The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2017

https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1335338

Leader trait learning goal orientation and employee voice

behavior: the mediating role of managerial openness and
the moderating role of felt obligation
Yue Zhua and Syed Akhtarb
a
Department of Human Resource Management, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou, China;
b
Formerly, Department of Management, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon Tang, Hong Kong

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
We theorized and tested the process through which leader Voice behavior; leader trait
trait learning goal orientation influences employee voice learning goal orientation;
behavior. Data were collected from 507 employees and 70 managerial openness; felt
supervisors in a variety of companies in Southeast China. obligation for constructive
change
Results obtained from hierarchical linear modeling showed
that leader trait learning goal orientation was significantly
related to employee voice behavior, and that managerial
openness mediated this relationship. Moreover, our cross-
level interaction results showed that felt obligation for
constructive change moderated the relationship between
managerial openness and employee voice behavior, such that
this relationship was positive only among employees with a
high felt obligation for constructive change. The implications
of our findings for the theory and practice of leadership and
employee voice behavior are discussed here.

Introduction
In today’s complex business environment, managers have to rely on the ideas and
information offered by their employees to make better decisions for organiza-
tional success (Detert & Edmondson, 2011; Kaufman, 2015; Liang, Farh, & Farh,
2012). Employee voice behavior, defined as the communication of constructive
and challenging suggestions and ideas (Morrison, 2011), has been shown to pro-
mote organizational effectiveness and performance (e.g. Detert, Burris, Harrison,
& Martin, 2013; Lam & Mayer, 2013). However, studies have consistently reported
that some employees are reluctant to speak up even when they have something
useful to say (Detert & Edmondson, 2011; Milliken, Morrison, & Hewlin, 2003).
Researchers have attributed this phenomenon to the employees’ calculus about
the risk of speaking up, as voice behavior can challenge the status quo, and can

CONTACT Yue Zhu carolzhuyue@hotmail.com

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2  Y. ZHU AND S. AKHTAR

compromise the employees’ interpersonal relationships with their leaders (Detert

& Edmondson, 2011; LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). Various researchers have there-
fore highlighted the importance of contextual factors, especially the roles played
by leaders in shaping their employees’ beliefs about whether it is worthwhile, and
if it is safe to speak up (e.g. Detert & Burris, 2007; Morrison, Wheeler-Smith, &
Kamdar, 2011; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2012; Venkataramani & Tangirala, 2010).
In light of these observations, Morrison (2014) called for empirical research on
‘what makes leaders more or less receptive to voice’ (p. 182) to extend the cur-
rent understanding of the roles of leaders in affecting voice behavior. In terms
of management practice, identifying the sources of a leader’s positive influence,
especially in terms of trait antecedents, can aid in selecting leaders and designing
leadership development programs that facilitate the enhancement of employee
voice over time and across situations (Zaccaro, 2007).
Drawing on goal orientation theory and calculus-based perspective (Morrison,
2011, 2014), our study addresses Morrison’s (2014) call by testing trait learning
orientation (hereafter, learning orientation) as a specific leader antecedent to
employee voice behavior. Learning orientation was selected for two reasons. First,
it has been tested as an important source of leader emergence and effectiveness
(DeGeest & Brown, 2011; Dragoni & Kuenzi, 2012). Second, and more impor-
tantly, learning orientation is a particularly relevant leader trait, which affects the
ability to lead followers in challenging their behaviors, because this orientation
highlights the acquisition of new knowledge and a preference for challenging tasks
(Elliot, 1999; Preenen, van Vianen, & de Pater, 2014).
To gain a deeper understanding of the effects of leader learning orientation,
we also examine the process through which leader traits translate into leader
effectiveness. Leadership researchers have proposed that leader behavior is a
fundamental mechanism linking leader traits to employee behavior (e.g. Dinh
& Lord, 2012; Dinh et al., 2014). To the best of our knowledge, only Walumbwa
and Schaubroeck’s (2009) study aimed at integrating the effects of leader traits
and leader behaviors on voice behavior. However, their theoretical model focused
on the Big Five personality factors and ethical leadership which are less specific
to the voice domain. In this context, we extend previous research by proposing
and testing managerial openness as a mediator of the leader learning orientation
– voice behavior linkage. Managerial openness is a plausible mediator because it
is ‘a set of leader behaviors particularly relevant to subordinates’ motivation to
speak up’ (Detert & Burris, 2007, p. 871). Further, the goal orientation literature
suggests that learning orientation may increase a leader’s openness to new sug-
gestions from his or her followers (Sijbom, Janssen, & Van Yperen, 2015a, 2015b).
Finally, we extend the voice literature by identifying the conditions under which
leaders have more or less influence on employee voice behavior (Detert & Burris,
2007). Even though managerial openness has been proposed as an important pre-
dictor of employee voice behavior (Detert & Burris, 2007), the empirical findings
are mixed. Some studies have demonstrated that managerial openness is strongly
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT  3

associated with employee voice behavior (e.g. Janssen & Gao, 2013; Tangirala &
Ramanujam, 2012), whereas others have shown weak or non-significant associa-
tions (e.g. Dutton, Ashford, Lawrence, & Miner-Rubino, 2002; Janssen, de Vries,
& Cozijnsen, 1998). We aim at resolving such inconsistent findings by testing
the moderating role of felt obligation for constructive change, which is a form of
internal motivation specific to the voice domain (Liang et al., 2012). Our choice
of felt obligation as a moderator is closely aligned with our theoretical framework
that includes Morrison’s (2014) two perspectives on voice behavior, namely, the
calculus-based and the prosocial motivation-based perspectives. The former per-
spective highlights the importance of leader behavior, and the latter one focuses
on the prosocial motivational states that enhance an employee’s willingness to
engage in voice behavior. According to Liang et al. (2012), employees may not
necessarily channel the sense of safety and self-worth created by leader behaviors
through their own voice behavior, unless they also have an internal motivation
to benefit the organization. By integrating these two perspectives, we propose
that felt obligation may enhance the positive relationship between managerial
openness and employee voice behavior.
In sum, we aim at testing an employee voice model (see Figure 1) that con-
tributes to the literature in the following ways. First, we draw on goal orientation
theory and the calculus-based perspective of voice (Morrison, 2014) to examine
whether leader learning orientation is a predictor of employee voice behavior.
In doing so, we answer the call for investigating the personal characteristics that
enable leaders to facilitate employee voice (Morrison, 2014). Second, we provide
an empirical account of how leader learning orientation translates into employee
voice behavior, by examining managerial openness (leader behavior) as a mediator.
In doing so, we integrate the perspectives on leader traits and behaviors to provide
a more complete view of the importance of leaders in affecting employee voice
behavior. Finally, we specify the conditions under which managerial openness
can effectively influence employee voice behavior. We advance understanding
on the relationship between leadership and voice by showing that managerial
openness is more likely to predict voice behavior among employees with a high
felt obligation for constructive change.

Leader learning Managerial

Group level
orientation openness

Individual level

Felt obligation for

Employee voice
constructive change
behavior

Figure 1. Hypothesized model.

4  Y. ZHU AND S. AKHTAR

Theoretical background and hypotheses

Leader trait learning orientation and voice behavior
Learning orientation refers to the desire to develop competence through acquiring
new skills and mastering new situations (Payne, Youngcourt, & Beaubien, 2007).
Although various researchers have conceptualized learning orientation as both
a trait-like and a state-like construct (cf. Beck & Schmidt, 2013; Hirst, Van
Knippenberg, Chen, & Sacramento, 2011; Porter, Franklin, Swider, & Yu, 2016),
we consider learning orientation as a personality-difference variable, because trait
learning orientation is relatively stable, and it has been commonly measured and
tested in previous organizational studies (Payne et al., 2007).
Some researchers have theorized that learning orientation is a motivational
antecedent to leadership development and effectiveness (DeGeest & Brown, 2011).
According to goal orientation theory (Dweck & Leggett, 1988), a high level of
learning orientation motivates leaders to learn from their on-the-job activities,
and to value the kinds of experience that foster competence. As a result, learning-
oriented leaders are more likely to develop the skills (i.e. interpersonal skills) that
are critical to effective leadership (DeGeest & Brown, 2011; DeRue & Wellman,
2009). Indeed, some researchers have also pointed out that a leader’s learning
orientation regulates not only his or her own behavior, but also directs followers
toward a corresponding (learning) orientation; followers tend to act on this
orientation to promote their own performance (Dragoni, 2005; Dragoni & Kuenzi,
2012; Preenen et al., 2014). These findings suggest that learning orientation is an
important source of a leader’s influence on followers.
Moreover, with regard to facilitating voice behavior, learning orientation is a
particularly relevant leader attribute because it highlights the acquisition of new
knowledge and the acceptance of challenging tasks. Previous studies have clearly
demonstrated that learning-oriented individuals are likely to adopt a series of
learning strategies such as skill acquisition and deep processing (i.e. integrating
new information with prior knowledge and experience) (Elliot, McGregor, &
Gable, 1999). Also, when faced with challenging situations, learning-oriented
individuals are likely to view them as effective opportunities for developing and
improving themselves. They may even actively pursue challenging and complex
tasks through which they can reframe their old ways of thinking, or initiate and
experiment with new work activities (Preenen et al., 2014). As such, we propose
that learning orientation is critical to a leader’s willingness and ability to lead for
voice behavior that is challenging in nature. We present the rationale underlying
this proposition in more detail in the following paragraphs.
Researchers have suggested that leaders are likely to convey their favored
goal orientation to employees through a social learning process (Dragoni, 2005;
Dragoni & Kuenzi, 2012). Given their hierarchical position and authority in
the work unit, leaders draw the attention of their followers to the behavior they
model (Bandura, 1986). Learning-oriented leaders consistently show a learning
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT  5

behavioral pattern in their managerial practice that demonstrates to followers

how to approach and respond to tasks (Dragoni & Kuenzi, 2012). For instance, in
their interaction with followers, such leaders may encourage experimentation with
new work approaches, assign challenging tasks, and create changes in their work
units (Dragoni & Kuenzi, 2012; Gully & Phillips, 2005; Preenen et al., 2014). They
are also likely to support and reinforce a follower’s willingness to experiment and
make errors through offering tangible and intangible rewards (Dragoni & Kuenzi,
2012). By engaging in these managerial practices, learning-oriented leaders send
clear signals about what kind of behavior is valued and expected in the work unit.
As a result, followers learn from their leaders to exhibit a learning-oriented behav-
ioral pattern. Followers may engage in change-oriented behavior such as drawing
the leader’s attention to important organizational concerns, questioning existing
organizational policies and practices, and suggesting changes to operational pro-
cedures. Such behavior is intended to improve the organizational functioning
and is integral to the learning process (Bashshur & Oc, 2014; Edmondson, 2003).
In addition, learning-oriented individuals have been found to seek feedback
across different sources (e.g. peers, followers), because they perceive feedback to
be useful diagnostic information for correcting mistakes and developing compe-
tence (VandeWalle, Cron, & Slocum, 2001; VandeWalle, Ganesan, Challagalla,
& Brown, 2000). This finding suggests that highly learning-oriented leaders are
likely to actively solicit followers’ ideas to improve their own effectiveness and
that of the organization. Moreover, researchers have found that learning-oriented
individuals tend to respond adaptively to and even proactively search for negative
feedback (Gong, Wang, Huang, & Cheung, 2014). These individuals consider this
feedback valuable for identifying ineffective behavior rather than as threatening
to their image. This suggests that leaders with a high learning orientation are
less likely to feel threatened by employee voice even when an employee is voic-
ing concerns about harmful and dysfunctional practices. Instead, leaders may
regard voice as suggestive of how to improve their mastery and thus respond in a
receptive manner (Parker & Collins, 2010). Thus, when followers receive signals
from learning-oriented leaders that suggest that the leaders are accessible and
receptive to their opinions and ideas, they will judge it safe to share their ideas
and comments (Edmondson, 1999, 2003) and be more willing to engage in voice
behavior. This reasoning leads to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Leader trait learning orientation is positively related to employee voice
behavior

Leader trait learning orientation and managerial openness

Managerial openness refers to employee perceptions that the leader ‘listens to

them, is interested in their ideas, gives fair consideration to the ideas presented,
and at least sometimes takes action to address the matter raised’ (Detert & Burris,
2007, p. 871). Although managerial openness has been widely recognized to
6  Y. ZHU AND S. AKHTAR

influence followers’ voice calculation (Ashford, Rothbard, Piderit, & Dutton, 1998;
Janssen & Gao, 2013; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2012), we know little about why
some leaders display these behaviors more often than others. In this regard, goal
orientation research suggests that learning orientation is an important motiva-
tional variable that can influence leaders’ responses to the creative and new ideas
voiced by followers (Sijbom et al., 2015a, 2015b). Therefore, we draw upon the
insights from goal orientation theory to propose leader learning orientation as a
predictor of managerial openness.
There are at least three reasons for a positive relationship between leader learn-
ing orientation and managerial openness. First, learning-oriented individuals
focus on developing competence and are willing to exert effort to do so (Dweck,
1986). Given this focus, they tend to acquire new knowledge and master situations
by proactively seeking feedback from a variety of sources rather than passively
waiting for it (Ashford, Blatt, & Walle, 2003; Gong et al., 2014). In an organi-
zational context, followers should be a valuable source of direct work-related
knowledge and information about how leaders can improve their managerial
performance (Kim & Yukl, 1995). As a result, learning-oriented leaders show a
strong tendency to seek and solicit information from their followers. This proactive
feedback seeking helps followers to form the perception that the leader is willing
to listen to them and is interested in their ideas.
Second, given their genuine interest in their tasks (Leung, Chen, & Chen, 2014),
individuals with a learning orientation are open to diverse ideas and experiences,
even if they challenge their views (Kroll, 1988). In addition, researchers have
shown that learning orientation is a positive predictor of deep information pro-
cessing, which involves the integration of new information with prior knowledge
and experience (Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Miele & Wigfield, 2014). Most impor-
tantly, these findings suggest that learning-oriented leaders not only listen to their
followers but elaborate on and integrate their ideas and information to achieve
real self-improvement. Finally, because learning orientation is often associated
with a preference for experimentation and work challenges (Porath & Bateman,
2006), leaders with a strong learning orientation tend to experiment with the
work-related ideas of their followers by implementing new practices and methods.
This personal orientation of learning-oriented leaders is likely to contribute to
perceived managerial openness. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Leader trait learning orientation is positively related to managerial
openness

Managerial openness and voice behavior

According to calculus perspective of voice, managerial openness has been iden-

tified as an important antecedent of voice behavior, as it is thought to influence
follower perceptions about the safety and efficacy of voice behavior (e.g. Detert &
Burris, 2007; Edmondson, 2003; Milliken et al., 2003; Tröster & van Knippenberg,
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT  7

2012). Detert and Burris (2007) observed that when leaders listen carefully to and
take action on a follower’s idea, they send a strong signal to followers that the voice
behavior in their work units is appropriate and appreciated. Accordingly, followers
reduce their perception of the risks associated with communicating openly and
are more willing to engage in voice behavior (Edmondson, 2003; Lebel, 2016).
Moreover, managerial openness represents the freedom of followers to exchange
work-related ideas and views with their leaders (Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2012).
Hence, managerial openness leads followers to believe that they have the oppor-
tunity and ability to influence work-related decision-making, especially when
they see their leaders initiating changes to address an issue they raised. These
beliefs enhance followers’ perceptions of the efficacy of voice behavior and that
voicing their ideas and concerns will be effective in bringing about change in
the organization, which in turn encourages followers to engage in further voice
behavior (Morrison, 2014). Indeed, a number of studies have provided empirical
evidence for the positive relationship between managerial openness and voice
behavior (e.g. Detert & Burris, 2007; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2012; Tröster & van
Knippenberg, 2012). In particular, Janssen and Gao’s (2013) field study in Chinese
context provides empirical support to the cultural generality of the significant
relationship between managerial openness and voice behavior.

The mediating role of managerial openness

Thus far, we have hypothesized that leader learning orientation is positively related
to employee voice behavior and managerial openness. We have also theorized the
positive effects of managerial openness and voice behavior. We further integrate
these arguments with a view to propose that managerial openness mediates the
relationship between leader learning orientation and employee voice behavior.
There are theoretical and empirical arguments supporting the mediating role
of managerial openness in the relationship between leader traits and employee
voice behavior (Dinh et al., 2014; Judge, Piccolo, & Kosalka, 2009). At a the-
oretical level, traits have generally been conceptualized as ‘intra-individually
consistent and inter-individually distinct propensities to behave in some iden-
tifiable way’ (Tett & Guterman, 2000, p. 398). As behavioral propensities, traits
are likely to be perceived by others only when they manifest in explicit forms
of behavior (DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011). Following this
logic, leadership researchers have proposed that leader traits (distal antecedents)
can indirectly influence leadership outcomes through leader behavior (proximal
antecedent) (Dinh & Lord, 2012). Leader traits reliably predict behavioral patterns
that followers can perceive and evaluate, which ultimately influence follower
work outcomes. At an empirical level, the notion that leader behavior serves as
a mediator of the effects of leader traits has been supported by several studies.
For instance, in their field study of midlevel managers, Cavazotte, Moreno, and
Hickmann (2012) showed that transformational leadership mediates the effects
8  Y. ZHU AND S. AKHTAR

of leader intelligence, personality traits (the Big Five) and emotional intelligence
on the achievement of organizational outcomes. Similarly, in a meta-analytical
test, DeRue et al. (2011) showed that leadership behavior (i.e. consideration,
initiating structure, and transformational leadership) mediates the relationships
between leader traits (i.e. intelligence, the Big Five personality) and employee
and group performance. In addition to the Big Five personality and intelligence,
other specific individual differences have been tested in relation to leadership
effectiveness. For instance, Huang, Krasikova, and Liu (2016) found that leader
creative self-efficacy has an indirect effect on employee creativity via leader
encouragement of creativity.
Drawing on these theoretical and empirical findings, it is reasonable to expect
that managerial openness mediates the relationship between leader learning orien-
tation and employee voice behavior. Learning-oriented leaders are more likely to
be receptive to diverse ideas and experiences that may even challenge their views
(Kroll, 1988). They also tend to proactively seek information and feedback from
followers to improve their managerial performance. These behavioral expressions
of learning-oriented leaders enhance follower perceptions of leader managerial
openness, making them believe that it is safe and worthwhile to speak up (Detert
& Burris, 2007; Morrison, 2014; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2012). As a result, fol-
lowers are likely to engage in voice behavior. Based on the preceding explanations,
we propose our mediation hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: Managerial openness mediates the relationship between leader trait
learning orientation and employee voice behavior

The moderating role of felt obligation for constructive change

Researchers have used two different but related theoretical perspectives to examine
the antecedents of voice behavior. The first perspective highlights the importance
of leader in influencing a follower’s voice calculus about whether it is worth-
while and safe to speak up. The second perspective focuses on prosocial moti-
vational states that enhance employees’ willingness to engage in voice behavior
(Morrison, 2011, 2014). Indeed, the two perspectives have made complementary
contributions to the voice literature by delineating different antecedents of voice
(Morrison, 2014). Recently, voice researchers have called for these two perspec-
tives to be adopted simultaneously within the same study. For example, Tangirala
and Ramanujam (2012) called for an examination of ‘how the effects of mana-
gerial behaviors on employees’ change-oriented behavior can … be moderated
by different employees’ beliefs and attitudes associated with work motivation’
(p. 252). Several recent attempts have been made to integrate these two approaches
(e.g. Gao, Janssen, & Shi, 2011; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2012), but most of them
tested the effects of general work attitudes (e.g. job satisfaction, trust in the leader)
rather than that of internal motivation. In this study, we propose felt obligation
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT  9

for constructive change as a form of prosocial motivation specific to the voice

domain that moderates the effect of managerial openness.
Felt obligation for constructive change, which refers to ‘the extent to which
employees are committed to developing new procedures and correcting prob-
lems in their organization’ (Liang et al., 2012, p. 73), has been recognized as an
important internal motivation that drives employees to reciprocate organizational
supportiveness by showing the desired behavior (Fuller, Marler, & Hester, 2006).
Employees with a high felt obligation for constructive change are likely to adopt
change-oriented behavior (e.g. voice), rather than cooperative, non-change-
oriented forms of behaviors, as a favorable and effective way to benefit the organ-
ization (Liang et al., 2012). Due to its pro-organizational and change-oriented
nature, felt obligation for constructive change has been widely tested as an effective
predictor of voice behavior (Morrison, 2014).
Building on the literature on voice behavior, we predict that the positive rela-
tionship between managerial openness and voice behavior becomes stronger
when felt obligation for constructive change is high. Specifically, managerial
openness sends cues to followers that it is safe and worthwhile to speak up
(Morrison, 2011). However, employees may not necessarily respond to this leader
behavior through voice, unless they have an internal motivation to benefit their
organization (Liang et al., 2012; Morrison et al., 2011). In general, employees with
a high felt obligation for constructive change are likely to read from leaders that
constructive and challenging ideas are encouraged and welcomed in work units,
and may then translate their pro-organizational motivation into voice rather
than other forms of citizen behavior (Liang et al., 2012). However, employees
with a low felt obligation for constructive change may lack the motivation to
offer inputs that could help their organization become more effective. These
employees may be less committed to their organization and thus relatively less
influenced by managerial attempts to elicit constructive ideas (Morrison et al.,
2011). In particular, employees with a low felt obligation for constructive change
may even take advantage of managerial openness by expressing contempt and
complaints (i.e. criticizing the organization’s policies or objectives), which may
have a dysfunctional effect on the organization (Maynes & Podsakoff, 2014).
Indirect support for these arguments can be taken from the observation of Liang
et al. (2012) that the effect of psychological safety (a critical psychological mech-
anism underlying managerial openness) on voice behavior is significantly weaker
when felt obligation for constructive change is low. Therefore, we propose the
following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4: Felt obligation for constructive change moderates the relationship
between managerial openness and employee voice behavior, such that the positive
relationship between managerial openness and voice is stronger among employees
with a high felt obligation for constructive change than for those with a low felt
obligation.
10  Y. ZHU AND S. AKHTAR

Method
Sample and procedure
We used a snowball sampling approach to collect data from a variety of companies
in a variety of industries (Martins, Eddleston, & Veiga, 2002). Working MBA stu-
dents in a large university in Southeast China were approached to serve as research
assistants for the data collection and 85 of them agreed. They were asked to contact
a supervisor and his/her followers from their own companies to fill out our survey.
Participation in the survey was voluntary. Eighty-five supervisors with 700 fol-
lowers from 85 different organizations were identified across the manufacturing,
technology, real estate, government, financial, retail, insurance, and transport
sectors. The research assistants were trained in data collection procedures (e.g.
standardized instructions) before distributing the surveys. Survey packets with a
cover letter guaranteeing confidentiality were then designed and distributed on
site by the research assistants to the supervisors and their followers. Followers
responded to the survey questions on managerial openness and felt obligation for
constructive change, and supervisors evaluated their own level of trait learning
orientation and the voice behavior of their followers. Both the supervisors and
followers were instructed to return the completed surveys in sealed envelopes
directly to the research assistants to ensure the confidentiality of responses.
After excluding incomplete or problematic questionnaires (e.g. with too many
missing data), our final data-set comprised 507 employees and 70 supervisors,
generating effective response rates of 72.43% for employees and 82.35% for super-
visors. On average, each supervisor rated 7.26 employees (ranging from 5 to 14).
The average age of the employees was 30.86 years, and 45.0% were male. Their
average organizational tenure was 4.0 years, and 3.9% of the employees had middle
school education, 23.9% had high school diplomas, 35.7% had technical college
or vocational degrees, and 40.5% had undergraduate or graduate degrees. Among
the 70 supervisors, the average age was 38.83 years and 65.7% were male. In terms
of education, 15.7% had high school diplomas, 22.9% had technical college or
vocational degrees, and 61.4% had undergraduate or graduate degrees.

Measures

Chinese versions of all of the measures were created following the commonly
used translation-back translation procedure (Brislin, 1980). Specifically, the items
were translated from English into Chinese by the first author. They were then
back-translated into English by a bilingual professor. The two English versions
were found to be semantically consistent, thus ensuring the equivalence of mean-
ings between the English and Chinese versions of the measures. These measures
are briefly described in the following sections.
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT  11

Leader trait learning orientation

We used Vandewalle’s (1997) five-item trait learning orientation scale (α = .90) (e.g.
‘I often look for opportunities to develop new skills and knowledge’). Vandewalle
(1997) defined goal orientation as an individual disposition and developed the
instrument specifically for work settings. The leaders were asked to indicate their
level of agreement with each of the five statements on a seven-point Likert-type
scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.

Managerial openness
The managerial openness scale was adopted from the study by Grant, Gino, and
Hofmann (2011). The followers were asked to evaluate their leaders on four items
(α = .82): ‘open to new ideas’, ‘receptive to suggestions’, ‘interested in our ideas’, and
‘rejected new ideas’. All of the items were measured on a seven-point Likert-type
scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.
We tested the within-group agreement for managerial openness, and obtained
a median value of .78. The interclass correlation (ICC1) estimate was .44, and the
ICC2 estimate was .85. These results met the levels of reliability and agreement
suggested in previous research (e.g. Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2012). Thus, we
aggregated the responses to the group level.

Felt obligation for constructive change

We used the five-item scale (α = .85) in Liang et al. (2012) to measure felt obligation
for constructive change (e.g. ‘I owe it to the organization to do whatever I can to
come up with ideas/solutions to achieve its goal’). The employees responded on a
five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

Voice behavior
The leaders rated their followers’ voice behavior using a four-item scale (α = .73)
from Tangirala and Ramanujam (2012) (e.g. ‘This employee made recommen-
dations for improving work procedures in the unit’). The leaders responded on a
five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

Control variables
At the individual level, we controlled for age, gender (0 = male, 1 = female), edu-
cation (1 = middle school, 2 = high school, 3 = technical college or vocational
degree, 4 = undergraduate degree, 5 = postgraduate degree), and organizational
tenure. Age, gender, and education were statistically controlled, as all of them
have been found to be related to employee voice behavior (LePine & Van Dyne,
1998; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2012). Organizational tenure was also included
as a control variable because it has been shown that the length of time employees
have worked in an organization is likely to influence their voice (Detert & Burris,
2007). Moreover, research has shown that gender (Sijbom et al., 2015a), age (Hirst
et al., 2011), and education (Hirst, Van Knippenberg, & Zhou, 2009) influence
12  Y. ZHU AND S. AKHTAR

the degree to which individuals are open to new ideas or information. Therefore,
we controlled for leader gender, age, and education at the group level, given their
potential effects on leader managerial openness.

Analytic strategy

As the followers in our sample were grouped with their leaders, we analyzed
the nested data using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) (Raudenbush, Bryk,
& Congdon, 2004). The level 1 variables included employee demographics, felt
obligation, and voice behavior; and the level 2 variables included leader demo-
graphics, leader learning orientation, and managerial openness. The final data-set
comprising 507 employees and 70 supervisors was sufficient for multilevel mod-
eling as previous research has suggested that the sample size at level 2 should be
50 or above to reduce biased estimates of the second-level standard errors (Maas
& Hox, 2005). Following Chen, Sharma, Edinger, Shapiro, and Farh (2011), we
used the grand-mean to center the variables when testing the cross-level direct
and mediating effects, but used the group-mean to center felt obligation for the
cross-level interaction test (Hofmann & Gavin, 1998). Consistent with previous
research (Liao & Rupp, 2005), we calculated the proportion of within-group var-
iance, i.e. R2within-group, explained by the model specification as compared with
the null model, and the proportion of between-group variance, i.e. R2between-groups,
explained by the model specification as compared with the null model. The total
variance, i.e. pseudo-R2, was calculated using the formula, R2within-group × (1-ICC1)
+ R2between-groups × ICC1, where ICC1 represents the proportion of variance in the
corresponding outcome variable that resided between groups. In addition to Baron
and Kenny’s (1986) procedure, we used the PRODCLIN program (MacKinnon,
Fritz, Williams, & Lockwood, 2007) to test for the mediation hypothesis, given
that this test provides accurate confidence intervals for mediated effects.

Results
Confirmatory factor analysis
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed on three individual-level
variables in the study to demonstrate construct distinctiveness. We compared
a baseline model (a three-factor model consisting of managerial openness,
felt obligation and voice behavior) with two alternative models. The results
presented in Table 1 show that the baseline model had a good fit (χ2 (62) = 125.86,
CFI = .98, TLI = .97, RMSEA = .05). The results reflected a significantly worse fit
for the two-factor model with managerial openness and felt obligation merged
into a single factor (Δχ2 (2) = 688.70, p < .01), and the one factor model with the
combination of all three constructs (Δχ2 (3) = 1019.31, p < .01).
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT  13

Table 1. Comparison of measurement models.

Model Factors χ2 df Δχ2 RMSEA CFI TLI
Baseline Model Three-factor model: MO, FO and 125.86 62 .05 .98 .97
VB
Model 1 Two-factor model: combined MO 814.56 64 688.70** .15 .71 .65
and FO
Model 2 One-factor model: combined all 1145.17 65 1019.31** .18 .59 .59
three constructs
Notes: RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index;
MO = managerial openness; FO = felt obligation for constructive change; VB = voice behavior.
**p < .01.

Descriptive statistics

The means, standard deviations, and correlations are presented in Table 2. The
statistics in the upper portion of the table pertain to the group-level analysis, and
those in the lower portion pertain to the individual-level analysis.

Hypotheses testing

To test our hypotheses, we first examined whether there was significant group
variance in employee voice behavior. For this purpose, we estimated a null model
in which no predictors were specified for either the individual-level or group-level
function to test the significance of the group-level residual variance of the inter-
cept. The results showed significant between-group variability (τ00 = .12, p < .01).
The ICC1 was .34, indicating that 34% of the variance in employee voice behavior
resided between the groups, and about 66% of the variance was within the groups.
Hypothesis 1 posited that leader learning orientation is positively related to
employee voice behavior. The HLM results for testing Hypothesis 1 are displayed in
Table 3 (Model 2). The results show that after we controlled for all of the variables
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and correlations.a
Group level variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5
1. Leader genderb .34 .48
2. Leader age 38.83 6.74 −.08
3. Leader education 3.59 .91 −.07 −.06
4. Leader learning orientation 5.71 .84 −.01 −.07 −.03 (.90)
5. Managerial openness (group 4.87 .79 .07 −.29* .04 .42** (.82)
level)
Individual level variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Genderb .55 .50
2. Age 30.86 7.05 .00
3. Education 3.16 .91 −.12* −.31**
4. Organizational tenure 4.00 3.64 −.01 .58** −.11*
5. Managerial openness (indi- 5.30 1.01 .01 −.08 .03 −.13** (.82)
vidual level)
6. Felt obligation for construc- 3.92 .57 .09* −.10* .17** −.18** .45** (.85)
tive change
**
7. Voice behavior 3.47 .60 .08 −.01 .04 .00 .30 .22** (.73)
a
N = 507 for individual level and N = 70 for group level. Internal consistency reliabilities appear in parentheses along
the diagonal.
b
Dummy variable: 0 = male, 1 = female.
*
p < . 05; **p < . 01.
14  Y. ZHU AND S. AKHTAR

at level 1 and leader demographics at level 2, leader learning orientation signifi-

cantly predicted employee voice behavior (γ04 = .16, p < .01).
Hypothesis 2 posited that leader learning orientation is positively related to
managerial openness. As leader learning orientation and managerial openness
are group-level variables, it was appropriate to test this hypothesis using
ordinary least squares regression analysis (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009). The
results revealed that after we controlled for the leader demographics, leader trait
learning orientation had a significant effect on managerial openness (β = .41,
p < .01, adjusted R2 = .21).
Hypothesis 3 posited that managerial openness plays a mediating role in the
relationship between leader trait learning orientation and employee voice behavior.
To test this hypothesis, we followed the three-step procedure of Baron and
Kenny (1986): (1) an independent variable has a significant effect on an outcome
variable; (2) an independent variable has a significant effect on a presumed mediator;
and (3) when the effects of the independent variable and mediator are ­considered
together, the mediator has a significant effect on the outcome variable, but the
path between the independent variable and outcome variable becomes non-
significant (complete mediation) or significantly weaker (partial mediation).
Because the first and second steps were tested in Hypotheses 1 and 2, we tested

Table 3. Hierarchical linear modeling results.a

Model 2: Model 3: Model 4:
testing main testing medi- adding
Model 1: effect of leader ating effect cross-level
Null adding level learning orien- of managerial interaction
Variables model 1 predictors tation openness effects
Level 1
 Genderb (γ10) .03 (.05) .03(.05) .03(.05) .03(.05)
 Age (γ20) .00 (.00) .00(.00) .00(.00) .00(.00)
Education (γ30) .03 (.03) .03(.03) .03(.03) .03(.03)
 Organizational tenure (γ40) .00 (.01) −.00(.01) −.00(.01) −.00(.01)
 Felt obligation (γ50) .17*(.06) .15*(.06) .12* (.06) .11*(.05)
Level 2
 Leader gender b (γ01) .04(.08) .03(.08) .05(.08)
 Leader age (γ02) .00(.01) .01(.01) .01(.01)
 Leader education (γ03) −.00(.04) −.01(.04) −.00(.05)
 Learning orientation (γ04) .16**(.04) .11*(.04) .11*(.05)
 Managerial openness (γ05) .13*(.05) .19**(.05)
Level 1 × level 2
 Managerial openness × felt .20**(.08)
obligation (γ51)

R2within-groupc .06 .06 .05 .06

R2between-groupsc .20 .32 .45 .43
pseudo-R2d .11 .15 .19 .19
Model deviance 827.47 834.60 843.70 845.18 841.64
a
N = 507 for individual level and N = 70 for group level. Unstandardized estimates are reported with standard errors
in parentheses.
b
Dummy variable: 0 = male, 1 = female.
c
Indicates the proportion of variance explained at each level.
d
Indicates R2within-group × (1-ICC1) + R2between-groups × ICC1.
*p < . 05; **p < . 01.
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT  15

whether the third requirement was met. As shown in Table 3 (Model 3), when
the effects of leader trait learning orientation and managerial openness were
considered together, the effect of managerial openness was significant (γ05 = .13,
p < .05), but the effect of leader trait learning orientation also remained significant
(γ04 = .11, p < .05), indicating partial mediation by managerial openness. To further
test the mediation hypothesis, we used the PRODCLIN program (MacKinnon
et al., 2007), which estimates a multilevel indirect effect and its bias-corrected to
the 95% confidence interval (CI). The results showed a significant indirect effect of
leader trait learning orientation on employee voice behavior through managerial
openness (indirect effect = .02, 95% CI [.004, .042]). Taken together, these results
provide partial support for Hypothesis 3.
Hypothesis 4 posited that employee felt obligation moderates the relationship
between managerial openness and employee voice behavior. To test this cross-level
interaction, we regressed the level-1 slope (i.e. the relationship between felt obliga-
tion and employee voice behavior) on the level-2 predictor (i.e. managerial open-
ness). As shown in Table 3 (Model 4), the cross-level interaction term between
managerial openness and felt obligation was significant (γ51 = .20, p < .01). To
further interpret this result, we calculated regression equations for the relationship
between managerial openness and employee voice behavior at high and low levels
of felt obligation. Following the procedure recommended by Preacher, Curran, and
Bauer (2006), we ran simple slope tests using a variance and covariance matrix
of the regression coefficients. Consistent with our expectation, the relationship
between managerial openness and voice behavior (see Figure 2) was stronger for
employees with a high felt obligation (simple slope = .30, Z = 4.91, p < .01) than
for those with a low felt obligation (simple slope = .08, Z = 1.67, ns). These results
support Hypothesis 4.

Figure 2. Interaction effect of managerial openness and felt obligation on voice behavior.
16  Y. ZHU AND S. AKHTAR

Discussion
The results of this study indicated that leader learning orientation was positively
related to employee voice behavior, and that managerial openness partially medi-
ated this relationship. These results are in line with the previous literature on how
leader traits are related to follower outcomes via leader behaviors (e.g. DeRue et
al., 2011; Dinh et al., 2014; Judge et al., 2009). Moreover, the results of the cross-
level interaction showed that felt obligation for constructive change moderated
the relationship between managerial openness and employee voice behavior, that
is, this relationship was positive only among employees with a high felt obliga-
tion for constructive change. The theoretical and practical implications of these
findings are discussed below.

Theoretical implications

First, our study extends the research on the effect of leaders on voice behavior by
showing a positive relationship between leader learning orientation and employee
voice behavior. Indeed, most of the existing studies examine how specific types
of leadership behaviors influence employee voice behavior, and few studies have
sought to identify leaders who are likely to engage in these types of behaviors
(Morrison, 2014; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009). Based on goal orientation
theory and the voice literature, our study indicated that leader learning orienta-
tion is a key source of leaders’ potential to facilitate employee voice behavior. In
general, learning-oriented leaders are likely to convey their own goal orientation
to followers through their modeled behavior and practices (Dragoni & Kuenzi,
2012). As a result, the leaders are likely to motivate their followers to take on
learning and challenging activities (e.g. voice behavior). In addition, given their
positive responses to others’ suggestions and ideas (Sijbom et al., 2015a), learning-
oriented leaders may send signals that voice is welcome so that followers conclude
that it is worthwhile and safe to speak up. Therefore, our study demonstrates
the importance of leader learning orientation for employee voice behavior and
suggests that continued attention should be given to other potential leader traits
in soliciting voice behavior.
Second, we combined the perspectives of leader traits and behavior to provide
a more comprehensive and nuanced view of how leaders influence employee voice
behavior. In line with the research on the effects of leader traits on follower out-
comes (e.g. Cavazotte et al., 2012; Huang et al., 2016), we predicted and found
that managerial openness (leader behavior) plays a mediating role between leader
trait learning orientation and employee voice behavior. Trait learning-oriented
leaders tend to proactively seek information from their followers and implement
new work practices and methods suggested by the followers. These behavioral
expressions of trait learning-oriented leaders enhance followers’ perceptions of
the leaders’ managerial openness, which in turn facilitates their voice behavior.
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT  17

This finding also suggests that leader traits and behaviors play different but com-
patible roles in affecting employee voice behavior (Huang et al., 2016). That is,
the trait-based approach identifies the sources of leaders’ positive influence on
employee voice behavior, whereas the behavioral approach delineates the specific
types of leader behavior that are perceived by followers, thereby influencing fol-
lowers’ internal states and behavior. In this sense, our finding represents a step
toward theoretically and empirically integrating the trait-based and behavioral
approaches to achieve a relatively integrated view of leader effectiveness with
respect to employee voice behavior.
Third, our study provides an explanation for the inconsistent findings on the
effect of managerial openness in the voice literature. Using the perspective of
prosocial motivation, we examined the boundary conditions under which mana-
gerial openness has different effects on voice behavior (cf. Detert & Burris, 2007).
Our results show that employees with a high felt obligation for constructive change
are more likely to respond to managerial openness by engaging in voice behav-
ior than those with a low felt obligation for constructive change. The internal
motivation to promote organizational functioning ensures that employees use
the open and safe environment appropriately to provide constructive and novel
ideas rather than complain or be overly critical (Liang et al., 2012). Given that felt
obligation is a form of internal motivation specific to voice domain, our finding
provides direct support for the notion that voice behavior is the result of decision
calculus combined with the motive to improve organizations (Morrison, 2014).
This finding also highlights the value of taking an interactionist perspective that
accounts for both situational factors (e.g. leader) and employee characteristics to
examine voice behavior.
Fourth, our findings contribute to the literature on leadership and goal orien-
tation by highlighting the value of learning orientation in enhancing leadership
effectiveness. Most of the studies on leader traits have been limited to the con-
ceptualization of individual differences such as the Big Five personality traits or
intelligence (Hoffman, Woehr, Maldagen-Youngjohn, & Lyons, 2011; Walumbwa
& Schaubroeck, 2009). However, DeRue et al. (2011) noted that the nature of
the leadership effectiveness criteria determines which specific leader traits are
relevant. Consistent with this notion, our study shows that with respect to the
effectiveness criteria that focus on change (e.g. employee voice behavior), leader
learning orientation is particularly important in a leadership model. Finally, we
cross-validate the effects of leaders on employee behavior in a non-Western culture
by conducting an empirical study in the Chinese context. China is a high pow-
er-distance country (Hofstede, 2001) where employees tend to have strong respect
for hierarchy and may be reluctant to express challenging ideas and suggestions
to those in authority (Li & Sun, 2015; Zhang, Huai, & Xie, 2015). However, our
findings suggest changing organizational culture and employee-employer relations
in Chinese organizations that lead toward greater convergence in managerial
practices, especially with respect to facilitating employee voice.
18  Y. ZHU AND S. AKHTAR

Practical implications

The findings of this study have a number of practical implications, especially for
Chinese organizations. First, our study shows that learning orientation as a trait
is an important predictor of employee voice behavior. Organizations wishing to
promote employee voice behavior should pay attention to this personality trait
when selecting individuals for leadership positions. It is noteworthy that although
we measured learning orientation as a trait, research has shown that trait- and
state-like learning orientation are likely to be associated with similar consequences
(Payne et al., 2007). Accordingly, organizations should also promote leader learn-
ing orientation through their socialization and training practices (Ames, 1992;
Dragoni, 2005). For instance, designing and assigning jobs that offer leaders rea-
sonable challenges may be a good way to develop a learning orientation (Ames,
1992). Organizations can also reward leader effort and improvement as cues and
inducements to promote leaders’ state-like learning orientation (Dragoni, 2005;
Papaioannou, Marsh, & Theodorakis, 2004).
Second, our finding on managerial openness as a mediator highlights its
importance in soliciting employee voice behavior. Accordingly, it is worthwhile
for organizations in need of employee ideas and suggestions to encourage and
promote managerial openness through a variety of human resources management
practices. Effective methods for shaping leader receptivity include assessing the
level of leader openness through a 360-degree feedback process, especially from
direct followers, and providing leaders with training on open communication
(Day, 2000; Detert & Burris, 2007).
Finally, our study further suggests that organizations should be aware that
merely selecting and developing appropriate leaders may not guarantee that
employees will speak up. The relationship between managerial openness and voice
behavior is significant only when followers have a high felt obligation for construc-
tive change. Leaders who want to improve follower voice behavior thus need to
ensure that their followers are highly committed to improving the organization.
Otherwise, the followers may misuse this freedom by expressing contempt and
unwarranted complaints (Maynes & Podsakoff, 2014). Therefore, organizations
and leaders should pay attention to fostering employees’ felt obligation for con-
structive change. It has been shown that felt obligation for constructive change
can be achieved by providing employees with resources to pursue constructive
change-oriented work activities and making them clearly understand the strategies
and objectives of the organization (Fuller et al., 2006).

Limitations and future research

This study is subject to limitations that should be considered in future research.

First, we measured only one kind of leadership trait – learning orientation.
Zaccaro (2007) proposed that leadership behavior and effectiveness are likely to
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT  19

be explained by multiple leader attributes. Thus, future research may consider

other traits that potentially influence managerial openness and follower voice
behavior. For instance, leaders with proactive personalities may convey their
own motivation to followers and thus initiate or enhance follower proactivity
(i.e. voice behavior) (Antonakis, Day, & Schyns, 2012). Future research could
include multiple leader traits within a single study and examine how they work
together to influence leadership effectiveness.
Second, our study did not take into account the boundary conditions under
which leader learning orientation has a greater or lesser effect on followers’ per-
ceptions of managerial openness. Antonakis et al. (2012) noted that the perception
of leaders is determined not only by the attributes of the leader but also by the
individual differences among followers. Similarly, Grant et al. (2011) observed
that extraverted leaders are less likely to be perceived as receptive to ideas and
suggestions by proactive followers. Thus, we suggest that research should explore
the individual differences among followers that may be key moderators of the link
between leader learning orientation and perceived managerial openness.
Third, the partial mediating role of managerial openness suggests the presence
of other mediation mechanisms between leader learning orientation and employee
voice behavior. For instance, leaders with a high trait learning orientation may
encourage followers to participate in developmental activities and implement new
work approaches (Dragoni, 2005; Preenen et al., 2014), which can contribute to
followers’ perceptions of intellectual stimulation, which is a main component of
transformational leadership (Bass, 2010). As such, it is possible that other types
of leader behavior (e.g. transformational leadership) may help to explain the link
between leader trait learning orientation and employee voice behavior. Thus,
other potential mediation mechanisms need to be tested to further illuminate the
influence of leader trait learning orientation.
Fourth, we did not examine our moderation hypothesis directly. We argued
that followers with a high felt obligation for constructive change are more likely
to translate their prosocial motive into voice behavior when they learn from their
leaders that it is safe and worthwhile to speak up, whereas those with a low felt obli-
gation for constructive change are less likely to respond positively to the favorable
context created by managerial openness. These underlying processes need to be
measured and tested directly to gain a deeper understanding of why employees
do or do not speak up.
Fifth, we did not control for some contextual and individual factors that have
been found to predict employee voice behavior, such as leader-member exchange
(Van Dyne, Kamdar, & Joireman, 2008) and employee Big Five personality (LePine
& Van Dyne, 2001). Future research may measure these variables to further
validate the linkages in our theoretical model.
Finally, we conducted our study in the Chinese context, which may raise the
issue of the generalizability of our conceptual model in other cultural contexts.
For instance, people are more likely to behaviorally express their traits when the
20  Y. ZHU AND S. AKHTAR

contextual influences are relevant to those traits (Tett & Guterman, 2000). The
Confucian-based values in China, which emphasize learning and self-develop-
ment (Gelfand, Erez, & Aycan, 2007), may be a relevant contextual factor for
the expression of trait learning orientation. Accordingly, it is possible that the
relationship between trait learning orientation and managerial openness is more
salient in the Chinese context than in other cultures. This possibility is worth
exploring in future research.

Conclusion
This study extends the research on the role of leaders in influencing employee
voice behavior by addressing the questions of what makes leaders more open to
employee voice and when leader openness behavior has a greater or less effect
on employee voice behavior. Drawing on goal orientation theory and the voice
research, our study reveals that leader trait learning orientation motivates leaders
to be open to followers’ ideas (i.e. managerial openness), and in turn increases
employee voice behavior. Our results further show that the effect of managerial
openness on voice behavior is positive only among employees with a high felt obli-
gation for constructive change. These findings have implications for organizations
aiming to enhance their employees’ voice behavior. Overall, organizations should
consider trait learning orientation as a criterion when filling leadership positions
and promote employees’ felt obligation for constructive change.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [71502164]
and Zhejiang Provincial National Science Foundation of China [LQ14G020001].

References
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84, 261–271. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261
Antonakis, J., Day, D. V., & Schyns, B. (2012). Leadership and individual differences: At the cusp
of a renaissance. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 643–650. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.05.002
Ashford, S. J., Blatt, R., & Walle, D. V. (2003). Reflections on the looking glass: A review
of research on feedback-seeking behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 29,
773–799. doi:10.1016/s0149-2063(03)00079-5
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, 23–57. doi:10.2307/2393590
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT  21

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive view.Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Bashshur, M. R., & Oc, B. (2014). When voice matters: A multilevel review of the impact of voice
in organizations. Journal of Management, 41, 1530–1554. doi:10.1177/0149206314558302
Bass, B. M. (2010). Two decades of research and development in transformational
leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 9–32.
doi:10.1080/135943299398410
Beck, J. W., & Schmidt, A. M. (2013). State-level goal orientations as mediators of the relationship
between time pressure and performance: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology,
98, 354–363. doi:10.1037/a0031145
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C.
Triandis & W. W. Lambert (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 349–444).
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Cavazotte, F., Moreno, V., & Hickmann, M. (2012). Effects of leader intelligence, personality
and emotional intelligence on transformational leadership and managerial performance.
The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 443–455. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.10.003
Chen, G., Sharma, P. N., Edinger, S. K., Shapiro, D. L., & Farh, J. L. (2011). Motivating and
demotivating forces in teams: Cross-level influences of empowering leadership and
relationship conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 541–557. doi:10.1037/a0021886
Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 581–613. doi:10.1016/
s1048-9843(00)00061-8
DeGeest, D., & Brown, K. G. (2011). The role of goal orientation in leadership development.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22, 157–175. doi:10.1002/hrdq.20072
DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N. E. D., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and behavioral
theories of leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity.
Personnel Psychology, 64, 7–52. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01201.x
DeRue, D. S., & Wellman, N. (2009). Developing leaders via experience: The role of
developmental challenge, learning orientation, and feedback availability. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94, 859–875. doi:10.1037/a0015317
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really
open? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 869–884. doi: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, 624–668. doi: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, 461–488. doi:10.5465/
amj.2011.61967925
Dinh, J. E., & Lord, R. G. (2012). Implications of dispositional and process views of traits
for individual difference research in leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 651–669.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.03.003
Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership
theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing
perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 36–62. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.005
Dragoni, L. (2005). Understanding the emergence of state goal orientation in organizational
work groups: The role of leadership and multilevel climate perceptions. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90, 1084–1095. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1084
22  Y. ZHU AND S. AKHTAR

Dragoni, L., & Kuenzi, M. (2012). Better understanding work unit goal orientation: Its
emergence and impact under different types of work unit structure. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 97, 1032–1048. doi:10.1037/a0028405
Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., Lawrence, K. A., & Miner-Rubino, K. (2002). Red light, green
light: Making sense of the organizational context for issue selling. Organization Science, 13,
355–369. doi:10.1287/orsc.13.4.355.2949
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41,
1040–1048. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.41.10.1040
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.
Psychological Review, 95, 256–273. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.95.2.256
Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383. doi:10.2307/2666999
Edmondson, A. C. (2003). Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote
learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1419–1452.
doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00386
Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational
Psychologist, 34, 169–189. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3403_3
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2×2 achievement goal framework. Journal of
Persaonlity and Social Psychology, 80, 501–519. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.501
Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A., & Gable, S. (1999). Achievement goals, study strategies, and
exam performance: A mediational analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 549–563.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.3.549
Fuller, J. B., Marler, L. E., & Hester, K. (2006). Promoting felt responsibility for constructive
change and proactive behavior: Exploring aspects of an elaborated model of work design.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 1089–1120. doi:10.1002/job.408
Gao, L., Janssen, O., & Shi, K. (2011). Leader trust and employee voice: The moderating role
of empowering leader behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 787–798. doi:10.1016/j.
leaqua.2011.05.015
Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annual
Review of Psychology, 58, 479–514. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085559
Gong, Y., Wang, M., Huang, J. C., & Cheung, S. Y. (2014). Toward a goal orientation-based
feedback-seeking typology: Implications for employee performance outcomes. Journal of
Management, 0149206314551797. doi: 10.1177/0149206314551797
Grant, A. M., Gino, F., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Reversing the extraverted leadership
advantage: The role of employee proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 528–550.
doi:10.5465/amj.2011.61968043
Gully, S. M., & Phillips, J. M. (2005). A multilevel application of learning and performance
orientations to individual, group, and organizational outcomes. Research in Personnel and
Human Resources Management, 24, 1–51. doi:10.1016/s0742-7301(05)24001-x
Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., Chen, C. H., & Sacramento, C. A. (2011). How does bureaucracy
impact individual creativity? A cross-level investigation of team contextual influences on
goal orientation-creativity relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 624–641.
doi:10.5465/amj.2011.61968124
Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., & Zhou, J. (2009). A cross-level perspective on employee
creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Academy of
Management Journal, 52, 280–293. doi:10.5465/amj.2009.37308035
Hoffman, B. J., Woehr, D. J., Maldagen-Youngjohn, R., & Lyons, B. D. (2011). Great man or
great myth? A quantitative review of the relationship between individual differences and
leader effectiveness. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 347–381.
doi:10.1348/096317909x485207
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT  23

Hofmann, D., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models:
Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24, 623–641. doi:10.1016/
s0149-2063(99)80077-4
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Huang, L., Krasikova, D. V., & Liu, D. (2016). I can do it, so can you: The role of leader creative
self-efficacy in facilitating follower creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 132, 49–62. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.12.002
Janssen, O., de Vries, T., & Cozijnsen, A. J. (1998). Voicing by adapting and innovating
employees: An empirical study on how personality and environment interact to affect voice
behavior. Human Relations, 51, 945–967. doi:10.1177/001872679805100705
Janssen, O., & Gao, L. (2013). Supervisory responsiveness and employee self-perceived status
and voice behavior. Journal of Management, 41, 1854–1872. doi:10.1177/0149206312471386
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Kosalka, T. (2009). The bright and dark sides of leader traits: A
review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm. The Leadership Quarterly, 20,
855–875. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.09.004
Kaufman, B. E. (2015). Theorising determinants of employee voice: An integrative model
across disciplines and levels of analysis. Human Resource Management Journal, 25, 19–40.
doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12056
Kim, H., & Yukl, G. (1995). Relationships of managerial effectiveness and advancement to self-
reported and subordinate-reported leadership behaviors from the multiple-linkage mode.
The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 361–377. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(95)90014-4
Kroll, M. D. (1988). Motivational orientations, views about the purpose of education,
and intellectual styles. Psychology in the Schools, 25, 338–343. doi:10.1002/1520-
6807(198807)25:3<338::aid-pits2310250316>3.0.co;2-5
Lam, C. F., & Mayer, D. M. (2013). When do employees speak up for their customers? A model
of voice in a customer service context. Personnel Psychology, n/a-n/a. doi:10.1111/peps.12050
Lebel, R. D. (2016). Overcoming the fear factor: How perceptions of supervisor openness lead
employees to speak up when fearing external threat. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 135, 10–21. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.05.001
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83, 853–868. doi: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, 326–336.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.2.326
Leung, K., Chen, T., & Chen, G. (2014). Learning goal orientation and creative performance:
The differential mediating roles of challenge and enjoyment intrinsic motivations. Asia
Pacific Journal of Management, 31, 811–834. doi:10.1007/s10490-013-9367-3
Li, Y., & Sun, J.-M. (2015). Traditional Chinese leadership and employee voice behavior: A cross-
level examination. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 172–189. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.08.001
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, 71–92.
doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0176
Liao, H., & Rupp, D. E. (2005). The impact of justice climate and justice orientation on work
outcomes: A cross-level multifoci framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 242–256.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.242
Maas, C. J. M., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. European
Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 1, 17.
MacKinnon, D. P., Fritz, M. S., Williams, J., & Lockwood, C. M. (2007). Distribution of the
product confidence limits for the indirect effect: Program PRODCLIN. Behavior Research
Methods, 39, 384–389. doi:10.3758/bf03193007
24  Y. ZHU AND S. AKHTAR

Martins, L. L., Eddleston, K. A., & Veiga, J. F. (2002). Moderators of the relationship between
work-family conflict and career satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 399–409.
doi:10.2307/3069354
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, 87–112. doi:10.1037/a0034284
Miele, D. B., & Wigfield, A. (2014). Quantitative and qualitative relations between motivation
and critical-analytic thinking. Educational Psychology Review, 26, 519–541. doi:10.1007/
s10648-014-9282-2
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, 1453–1476. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00387
Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research.
The Academy of Management Annals, 5, 373–412. doi:10.1080/19416520.2011.574506
Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology
and Organizational Behavior, 1, 173–197. doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091328
Morrison, E. W., Wheeler-Smith, S. L., & Kamdar, D. (2011). Speaking up in groups: A cross-
level study of group voice climate and voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 183–191.
doi:10.1037/a0020744
Papaioannou, A., Marsh, H. W., & Theodorakis, Y. (2004). A multilevel approach to motivational
climate in physical education and sport settings: An individual or a group level construct?
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 26, 29.
Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple
proactive behaviors. Journal of Management, 36, 633–662. doi:10.1177/0149206308321554
Payne, S. C., Youngcourt, S. S., & Beaubien, J. M. (2007). A meta-analytic examination of the goal
orientation nomological net. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 128–150. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.92.1.128
Porath, C. L., & Bateman, T. S. (2006). Self-regulation: From goal orientation to job performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 185–192. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.185
Porter, C. O. L. H., Franklin, D. A., Swider, B. W., & Yu, R. C.-F. (2016). An exploration of the
interactive effects of leader trait goal orientation and goal content in teams. The Leadership
Quarterly, 27, 34–50. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.09.004
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interactions
in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of
Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448. doi:10.3102/10769986031004437
Preenen, P., van Vianen, A., & de Pater, I. (2014). Challenging tasks: The role of employees’ and
supervisors’ goal orientations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23,
48–61. doi:10.1080/1359432x.2012.702420
Raudenbush, R., Bryk, T., & Congdon, R. (2004). HLM6. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software
International.
Sijbom, R. B. L., Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2015a). How to get radical creative ideas
into a leader’s mind? Leader’s achievement goals and subordinates’ voice of creative ideas.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24, 279–296. doi:10.1080/1359
432x.2014.892480
Sijbom, R. B. L., Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2015b). Leaders’ receptivity to subordinates’
creative input: The role of achievement goals and composition of creative input. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24, 462–478. doi:10.1080/135943
2x.2014.964215
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, 251–282. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01248.x
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT  25

Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-
situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in
Personality, 34, 397–423. doi:10.1006/jrpe.2000.2292
Tröster, C., & van Knippenberg, D. (2012). Leader openness, nationality dissimilarity, and
voice in multinational management teams. Journal of International Business Studies, 43,
591–613. doi:10.1057/jibs.2012.15
Van Dyne, L., Kamdar, D., & Joireman, J. (2008). In-role perceptions buffer the negative impact
of low LMX on helping and enhance the positive impact of high LMX on voice. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93, 1195–1207. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.6.1195
Vandewalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal
orientation instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 995–1015.
doi:10.1177/0013164497057006009
VandeWalle, D., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W., Jr (2001). The role of goal orientation following
performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 629–640. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.86.4.629
VandeWalle, D., Ganesan, S., Challagalla, G. N., & Brown, S. P. (2000). An integrated model
of feedback-seeking behavior: Disposition, context, and cognition. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85, 996–1003. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.996
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,
582–591. doi:10.1037/a0018315
Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits and employee voice
behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 94, 1275–1286. doi:10.1037/a0015848
Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based perspectives of leadership. American Psychologist, 62, 6–16;
discussion 43–17. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.6
Zhang, Y., Huai, M.-Y., & Xie, Y.-H. (2015). Paternalistic leadership and employee voice
in China: A dual process model. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 25–36. doi:10.1016/j.
leaqua.2014.01.002