Exploring Nonlinearity In Employee Voice: The Effects of Personal Control and Organizational Identification

By Subrahmaniam Tangirala, R. Ramanujam. 2008

474 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b2fc397bda65842dc6b07ac042049a8f78e46819

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Psychological Antecedents of Promotive and Prohibitive Voice: A Two-Wave Examination (2012, unknown): “…2009; Morrison & Milliken, 2000; Van Dyne et al., 2003) and empirically (e.g., Burris, Detert, & Chiaburu, 2008; Detert & Burris, 2007; Fuller, Marler, & Hester, 2006; LePine & Van Dyne, 2001; Morrison, Wheeler-Smith, & Kamdar, 2011; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008; Venkataramani & Tangirala, 2010).”
Identity and identification at work (2016, background): “For example, organizational identification was found to moderate the relationships between individual value dimensions (Lipponen, Bardi, & Haapamäki, 2008) or perceptions of autonomy (Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008) and employee voice.”
Organizational career growth and subsequent voice behavior: The role of affective commitment and gender (2014, background): “…(Tornau & Frese, 2013), perceptions of psychological safety (Detert & Burris, 2007); organizational identification (Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008); and individual demographics including gender, ethnicity, tenure, and hierarchical position (Detert & Burris, 2007; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008).”
Speaking Up at Work: The Role of Perceived Organizational Support in Explaining the Relationship Between Perceptions of Organizational Politics and Voice Behavior (2020, methodology): “Our research design addresses the concerns raised by others regarding research on voice using cross-sectional data (Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008).”
Too much of a good thing: Curvilinear effect of positive affect on proactive behaviors (2014, background): “In order for employees to engage in proactive behaviors, they must perceive that there are reasons to engage in these behaviors (Morrison & Phelps, 1999; Parker, Wall, & Jackson, 1997; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008).”
Authenticity, employee silence, prohibitive voice, and the moderating effect of organizational identification (2013, background): “Van Dyne et al. (2003) argued that employee silence is not merely the absence of voice, but should be conceptualized as a separate multidimensional construct.”
Ethical leadership and follower voice and performance : the role of follower identifications and entity morality beliefs (2015, unknown): “Speaking up (voice) is one such behavior that may result from organizational identification (Lipponen, Bardi, & Haapamäki, 2008; Liu, Zhu, & Yang, 2010; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008).”
Paternalistic leadership and employee voice: Does information sharing matter? (2014, background): “The impact of leadership behaviors on employee voice is widely examined across various studies (Morrison et al., 2011; Tangirala and Ramanujam, 2008, 2012; Venkataramani and Tangirala, 2010).”
Revisiting How and When Perceived Organizational Support Enhances Taking Charge (2015, background): “…despite the fact that employees’ anticipated costs has long been part of theorizing regarding antecedents to organizational silence (Morrison & Milliken, 2000) or, similarly, to avoidance of speaking up (Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008) or issue selling (Dutton, Ashford, O’Neill, & Lawrence, 2001).”
Applying Uncertainty Management Theory To Employee Voice Behavior: An Integrative Investigation (2012, result): “Consistent with prior studies in the employee voice literature (e.g., Detert & Burris, 2007; LePine & Van Dyne, 1998, 2001; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008; Van Dyne, Cummings, & McLean Parks, 1995), “voice” in this study refers specifically to employees’ actual behavior in “speaking up” with…”