Assumptions, Boundaries, and Final Notes on the Larger Model

LMX-quality at the time a suggestion or concern is voiced (or withheld). Thus, it assumes that when a message is voiced, the manager/subordinate relationship has already

developed, though the relationship may be partially based upon similarities/differences in manager/subordinate communication styles. Second, it is also assumed that both the manager and subordinate are fluent in a common language (the methods control for this, as well). Third, voice, in this study, is limited to messages communicated concerning matters over which the manager has some sense of control or attachment, rather than directed at organizational policies and procedures that are unrelated to the manager.

If one were to pull the two models (Figures 2.1 and 2.2) together, it may appear as if a subordinate’s communication style should affect his/her influence over managerial decisions because communication style helps to determine when/how voice is expressed. In this sense, promotive and prohibitive voice should each partially mediate the

relationship between subordinate communication style and influence over managerial decisions. Additional factors, such as stereotypes and relationship length, are outside the scope of the current dissertation but may be involved in the process as well.

Recall that hypotheses exploring one’s decision to voice were concerned with the subordinate’s perspective of his/her own voice behavior, whereas those exploring

influence were concerned with the manager’s perspective of the subordinate’s voice behavior. The partial mediation relationships should hold for both subordinate and manager perceptions of voice. In many cases, a manager will perceive a subordinate to have voiced if the subordinate perceives him/herself as having voiced (i.e., manager- and subordinate-perspectives of voice should agree). However, the two perspectives may be different (Burris et al., 2013), especially in the case of an indirect subordinate and a direct

manager. If the indirect subordinate uses silence, body language, subtle/encrypted messages, or subliminal cues to voice, he/she may perceive that he/she has voiced to the manager, though the manager may be completely oblivious to the voice attempt. In general, the manager is more likely to perceive the subordinate as having voiced a suggestion or concern when the subordinate is a direct communicator, as the indirect communicator may be perceived as remaining silent even when he/she has attempted to voice (i.e., when he/she uses indirect communication with a direct manager). Here, the manager can only make use of the voice (i.e., allow it to have influence) if he/she understands that it has been expressed. Thus, both manager and subordinate perceptions of voice behavior should mediate the communication style/influence relationship.

While the latter statement suggests that direct communicators are more likely to have influence over managerial decisions because they are, in general, more likely to practice voice behavior, we know from the discussions of the current chapter that this very broad generalization does not fully capture the expected relationships. For example, the direct subordinate who voices a prohibitive message to a low-quality LMX manager is likely to have little influence over decisions, just as the indirect subordinate may actually have more influence if he/she feels safety or obligation, and if the manager perceives LMX-quality to be high. Thus, the relationships involved here are more complex than simple partial mediation statements can capture; the mediated relationship depends on additional moderating factors.

Moderated mediation occurs when the independent variable, in general, affects the dependent variable through a mediating variable, but the indirect effect of the

Muller, Judd, & Yzerbyt, 2005). In the current study, subordinate communication style is expected to affect subordinate influence over managerial decisions through promotive and prohibitive voice. However, the strength of the indirect effect of communication style on influence is expected to depend on levels of LMX-quality (from both subordinate and manager perspectives), subordinate feelings of psychological safety and obligation, and manager communication style. In other words, voice and its subsequent influence cannot be predicted by subordinate communication style alone. Thus, this dissertation does not present specific mediation hypotheses concerning a larger model. According to the logic presented above, influence is most likely to occur when the relationship is perceived by both the manager and subordinate to be of high quality. Indirect subordinates may be just as influential as direct subordinates, if not more so, when they perceive LMX-quality, psychological safety, and/or felt obligation to be high.

Concerning the subordinate’s perspective, the hypotheses predict that perceptions of psychological safety and feelings of obligation for constructive change have a role in determining voice behavior. However, these constructs are not predicted to have an effect on the manager’s reaction to voice behavior. It may be that a manager who perceives that he/she has constructed a psychologically safe environment or who believes that he/she has pushed subordinates to feel a sense of obligation towards the organization will be more open to input from them. The manager’s perceptions of these factors may be intertwined with his/her communication style, as more direct cultural norms should influence expectations of an upward-feedback-friendly environment (Sully de Luque & Sommer, 2000). Thus, no specific predictions concerning manager perceptions of psychological safety and felt obligation are presented here.

CHAPTER 3