The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm

Mediating
The effects of employee voice role of LMX
on workplace bullying and
job satisfaction
The mediating role of leader–member exchange 569

Huai-Liang Liang and Tsung-Kai Yeh Received 23 January 2019

Revised 14 April 2019
Department of Management, Air Force Institute of Technology, 31 May 2019
Kaohsiung City, Taiwan Accepted 5 July 2019

Abstract
Purpose – Employee voice is seen as a double-edged behavior in organizations. This study considers
individuals’ evaluations of various features of their work situations. In particular, leader–member exchange
(LMX) mediates the influence of voice behavior on workplace bullying and employee job satisfaction.
The purpose of this paper is to examine a model in which employee voice positively affects workplace
bullying and job satisfaction through LMX.
Design/methodology/approach – A total of 447 employer–employee dyads from a large manufacturing
company and public organizations in Taiwan were surveyed. Two-wave data demonstrated a significant
positive relationship between employee voice and its outcomes, mediated by LMX relationship.
Findings – The results reveal significant relationships between voice behavior and workplace bullying and
between employee voice and job satisfaction. Additionally, LMX is an important mechanism in the
relationships between employee voice and workplace bullying and employee voice and job satisfaction.
Research limitations/implications – Although this study obtained data from employer–employee dyads,
practical constraints prevented complete consideration of issues in the work domain, such as colleagues,
which might influence employees’ job satisfaction and workplace bullying.
Practical implications – Employee voice refers to an employee providing challenging advice to contribute
to the success of an organization. Voicing employees who speak up to change the status quo and challenge the
current circumstances in an organization may become the target of bullying. Therefore, it is suggested that
leaders should address the advice offered by employees and provide suitable support when employee voice
benefits the company.
Originality/value – The findings have implications for the understanding of employees’ conditions and its
associations with social issues in the workplace.
Keywords Job satisfaction, Leader–member exchange, Harassment, Workplace bullying, Voice behaviour
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
In the past 20 years, management researchers have been interested in the positive effect of
employee voice on organizational performance because employee voice employs better
approaches to accomplishing objectives and correcting issues with current work procedures
(Duan et al., 2017; LePine and Van Dyne, 1998; Van Dyne et al., 2003). Employee voice can
help teams utilize expertise, resulting in higher team performance (Sherf et al., 2018).
However, employee voice involves costs and risks that may cause the speaker to be rejected
and resisted internally within organizational departments, including experiencing social
isolation, being labeled negatively as a troublemaker, and suffering damage to social capital
(Morrison and Milliken, 2000). For instance, when employees speak up to change the status
quo in organizations, colleagues with task conflicts who are concerned about their job
security may bully voicing employees. Such colleagues are likely to repeatedly provide
opposition and defend their benefits against voicing employees. Therefore, voicing Management Decision
employees are likely to bear the burden and risk of being misunderstood by their colleagues, Vol. 58 No. 3, 2020
pp. 569-582
potentially leading to workplace bullying. We explore that employee voice may result in © Emerald Publishing Limited
0025-1747
workplace bullying, in a totally different context against prior studies, that is, employee DOI 10.1108/MD-01-2019-0112
MD voice has a significant impact on the positive outcomes, such as team performance
58,3 (Sherf et al., 2018) and employees’ overall performance (Huang et al., 2018). This research
first explores whether voicing employees are bullied by colleagues due to differences in the
status of a group within an organization.
Although employee voice is likely to influence the potential for workplace bullying, the
purpose of employees voicing their suggestions is to help organizations make positive changes,
570 increase organizational efficiency and improve job satisfaction for individuals (Ashford et al.,
2009; Grant and Ashford, 2008). Job satisfaction is both affective and behavioral reactions
associated with job performance (Holland et al., 2011; Singh and Singh, 2019). Employees who
take the initiative to voice suggestions can promote opportunities for employee participation,
benefit from collective thinking, and increase the decision quality of organizations (Weiss and
Morrison, 2019). Employee voice therefore has the potential to produce positive benefits for
organizational values and improve employee job satisfaction (Holland et al., 2011).
In addition, this study contends that leader–member exchange (LMX) could be a key
mediating mechanism between employee voice and its outcomes. In organizations, leaders
may give awards and offer respect for employee voice, which can lead to better relationships
between leaders and certain employees (Avey et al., 2010; Holland et al., 2011; Judge et al., 2017).
The group within the circle receives better treatment, whereas the group outside the circle is
studied to see whether they receive unfair treatment in the workplace (Scandura, 1999). Thus,
this study explores whether LMX has a mediating effect on the relationships between
employee voice and its outcomes (i.e. workplace bullying and job satisfaction).
This study has three primary purposes. First, the study proposes that employee voice is
directly likely to cause workplace bullying. We contend that employers should prevent
unfair treatment and workplace bullying in organizations. Second, even though voicing
employees are bullied in organizations, job satisfaction captures an individual’s appraisal of
the levels of fit between the individual and the organization. Therefore, this study postulates
that employees who attain a sense of accomplishment from their work experience increased
work satisfaction. Finally, this study posits that LMX is a critical mechanism between
employee voice and its outcomes (i.e. workplace bullying and job satisfaction). Stronger
employee voice leads to higher LMX and better outcomes of employee voice (Venkataramani
and Tangirala, 2010). Therefore, this study seeks to better understand the effects of
employee voice on workplace bullying and job satisfaction.

Theoretical background and hypotheses

Expectation states theory (EST)
Workplace bullying is a social issue and has harmful outcomes for victims and organizations
(Agotnes et al., 2018). Berger et al. (1974) reported that “status characteristics organize social
interaction” (p. 1) and indicated that different statuses seem to result in distinctive evaluations
from people. According to expectation states theory (EST) (Berger et al., 1974), two main
perspectives, the evaluation-expectation perspective and the status characteristics
perspective, are potentially useful in understanding how employee voice influences others’
perceptions of social standing in an organization. The evaluation-expectation perception
shows that when people exchange opinions regarding a task, one person is affected by
another (Berger et al., 1974; McClean et al., 2018). The task is defined based on group decisions;
that is, group power appears in situations in which people are oriented toward a consistent
purpose. Once employees speak up to solve potential problems in an organization, others
members may isolate and mistreat them. The status characteristics perspective argues that
individuals possess social characteristics that others consider when generating status
perceptions and expectations about the individual’s competences with regard to a goal
(Fişek et al., 1991). Because employee voice improves organizational performance, it is seen as
a possible status-claiming and assertive behavior (Anderson and Kilduff, 2009). If these
behaviors are not accepted by others, those others may punish individuals who speak up and Mediating
consider them to be offering unwelcome interference (Tepper et al., 2004). When employee role of LMX
voice influences the status quo in organizations, those who speak up may not be accepted.
EST contends that social status is based on others’ perceptions of a person’s ability to
complete the tasks in which they are involved (Fişek et al., 1991).

Employee voice and workplace bullying

The definition of voice behavior is an unsolicited behavior that emphasizes constructive
571
challenges and the expression of suggestions (Van Dyne and LePine, 1998). As employee
voice is a behavior outside of standard roles that can also lead to unnecessary negative
impacts (Seibert et al., 2001), it is influenced by the different levels of motivation among
individuals. Employee voice can enhance an individual’s status in an organization and
impact interpersonal relationships (Van Dyne and Ang, 1998) because it implies an
individual’s willingness to address threats on behalf of others. Prior research has revealed
that voice behavior differs from complaint, as complaint reflects dissatisfaction and does not
require constructive suggestions (Kowalski, 1996).
Employee voice aims to improve current circumstances and may easily lead to poor
impressions that impact the voicing individual’s relationships. This study explores how
voicing suggestions for organizational change affects the speaker’s social status.
Particularly, after employees speak up to change the status quo in an organization,
employees who do not agree with the voicing employees’ behaviors may adopt isolation and
harassment behaviors toward the voicing employees. Workplace bullying involves
repetitive actions of harassment, including oral violence, a power imbalance between
offenders and targets, frequent negative behaviors and persistence (Park and Ono, 2016;
Samnani and Singh, 2012). Bullying seems to involve regular aggression and violence
toward people by a group or by one person (Galanaki and Papalexandris, 2013). Therefore,
employee voice may cause employees to become targets of workplace bullying.
Einarsen and Raknes (1997) defined workplace bullying as harassing, giving offense and
engaging in social isolation of an individual, resulting in negative impacts on the
individual’s work behaviors. These negative behaviors are repeated over a period of time
(Einarsen, 2000). Workplace bullying generally includes five diverse forms: threats to
reputation, reduced opportunities to contribute to work assignments, reduced
communication with colleagues, threats to personal social conditions and physical
pressure or threat (Einarsen, 2000; Leymann, 1990). Einarsen et al. (1994) reported that
workplace bullying is an important social issue and a prevailing phenomenon in
organizations. In addition, workplace bullying is considered a long-term event with one or
more perpetrators who engage in verbal or nonverbal aggressive behavior toward
the victim (Samnani and Singh, 2012). As the victim has less power than the perpetrator,
he/she is often unable to fight back or stop the aggressive behavior, resulting in various
negative effects (Shu et al., 2011). Prior study investigated whether workplace bullying not
only causes psychological and physical damage to employees but also increases
organizational cost and profit loss (Nielsen and Einarsen, 2012).
Therefore, when employee voice carries costs and risks that may cause the voicing
employee to be opposed and rejected within the organization, including experiencing social
isolation, being labeled negatively as a troublemaker, and experiencing damage to social
capital, workplace bullying may occur. If members feel that someone is speaking up in a
way that affects their organization, they may deny that individual’s status and overwhelm
the target (Webster and Rashotte, 2010). This study explores whether employee voice in an
organization may produce social isolation in a group. Thus, this study proposes the
following hypothesis:
H1. Employee voice is related to workplace bullying.
MD Employee voice and job satisfaction
58,3 Employee voice is not merely critical behavior, the consequences of employee voice influence
individual job attitudes (Van Dyne et al., 2003). Employees who speak up may respond
positively to voice because change proposals may be seen as promoting organizational
performance and suggesting improvements to standard operating procedures (McClean et al.,
2018). According to impression management theory (Fuller et al., 2007), employees are likely to
572 receive private benefits from voice behavior. The more team members are willing to express
their opinions, the more this behavior may benefit communication within a team and facilitate
team success when executing tasks or advocating new work practices (Edmondson, 2003). In
addition, employee voice is beneficial to the employee’s public image (Whiting et al., 2009).
When individuals possess more psychological capital, they may strengthen the feeling of
satisfaction (Avey et al., 2010). Prior research examined that employee voice arrangements as
an organizational variable were related to job satisfaction (Holland et al., 2011). However, this
study postulates that employee voice as an individual variable may influence job satisfaction
because it implies an individual’s willingness of expression to produce satisfaction in
organization (Van Dyne and Ang, 1998).
Job satisfaction is defined as a positive and pleasant emotional reaction arising from the
evaluation of individual work experience (Locke, 1976). Prior studies have found that job
satisfaction is an individual attitude that reflects the extent to which people like or dislike
their job (Holland et al., 2011; Saari and Judge, 2004). Job satisfaction represents an
individual’s short-term inner emotional status, and is influenced by the external
environment (Lu, 1999). This study posits that when employee voice succeeds in
effectively executing tasks or advocating new work practices, employees gain a more
positive feeling toward work and experience an increase in work satisfaction. Therefore, this
study proposes the following hypothesis:
H2. Employee voice is related to job satisfaction.

Employee voice and the quality of LMX

Employee voice involves employees expressing ideas and engaging in upward
communication to improve work-related issues (LePine and Van Dyne, 1998; Van Dyne
and LePine, 1998). Employees who communicate useful opinions about accomplishing
assignments may gain positive appraisals from their leaders and enhance the quality of
LMX. Therefore, employee voice may relate to high LMX because it promotes a positive
relationship with supervisors. According to the evaluation-expectation perspective in EST
(Berger et al., 1974; Fişek et al., 1991), supervisors’ perceptions of employees are influenced
by the employees’ involvement in behaviors that uphold influence and assert leadership
over others. Prior studies have indicated that people who speak up in organizations obtain
positive evaluations from their leaders and experience improved exchange relationships
(e.g. McClean et al., 2018).
LMX is an important job resource in which leaders provide numerous forms of exchange
relationships and resources to their members ( Jiang et al., 2014). When the leader and
certain members have a better exchange relationship, the leader has a higher level of
acknowledgment of the technical abilities, skills, personality traits and attitude
compatibility of these members. Therefore, leaders may designate them as members of
the in-group. Prior research showed that in-group members receive more trust, support and
attention from leaders (Liden and Graen, 1980). After leaders categorize members into
in-groups and begin to conduct high-quality exchange relationships, the in-group members
receive more supervisor support, resources, promotion opportunities, work expectations and
interaction than other members. Therefore, the relationship between a leader and in-group
members reflects the degree to which support and resources are traded in organizations
(Lai et al., 2018). This study expects that employees who speak up to change the status quo Mediating
can enhance the quality of the exchange relationship with their leader. This study therefore role of LMX
predicts the following:
H3. Employee voice is related to LMX.

LMX as a mediating variable between employee voice and its outcomes

According to the evaluation-expectation perception (Berger et al., 1974; McClean et al., 2018), 573
when employee voice receives a positive response from supervisors, supervisors provide the
employees with more support in all aspects. Voicing employees may feel that they are
valued, which may lead to experiencing increased loyalty to their supervisors. In addition,
voicing employees are willing to spend more time and effort on work. Therefore, the
relationship is influenced by employee voice, and supervisor support for employee voice
may reduce the chance of workplace bullying.
Prior studies have indicated that several factors, including personal factors,
organizational factors, work groups and social factors, cause workplace bullying
(Agotnes et al., 2018; Einarsen, 2000; Einarsen and Raknes, 1997; Einarsen et al., 1994).
Personal factors include power inequality between a perpetrator and a victim, and power
inequality refers to the inequality between the bully and victim (Cowie et al., 2002). When
employees propose a suggestion that challenges the organization, other employees may
reject and isolate them within the organization. Therefore, this study introduces LMX as a
mediating factor in the relationship between employee voice and workplace bullying. When
a voicing employee and his/her leader have a good relationship in which the leader trusts the
employee as a member of the in-group, the employee is likely to receive a higher level of
support and resources from the leader than other employees, which may reduce the degree
of workplace bullying. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis:
H4. LMX mediates the relationship between employee voice and workplace bullying.
LMX theory points out that the segment of employees who are in-group members receive better
performance evaluations and exhibit higher work satisfaction and organizational commitment
(Gerstner and Day, 1997). When employees are willing to undertake special tasks and serve
others, they effectively engage in mutual exchange behaviors, such as group–member
exchange, which increases their role within the organization (Bolino, 1999). Employees receive
better treatment, thus bolstering job satisfaction. Prior study noted that the close exchange
relationship between the in-group and the leader translates to more benefits, authority, training
and promotion opportunities for in-group employees as well as higher work evaluations and
satisfaction when compared to other employees (Xiong and Chen, 2012).
Voice is likely to produce a higher quality LMX, which could promote organizational
values and enhance job satisfaction. Prior studies reported that the more employees voice
their opinions, the more positive the employees’ relationships with their leaders (Burris et al.,
2008; Venkataramani and Tangirala, 2010). When employees show initiative and
hardworking behavior (e.g. voice behavior) at work, leaders may appreciate these efforts
and increase their relationship with the employees. Thus, employees’ job satisfaction is
increased by their leader’s evaluations and the higher quality of the exchange relationship.
This study therefore proposes the following hypothesis:
H5. LMX mediates the relationship between employee voice and job satisfaction.

Research methodology
Participants and procedure
This study surveyed 950 employees and their employers from various industries, including
a large manufacturing company and public organizations in Taiwan. The participants were
MD all full-time employees. Through personal connections, we contacted the senior directors of
58,3 the human resources departments in these organizations and requested the participation of
the company in the study. This study utilized a time-lag design, in which data were collected
from employers and employees at two time points to avoid common method bias.
This study conducted employee surveys about employee voice, LMX, workplace
bullying and job satisfaction at two time points, and a survey about LMX was conducted at
574 one time point for their employers who volunteered to participate. Follow-up data were
collected four weeks after the first survey (Ng et al., 2010; Rosen et al., 2009). The leader
surveys were first delivered to 30 managers/supervisors working in these organizations.
Later, the employee surveys were delivered to 950 direct subordinates of these supervisors.
The numbers of subordinates working in each division/company ranged from 12 to 48.
Each supervisor completed questionnaires assessing LMX for their immediate subordinates,
while each employee completed questionnaires measuring voice, LMX, workplace bullying
and job satisfaction. Each subordinate rated the four variables, thereby potentially resulting
in common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Therefore, this study analyzed each
supervisor’s rating of the LMX scale for his/her subordinates.
The study provided survey packets in sealed envelopes to the main contacts working in
the company, and these contacts distributed the questionnaires and incentive gifts to the
subordinates ($5) and supervisors ($10) who volunteered. The supervisors completed a
separate questionnaire and returned it in a sealed, stamped return envelope. The employees
completed surveys measuring voice, LMX and demographic characteristics at Time 1 and
workplace bullying and job satisfaction in the workplace at Time 2. The supervisors
completed the LMX scales at Time 1 and were asked to return their responses through the
mail after completing the survey. At the end of each survey, all leaders provided identification
numbers for their own employees to identify the leader–member dyads in this study.
A total of 623 supervisor–subordinate dyads (66 percent response rate) returned the
surveys, and their supervisors completed separate surveys at Time 1. Four weeks after
Time 1, all 623 employees completed the second survey. A total of 582 employees returned
usable surveys at Time 2. After excluding surveys with unavailable or missing data, the
final 447 dyads (47 percent response rate) comprised 377 (84 percent response rate) male
employees and 70 (16 percent response rate) female employees, with an average age of
42.91 years. The employees worked an average of 44h per week (SD ¼ 4.27). The employees
and their partners had between zero and four children.

Measures
Before the participants completed the surveys, the English versions were translated into
Mandarin. In addition, native researchers analyzed the survey scales by using a back-translation
procedure to ensure the equivalence of the Mandarin and English versions (Brislin, 1980).
Therefore, the participants filled out all the surveys in Mandarin. This study received research
ethics committee approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee at National Cheng Kung
University in Taiwan. All participant responses were confidential.

Employee measures
Employee voice. This study utilized a six-item scale revised by Van Dyne and LePine (1998)
to assess the level of voice behavior. The scale included questions such as “I am willing to
propose suggestions at work to affect the department’s future development” and “I take
initiative in voicing and encouraging colleagues to participate and affect change for the
department’s future development.” A five-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree) was used for the measurement at Time 1. The Cronbach’s α value for the
scale was 0.95.
 Leader–member exchange. This study utilized the LMX relationship scale developed by Mediating
Wang et al. (2005), which includes a total of 12 items that are partially answered by direct role of LMX
superiors. Example questions include, “I am very satisfied with the work results of this
subordinate” and “I understand the work-related problems and needs of this subordinate.”
A five-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was used for
measurement at Time 1. The Cronbach’s α value for the scale was 0.91.
Workplace bullying. At Time 2, this study utilized the Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ) 575
as a self-evaluation tool regarding the experience of workplace bullying (NAQ; Einarsen and
Rakness, 1997). The questionnaire includes 22 items that evaluate the degree of bullying
within the workplace, and the items are scored using a five-point Likert scale from never (1)
to always (5). Example questions include, “You’re given a work load that is difficult to
handle” and “Someone hides information that affects your work performance.” The
Cronbach’s α value for the scale was 0.93 for work-related bullying.
Job satisfaction. A three-item inventory of job satisfaction developed by Conway et al.
(2011) was used to assess job satisfaction at Time 2. The questionnaire includes three items
that assess the degree of job satisfaction. Two sample items include, “How satisfied have
you felt with your job recently?” and “In general, how satisfied are you with your current
employment?” Responses ranged from 1 (strongly dissatisfied) to 5 (strongly satisfied) on a
five-point scale. The Cronbach’s α value for this scale was 0.87.

Supervisor measures
Leader–member exchange. This study used the four-dimensional scale employed by Wang
et al. (2005) to assess Chinese samples at Time 2. This survey includes 12 items to measure
respondents’ level of exchange relationship with their members. This scale is rated on a
five-point scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). An example item is
“My subordinate is the type of person one would have as a friend.” The present study
distributed this measure to leaders and members to provide some evidence of the measure’s
validity. The Cronbach’s α value for this scale was 0.91.
Ratings of LMX would normally be collected from the employers. However, using
employee ratings of LMX may create common method bias despite the use of a time-lag
study design. Instead, the study collected employers’ ratings of LMX. The correlation
between employees’ ratings and employers’ ratings of LMX was 0.38 ( p o0.01).
Additionally, to avoid common method bias, the study used only the supervisors’
responses to examine the hypotheses. Furthermore, the intraclass correlations (ICCs)
associated with LMX – ICC(1) ¼ 0.04, ICC(2) ¼ 0.39 – indicated that LMX was an individual
construct but was not appropriate as an organizational level construct.
Control variables. This study controlled for participants’ gender, age, number of children
living at home, education and work hours to reduce the possible effects of demographic
characteristics. Prior studies reported that these variables were frequently used in employee
voice and workplace bullying research (Burris et al., 2008; Cowie et al., 2002). Specifically,
age and number of children were assessed by using open-ended items.

Results
Test of measurement models for all variables
This study analyzed the matched responses of employee–employer dyads by using
structural equation modeling approaches with the LISREL 8.8 software ( Jöreskog and
Sörbom, 2006). Before testing the hypotheses of this study, the authors conducted a series of
confirmatory factor analyses to evaluate the measurement model, which included employee
voice, LMX, workplace bullying and job satisfaction. Prior studies recommended using
several fit indicators for the model: χ2, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA),
MD comparative fit index (CFI) and parsimony goodness of fit index (PGFI) (Bentler and Bonett,
58,3 1980; Hu and Bentler, 1998). As seen in Table I, the results of this study investigated that the
four-factor baseline model produced the better model fit ( χ2 ¼ 942.72; degree of freedom
(df ) ¼ 124; RMSEA ¼ 0.05; CFI ¼ 0.95; and PGFI ¼ 0.62). Alternative models 1, 2 and 3 in
this study revealed significantly poorer fit than the baseline model in accordance with the
significant χ2 and model fit index differences. Based on the evaluation of factor loading and
576 factor covariance, all factor loadings in the baseline model were normalized loadings
ranging from 0.39 to 0.86 and were significant, providing support for convergent validity.

Hypotheses testing
Descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients between all variables in this study are
shown in Table II. This study predicted a positive relationship between employee voice and
workplace bullying in H1. The results of this study indicate that employee voice was
positively related to workplace bullying (r ¼ 0.20, p o0.01; see Table II). H2 predicted a
positive relationship between employee voice and job satisfaction. Table II shows that
employee voice was positively related to job satisfaction (r ¼ 0.26, p o0.01). In addition,
employee voice was positively related to LMX (r ¼ 0.28, p o0.01).
Weighted least square estimators were employed to assess the theoretical model in this
study. Table III shows that the theoretical model (i.e. partial mediation model) was compared
with a full mediation model (i.e. alternative model). The study predicted two paths by which
employee voice was related to workplace bullying through LMX and to job satisfaction
through LMX. Compared with the alternative model ( χ2 (447) ¼ 33.13, df ¼ 3; RMSEA ¼ 0.14;
CFI ¼ 0.95 and goodness of fit index (GFI) ¼ 0.96) in Table III, the best model showed a perfect
fit ( χ2 (447) ¼ 1.32, df ¼ 1; RMSEA ¼ 0.03; CFI ¼ 0.99 and GFI ¼ 0.99). Under the principle of
model parsimony, these findings suggest that the theoretical model best fit the study data.

Model Factors χ2 df Δχ2a RMSEA CFI PGFI

Baseline Four factors: all variables 942.72 124 – 0.05 0.90 0.62
model
Alternative Three factors: workplace bullying and job 1,142.17* 127 199.45* 0.10 0.85 0.43
Model 1 satisfaction were combined into one factor
Alternative Two factors: all two outcomes and one mediator 1,355.39* 129 412.67* 0.23 0.74 0.39
Model 2 were combined into one factor
Table I. Alternative One factor: all factors were combined into 1,412.12* 137 469.40* 0.34 0.71 0.34
Comparison of Model 3 one factor
measurement models Notes: aBaseline model was compared with Models 1–3, respectively. *p o0.05

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Gender 1.16 0.30 (–)

2. Age 42.91 8.59 −0.02 (–)
3. Number of children 1.64 0.90 −0.04 0.47** (–)
4. Education 2.73 0.72 0.04 0.09* −0.20** (–)
5. Work hours 44.47 4.27 0.06 0.13** 0.01 0.28** (–)
Table II. 6. Employee voice 3.34 0.75 0.04 −0.85 −0.04 0.02 −0.13** (0.95)
Means, standard 7. LMX 2.83 0.87 0.01 −0.28** −0.01 −0.21** −0.23** 0.28** (0.91)
deviations, Cronbach’s 8. Workplace bullying 1.89 0.92 0.02 0.06 −0.15** 0.06 −0.09** 0.20** −0.56** (0.93)
α and intercorrelations 9. Job satisfaction 3.46 0.84 −0.02 0.11* 0.10* 0.29** 0.28** 0.26** 0.37** −0.50** (0.87)
among study Notes: LMX, leader–member exchange. Coefficient αs are in parentheses on the diagonal. *po0.05; **po0.01
Figure 1 shows that the direct effect of employee voice on workplace bullying was Mediating
significant (β ¼ 0.47; p o0.01), supporting H1, and that employee voice was related to job role of LMX
satisfaction (β ¼ 0.20; p o0.01), supporting H2. This model predicted direct effects from
employee voice to LMX. Employee voice was positively related to LMX (β ¼ 0.32; p o0.01),
supporting H3. The study results show that as voice increased, the manifestations of
workplace bullying and job satisfaction increased, and LMX significantly mediated the
relationships between employee voice and its outcomes (i.e. workplace bullying and job 577
satisfaction). In addition, according to Preacher and Hayes’s (2008) bootstrapping approach,
the indirect effect of employee voice on workplace bullying through LMX was significant
(z ¼ −5.72, p o0.01, with a 99% bootstrap confidence interval ranging from −0.31 to −0.12).
The indirect effect of employee voice and job satisfaction via LMX was significant (z ¼ 4.58,
p o0.01, with a 99% bootstrap confidence interval ranging from 0.05 to 0.15). Overall,
H4 and H5 were supported.

Discussion
This study primarily explored the impact of employee voice on workplace bullying and
employee job satisfaction; furthermore, it investigated the intermediary role of LMX
between employee voice and its outcomes (i.e. workplace bullying and job satisfaction). Prior
studies have shown that the positive effect of employee voice on employees’ social status
(Weiss and Morrison, 2019) and organizational performance (LePine and Van Dyne, 1998).
However, the current study shows that employee voice has a positive impact on workplace
bullying, as voicing employees suffer internal rejection and resistance from other
employees. Therefore, voicing employees within an organization are likely to assume the
burden and risk of being misunderstood by their colleagues (such as being viewed as a
whistleblower), resulting in workplace bullying. In addition, this study investigated whether
the extent of employee voice affects job satisfaction. The findings of this study support the
notion that voicing employees experience more positive interactions with their leaders,
resulting in higher levels of job satisfaction (Holland et al., 2011). Thus, employee voice
increases employee job satisfaction.

Model χ2 df RMSEA CFI GFI

Theoretical modela
1.32 1 0.03 0.99 0.99 Table III.
Comparison of
Alternative modelb 33.13** 3 0.14 0.95 0.96 structural equation
Notes: aTheoretical model (two partial mediations): Voice behavior→Workplace bullying+Voice models for alternative
behavior→LMX→Workplace bullying, Voice behavior→Job satisfaction+Voice behavior→LMX→Job model of voice
satisfaction; balternative model (two full mediations): Voice behavior→LMX→Workplace bullying, Voice behavior and its
behavior→LMX→Job satisfaction. **p o0.01 outcomes

0.47**
Workplace
–0.70** Bullying
Leader–
Employee Member
Voice 0.32** Exchange
Job Figure 1.
0.31** Results of structural
Satisfaction
0.20** equation modeling on
the theoretical model
Note: **p < 0.01
MD Furthermore, there is a positive effect of employee voice on workplace bullying through the
58,3 mediating role of LMX. When voicing employees voice their opinions and receive praise
from their supervisors in the workplace, this behavior improves the relationship between
supervisors and higher ranked individuals. A good relationship between supervisors and
higher ranked employees may indirectly improve voicing employees’ relationships with
other members of the organization. Therefore, when voicing employees do not suffer from
578 unequal treatment from other members of the organization, workplace bullying is less likely
to occur. This study also explored the impact of the intermediary role of LMX in the
relationship between employee voice and job satisfaction. The results of this study indicate
that when work achievements are acknowledged by leaders, job satisfaction increases in
response. Consistent with McClean et al. (2018) study, employee voice is positively and
indirectly associated with leader attention and enhances the exchange relationship between
employees and their leaders. Employees and leaders are more likely to collaborate on work
tasks, thus advancing organizational efficiency and job satisfaction.

Theoretical implications
This study offers three theoretical contributions. First, employee voice is a type of role and
external behavior that is highly valued by organizations, especially in organizations
undergoing innovation in which employee voice is needed to enable successful
organizational transformation (Nikolaou et al., 2008). The positive impact of employee
voice within organizations has long been a topic of research. However, little study has
explored the relationship between employee voice and workplace bullying. Therefore, the
findings of this study investigate that employee voice has a positive correlation with the
occurrence of negative behaviors such as workplace bullying. Second, LMX was
investigated to generate observations regarding the relationship between employee voice
and workplace bullying. When leaders have a better relationship with employees, members
are less likely to suffer from workplace bullying. In addition, voicing employees who show
initiative and hardworking attitudes may receive recognition and positive evaluations from
their supervisors, leading to an increase in the employees’ job satisfaction. The results of
this study support the notion that the intermediary role of LMX between employee voice
and workplace bullying may enrich the application of LMX in voice behavior research.
Finally, prior research examined that employee voice arrangements as an organizational
variable were related to job satisfaction (Holland et al., 2011). However, this study postulates
that employee voice as an individual variable influences job satisfaction because it implies
an individual’s willingness of expression to produce satisfaction in organization (Van Dyne
and Ang, 1998). Compared with Holland et al. (2011) research, therefore, this study has
different theoretical contribution that job satisfaction represents an individual’s short-term
inner emotional status, and is influenced by organizational environment.

Practical implications
In practice, the results of this study give rise to three suggestions. First, the study found that
employee voice refers to an employee providing challenging advice to contribute to the
success of an organization. Voicing employees who speak up to change the status quo and
challenge the current circumstances in an organization may become the victim of bullying.
Therefore, it is suggested that leaders should address the advice offered by employees and
provide suitable support when employee voice benefits the company. Leaders should not
become complacent and miss an opportunity to receive beneficial advice. Second, leaders
should consider encouraging employee voice when this behavior is beneficial to company
innovation. Voice behavior increases employees’ sense of achievement and work
performance. Therefore, when employees gain a sense of accomplishment in their work
through voice behavior, they may experience increased job satisfaction. Finally, when
employees feel that their ideas are similar to those of the majority, they may be more Mediating
confident in expressing their thoughts. Therefore, if supervisors support the suggestions role of LMX
proposed by an employee and utilize the LMX relationship to prevent the employee from
being rejected by colleagues, voicing employees may have greater ability to and confidence
in proposing suggestions that have beneficial effects for the organization.

Limitations and directions of future research 579

Despite the theoretical and practical contributions, this study has some limitations. First, the
samples of this study were from Taiwan, which raises generalizability issues because of the
collectivist culture in organizations. Asian employees may use silence to secure their job
security in organizations. Therefore, future studies may examine diverse cultural samples to
reduce generalizability issues. Second, although the study distributed surveys at two time
points and to different respondents (i.e. employers and employees), some data were collected
from the same source through the use of self-report questionnaires for employees. Future
research is recommended to collect data from various participants, such as from colleagues
who could assess voicing employees. Third, prior studies relating to voice behavior research
have paid less attention to the negative effects of voice in organizations (Duan et al., 2017;
McClean et al., 2018; Van Dyne and Ang, 1998). Future studies may investigate the
psychological conditions of employees and explore the reasons that voicing employees are
not accepted in organizations. In addition, workplace bullying is defined as a long-term
event with one or more perpetrators participating in verbal or nonverbal aggressive
behavior. As the victims’ power is less than that of the perpetrator, they are often unable to
fight back or stop aggressive behavior, leading to various negative effects (Shu et al., 2011).
Therefore, future research may explore whether workplace bullying is affected by
situational factors such as power imbalance. Finally, this study focuses on promotive
behaviors, which are proactive and encourage events to happen. Van Dyne and LePine
(1998) emphasized the expression of constructive challenges aimed at improving rather than
disapproving. Therefore, this study defined employee voice as challenging-promotive
behavior, although most voice studies have used the characteristics of promotive and
prohibitive behavior to examine voice behavior (e.g. Holland et al., 2011). Employee voice is
not merely a type of proactive behavior. In addition, employee voice may involve other
cooperative behaviors. Future studies could explore other behaviors that are likely to
influence workplace bullying.

References
Agotnes, K.W., Einarsen, S.V., Hetland, J. and Skogstad, A. (2018), “The moderating effect of laissez-faire
leadership on the relationship between co-worker conflicts and new cases of workplace bullying: a
true prospective design”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 555-568.
Anderson, C. and Kilduff, G.J. (2009), “The pursuit of status in social groups”, Current Directions in
Psychological Science, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 295-298.
Ashford, S.J., Sutcliffe, K.M. and Christianson, M.K. (2009), “Speaking up and speaking out: the
leadership dynamics of voice in organizations”, in Greenberg, J. and Edwards, M. (Eds), Voice
and Silence in Organizations, Emerald, Bingley, pp. 175-202.
Avey, J.B., Luthans, F., Smith, R.M. and Palmer, N.F. (2010), “Impact of positive psychological capital
on employee well-being over time”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 1,
pp. 17-28.
Bentler, P.M. and Bonett, D.C. (1980), “Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of
covariance structures”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 588-606.
Berger, J., Conner, T.L. and Fişek, M.H. (1974), Expectation States Theory: A Theoretical Research
Program, Winthrop, Cambridge, MA.
MD Bolino, M.C. (1999), “Citizenship behavior and impression management: good soldiers or good actors?”,
58,3 Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 82-98.
Brislin, R.W. (1980), “Translation and content analysis of oral and written material”, in Triandis, H.C.
and Berry, J.W. (Eds), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology: Methodology, Allyn and Bacon,
Boston, MA, pp. 349-444.
Burris, E.R., Detert, J.R. and Chiaburu, D.S. (2008), “Quitting before leaving: the mediating effects
580 of psychological attachment and detachment on voice”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93
No. 4, pp. 912-922.
Conway, N., Guest, D. and Trenberth, L. (2011), “Testing the differential effects of changes in
psychological contract breach and fulfillment”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 79 No. 1,
pp. 267-276.
Cowie, H., Naylor, P., Rivers, I., Smith, P.K. and Pereira, B. (2002), “Measuring workplace bullying”,
Aggression and Violent Behavior, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 33-41.
Duan, J., Li, C., Xu, Y. and Wu, C. (2017), “Transformational leadership and employee voice behavior: a
Pygmalion mechanism”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 650-670.
Edmondson, A.C. (2003), “Speaking up in the operating room: how team leaders promote learning in
interdisciplinary action teams”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 1419-1452.
Einarsen, S. (2000), “Harassment and bullying at work: a review of the Scandinavian approach”,
Aggression and Violent Behavior, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 379-401.
Einarsen, S. and Raknes, B.I. (1997), “Harassment at work and the victimization of men”, Violence and
Victims, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 247-263.
Einarsen, S., Raknes, B.I. and Matthiesen, S.B. (1994), “Bullying and harassment at work and their
relationships to work environment quality: an exploratory study”, European Work and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 381-401.
Fişek, M.H., Berger, J. and Norman, R.Z. (1991), “Participation in heterogeneous and homogeneous
groups: a theoretical integration”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 97 No. 1, pp. 5-49.
Fuller, J.B., Barnett, T., Hester, K., Relyea, C. and Frey, L. (2007), “An exploratory examination of voice
behavior from an impression management perspective”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 19
No. 1, pp. 134-151.
Galanaki, E. and Papalexandris, N. (2013), “Measuring workplace bullying in organisations”,
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 24 No. 11, pp. 2107-2130.
Gerstner, C.R. and Day, V. (1997), “Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: correlates
and construct issues”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 6, pp. 827-844.
Grant, A.M. and Ashford, S.J. (2008), “The dynamics of proactivity at work”, Research in Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 28, pp. 3-34.
Holland, P., Pyman, A., Cooper, B.K. and Teicher, J. (2011), “Employee voice and job satisfaction in
Australia: the centrality of direct voice”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 95-111.
Hu, L.-T. and Bentler, P.M. (1998), “Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to
underparameterized model misspecification”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 424-453.
Huang, X., Xu, E., Huang, L. and Liu, W. (2018), “Nonlinear consequences of promotive and prohibitive
voice for managers’ responses: the roles of voice frequency and LMX”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 103 No. 10, pp. 1101-1120.
Jiang, J.Y., Law, K.S. and Sun, J.J.M. (2014), “Leader–member relationship and burnout: the moderating
role of leader integrity”, Management and Organization Review, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 223-247.
Jöreskog, K.G. and Sörbom, D. (2006), LISREL for Windows, Scientific Software International,
Lincolnwood, IL.
Judge, T.A., Weiss, H.W., Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D. and Hulin, C.L. (2017), “Job attitudes, job satisfaction,
and job affect: a century of continuity and of change”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 102
No. 3, pp. 356-374.
Kowalski, R.M. (1996), “Complaints and complaining: functions, antecedents, and consequences”, Mediating
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 119 No. 2, pp. 179-196. role of LMX
Lai, J.Y.M., Chow, W.C. and Loi, R. (2018), “The interactive effect of LMX and LMX differentiation on
followers’ job burnout: evidence from tourism industry in Hong Kong”, International Journal of
Human Resource Management, Vol. 29 No. 12, pp. 1972-1998.
LePine, J.A. and Van Dyne, L. (1998), “Predicting voice behavior in work groups”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 6, pp. 853-868. 581
Leymann, H. (1990), “Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces”, Violence and Victims, Vol. 5
No. 2, pp. 119-126.
Liden, R.C. and Graen, G.B. (1980), “Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 451-465.
Locke, E.A. (1976), “The nature and cause of job satisfaction”, in Dunnette, M. (Ed.), Handbook of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, pp. 1297-1349.
Lu, L. (1999), “Personal or environmental causes of happiness: A longitudinal analysis”, Journal of
Social Psychology, Vol. 139 No. 1, pp. 79-90.
McClean, E.J., Martin, S., Emich, K.J. and Woodruff, T. (2018), “The social consequences of voice: an
examination of voice type and gender on status and subsequent leader emergence”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 61 No. 5, pp. 1869-1891.
Morrison, E.W. and Milliken, F.J. (2000), “Organizational silence: a barrier to change and development
in a pluralistic world”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 706-725.
Ng, T.W.H., Feldman, D.C. and Lam, S.S.K. (2010), “Psychological contract breaches, organizational
commitment, and innovation-related behaviors: a latent growth modeling approach”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 4, pp. 744-751.
Nielsen, M.B. and Einarsen, S. (2012), “Outcomes of exposure to workplace bullying: a meta-analytic
review”, Work & Stress, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 309-332.
Nikolaou, I., Vakola, M. and Bourantas, D. (2008), “Who speaks up at work? Dispositional influences on
employees’ voice behavior”, Personnel Review, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 666-679.
Park, J.H. and Ono, M. (2016), “Effects of workplace bullying on work engagement and health: the
mediating role of job insecurity”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 28 No. 22, pp. 3202-3225.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 40
No. 3, pp. 879-891.
Rosen, C.C., Chang, C.H., Johnson, R.E. and Levy, P.E. (2009), “Perceptions of the organizational context
and psychological contract breach: assessing competing perspectives”, Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 108 No. 2, pp. 202-217.
Saari, L.M. and Judge, T.A. (2004), “Employee attitudes and job satisfaction”, Human Resource
Management, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 395-407.
Samnani, A.I.-K. and Singh, P. (2012), “20 years of workplace bullying research: a review of the
antecedents and consequences of bullying in the workplace”, Aggression and Violent Behavior,
Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 581-589.
Scandura, T.A. (1999), “Rethinking leader–member exchange: an organizational justice perspective”,
The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 25-40.
Seibert, S.E., Kraimer, M.L. and Crant, J.M. (2001), “What do proactive people do? A longitudinal
model linking proactive personality and career success”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 4,
pp. 845-874.
MD Sherf, E.N., Sinha, R., Tangirala, S. and Awasty, N. (2018), “Centralization of member voice in teams: its
58,3 effects on expertise utilization and team performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 103
No. 8, pp. 813-827.
Shu, C., Ma, H.H., Wang, C.Y. and Chen, J.Y. (2011), “The concept analysis of workplace bullying”,
The Journal of Nursing, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 81-86.
Singh, S.K. and Singh, A.P. (2019), “Interplay of organizational justice, psychological empowerment,
organizational citizenship behavior, and job satisfaction in the context of circular economy”,
582 Management Decision, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 937-952.
Tepper, B.J., Duffy, M.K., Hoobler, J. and Ensley, M.D. (2004), “Moderators of the relationships between
coworkers’ organizational citizenship behavior and fellow employees’ attitudes”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 3, pp. 455-465.
Van Dyne, L. and Ang, S. (1998), “Organizational citizenship behavior of contingent workers in
Singapore”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 692-703.
Van Dyne, L. and LePine, J.A. (1998), “Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: evidence of construct and
predictive validity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 108-119.
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S. and Botero, I.C. (2003), “Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as
multidimensional constructs”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 1359-1392.
Venkataramani, V. and Tangirala, S. (2010), “When and why do central employees speak up?
An examination of mediating and moderating variables”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95
No. 3, pp. 582-591.
Wang, H., Law, K.S., Hackett, R.D., Wang, D. and 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, Vol. 48 No. 3,
pp. 420-432.
Webster, M. and Rashotte, L.S. (2010), “Behavior, expectations, status”, Social Forces, Vol. 88 No. 3,
pp. 1021-1049.
Weiss, M. and Morrison, E. (2019), “Speaking up and moving up: how voice can enhance employees’
social status”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 5-19.
Whiting, S.W., Podsakoff, P.M. and Pierce, J.R. (2009), “Effects of task performance, helping, voice and
organizational loyalty on performance appraisal ratings”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93
No. 1, pp. 125-139.
Xiong, X.H. and Chen, Q.Z. (2012), “Do in-group employees get more or pay more? The antinomies in
leader-member exchange relationships”, Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 12 No. 4,
pp. 29-52.

Further reading
Doest, L.T. and De Jonge, J. (2006), “Testing causal models of job characteristics and employee
well-being: a replication study using cross-lagged structural equation modeling”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 3, pp. 499-507.
Howell, T.M., Harrison, D.A., Burris, E.R. and Detert, J.R. (2015), “Who gets credit for input?
Demographic and structural status cues in voice recognition”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 100 No. 6, pp. 1765-1784.

Corresponding author
Huai-Liang Liang can be contacted at: huai-liang@yahoo.com.tw

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com