample size to replicate the effects from Study 1, based on the
expected response rates the alumni office provided to the author.
2
Following the recommendations of Rogelberg and Stanton (2007), a wave analysis
was used to examine possible nonresponse bias by examining whether early
responders at Time 1 differed from late responders at Time 1. A one-way ANOVA
revealed no significant differences by wave for the Time 1 independent and control
variables, all F’s(1, 570) < 1.12. Additionally, a comparison of the means of the
independent and control variables for Time 2 responders vs. Time 2 non-responders
revealed no significant differences, all t’s(569) < 1.65.
16 R.D. Lebel / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 135 (2016) 10–21

The self-report measure and the significant other measure were
significantly correlated (r = 0.35, p < 0.001).
5.2.2. Perceptions of supervisor openness
The 3-item scale from Detert and Burris (2007) was used to
measure each employee’s perceptions of supervisor openness,
a = 0.88.
5.2.3. Prosocial motivation
Prosocial motivation was measured with the 4-item prosocial
motivation scale from Grant (2008), a = 0.95. Starting with the
question ‘‘Why are you motivated to do your work?,” example
items include ‘‘because I care about benefiting others through my
work” and ‘‘because I want to have a positive impact on others.”
These items refer to prosocial motivation at work, rather than a
stable individual difference.
5.2.4. Voice
At Time 2, participants self-reported their frequency of voice at
work using 4 items from Van Dyne and LePine (1998), a = 0.90. An
example item is, ‘‘How often do you speak up to your supervisor
with ideas for new work-related policies and procedures?” Partic-
ipants rated the items using a 5-point scale where 1 = not at all and
5 = very often.
5.2.5. Control variables
In Study 2, extrinsic motivation was included in the analyses to
control for self-protective motives—such as job security—in addi-
tion to the hypothesized other-focused motives that are character-
istic of prosocial motivation. Starting with the question ‘‘Why are
you motivated to do your work?,” example items include ‘‘because
I need the income” and ‘‘because I need this job” (a = 0.88).
Additionally, as in Study 1, tenure (years in the current organi-
zation), conscientiousness, and extraversion (Gosling, Rentfrow, &
Swann, 2003) were included as controls.
Hierarchical ordinary least squares (OLS) regression was used to
test Hypothesis 1. As shown in Table 5 Model 2c, there was a sig-
nificant interaction between fear of external threat and supervisor
openness predicting employee voice (b = 0.08, t = 2.26, p < 0.05).
Following the recommendations of Aiken and West (1991), simple
slopes analysis revealed a significant and positive relationship
between fear of external threat and voice when supervisor open-
ness is high (b = 0.12, t = 2.09, p < 0.05), and no relationship when
supervisor openness is low (b = 0.06, t = 1.02, p = 0.31). As
shown in Fig. 2, the form of the interaction is as predicted. Thus,
Hypothesis 1 was supported, replicating the results of Study 1.
To test for prosocial motivation’s mediating effects, I used medi-
ated moderation procedures using Model 8 from the PROCESS
macro developed by Hayes (2013). First, I examined the interactive
effect of fear of external threat and perceptions of supervisor open-
ness on prosocial motivation. The results shown in Model 1c of
Table 5 revealed a significant interaction predicting prosocial moti-
vation (b = 0.14, t = 2.41, p < 0.05). Next, the interactive effect of
fear of external threat and supervisor openness on voice was exam-
ined with prosocial motivation included in the analysis. Model 2d
shows that the interactive effect was reduced in strength at con-
ventional levels of statistical significance (b = 0.07, t = 1.97,
p = 0.05). In this model, prosocial motivation significantly and pos-
itively predicted voice (b = 0.07, t = 2.31, p < 0.05). Finally, boot-
strapping procedures were used to examine the significance of
the mediated (indirect) effect of fear of external threat and super-
visor openness on voice via prosocial motivation, constructing
bias-corrected confidence intervals based on 1000 random samples
(Hayes, 2013; Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007). The indirect effect
is significant, and mediation present, if the 95% bias-corrected
bootstrap confidence interval does not contain zero. The results
revealed that the 95% bias-corrected confidence interval for proso-
cial motivation did not include zero (point estimate = 0.01, 95% CI
[0.01, 0.03]). Thus, Hypothesis 2 was supported, as prosocial moti-
vation mediated the moderating effects of fear of external threat
and supervisor openness on voice.

5.3. Results
Correlations and descriptive statistics are provided in Table 4.
Before testing the hypotheses, we evaluated the Time 1 study vari-
ables’ distinctiveness via confirmatory factor analysis. The hypoth-
esized seven-factor model had strong fit to the data (CFI = 0.97,
SRMR = 0.04, RMSEA = 0.04). The hypothesized model also demon-
strated substantial improvement in fit indices over theoretically
plausible alternatives, such as a six-factor model with the indepen-
dent and moderating variables on one factor (CFI = 0.86,
SRMR = 0.09, RMSEA = 0.10, nested Dv2(6) = 110.77, p < 0.001),
and a one-factor model (CFI = 0.17, SRMR = 0.21, RMSEA = 0.23,
nested Dv2(21) = 222.89, p < 0.001).
5.4. Discussion
Study 2 replicated and extended the results of Study 1. Percep-
tions of supervisor openness moderated the relationship between
fear of external threat and voice. As in Study 1, fearing external
threat was positively associated with voice when employees per-
ceived their supervisors as open to input. Also, as predicted, proso-
cial motivation mediated the interactive effect of fear of external
threat and supervisor openness. The combination of fearing exter-
nal threat and high perceived supervisor openness was positively
associated with prosocial motivation, which in turn was positively
associated with improvement-oriented voice.

Table 4
Study 2: Means, standard deviations, and correlations.

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Tenure 6.70 5.94
2. Conscientiousness 6.09 0.87 0.01 (0.50)
3. Extraversion 4.57 1.44 0.02 0.03 (0.77)
4. Extrinsic motivation 5.45 1.16 0.06 0.01 0.06 (0.88)
5. Prosocial motivation 5.19 1.36 0.08 0.15** 0.14** 0.06 (0.95)
6. Fear of external threat 2.22 0.99 0.09 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.08 (0.87)
7. Perceptions of supervisor openness 5.78 1.13 0.04 0.05 0.12* 0.02 0.13** 0.01 (0.88)
8. Voice (Time 2) 3.51 0.83 0.07 0.03 0.14** 0.15** 0.15** 0.04 0.19** (0.90)

Note: N = 391. Coefficients in the parentheses are Cronbach’s alpha values.

**
p < 0.01.
*
p < 0.05.
 R.D. Lebel / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 135 (2016) 10–21 17

Table 5
Study 2: Results of regression analyses predicting voice.

Variables DV: Prosocial motivation DV: Voice

Model 1a Model 1b Model 1c Model 2a Model 2b Model 2c Model 2d
Intercept 5.08*** (0.10) 5.07*** (0.10) 5.07*** (0.10) 3.46*** (0.06) 3.46*** (0.06) 3.47*** (0.06) 3.47*** (0.06)
Controls
Tenure 0.02 (0.01) 0.02 (0.01) 0.02 (0.01) 0.01 (0.01) 0.01 (0.01) 0.01 (0.01) 0.01 (0.01)
Conscientiousness 0.21** (0.08) 0.20* (0.08) 0.20** (0.08) 0.02 (0.05) 0.02 (0.05) 0.01 (0.05) 0.00 (0.05)
Extraversion 0.13** (0.05) 0.11* (0.05) 0.11* (0.05) 0.07* (0.03) 0.06* (0.03) 0.06* (0.03) 0.05 (0.03)
Extrinsic motivation 0.10 (0.06) 0.09 (0.06) 0.09 (0.06) 0.10** (0.04) 0.10** (0.04) 0.11** (0.04) 0.11* (0.04)
Main effects
Fear of external threat 0.14* (0.07) 0.13 (0.07) 0.03 (0.04) 0.03 (0.04) 0.04 (0.04)
Perceptions of supervisor openness 0.13* (0.06) 0.17** (0.06) 0.13** (0.04) 0.15*** (0.04) 0.14** (0.04)
Interaction effects
Supervisor openness  fear of external 0.14* (0.06) 0.08* (0.04) 0.07* (0.04)
threat
Mediator
Prosocial motivation 0.07* (0.03)
R2 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.04 0.08 0.09 0.10
D R2 0.02* 0.01* 0.03** 0.01* 0.01*
F value 5.11** (4, 385) 4.95*** (6, 383) 5.12*** (7, 382) 4.42** (4, 385) 5.15*** (6, 383) 5.18*** (7, 382) 5.26*** (8, 381)
DF 5.11** (4, 385) 4.45** (2, 383) 5.78* (1, 382) 4.42** (4, 385) 6.34** (2, 383) 5.08* (1, 382) 5.35* (1, 381)

Notes: N = 391. Unstandardized coefficients are reported, with standard errors in parentheses.
***
p < 0.001.
**
p < 0.01.
*
p < 0.05.

4.5 results from two studies suggest that there are situations when
fears of external threat may positively, rather than negatively,
4 influence employee voice. In so doing, this article provides evi-
dence that there are instances when fearing external threat can
3.5 Low Percepons of lead to constructive patterns of communication within organiza-
Voice

Supervisor Openness
3
High Percepons of
2.5 Supervisor Openness
2 behavior to promote employee voice. Doing so follows calls for
Low High
Fear of External Threat
Fig. 2. Interaction between fear of external threat and perceptions of supervisor
openness on voice, Study 2.
6. General discussion
Across two studies, fear of external threat was positively related
to voice when employees perceived their supervisor as open to
input. Additionally, there was no main effect of fearing external
threat in either study’s regression analyses, supporting a functional
view of emotions that this relationship is contingent on other fac-
tors. Furthermore, Study 2’s findings provide insight into a psycho-
logical mechanism driving the interactive effect, suggesting that
prosocial motivation can lead employees to speak up when fearing
external threat.
6.1. Theoretical contributions
This article’s primary contribution lies in theoretically and
empirically identifying when employees speak up while experienc-
ing external threat. Previous research has focused on how fears of
speaking up reduce voice, with employees generally remaining
silent when fearing potential repercussions from supervisors
(Burris, Detert, & Chiaburu, 2008; Milliken et al., 2003). However,
not all sources of fear influence voice in the same way. Complicat-
ing the notion that fear always has a negative impact on voice, the
tions (Vuori & Huy, 2016).
A related contribution lies in extending previous voice research
by suggesting that experienced emotions—such as fear of external
threat—interact with cognitions and perceptions of supervisor
research exploring how cognitive and emotional processes may
combine to influence voice (Morrison, 2011). While fear can cer-
tainly produce deeply rooted automatic or taken-for-granted
behavioral responses that lead to silence (Detert & Edmondson,
2011), the results here suggest that perceptions of the situation
can modify how fear is processed and acted upon. Thus, this
research highlights the value in taking an emotional and cognitive
perspective when exploring factors that influence voice (Grant,
2013), suggesting that future theory and research should simulta-
neously consider both perspectives and potential interactions.
Similarly, this article contributes by identifying a contingent
relationship between fear of external threat and voice. The interac-
tion between supervisor openness and fear of external threat sup-
ports the notion that supervisor behavior is particularly important
in shaping how employees respond to fear (Detert & Burris, 2007).
Conceptually positioning supervisor openness as a moderator
diverges from previous research that treats this construct as a pre-
dictor variable with mediating effects on voice via psychological
safety (Detert & Burris, 2007). The rationale for doing so follows
from a functional view of emotions, with fear’s impact contingent
on the presence or absence of certain stimulus conditions
(Roseman et al., 1994). In this case, an employee’s perception of
his/her supervisor’s receptiveness to input is an important contex-
tual stimulus that can spark voice when fearing external threat.
Thus, the results of this article support conceptualizations of lead-
ership as influencing employee behavior at multiple points in the
causal chain, serving moderating or mediating roles (Avolio,
2007; de Vries, Roe, & Taillieu, 2002).
18 R.D. Lebel / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 135 (2016) 10–21
This article also contributes by identifying a psychological
mechanism for explaining why the combination of fear of external
threat and supervisor openness facilitates voice. The results sug-
gest that prosocial motivation to protect and promote the well-
being of co-workers and the organization can spark voice when
employees fear external threat and perceive their supervisor as
open to input. This also suggests that employees who sense a
shared threat to the organization may focus their attention on
other- versus self-protective motives. Additionally, supervisors
who are open to input help transform prosocial motives into voice,
signaling to employees that active efforts on behalf of the organi-
zation will be positively received.
This research also builds on previous work exploring the link
between job insecurity—defined as an awareness of, or emotional
reactions to, the possibility of job loss (Huang, Niu, Lee, &
Ashford, 2012)—and proactive and citizenship behavior. Huang
et al. (2013) found that job insecurity was positively related to
the proactive use of impression management tactics. Interestingly,
while their findings suggest that fears of job insecurity can moti-
vate action to proactively protect the self, my findings suggest that
fears of external threat can motivate action to protect the organi-
zation. Additionally, the results of the studies reported here are
consistent with the notion that job insecurity can have variable
effects on citizenship behavior contingent on certain factors
(Probst, 2008). For example, job insecurity may be positively or
negatively associated with citizenship behaviors, such as helping
and conscientiousness, depending on the nature of the employ-
ment contract (full-time vs. contract employees) (Feather &
Rauter, 2004). This article demonstrates that perceptions of super-
visor behavior play an important role in shaping whether job inse-
curity resulting from external threat is positively related to
citizenship behavior, extending previous work by linking fears of
external threat to challenging (e.g., voice) rather than affiliative
forms of citizenship behavior.
Although the main contributions are to the literature on
employee voice, this research also contributes to the nascent and
growing body of work exploring when negative emotions such as
anger and guilt produce constructive outcomes in organizations
(Bohns & Flynn, 2012; Lebel, 2016; Stickney & Geddes, 2016). In
particular, this article suggests that fear produces constructive
forms of communication under certain circumstances. While emo-
tions research suggests that fear precludes individuals from taking
risks, leading to risk-averse choices and cautious behavior (Lerner
& Keltner, 2001; Maner & Gerend, 2007; Raghunathan & Pham,
1999), my findings suggest that employees may take a risk and
speak up because of fear. This supports a functional view of emo-
tions, whereby fear of external threat signals that action is needed
to remedy the situation (George, 2011). Furthermore, identifying
the specific circumstances when fear may lead to behaviors other
than flight provides a more precise understanding of the contin-
gent nature of the negative emotion-behavior relationship
(Roseman, 2011).
6.2. Limitations, strengths, and future directions
The results of this research should be qualified in light of its
limitations, many of which suggest potential avenues for future
research. Study 1 was a cross-sectional field study of three organi-
zations, preventing tests of causal inference. Study 2 involved
self-report measures of voice, and could therefore be subject to
common method and source biases. A strength of the paper is
the multi-study approach used to help offset the limitations of
each study. Specifically, Study 2 employed a lagged survey design
of employees from a range of organizations to better make causal
inferences and also to replicate the findings from Study 1 in a sep-
arate sample. Additionally, potential common method bias was
partially offset in Study 1 with the use of multisource data, and
also by employing a lagged design in Study 2, which has been
shown to mitigate common method and source biases (Ostroff
et al., 2002).
Although lagged survey data was collected in Study 2, alterna-
tive causal pathways cannot be ruled out. Furthermore, data for
the independent, moderating, and mediating variables in Study 2
were collected from the same source at the same time. Therefore,
future research could employ experimental designs to more rigor-
ously test for causality, temporally separating fear of external
threat from mediating mechanisms. Doing so may present an eco-
logical validity challenge, designing manipulations such that fear
of external threat impacts participants in a lab setting in the same
way as employees facing economic threat and uncertainty in orga-
nizational settings. Moreover, manipulating high levels of fear of
external threat in a lab setting, such as creating a scenario whereby
students learn they may suffer actual consequences (e.g., a reduc-
tion in student scholarships) may pose ethical and moral dilem-
mas. Despite these challenges, I, along with other voice scholars
(Kish-Gephart et al., 2009), argue that technological advances such
as physiological measures may provide a means to detect fine-
grained differences in the experience of fear (Öhman, 2008). Such
measures may help detect differences between scenarios involving
different fear sources.
Additionally, there may be potential mediators beyond proso-
cial motivation that direct fear of external threat towards voice.
For example, employees fearing external threat may speak up
based on self-interested, rather than, or in addition to, prosocial
motives. In this case, employees may speak up to improve organi-
zational functioning, but with self-protective intent to secure their
job. Such motives may be particularly relevant when supervisors
are open to and value voice. From this perspective, employees
speak up as a way of standing out and enhancing their image
and value to the organization (Bolino, 1999), hoping to secure
their job should the need for layoffs from economic downturn
arise. Another possibility is that employees fearing external
threat speak up when they are highly identified with their organi-
zation. Such identification may motivate action to protect the
larger organization, such as pointing out problems and proposing
solutions. Future research should explore both of these
possibilities.
Study 1’s results demonstrate a positive relationship between
fear of external threat and voice when supervisor openness is high,
consistent with Hypothesis 1. However, a close examination of
Fig. 1 reveals that perceptions of supervisor openness make more
of a difference in voice at low levels of fear of external threat,
which is inconsistent with the logic that stronger effects would
be found at high, rather than low, levels of fear of external threat.
It could be the case that employees in this sample who experienced
low external threat had less motivation to speak up about or iden-
tify problems, even when their supervisors were open to input. Or,
this could be driven by the lack of a positive relationship between
perceptions of supervisor openness and voice, a potential artifact of
Study 1 consistent with recent research also finding a null relation-
ship (Liu, Tangirala, & Ramanujam, 2013). It is also important to
note that Study 2’s results support the logic for Hypothesis 1
(Fig. 2), in terms of a positive relationship between fearing external
threat and voice when supervisor openness is high, and also sup-
port the prediction that perceptions of supervisor openness would
have more of an impact on employee voice at higher external
threat levels.
While outside the scope of this article, future research should
explore other possible proactive behaviors following fear of exter-
nal threat. There could be circumstances when fearing external
threat leads to action that prevents change, such as proactively
speaking up in support of organizational strategy and policies
 R.D. Lebel / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 135 (2016) 10–21
(Maynes & Podsakoff, 2014). For example, supportive voice follow-
ing external threat may be more likely when employees highly
identify with their organization and do not want to see it change.
There may also be instances when employees without other job
alternatives may be more self-focused, and thus increase task
effort or seek feedback in efforts to secure their job. Furthermore,
employees may use other forms of proactive behavior, such as
impression management tactics, to ingratiate themselves with
their supervisor and secure their job status (Huang et al., 2013).
Therefore, future research could benefit by identifying when fear
of external threat leads to self-focused rather than other- or
organizationally-focused proactive behavior.
Moreover, while this article takes a first step towards under-
standing when employees might speak up fearing external threat,
it did not explore how employees cope with fear of speaking up
to express their voice. Future research could thus explore factors
that lead employees to voice even if they fear speaking up. For
example, it could be that fears of negative reactions from super-
visors can positively affect other forms of employee voice, such as
speaking up defensively to protect themselves by directing atten-
tion away from the self and towards other employees (Van Dyne
et al., 2003).
6.3. Practical contributions and conclusion
This research provides practical implications for managers and
leaders in organizations. The results from two studies suggest that
leader behavior is particularly important during times of economic
crisis and uncertainty. Specifically, supervisors can take steps to
motivate employees to constructively respond despite fear. Super-
visors can encourage employees to act and speak up when experi-
encing fear of external threat by being more open and receptive to
ideas and suggestions. Doing so signals to employees that they can
manage their fears by taking action to help improve their organiza-
tion or work unit. At the same time, the results do not suggest that
leaders should instill a sense of fear in their employees. Indeed, a
large body of research suggests that when leaders or supervisors
are viewed as the source of fear, employees respond by withdraw-
ing or by remaining silent. Therefore, in order to encourage
employees to speak up during times of economic uncertainty,
managers must recognize when employees fear external threat
and help them cope with this fear, and not create fear themselves.
Such efforts from managers may help organizations capture the
benefits of voice.
This article suggests that there are times when employees who
fear external threat can be motivated to speak up with
improvement-oriented voice. The challenge for supervisors and
leaders is to recognize when these fears result from external
sources, and then to remain open to input as well as foster employ-
ees’ prosocial motivation to help the organization.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my dissertation committee members –
Sigal Barsade, Adam Grant, Katherine Klein, and Nancy Rothbard
– as well as Tim Maynes, Elizabeth McClean, Elizabeth Morrison,
John Sumanth, and the three anonymous reviewers for their
insightful advice and feedback on previous versions of this paper.
Funding was generously provided by the Center for Leadership
and Change Management at the Wharton School, University of
Pennsylvania, as well as the David Berg Center for Ethics and Lead-
ership of the Katz Graduate School of Business, through the BNY
Mellon Foundation of Western Pennsylvania.
19
Appendix A
Fear of external threat survey items (adapted from Ashford
et al., 1989; Schweiger & DeNisi, 1991).
During the last month, how frequently have you felt fearful . . .
(1 = not at all, 5 = very often).
1. That the economic downturn would negatively impact
this organization
2. That this organization would lose sales or revenue
3. That there would be layoffs at this organization
4. That your organization would lose business to a
competitora
5. That an industry downturn would negatively impact this
organizationa
a
Items used in Study 2 only.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Ashford, S. J., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1989). Content, causes, and consequences of job
insecurity: A theory-based measure and substantive test. Academy of
Management Journal, 32(4), 803–829.
Ashford, S. J., Rothbard, N. P., Piderit, S. K., & Dutton, J. E. (1998). Out on a limb: The
role of context and impression management in selling gender-equity issues.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(1), 23–57.
Avolio, B. J. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory-
building. American Psychologist, 62(1), 25–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-
066X.62.1.25.
Basch, J., & Fisher, C. D. (2000). Affective events-emotions matrix: A classification of
work events and associated emotions. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. E. J. Hartel, & W.
Zerbe (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace: Research, theory, and practice
(pp. 36–48). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Batson, C. D. (1987). Prosocial motivation: Is it ever truly altruistic? In L. Berkowitz
(Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 65–122). New York,
NY: Academic Press.
Blanchard, D. C., & Blanchard, R. J. (2008). Defensive behaviors, fear, and anxiety. In
R. J. Blanchard, D. C. Blanchard, G. Griebel, & D. Nutt (Eds.). Handbook of anxiety
and fear (Vol. 17, pp. 63–79). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Academic Press.
Bohns, V. K., & Flynn, F. J. (2012). Guilt by design: Structuring organizations to elicit
guilt as an affective reaction to failure. Organization Science, 24(4), 1157–1173.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0787.
Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or
good actors? Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 82–98. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2307/259038.
Botero, I. C. (2013). Individual correlates of employee voice: What do we know so
far? Where should we go next? In R. J. Burke & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Voice and
whistleblowing in organizations: Overcoming fear, fostering courage and
unleashing candour (pp. 72–91). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Burris, E. R., Detert, J. R., & Chiaburu, D. S. (2008). Quitting before leaving: The
mediating effects of psychological attachment and detachment on voice. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 912–922.
de Vries, R. E., Roe, R. A., & Taillieu, T. C. B. (2002). Need for leadership as a
moderator of the relationships between leadership and individual outcomes.
The Leadership Quarterly, 13(2), 121–137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843
(02)00097-8.
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the
door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869–884. http://dx.
doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.26279183.
Detert, J. R., Burris, E. R., Harrison, D. A., & Martin, S. R. (2013). Voice flows to and
around leaders: Understanding when units are helped or hurt by employee
voice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(4), 624–668. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0001839213510151.
Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. (2011). Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted
rules of self-censorship at work. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3),
461–488.
Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The mini-IPIP
scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality.
Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 192–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-
3590.18.2.192.
Dooley, R. S., & Fryxell, G. E. (1999). Attaining decision quality and commitment
from dissent: The moderating effects of loyalty and competence in strategic
decision-making teams. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 389–402. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2307/257010.
20 R.D. Lebel / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 135 (2016) 10–21
Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work
teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
Elfenbein, H. A. (2007). Emotion in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 1
(1), 315–386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/078559812.
Ellsworth, P. C., & Scherer, K. R. (2003). Appraisal processes in emotion. In R. J.
Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences
(pp. 572–595). New York: Oxford University Press.
Feather, N. T., & Rauter, K. A. (2004). Organizational citizenship behaviours in
relation to job status, job insecurity, organizational commitment and
identification, job satisfaction and work values. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 81–94.
Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Frijda, N. H., Kuipers, P., & ter Schure, E. (1989). Relations among emotion, appraisal,
and emotional action readiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57
(2), 212–228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.212.
Geddes, D., & Callister, R. R. (2007). Crossing the line(s): A dual threshold model of
anger in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 721–746. http://
dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2007.25275495.
George, J. M. (2011). Dual tuning: A minimum condition for understanding affect in
organizations? Organizational Psychology Review, 1(2), 147–164. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/2041386610390257.
Gino, F., Brooks, A. W., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2012). Anxiety, advice, and the ability to
discern: Feeling anxious motivates individuals to seek and use advice. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 497–512. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0026413.
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. Jr., (2003). A very brief measure of the
Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504–528.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1.
Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational
synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93(1), 48–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.
1.48.
Grant, A. M. (2013). Rocking the boat but keeping it steady: The role of emotion
regulation in employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6),
1703–1723. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0035.
Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Good soldiers and good actors: Prosocial and
impression management motives as interactive predictors of affiliative
citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 900–912. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1037/a0013770.
Grant, A. M., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). I won’t let you down. . . or will I? Core self-
evaluations, other-orientation, anticipated guilt and gratitude, and job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 108–121. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0017974.
Gump, B. B., & Kulik, J. A. (1997). Stress, affiliation, and emotional contagion. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2), 305–319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.72.2.305.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms,
organizations, and states. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Huang, G.-H., Niu, X., Lee, C., & Ashford, S. J. (2012). Differentiating cognitive and
affective job insecurity: Antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 33(6), 752–769. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.1815.
Huang, G.-H., Zhao, H. H., Niu, X.-Y., Ashford, S. J., & Lee, C. (2013). Reducing job
insecurity and increasing performance ratings: Does impression management
matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(5), 852–862. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0033151.
Izard, C. E., & Ackerman, B. P. (2000). Motivational, organizational, and
regulatory functions of discrete emotions. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-
Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 253–265). New York:
Guilford Press.
Jordan, P. J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Hartel, C. E. J. (2002). Emotional intelligence as a
moderator of emotional and behavioral reactions to job insecurity. Academy of
Management Review, 27(3), 361–372.
Kish-Gephart, J. J., Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Edmondson, A. C. (2009). Silenced by
fear: The nature, sources, and consequences of fear at work. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 29, 163–193.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York:
Guilford.
Lam, C. F., & Mayer, D. M. (2014). When do employees speak up for their customers?
A model of voice in a customer service context. Personnel Psychology, 67(3),
637–666. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/peps.12050.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
Leary, M. R. (1983). A brief version of the fear of negative evaluation scale.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9(3), 371–375.
Lebel, R. D. (2016). Moving beyond fight and flight: A contingent model of how
anger and fear spark proactivity. Academy of Management Review. http://dx.doi.
org/10.5465/amr.2014.0368.
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 853–868. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.83.6.853.
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting
forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with Big
Five personality characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86(2), 326–336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.2.326.
Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 81(1), 146–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.81.1.146.
Liang, J., Farh, C. I. C., & Farh, J.-L. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive
and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management
Journal, 55(1), 71–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0176.
Liu, W., Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2013). The relational antecedents of voice
targeted at different leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(5), 841–851.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032913.
Mackenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Challenge-oriented
organizational citizenship behaviors and organizational effectiveness: Do
challenge-oriented behaviors really have an impact on the organization’s
bottom line? Personnel Psychology, 64(3), 559–592. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1744-6570.2011.01219.x.
Maner, J. K., & Gerend, M. A. (2007). Motivationally selective risk judgments: Do fear
and curiosity boost the boons or the banes? Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 103(2), 256–267.
Maynes, T. D., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2014). Speaking more broadly: An examination of
the nature, antecedents, and consequences of an expanded set of employee
voice behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(1), 87–112. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0034284.
Menon, T., & Pfeffer, J. (2003). Valuing internal vs. external knowledge: Explaining
the preference for outsiders. Management Science, 49(4), 497–513.
Menon, T., Thompson, L., & Choi, H.-S. (2006). Tainted knowledge vs. tempting
knowledge: People avoid knowledge from internal rivals and seek knowledge
from external rivals. Management Science, 52(8), 1129–1144. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2307/20110589.
Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory study of
employee silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why.
Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1453–1476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
1467-6486.00387.
Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for
future research. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373–412. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/19416520.2011.574506.
Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational
Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 173–197. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091328.
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change
and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25(4),
706–725.
Öhman, A. (2008). Fear and anxiety: Overlaps and dissociations. In M. Lewis, J. M.
Haviland-Jones, & L. F. Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (3rd ed.,
pp. 709–729). New York: Guilford Press.
Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A. J., & Clark, M. A. (2002). Substantive and operational issues of
response bias across levels of analysis: An example of climate-satisfaction
relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 355–368. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.355.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation
hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 42(1), 185–227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00273170701341316.
Probst, T. (2008). Job insecurity. In C. L. Cooper & J. Barling (Eds.), Handbook of
organizational behavior (pp. 178–195). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rachman, S. J. (1990). Fear and courage (2nd ed.). New York: W.H. Freeman and
Company.
Raghunathan, R., & Pham, M. T. (1999). All negative moods are not equal:
Motivational influences of anxiety and sadness on decision making.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79(1), 56–77.
Rogelberg, S. G., & Stanton, J. M. (2007). Introduction: Understanding and dealing
with organizational survey nonresponse. Organizational Research Methods, 10
(2), 195–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428106294693.
Roseman, I. J. (2011). Emotional behaviors, emotivational goals, emotion
strategies: Multiple levels of organization integrate variable and consistent
responses. Emotion Review, 3(4), 434–443. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1754073911410744.
Roseman, I. J., Wiest, C., & Swartz, T. S. (1994). Phenomenology, behaviors, and goals
differentiate discrete emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67
(2), 206–221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.48.4.384.
Rosen, J. B., & Schulkin, J. (1998). From normal fear to pathological anxiety.
Psychological Review, 105(2), 325–350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-
295x.105.2.325.
Saunders, D. M., Sheppard, B. H., Knight, V., & Roth, J. (1992). Employee voice to
supervisors. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 5(3), 241–259.
Schachter, S. (1959). The psychology of affiliation.Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Schweiger, D. M., & DeNisi, A. S. (1991). Communication with employees following a
merger: A longitudinal field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 34(1),
110–135.
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proactive people do? A
longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel
Psychology, 54(4), 845–874. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.
tb00234.x.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. New York: Doubleday.
Shaver, P., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., & O’Connor, C. (1987). Emotion knowledge:
Further exploration of a prototype approach. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52(6), 1061–1086. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1061.
 R.D. Lebel / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 135 (2016) 10–21
Singer, J. D. (1998). Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models, hierarchical
models, and individual growth models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral
Statistics, 23(4), 323–355. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1165280.
Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(4), 813–838. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.48.4.813.
Stickney, L. T., & Geddes, D. (2016). More than just ‘‘Blowing off Steam”: The roles of
anger and advocacy in promoting positive outcomes at work. Negotiation and
Conflict Management Research, 9(2), 141–157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
ncmr.12071.
Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2012). Ask and you shall hear (but not always):
Examining the relationship between manager consultation and employee voice.
Personnel Psychology, 65(2), 251–282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-
6570.2012.01248.x.
Taylor, S. E. (2006). Tend and befriend: Biobehavioral bases of affiliation under
stress. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(6), 273–277.
21
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and
employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies,
40(6), 1359–1392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00384.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence
of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1),
108–119. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256902.
Venkataramani, V., & Tangirala, S. (2010). When and why do central employees
speak up? An examination of mediating and moderating variables. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 95(3), 582–591. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018315.
Vuori, T. O., & Huy, Q. N. (2016). Distributed attention and shared emotions in the
innovation process: How Nokia lost the smartphone battle. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 61(1), 9–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0001839215606951.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.54.6.1063.