Employee Voice Behaviour: Envisaging the Role of Ambidextrous Leadership and Employee Thriving
Humanizing Businesses for a Better World of Work
ISBN: 978-1-83797-333-0, eISBN: 978-1-83797-332-3
Publication date: 8 March 2024
Abstract
Purpose of This Chapter: This study examines the relationship of ambidextrous leadership with employee voice behaviour, underscoring the intervening role of employee thriving.
Design / Methodology / Approach: This study proposes a conceptual framework based on an extensive literature review using the conservation of resource theory, social exchange theory, and the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions.
Findings: This study demonstrates that employee thriving act as an underlying mechanism explaining the relationship between ambidextrous leadership and employee voice behaviour.
Research Limitations: Being a conceptual study, the proposed framework lacks empirical validation.
Practical Implications: Organizations should focus on leaders with flexible behaviours who understand situational necessities to adopt diverse leadership styles and contribute to employee thriving.
Originality: This is one of the first studies to propose the role of ambidextrous leadership in impacting and enhancing change in employee voice through employee thriving at work. By introducing a framework that delves into the unexplored territory of ambidextrous leadership, acting as a catalyst for enhancing employee voice via the lens of employee thriving. This study provides a fresh perspective and adds value to the evolving conversations around employee voice behaviour.
Keywords
Citation
Choudhary, S., Naim, M.F. and Peethambaran, M. (2024), "Employee Voice Behaviour: Envisaging the Role of Ambidextrous Leadership and Employee Thriving", Shrivastava, R. and Jain, K. (Ed.) Humanizing Businesses for a Better World of Work, Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 73-86. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83797-332-320241006
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2024 Shikha Choudhary, Mohammad Faraz Naim and Meera Peethambaran
Introduction
The organization’s dynamic and complicated external environment is getting increasingly demanding in today’s information economy. Enterprise growth is dependent not only on the leaders’ effectiveness but also on the competency of the employees (Chen et al., 2022; Naim & Lenka, 2017). Organizations cannot flourish in rapidly changing environment (Marques-Quinteiro et al., 2019). Consequently, academicians are interested in understanding ways to foster employees’ exploratory and exploitative behaviours (Bledow et al., 2009; Rosing et al., 2011). To deal with this challenge, current research suggests that leaders must exhibit both opening and closing leadership behaviours. The concept of ambidextrous leadership encompasses two complementary leadership behaviours. Opening leadership entails encouraging experimentation, independent thinking, and challenging conventional wisdom, whereas closing leadership entails establishing clear rules, taking decisive action, and tracking goal attainment (Zacher & Rosing, 2015; Zacher et al., 2016).
In a meta-analysis conducted by Rosing et al. (2011), it was highlighted that leaders at times need to exhibit a higher degree of opening leadership to inspire individuals to generate fresh and innovative viewpoints, while at other times, they must employ comparable levels of closing leadership to encourage employees to test their new views. Scholars have established that leaders can leverage their authority to directly introduce innovation and support their subordinates’ creative capacities to achieve organizational objectives (Johne & Harborne, 2003).
Certain organizations consistently prioritize soliciting employees’ opinions and actively encourage their contributions and insights. The existing literature emphasizes the significance of employee voices and internal communication channels (Yue et al., 2021). Past research demonstrate that employee voice fuels organizational innovation and competitiveness (Chamberlin et al., 2017). Consequently, academic attention has shifted towards exploring ways to encourage employees to express their opinions. Employees often remain silent due to the feared risks of speaking up. These risks can be categorized as psychological, resource depletion, and negative performance evaluations. Employee voice significantly impacts organizational success by influencing the quality of decision-making and team performance (Kooli, 2019). Leaders have traditionally played a significant role in employee development, motivation, and the advancement of organizational culture. A favourable state of personal development can be observed through employees’ motivation to thrive, which is exemplified by the simultaneous experience of two psychological states: vitality and learning (Spreitzer et al., 2005).
Previous research has primarily focused on employees thriving in physical office environments, highlighting the effects of various leadership approaches and perceptions of organizational support (Kleine et al., 2019). In light of this, we have incorporated the concept of ambidextrous leadership to investigate how this leadership motivates employees to thrive and speak up for the betterment of the organization.
When individuals have access to various sources such as informational resources, that foster discretionary decision-making, open information exchange, and an atmosphere of trust and respect, they have a higher propensity to act in agentic behaviours such as task attention, exploration, and attentive interpersonal interaction (Spreitzer et al., 2005; Spreitzer & Porath, 2014). However, Kleine et al. (2019) have noted that studies on what makes a person thrive at work are still in their infancy, and future research should emphasize effect of contextual factors such as leadership in enhancing voice behaviour.
This work adds to the burgeoning literature by creating a conceptual framework (see Fig. 6.1). We emphasize the significance of ambidextrous leadership in facilitating employee thriving, presenting a unique conceptual framework for understanding the potential impact of employee thriving at work on employee voice behaviour and shedding light on the determinants of employee voice behaviour.
Moreover, organizational success relies on individuals effectively mobilizing their resources within an appropriate organizational framework (Wallace et al., 2016). Building upon the conservation of resource (COR) perspective, we argue that contextual factors are essential in shaping the availability of resources to counteract the potential negative effects of employee voice. In this regard, we suggest that ambidextrous leadership, which integrates elements of transformative and transactional leadership, can facilitate resource acquisition and protection. It also shows employees that the organization appreciates their contributions and is concerned about their welfare (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). As a result, ambidextrous leadership mitigates the potential negative consequences of transactional leadership on employee voice by enhancing employee resources (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).
Numerous important concepts are added to the corpus of knowledge by this investigation. First, we propose a novel approach by analyzing ambidextrous leadership from the perspective of resource conservation, considering the potential role of employee thriving, and examining employee voice behaviour as an outcome. Second, the novelty of this chapter is anchored in the integrated framework of the study, which illustrates the linkages among ambidextrous leadership, employee thriving, and employee voice behaviour. Also, this research is one of the initial studies to link ambidextrous leadership and employee voice behaviour. By addressing this gap, we fulfil the need for research that explores novel approaches to how and when emergent leadership approaches interact with various factors to impact employee outcomes (Ahmed et al., 2021). Importantly, the study’s framework offers insights into the underlying mechanism (employee thriving) that links ambidextrous leadership and employee voice behaviour. Third, by threading these elements together, this study’s framework could potentially refine the paradigms of leadership research and employee voice behaviour.
Ambidextrous Leadership
Since the environment in which an organization functions is dynamic, it is difficult for any leader to stick to a particular leadership style. The changing contexts demand leaders to adjust and integrate traits of contrary and complementary leadership behaviour. The fundamental element of ambidextrous leadership is the ability to identify the logic-based objective truth of managerial activities’ disparities (Zacher & Rosing, 2015). Researchers have noted that leadership is crucial in fostering and enhancing innovative behaviour (e.g. Chen et al., 2014; Kark et al., 2018). Thus, there is a need to analyze how ambidextrous leadership can influence proactive and innovative employee behaviour. We have considered the ambidextrous leadership style, in particular, to understand how this will impact employees thriving at work leading to employee voice behaviour.
Employees Thriving at Workplace
Thriving involves experiencing a sense of vitality and learning while working (Spreitzer et al., 2005). The terms ‘vitality’ and ‘positive feeling of having energy’ are interchangeable. Learning is defined as a person’s development through acquiring new and valuable skills (Spreitzer & Hwang, 2019). An employee thriving at work feels energized and has the capacity to continuously acquire new information and abilities (Spreitzer et al., 2005). As such, thriving encourages personal development as well as constructive behaviour in both work and life (Bugental, 2004), for instance, corporate citizenship behaviour (Porath et al., 2012), creative conduct, and professional advancement in work (Wallace et al., 2016). Leaders and their traits have been identified as important contextual elements influencing employees’ attitudes and behaviours in contemporary organizations (Hoch et al., 2018). In terms of thriving, learning and the feeling of vitality are fostered through social engagement, particularly when supportive leadership is present (Paterson et al., 2014). In the current work, we purport that ambidextrous leadership’s dual characteristics will impact employees in a way that encourages their thriving at the workplace, in turn translating into voice behaviour.
Employee Voice Behaviour
Voice behaviour refers to behaviour outside of one’s role in which individuals voluntarily discuss ideas, bring up work-related problems, and bad decision-making with their superiors (Ran & Zhou, 2020). Voice behaviour is viewed as proactive work behaviour with the intention of improving the current circumstance. It refers to employees’ ideas, solutions, or worries about challenges at work and is communicated informally, independently, and in an upward manner (Jia et al., 2020). Voice behaviour is classified in different ways. One of them is understood as a promotive and prohibitive voice (Liang et al.,2012).
Engaging in voice behaviour, employees can be seen as displaying a certain type of proactive behaviour to speak out and challenging the status quo (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998), which indicates that they are capable of altering and managing the existing environment. When employees are aware that they are a part of the organization, they provide favourable evaluations and willing to engage in behaviours that are advantageous to the organization (such as voice behaviour), even though these behaviours are difficult and risky (Hu & Jiang, 2016).
Conceptual Framework and Propositions
Ambidextrous Leadership and Employee Thriving at Work
Scholars define two behaviours (complimentary and contradictory) as ambidextrous leadership (AL) behaviour (Li et al., 2020). Ambidextrous leadership embraces the complexity of thoughts and behaviours and can adapt behavioural techniques in response to changes in the external environment. AL also emphasizes the application of ‘flexibility and control,’ ‘low cost and differentiation,’ and other seemingly opposed but complementary behaviours, which can be categorized as transformational and transactional (Jiang et al., 2023). Transformational leaders have the willingness to promote and highlight the autonomy of the intellect, take note of pioneering spirits, and actively support employees to shatter the boundaries of the established system, maximize their intellectual capacity, and support employees in establishing higher life goals. Transactional leaders focus on the belief that incentives should be increased for employees and work goals should be achieved by rewards and punishments. To respond quickly to changes in the external environment, businesses must have adaptable organizational structures and leadership styles (Martínez et al., 2019). It is challenging to adequately fulfil the diverse needs of an innovative process with a single leadership strategy and dogmatic ideals (Stojcic et al., 2018). In essence, ambidextrous leadership influences the workplace environment of employees, provides them with the resources they need to do their jobs well, and boosts their motivation. According to Zacher and Rosing (2015), ambidextrous leadership comprises three components: (a) leadership opening behaviours to foster exploration; (b) leadership shutting behaviours to foster exploitation; and (c) flexibility and adaptation to move between both as the situation necessitates. The behavioural elements of ambidextrous leadership foster employees’ active participation in organizational activities with efficient resource support, which positively affects employees’ well-being. From the standpoint of fostering a positive working environment and boosting employees’ thriving at work, ambidextrous leadership offers favourable conditions for employees thriving at work. Parallelly, it successfully combats the over-conservation of transactional leadership’s effects, suppressing employees’ sense of independence and creative thinking, From the standpoint of external incentives and chaos brought on by the excessive activism of transformational leadership, such leadership offers a certain level of motivation for employees to learn and thrive in the workplace. Ambidexterity in leadership is viewed as a paradox whereby its components, exploration and exploitation, produce ongoing demands in organization that contradict one another (Koryak et al., 2018). The degree to which an individual would feel driven in a stressful or resource-constrained setting is known as a paradox mindset (Liu et al., 2020). According to Liu et al. (2020), the impact of a paradoxical mentality on employees’ ability to develop creative output through employee thriving has been investigated. A contextual facilitator of employee behaviours is an ambidextrous leadership style. Thus, we propose that ambidextrous leadership is a contextual resource conservation leadership that influences the available resources that employee possesses (Halbesleben, 2006), in contributing to employee thriving (Ghoshal et al., 1999). Thus, drawing upon the aforementioned arguments, we propose that:
P1. Ambidextrous leadership will be positively related to employees thriving at work.
Employee Thriving at Work and Employee Voice Behaviour
Thriving is a positive and activated psychological state. Employees thriving at work are viewed in terms of their experience of learning and vitality. Vitality is defined as a feeling of liveliness and activeness. Learning is expressed as acquiring the required knowledge and skills to impact the behaviour of employees in the long term with the hope of improving oneself (Spreitzer et al., 2012). These two dimensions of thriving are expressed as affective and cognitive components of psychological experience (Porath et al., 2012). Therefore, thriving employees will speak out when there is a problem (Liu & Zhou, 2023).
According to prior research, employees can experience vitality when they feel competent and are exposed to novelty (Cangiano et al., 2019). Besides this, voice behaviour is deliberate, proactive, and planned; employees understand the risks and costs related to voice behaviour using cues gleaned from observations made at work (Milliken et al., 2003). Singh et al. (2016), based on the characteristics of the voice, divided it into prohibitive and promotive voices. Promoting voice conduct is more geared towards changing the organization’s status quo through some fresh perspectives, making it more palatable to stakeholders. Prohibitive voice behaviour mostly focuses on ineffective work practices, rules, or policies that could lead to disagreements and undermine interpersonal harmony inside the organization (Chamberlin et al., 2017). Both voice conduct patterns need extra time and effort, making them difficult and risky (Song et al., 2019). As a result, when individual senses a particular level of risk in their voice behaviour, they are less motivated to express it (Liao et al., 2022).
Thus, the employees will try to engage in more silent behaviour. Employees experiencing thriving at the workplace might be able to reduce this feeling of fear that evolves into silent behaviour (Xu et al., 2022). Employee thriving represents the ability to generate different ideas and viewpoints to improve current organizational work and enhance organizational competitive advantage in the external environment. Moreover, deriving from Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and Frederickson’s (2001) broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions, it is argued that employees thriving at work experience positive emotions resulting in cognitive capability enhancement, motivating them to speak up. Employees with enhanced cognitive capability and positive emotions will likely exhibit voice behaviour in the workplace (Smidts et al., 2001). Thriving, a positive psychological state in employees would impact their intrinsic motivation to take actions that are advantageous to the organization, such as extra-role behaviours (voice behaviour) (Yousaf et al., 2019). Thus, thriving employees will take the initiative to share their opinions. The legitimacy and equity of resource distribution can also be evaluated in terms of incentives and act as a valuable tool for employees that strengthens their sense of loyalty to their employers. This is grounded on the notion that organizations control the ability to reward and punish, allocate resources, and create possibilities for advancement. Therefore, employees will decide to avoid such behaviours if they believe they are being perceived as threats or their behaviour could result in resource losses and life-changing events like being demoted, transferred, or fired (Morrison & Milliken, 2000).
Consequently, building on the resource conservation perspective (Halbesleben et al., 2014), individuals are driven first and foremost to prevent the loss of already-obtained resources (i.e. conservation) and then to gain or acquire additional resources (i.e. acquisition) to prevent further resource loss (Halbesleben & Buckley, 2004). However, employees are willing to exhibit extra-role behaviours like voice behaviour when they are particularly in a good frame of mind (Employee thriving). Additionally, voice behaviour refers to employees expressing their opinions regarding organizational development, and they need to come up with fresh concepts and innovative tactics (Farh et al., 2010). Thus, employee voice can assist in engaging in innovative behaviours to address present organizational issues or find future prospects; both of these behaviours will only be exhibited if the employee are in a positive psychological state, i.e. employee thriving. Therefore, we propose that:
P2. Employee thriving at work will be positively related to employee voice behaviour.
Meditating role of employee thriving
We propose that the relationship between ambidextrous leadership and employee voice behaviour is mediated by the employee thriving at work. Based on the foundations of COR, employees want to amass, preserve, safeguard, and build resources. Additionally, it has been asserted that in situations with equal resources, resource loss affects people more adversely than resource gain (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll et al., 2018). Employee voice behaviour is resource-threatening (Ng & feldman, 2012), as it involves losses of resources, negative performance feedback, and other difficulties that the employees might face. Therefore, we conceptualize ambidextrous leadership as affecting employee innovation behaviour (Jiang et al., 2023) and motivating employees (Webb, 2007). Thus, encouraging employees to speak while safeguarding their current resources. Such leaders also create an organizational culture that protects employee resources. This leadership style is sufficient to impact the positive psychological state of the employees. This positive psychological state of employees (thriving) will be positively related to employee voice behaviour. Such employees will be more likely to behave proactively (Porath & Bateman, 2006). Thus, such employees will be more willing to take the initiative (Spreitzer & Sutcliffe, 2007) and share their ideas. Thriving employees are identified as fervently enthusiastic (Nix et al., 1999) and are well-equipped to share their opinions and suggestions (Xu et al., 2022). Thus, we propose that:
P3. Employee thriving at work will mediate the positive relationship between ambidextrous leadership and employee voice behaviour.
Methodology
This research used the literature review method to summarize the extant literature. To gather relevant research articles, well-known databases including Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science were used. The review included theoretical and empirical articles published in peer-reviewed journals. The references in recently published articles were systematically examined to identify those articles which had been cited frequently. Our literature search criteria comprised individual and collective keywords, such as ‘ambidextrous leadership’, ‘employee voice behaviour,’ ‘voice behaviour,’ ‘employee thriving at work,’ and ‘employee thriving’. We utilized the following inclusion and exclusion criteria to determine the articles should be included. Inclusion criteria included studies on ambidextrous leadership in an organizational context published in English. Studies written in languages other than English were excluded. We limited our search to articles and reviews and excluded book chapters and conference proceedings. The majority of articles were sourced from reputable peer-reviewed journals in business management-related fields and organizational psychology, such as Journal of Applied Psychology, Asian Pacific Journal of Management, Leadership and Organizational Developmental Journal, The Leadership Quarterly, Personnel Psychology, Frontiers in Psychology, International Journal of Strategic Communication, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Business Communication, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Journal of Management, The Journal of Creative Behaviour, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Organizational Dynamics, Sustainability, and Human Resource Management Journal. This is because all of these journals are devoted to the discipline of HRM and psychology. Moreover, the articles from these journals support our arguments on the proposed conceptual framework.
Discussion
This conceptual study is aimed at explaining the dynamics between ambidextrous leadership, employee thriving, and voice behaviour within organizational contexts by integrating three prominent theories: Conservation of Resources Theory (COR), Social Exchange Theory (SET), and the Broaden and Build Theory of Positive Emotions (BBT). Integrating COR, SET, and BBT enhances our understanding of how ambidextrous leadership impacts employee thriving. Through providing valuable resources and fostering a trusting relationship, ambidextrous leaders trigger a sense of obligation among employees to reciprocate and elucidate the role of positive emotions in the relationship. In this sense, the central premise of our conceptual framework is that ambidextrous leadership foster employee thriving. The link between employee thriving and enhanced employee voice behaviour aligns with theories (COR, SET, and BBT) that underscore the significance of positive psychological states in promoting proactive behaviours. Thriving employees experience high levels of vitality, learning, and development are more likely to be willing to voice their opinions, concerns, and ideas (Liu & Zhou, 2023). Therefore, organizations with ambidextrous leaders are more likely to make employees thrive in the workplace, ultimately fostering employees’ voice behaviour. This not only enhances our understanding of the mechanisms underlying employee voice behaviour but also highlights the role of leadership in shaping a supportive context for promoting voice behaviour.
Implications
The study expands the literature on leadership styles, particularly ambidextrous leadership, employee thriving, and employee voice behaviour. Numerous scholars have studied the effect of ambidextrous leadership on various other employee outcomes in the literature rather than thriving and employee voice. The fundamental mechanisms between ambidextrous leadership with thriving-at-work have not yet been studied. This study is one of the first studies to offer perspectives on how ambidextrous leadership affects employee voice behaviour through employee thriving at work. Thus, by introducing employee thriving that involves the feeling of vitality and learning for highlighting how ambidextrous leadership can favourably influence employees’ voice behaviour, our study has made noteworthy contributions to expanding the literature on ambidextrous leadership. By threading these elements together, this chapter pioneers a conceptual framework that could reshape the paradigm of leadership research and offer fresh insights into how organizations can foster employee voice behaviour.
From the managerial vantage point, the integrative framework of the study provides implications for leaders, employees, and organizations on enhancing employee voice behaviour through ambidextrous leadership. Leaders can enhance employees to thrive higher in a workplace and motivation to speak up by adopting ambidextrous leadership. This type of leadership can also help leaders decide the behaviours needed in different situations. To reduce employee risk when they speak and help them conserve their resources while they work, leaders need to understand that no particular behaviour can be applied in every situation to motivate employees and make them feel safe. Therefore, it is suggested that organizations should implement specific training programs to bolster ambidextrous behaviour of their leadership team.
Research Limitations and Future Scope
Firstly, being a conceptual chapter, this study lacks empirical validation. Future researchers should empirically test this framework in different organizational and cultural settings. Employing a mixed-method approach could offer a comprehensive understanding of the proposed framework. The approach would enable the incorporating of quantitative data and qualitative insights to provide a more holistic view of the studied relationships. Secondly, the present study utilized a single leadership style, i.e. ambidextrous, to enhance employee voice behaviour. We invite future researchers to consider other emerging leadership behaviours, including humble leadership, servant leadership, and strategic leadership styles. Thirdly, the current conceptual framework can be further studied by incorporating variables including organizational trust, organizational climate, power distance, and leader–member exchange. Also, researchers can explore a new underlying mechanism connecting ambidextrous leadership and employee voice behaviour by using another theoretical framework like the AMO (ability, motivation, and opportunities) framework. Finally, it is recommended that future research be undertaken to examine the potential effect of ambidextrous leadership and employee thriving on employee wellbeing-related constructs such as employees’ flourishing at work (Naim & Ozyilmaz, 2022).
Conclusion
This conceptual study is developed to explore the relationship between ambidextrous leadership, employee thriving, and employee voice behaviour. By synthesizing the insights from the conservation of resource theory, social exchange theory and broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions, a conceptual framework is developed that sheds light on the potential relationship between the study variables. The amalgamation of these theories offers a holistic perspective on how ambidextrous leadership fosters resource protection and acquisition, thus promoting employee thriving. This in turn facilitates proactive behaviours such as employee voice behaviour. The proposed conceptual framework serves as a valuable tool for modern organizations to navigate the complexities of the contemporary turbulent business landscape.
References
Ahmed Iqbal, Z., Abid, G., Arshad, M., Ashfaq, F., Athar, M. A., & Hassan, Q. (2021). Impact of authoritative and laissez-faire leadership on thriving at work: The moderating role of conscientiousness. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 11(3), 667–685. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe11030048
Blau, P. M. (1964). Justice in social exchange. Sociological inquiry, 34(2), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1964.tb00583.x
Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., & Farr, J. (2009). A dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(3), 305–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01154.x
Bugental, D. B. (2004). Thriving in the face of early adversity. Journal of Social Issues, 60(1), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00108.x
Cangiano, F., Parker, S. K., & Yeo, G. B. (2019). Does daily proactivity affect well-being? The moderating role of punitive supervision. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(1), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2321
Chamberlin, M., Newton, D. W., & Lepine, J. A. (2017). A meta-analysis of voice and its promotive and prohibitive forms: Identification of key associations, distinctions, and future research directions. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 11–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12185
Chen, X. P., Eberly, M. B., Chiang, T. J., Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. (2014). Affective trust in Chinese leaders: Linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance. Journal of Management, 40(3), 796–819. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410604
Chen, H., Wang, L., & Li, J. (2022). How can servant leadership promote employees’ voice behavior? A moderated chain mediation model. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 938983. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.938983
Farh, J. L., Lee, C., & Farh, C. I. (2010). Task conflict and team creativity: A question of how much and when. Journal of applied psychology, 95(6), 1173. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020015
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American psychologist, 56(3), 218. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218
Halbesleben, J. R., & Buckley, M. R. (2004). Burnout in organizational life. Journal of management, 30(6), 859–879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.004
Halbesleben, J. R. (2006). Sources of social support and burnout: A meta-analytic test of the conservation of resources model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1134–1145. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1134
Halbesleben, J. R., Neveu, J. P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., & Westman, M. (2014). Getting to the “COR” understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1334–1364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527130
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
Hobfoll, S. E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J. P., & Westman, M. (2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behaviour, 5(1), 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640
Hoch, J. E., Bommer, W. H., Dulebohn, J. H., & Wu, D. (2018). Do ethical, authentic, and servant leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership? A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 44(2), 501–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316665461
Hu, X., & Jiang, Z. (2016). Employee-oriented HRM and voice behavior: A moderated mediation model of moral identity and trust in management. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(5), 746–771. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2016.10731abstract
Jia, J., Zhou, S., Zhang, L., & Jiang, X. (2020). Exploring the influence of paternalistic leadership on voice behavior: A moderated mediation model. Employee Relations: The International Journal, 42(2), 542–560. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ER-06-2019-0263
Jiang, Y., Asante, D., Zhang, J., & Ampaw, E. M. (2023). The influence of ambidextrous leadership on the employee innovative behaviour: An empirical study based on Chinese manufacturing enterprises. Current Psychology, 42(11), 9452–9465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02233-1
Jia, J., Zhou, S., Zhang, L., & Jiang, X. (2020). Exploring the influence of paternalistic leadership on voice behavior: A moderated mediation model. Employee Relations: The International Journal, 42(2), 542–560. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ER-06-2019-0263
Johne, A., & Harborne, P. (2003). One leader is not enough for major new service development: results of a consumer banking study. Service Industries Journal, 23(3), 22–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/714005112
Kark, R., Van Dijk, D., & Vashdi, D. R. (2018). Motivated or demotivated to be creative: The role of self-regulatory focus in transformational and transactional leadership processes. Applied Psychology, 67(1), 186–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12122
Kleine, A. K., Rudolph, C. W., & Zacher, H. (2019). Thriving at work: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(9-10), 973–999. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2375
Kooli, C. (2019). Governing and managing higher education institutions: The quality audit contributions. Evaluation and Program Planning, 77(1), 101713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2019.101713
Koryak, O., Lockett, A., Hayton, J., Nicolaou, N., & Mole, K. (2018). Disentangling the antecedents of ambidexterity: Exploration and exploitation. Research Policy, 47(2), 413–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.12.003
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behaviour in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 853–868. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.83.6.853
Li, S., Jia, R., Seufert, J. H., Wang, X., & Luo, J. (2020). Ambidextrous leadership and radical innovative capability: The moderating role of leader support. Creativity and Innovation Management, 29(4), 621–633. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12402
Liang, J., Farh, C. I., & Farh, J. L. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0176
Liao, G., Zhou, J., & Yin, J. (2022). Effect of organizational socialization of new employees on team innovation performance: A cross-level model. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 15(1), 1017–1031. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S359773
Liu, Y., Xu, S., & Zhang, B. (2020). Thriving at work: How a paradox mindset influences innovative work behaviour. The Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 56(3), 347–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886319888267
Liu, Q., & Zhou, H. (2023). Impact of self-leadership on employee voice behavior: A moderated mediating model. Current Psychology, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04407-5
Marques-Quinteiro, P., Vargas, R., Eifler, N., & Curral, L. (2019). Employee adaptive performance and job satisfaction during organizational crisis: The role of self-leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2018.1551882
Martínez-Climent, C., Rodríguez-García, M., & Zeng, J. (2019). Ambidextrous leadership, social entrepreneurial orientation, and operational performance. Sustainability, 11(3), 890–905. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030890
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(6), 1453–1476. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00387
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706–725. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.3707697
Naim, M. F., & Lenka, U. (2017). Investigating the impact of social media on Gen Y employees’ engagement: An Indian perspective. International Journal of Human Capital and Information Technology Professionals (IJHCITP), 8(3), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJHCITP.2017070103
Naim, M. F., & Ozyilmaz, A. (2022). Flourishing-at-work and turnover intentions: Does trust in management moderate the relationship? Personnel Review, 52(7), 1878–1899. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-09-2020-0715
Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2012). Employee voice behavior: A meta-analytic test of the conservation of resources framework. Journal of Organizational behavior, 33(2), 216–234. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.754
Nix, G. A., Ryan, R. M., Manly, J. B., & Deci, E. L. (1999). Revitalization through self-regulation: The effects of autonomous and controlled motivation on happiness and vitality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(3), 266–284. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1999.1382
Paterson, T. A., Luthans, F., & Jeung, W. (2014). Thriving at work: Impact of psychological capital and supervisor support. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 35(3), 434–446. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1907
Porath, C. L., & Bateman, T. S. (2006). Self-regulation: From goal orientation to job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 185–192. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.185
Porath, C., Spreitzer, G., Gibson, C., & Garnett, F. G. (2012). Thriving at work: Toward its measurement, construct validation, and theoretical refinement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(2), 250–275. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.756
Ran, Y., & Zhou, H. (2020). Customer–company identification as the enabler of customer voice behavior: how does it happen? Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 777 (1–13). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00777
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature. Journal of applied psychology, 87(4), 698. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698
Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 956–974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.014
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 25(3), 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.248
Singh, A., Singh, S. K., & Khan, S. (2016). Job characteristics model (JCM): Utility and impact on working professionals in the UAE. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 24(4), 692–705. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-04-2016-1022
Smidts, A., Pruyn, A. T. H., & Van Riel, C. B. (2001). The impact of employee communication and perceived external prestige on organizational identification. Academy of Management journal, 44(5), 1051–1062. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069448
Song, J., Gu, J., Wu, J., & Xu, S. (2019). Differential promotive voice–prohibitive voice relationships with employee performance: Power distance orientation as a moderator. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 36(1), 1053–1077. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-019-09644-6
Spreitzer, G. M., & Porath, C. (2014). Self-determination as nutriment for thriving: Building an integrative model of human growth at work. The Oxford handbook of work engagement, motivation, and self-determination theory, 90,245–258.
Spreitzer, G., & Hwang, E. B. (2019). How thriving at work matters for creating psychologically healthy workplaces: Current perspectives and implications for the new world of work. Creating Psychologically Healthy Workplaces, 293–310. EE Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788113427.00024
Spreitzer, G., Porath, C. L., & Gibson, C. B. (2012). Toward human sustainability: How to enable more thriving at work. Organizational Dynamics, 41(2), 155–162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2012.01.009
Spreitzer, G. M., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007). Thriving in organizations. Positive Organizational Behavior, 33, 74–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446212752.n6
Spreitzer, G., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J., Sonenshein, S., & Grant, A. M. (2005). A socially embedded model of thriving at work. Organization science, 16(5), 537–549. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0153
Stojcic, N., Hashi, I., & Orlic, E. (2018). Creativity, innovation effectiveness and productive efficiency in the UK. European Journal of Innovation Management, 21(4), 564–580. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-11-2017-0166
Wallace, J. C., Butts, M. M., Johnson, P. D., Stevens, F. G., & Smith, M. B. (2016). A multilevel model of employee innovation: Understanding the effects of regulatory focus, thriving, and employee involvement climate. Journal of Management, 42(4), 982–1004. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313506462
Webb, K. (2007). Motivating peak performance: Leadership behaviors that stimulate employee motivation and performance. Christian Higher Education, 6(1), 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/15363750600932890
Xu, Y., Chen, K., & Feng, M. (2022). Can career calling reduce employee silence? The mediating role of thriving and the moderating role of inclusive leadership. Current Psychology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-04002-0
Yousaf, K., Abid, G., Butt, T. H., Ilyas, S., & Ahmed, S. (2019). Impact of ethical leadership and thriving at work on psychological well-being of employees: Mediating role of voice behaviour. Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 17(2), 194–217. https://doi.org/10.3846/bme.2019.11176
Yue, C. A., Men, L. R., & Ferguson, M. A. (2021). Examining the effects of internal communication and emotional culture on employees’ organizational identification. International Journal of Business Communication, 58(2), 169–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488420914066
Zacher, H., Robinson, A. J., & Rosing, K. (2016). Ambidextrous leadership and employees’ self-reported innovative performance: The role of exploration and exploitation behaviours. The Journal of Creative Behaviour, 50(1), 24–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.66
Zacher, H., & Rosing, K. (2015). Ambidextrous leadership and team innovation. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36(1), 54–68. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-11-2012-0141
- Prelims
- Chapter 1: Outlook on Upskilling and Reskilling Capacities for Industry 5.0
- Chapter 2: Target 2047 and New-Age Management Challenges: An Indian Perspective
- Chapter 3: Relation Between Working Over Office Hours and Lengthy Commutes on the Work–Family Balance: The Moderating Role of Perceived Organizational Support
- Chapter 4: The Pink Billion Dollar Club: Women Entrepreneurs, Public Policy and the Rise of Unicorns in India
- Chapter 5: Participation Practices and Engagement: Inducing Results in Service Sector of India
- Chapter 6: Employee Voice Behaviour: Envisaging the Role of Ambidextrous Leadership and Employee Thriving
- Chapter 7: Beyond Dollars and Cents: Unveiling the Positive Influence of Employee-Centred CSR for a Better Workplace
- Chapter 8: Explorative Study on Understanding the Human-Centred Design to Nurture the Employee Experience
- Chapter 9: Conceptualizing Employee Voice Within Organizations: A Systematic Literature Review Based on Five Decades' Studies