Linking emotional appraisal ability congruence of leader-followers with employee voice: The roles of perceived insider status and gender similarity

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.01121

Abstract

Abstract:

In recent years, employee voice has become a popular topic in organizational behavior research. However, existing research has failed to identify that voice is a risky behavior on the basis of employees and leaders’ appraisal of each other. Among the few studies that have examined the antecedents of voice behavior from employees or leaders, little attention has been paid to the interaction or mutual appraisal process between leaders and employees, leading to an incomplete understanding of the antecedents of voice. Hence, the present study attempts to broaden our understanding of improving voice behavior.

Specifically, based on theory of person-environment fit and conservation of resources, we suggest that emotional appraisal ability congruence between leaders and subordinates is an effective way to improve employees’ voice. Subordinates can make voice according to the observed changes in leaders’ emotions, and leaders can also set voice expectations according to the changes in subordinates’ emotions. Importantly, we highlight the role of perceived insider status as an important path. Interaction between leaders and employees can help employees develop a sense of mutual responsibility and thus strengthen the perception of insider status. Meanwhile, employees more likely to make voice to maintain insider status. Furthermore, we suggest that certain significant differences determine whether subordinates can perceive insider status in cognition and behavior between men and women. Therefore, this study constructs a moderated mediation model and analyzes the influential path and boundary of emotional appraisal ability congruence on employees’ voice from the gender similarity between leaders and subordinates.

To test our conceptual model, we collected samples in three phases at a monthly interval from multiple department employees and their direct leaders from four large manufacturing enterprises in Shandong, Shanghai, and Hong Kong of China. Through the paired questionnaire survey of 43 leaders and 182 subordinates, the data were tested by polynomial regression analysis, response surface analysis, and bootstrapping method. The results reveal that: (1) Four matching situations exist between leaders and subordinates’ emotional appraisal ability. Compared with “low leader and low subordinate” emotional appraisal ability congruence, employees’ perceived insider status is stronger in “high leader and high subordinate” emotional appraisal ability congruence; (2) Compared with “high leader and low subordinate” emotional appraisal ability in-congruence, employees’ perceived insider status is stronger in “low leader and high subordinate” emotional appraisal ability in-congruence; (3) Perceived insider status plays a mediating role among emotional appraisal ability congruence, promotive voice, and prohibitive voice; (4) When the gender between leaders and subordinates is different, the mediating effect of perceived insider status is stronger than when the gender is the same.

This study makes three main contributions to literature. First, responding to researchers’ recommendations in recent years, the study investigated the antecedents of voice behavior from the perspective of leader and subordinate congruence. Second, the research explained the effects of emotional appraisal ability congruence on voice, thereby enhancing our understanding of why employees respond to leaders with voice. Third, the study drew on theory of person-environment fit to highlight the boundary condition of gender similarity in the relationship between emotional appraisal ability and perceived insider status, clarifying when emotional appraisal ability congruence more likely or less likely leads to perceived insider status and thus enhancing voice behavior.

Key words: gender similarity between leader and follower, emotional appraisal ability, voice, perceived insider status, response surface analysis

LI Shuwen, LUO Jinlian. (2020). Linking emotional appraisal ability congruence of leader-followers with employee voice: The roles of perceived insider status and gender similarity. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52(9), 1121-1131.

Figures/Tables 8

References 52

1	Arvate P. R., Galilea G. W., & Todescat I . ( 2018). The queen bee: A myth? The effect of top-level female leadership on subordinate females. The Leadership Quarterly, 29( 5), 533-548. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.03.002 URL
2	Audenaert M., Carette P., Shore L. M., Lange T., Van Waeyenberg T., & Decramer A . ( 2018). Leader-employee congruence of expected contributions in the employee- organization relationship. The Leadership Quarterly, 29( 3), 414-422.
3	Cable D. M., & Edwards J. R . ( 2004). Complementary and supplementary fit: A theoretical and empirical integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89( 5), 822-834. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.822 URL pmid: 15506863
4	Capezio A., Wang L., Restubog S. L. D., Garcia P. R. J. M., & Lu V. N . ( 2017). To flatter or to assert? Gendered reactions to machiavellian leaders. Journal of Business Ethics, 141( 1), 1-11. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2723-0 URL
5	Chen L., Wang Z., Luo N., & Luo Z . ( 2016). Leader-subordinate extraversion fit and subordinate work engagement: Based on dominance complementarity theory. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 48( 6), 710-721. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2016.00710 URL
6	Costigan R. D., Insinga R. C., Berman J. J., Ilter S. S., Kranas G., & Kureshov V. A . ( 2006). The effect of employee trust of the supervisor on enterprising behavior: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Business & Psychology, 21( 2), 273-291.
7	Ding C. G., & Shen C. K . ( 2017). Perceived organizational support, participation in decision making, and perceived insider status for contract workers. Management Decision, 55( 2), 413-426. doi: 10.1108/MD-04-2016-0217 URL
8	Duan J., Li C., Xu Y., & Wu C. H . ( 2017a). Transformational leadership and employee voice behavior: A pygmalion mechanism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38( 5), 650-670. doi: 10.1002/job.v38.5 URL
9	Duan J., Shi J., & Ling B . ( 2017b). The influence of high commitment organization on employee voice behavior: A dual-process model examination. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 49( 4), 539-553.
10	Edwards J. R., & Cable D. M . ( 2009). The value of value congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94( 3), 654-677. doi: 10.1037/a0014891 URL pmid: 19450005
11	Edwards J. R., & Parry M. E . ( 1993). On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research. The Academy of Management Journal, 36( 6), 1577-1613.
12	Ellis A. M., Nifadkar S. S., Bauer T. N., & Erdogan B . ( 2017). Newcomer adjustment: Examining the role of managers’ perception of newcomer proactive behavior during organizational socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102( 6), 993-1001. doi: 10.1037/apl0000201 URL pmid: 28277724
13	Farh J. L., Hackett R. D., & Liang J . ( 2007). Individual-level cultural values as moderators of perceived organizational support-employee outcome relationships in China: Comparing the effects of power distance and traditionality. The Academy of Management Journal, 50( 3), 715-729.
14	Grant A. M . ( 2013). Rocking the boat but keeping it steady: The role of emotion regulation in employee voice. The Academy of Management Journal, 56( 6), 1703-1723. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0035 URL
15	Harvard Business Review. A leader with high EQ is the most enviable. August 23^rd, 2019, from https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/yWmIkpms9PnZYqWRKpYNlA
16	Huy Q. N . Who killed Nokia? Nokia did. September 22^nd, 2015, from https://knowledge.insead.edu/strategy/who-killed-nokia-nokia-did-4268
17	Jaffé M. E., Rudert S. C., & Greifeneder R . ( 2019). You should go for diversity, but I'd rather stay with similar others: Social distance modulates the preference for diversity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2016.07.009 URL pmid: 32174647
18	Kong M., Yuan Y., & Qian X . ( 2017). The influence of leader-member congruence in linking on work engagement and its mechanism. Nankai Business Review, 20( 6), 104-115.
19	Lanaj K., & Hollenbeck J. R . ( 2015). Leadership over-emergence in self-managing teams: The role of gender and countervailing biases. The Academy of Management Journal, 58( 5), 1476-1494.
20	Landau J. ( 1995). The relationship of race and gender to managers' ratings of promotion potential. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16( 4), 391-400. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1379 URL
21	Li J., Wu L. Z., Liu D., Kwan H. K., & Liu J . ( 2014). Insiders maintain voice: A psychological safety model of organizational politics. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31( 3), 853-874. doi: 10.1007/s10490-013-9371-7 URL
22	Li S., Luo J., & Liang F . ( 2020). Speaking your mind freely to insiders: The influencing path and boundary of ambidextrous leadership on employee voice. Foreign Economics & Management, 42( 6), 99-110.
23	Li Y., Zheng X., & Liu Z . ( 2017). The effect of perceived insider status on employee voice behavior: A study from the perspective of conservation of resource theory. Chinese Journal of Management, 14( 2), 196-204.
24	Liang J., Farh C. I. C., & Farh J. L . ( 2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two- wave examination. The Academy of Management Journal, 55( 1), 71-92. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0176 URL
25	Little L. M., Gooty J., & Williams M . ( 2016). The role of leader emotion management in leader-member exchange and follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 27( 1), 85-97. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.08.007 URL
26	Liu C., Ke X., Liu J., & Wang Y . ( 2015). The scene selection of the upwards ingratiation by the employees: An indigenous research. Nankai Business Review, 18( 5), 56-66.
27	Liu H., Liu S., Wang H., & Xu M . ( 2016). The influence of leader-follower value congruence in power distance on follower’ s performance and its mechanism. Nankai Business Review, 19( 5), 55-65.
28	Lu H., Zhou F., Wu T., Yan J., Shao Y., & Liu Y . ( 2019). The divergent effects of work stress on constructive voice and defensive voice: A cross-level of moderated mediation model. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51( 12), 1375-1385. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.01375 URL
29	Major D. A., Morganson V. J., & Bolen H. M . ( 2013). Predictors of occupational and organizational commitment in information technology: Exploring gender differences and similarities. Journal of Business & Psychology, 28( 3), 301-314.
30	Mcclean E. J., Martin S. R., Emich K. J., & Woodruff C. T . ( 2018). The social consequences of voice: An examination of voice type and gender on status and subsequent leader emergence. Academy of Management Journal, 61( 5), 1869-1891. doi: 10.5465/amj.2016.0148 URL
31	Mccoll-Kennedy J. R., & Anderson R. D . ( 2005). Subordinate- manager gender combination and perceived leadership style influence on emotions, self-esteem and organizational commitment. Journal of Business Research, 58( 2), 115-125.
32	Meindl J. R . ( 1995). The romance of leadership as a follower- centric theory: A social constructionist approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 6( 3), 329-341. doi: 10.1016/1048-9843(95)90012-8 URL
33	Molders S., Brosi P., Sporrle M., & Welpe I. M . ( 2019). The effect of top management trustworthiness on turnover intentions via negative emotions: The moderating role of gender. Journal of Business Ethics, 156( 4), 957-969.
34	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( 1), 183-191. doi: 10.1037/a0020744 URL pmid: 20718517
35	Ng T. W. H., Eby L. T., Sorensen K. L., & Feldman D. C . ( 2005). Predictors of objective and subjective career success: A meta- analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58( 2), 367-408.
36	Pelled L. H., & Xin K. R . ( 1997). Birds of a feather: Leader- member demographic similarity and organizational attachment in Mexico. The Leadership Quarterly, 8( 4), 433-450.
37	Peng J., & Wang X . ( 2016). I will perform effectively if you are with me: Leader-follower congruence in followership prototype, job engagement and job performance. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 48( 9), 1151-1162.
38	Richard O. C., Mckay P. F., Garg S., & Pustovit S . ( 2019). The impact of supervisor-subordinate racial-ethnic and gender dissimilarity on mentoring quality and turnover intentions: Do positive affectivity and communal culture matter? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30( 22), 3138-3165.
39	Ridgeway C. L . ( 2001). Gender, status, and leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 57( 4), 637-655. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00233 URL
40	Rupprecht E. A., Kueny C. R., Shoss M. K., & Metzger A. J . ( 2016). Getting what you want: How fit between desired and received leader sensitivity influences emotion and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 21( 4), 443-454. doi: 10.1037/a0040074 URL pmid: 26784688
41	Schuh S. C., Hernandez Bark A. S., Van Quaquebeke N., Hossiep R., Frieg P., & Van Dick R . ( 2014). Gender differences in leadership role occupancy: The mediating role of power motivation. Journal of Business Ethics, 120( 3), 363-379.
42	Sosik J. J., & Megerian L. E . ( 1999). Understanding leader emotional intelligence and performance: The role of self-other agreement on transformational leadership perceptions. Group & Organization Management, 24( 3), 367-390.
43	Stamper C. L., & Masterson S. S . ( 2002). Insider or outsider? How employee perceptions of insider status affect their work behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23( 8), 875-894.
44	Tsui A. S., & Egan T. D . ( 1992). Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37( 4), 549-579.
45	Wang H. J., Blanc P. L., Demerouti E., Lu C. Q., & Jiang L . ( 2019). A social identity perspective on the association between leader-member exchange and job insecurity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28( 6), 800-809.
46	Weiss H. M., & Cropanzano R . ( 1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18( 3), 1-74.
47	Weiss M., & Morrison E. W . ( 2019). Speaking up and moving up: How voice can enhance employees’ social status. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40( 1), 5-19.
48	Wong C. S., & Law K. S . ( 2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly, 13( 3), 243-274.
49	Xu Y., & Li C. P . ( 2018). How servant leadership influence employees’ voice? The role of trust in leadership and negative attribution. Human Resources Development of China, 35( 12), 6-17.
50	Zhang Z., Wang M., & Shi J . ( 2012). Leader-follower congruence in proactive personality and work outcomes: The mediating role of leader-member exchange. The Academy of Management Journal, 55( 1), 111-130.
51	Zhao H., Chen Y. H., & Zheng W. B . ( 2019). Social responsible human resource management perception and employee voice behavior: Based on the social exchange theory. Human Resources Development of China, 36( 9), 91-104.
52	Zhou J., & George J. M . ( 2003). Awakening employee creativity: The role of leader emotional intelligence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14( 4-5), 545-568.

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5
Level2
Leader emotional appraisal ability	2.00	0.34	(0.88)
Level1
1. Subordinate emotional appraisal ability	4.09	0.73	(0.89)
2. perceived insider status	4.14	0.78	0.42^**	(0.91)
3. Promotive voice	3.75	0.80	0.44^**	0.45^**	(0.88)
4. Prohibitivevoice	4.03	0.76	0.43^**	0.48^**	0.67^**	(0.93)
5. Gender similarities	0.40	0.49	-0.02	-0.07	-0.09	-0.10	NA

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5
Level2
Leader emotional appraisal ability	2.00	0.34	(0.88)
Level1
1. Subordinate emotional appraisal ability	4.09	0.73	(0.89)
2. perceived insider status	4.14	0.78	0.42^**	(0.91)
3. Promotive voice	3.75	0.80	0.44^**	0.45^**	(0.88)
4. Prohibitivevoice	4.03	0.76	0.43^**	0.48^**	0.67^**	(0.93)
5. Gender similarities	0.40	0.49	-0.02	-0.07	-0.09	-0.10	NA

Model	χ²	df	χ²/df	RMSEA	SRMR	CFI	NFI
Four-factor model	357.09	146	2.45	0.09	0.06	0.97	0.95
Three-factor Model	602.79	149	4.05	0.13	0.07	0.95	0.92
Two-factor model	706.88	151	4.68	0.14	0.08	0.93	0.91
Single-factor model	2045.91	152	13.46	0.26	0.13	0.85	0.83

Model	χ²	df	χ²/df	RMSEA	SRMR	CFI	NFI
Four-factor model	357.09	146	2.45	0.09	0.06	0.97	0.95
Three-factor Model	602.79	149	4.05	0.13	0.07	0.95	0.92
Two-factor model	706.88	151	4.68	0.14	0.08	0.93	0.91
Single-factor model	2045.91	152	13.46	0.26	0.13	0.85	0.83

Variables	perceived insider status
Variables	M1	M	M3
Intercept	4.03** (0.54)	3.48** (0.42)	3.62** (0.45)
Gender of employee	-0.17 (0.14)	-0.16 (0.10)	-0.23* (0.12)
Age of employees	-0.01 (0.13)	0.15 (0.09)	0.12 (0.11)
Education of employees	0.13 (0.09)	0.13* (0.07)	0.16* (0.07)
Gender similarity of leader-subordinate	-0.01 (0.15)	0.03 (0.11)	0.05 (0.12)
Age similarity of leader-subordinate	-0.01 (0.14)	-0.11 (0.11)	-0.02 (0.11)
Education similarity of leader-subordinate	-0.01 (0.21)	0.23 (0.16)	0.09 (0.17)
Leader emotional appraisal ability (L)		-0.22 (0.25)	-0.21 (0.16)
Subordinate emotional appraisal ability (F)		0.74** (0.06)	0.74** (0.09)
Leader emotional appraisal ability squared (L²)			-0.02 (0.05)
The interaction of lead and subordinate emotion appraisal ability (L×F)			-0.07 (0.26)
Subordinate emotional appraisal ability squared (F²)			-0.01 (0.06)
Congruence slope		0.52** (0.26)	0.54** (0.18)
Congruence curvature			-0.09 (0.27)
incongruence slope		-0.96** (0.26)	-0.95** (0.18)
incongruence curvature			0.05 (0.27)