A Meta-Analysis of Voice and Its Promotive and Prohibitive Forms: Identification of Key Associations, Distinctions, and Future Research Directions

468 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Speaking Up at Work: The Role of Perceived Organizational Support in Explaining the Relationship Between Perceptions of Organizational Politics and Voice Behavior (2020, background): “A recent meta-analysis showed that promotive and prohibitive types of voice have different associations with antecedents (Chamberlin et al., 2017).”
The Social Consequences of Voice: An Examination of Voice Type and Gender on Status and Subsequent Leader Emergence (2017, background): “Most voice research has not distinguished how people speak up, and the studies that have explored the distinction between speaking upwith ideas versus problems has largely addressed the antecedents of the different types, rather than the consequences (Chamberlin et al., 2016; Liang et al., 2012).”
Speaking Up When Water Is Murky: An Uncertainty-Based Model Linking Perceived Organizational Politics to Employee Voice (2018, background): “However, these studies focused exclusively on regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1998) as their theoretical framework to explain the difference between the types of voice behavior: promotion focus is associated with higher levels of promotive voice, and prevention focus, with higher levels of prohibi”
Received Respect and Constructive Voice: The Roles of Proactive Motivation and Perspective Taking (2019, background): “For instance, in terms of peer factors, only social support and group identification have been consistently examined (Chamberlin et al., 2017).”