Individual Differences and the Voice Effect: The Moderating Role of Value of Voice

Group and Organization Management

Volumn 29, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 106-124

  Avery, Derek R ^a   Quiñones, Miguel A ^b  

^a SAINT JOSEPH S UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b RICE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Fairness; Procedural justice; Voice

Indexed keywords

EID: 0842346713     PISSN: 10596011     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1059601103252097     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Aguinis, H., & Stone-Romero, E. F. (1997). Methodological artifacts in moderated multiple regression and their effects on statistical power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 192-206.
2. Aguinis, H., & Whitehead, R. (1997). Sampling variance in the correlation coefficient under indirect range restriction: Implications for validity generalization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 528-538.
3. Avery, D. R., & Quiñones, M. A. (in press). Disentangling the effects of voice: The incremental roles of opportunity, instrumentality, and behavior in predicting procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology.
4. Baron, R., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
5. Barry, B., & Shapiro, D. L. (2000). When will grievants desire voice?: A test of situational, motivational, and attributional explanations. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11, 106-134.
6. Brockner, J., Heuer, L., Siegel, P., Wiesenfeld, B., Martin, C., Grover, S., et al. (1998). The moderating effect of self-esteem in reaction to voice: Converging evidence from five studies. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 75, 394-407.
7. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis in the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8. Cotton, J. L. (1995). Participation's effect on performance and satisfaction: A reconsideration of Wagner. Academy of Management Review, 20, 276-278.
9. Crampton, S., & Wagner, J. (1994). Percept-percept inflation in micro-organizational research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 67-76.
10. Cropanzano, R., & Konovsky, M. (1995). Resolving the justice dilemma by improving the outcomes: The case of employee drug screening. Journal of Business & Psychology, 10, 221-243.
11. Earley, P. C., & Lind, E. A. (1987). Procedural justice and participation in task selection: The role of control in mediating justice judgments. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 52, 1148-1160.
12. Folger, R. (1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of "voice" and improvement on experienced inequality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 108-119.
13. Folger, R., & Bies, R. (1989). Managerial responsibilities and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities & Rights Journal, 2, 79-90.
14. Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. London: Sage.
15. Folger, R., Cropanzano, R., Timmerman, T. A., Howes, J. C., & Mitchell, D. (1996). Elaborating procedural fairness: Justice becomes both simpler and more complex. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 435-441.
16. Harrison, D., McLaughlin, M., & Coalter, T. (1996). Context, cognition, and common method variance: Psychometric and verbal protocol evidence. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 68, 246-261.
17. Hunton, J., & Beeler, J. (1997). Effects of user participation in systems development: A longitudinal field experiment. MIS Quarterly, 21, 359-388.
18. Hunton, J., Hall, T., & Price, K. (1998). The value of voice in participative decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 788-797.
19. Hunton, J., & Price, K. (1997). Effects of the user participation process and task meaningfulness on key information system outcomes. Management Science, 43, 797-812.
20. Konovsky, M. A. (2000). Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 489-511.
21. Korsgaard, M. A., & Roberson, L. (1995). Procedural justice in performance evaluation: The role of instrumental and non-instrumental voice in performance appraisal discussions. Journal of Management, 21, 657-669.
22. Lepine, J., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 853-868.
23. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-54). New York: Plenum.
24. Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R., & Earley, P. C. (1990). Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 59, 952-959.
25. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.
26. Lowe, R. H., & Vodanovich, S. J. (1995). A field study of distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction and organizational commitment. Journal of Business & Psychology, 10, 99-114.
27. McFarlin, D. B., & Rice, R. (1992). The role of facet importance as a moderator in job satisfaction processes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 41-54.
28. McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 626-637.
29. McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1996). Does having a say matter only if you get your way? Instrumental and value-expressive effects of employee voice. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 18, 289-303.
30. Peterson, R. (1999). Can you have too much of a good thing? The limits of voice for improving satisfaction with leaders. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 313-324.
31. Price, K. H., Hall, T. W., van den Bos, K., Hunton, J. E., Lovett, S., & Tippett, M. J. (2001). Features of the value function for voice and their consistency across participants from four countries: Great Britain, Mexico, the Netherlands, and the United States. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 84, 95-121.
32. Quiñones, M. A. (1995). Pre-training context effects: Training assignment as feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 226-238.
33. Rice, R. W., Gentile, D. A., & McFarlin, D. B. (1991). Facet importance and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 31-39.
34. Sagie, A. (1995). Employee participation and work outcomes: An end to the dispute? Academy of Management Review, 20, 278-280.
35. Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (1997). Process and outcome: Gender differences in the assessment of justice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 83-98.
36. Tyler, T. R. (1994). Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 67, 850-863.
37. van den Bos, K. (1999). What are we talking about when we talk about no-voice procedures? On the psychology of the fair outcome effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 560-577.
38. van den Bos, K., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. (1996). The consistency rule and the voice effect: The influence of expectations on procedural fairness judgments and performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 411-428.
39. Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley.
40. Wagner, J. A. (1994). Participation's effects on performance and satisfaction: A reconsideration of research evidence. Academy of Management Review, 19, 312-330.
41. Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 247-252.