INTRODUCTION
Creative performance is an extra-role behavior that generates novel ideas and contributes to organizational innovation (Choi, Anderson, & Veillette, Reference Choi, Anderson and Veillette2009; Zhang & Bartol, Reference Zhang and Bartol2010). Therefore, scholars have placed particular interest in identifying the factors influencing employee creativity. They identified motivation, intelligence, personality, organizational climate and culture, leadership style, and support as promoting creativity (Choi, Reference Choi2004; Choi et al., Reference Choi, Anderson and Veillette2009). Voice, which is the voluntary communication of work-related ideas for improving the organization's functioning (Morrison, Reference Morrison2011), resonates with the characteristics of creative performance. Besides, voice refers to the communication of ideas (Morrison, Reference Morrison2014), while creative performance deals with applying these ideas to generate novel products or procedures (Zhang & Bartol, Reference Zhang and Bartol2010), suggesting a positive relationship between voice and creative performance. However, the impact of employee voice on creative performance has received scant attention from scholars. Even the limited studies that examined the said relationship (Song, Wu, & Gu, Reference Song, Wu and Gu2017) treated voice as a unidimensional construct. Besides, they did not explore the mechanism through which the relationship unfolds. Therefore, in the current study, we address these literature gaps by testing the mediating role of psychosocial prosperity in the association between promotive, prohibitive voice, and employee creative performance.
Voice benefits the organization by contributing to organizational learning, change management, performance, loyalty, satisfaction, and reducing employee turnover (Burris, Detert, & Romney, Reference Burris, Detert and Romney2013). Additionally, voice helps individuals reduce stress and improve their satisfaction and motivation (Burris et al., Reference Burris, Detert and Romney2013). Some scholars find that these voice outcomes can vary based on whether the voice is promotive or prohibitive (Li, Liao, Tangirala, & Firth, Reference Li, Liao, Tangirala and Firth2017; Liang, Farh, & Farh, Reference Liang, Farh and Farh2012). Congruent with these claims, Chamberlin, Newton, and Lepine (Reference Chamberlin, Newton and Lepine2017), in their meta-analysis, showed that promotive voice positively affects whereas prohibitive voice negatively affects job performance. They explained that prohibitive compared to promotive voice leads to adverse outcomes for the employee because of the risks associated with the negative form of voice. However, a recent study by Yang (Reference Yang2020) contradicts these claims by exposing the positive outcomes of prohibitive voice. They revealed that prohibitive voice increases job safety performance. The literature evidence for both positive and negative effects of prohibitive voice implies that studying the unidimensional voice construct can mislead our findings and suggests that we examine the individual effects of each voice type on creative performance. Therefore, in the current study, we operationalize voice as a bi-dimensional construct and explore its relationship with creative performance. By drawing on the works of Yang (Reference Yang2020) and banking on ability-motivation-opportunity (AMO) theory, we expect that the two forms of voice extend a positive relationship with employees’ creative performance.
According to Song, Gu, Wu, and Xu (Reference Song, Gu, Wu and Xu2019), prohibitive voice points to the problem areas and therefore acts as a channel through which employees can express their dissatisfaction. Based on this argument, we expect that prohibitive voice improves voicing employees’ well-being and psychosocial prosperity. Similarly, the resource acquisition tenet of the conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, Reference Hobfoll1989) points out that voice behavior helps employees gain information, confidence, and a positive mood (Song et al., Reference Song, Wu and Gu2017). These beneficial resources resulting from voice behavior improve the psychosocial prosperity of the individual. Psychosocial prosperity improves employees’ positive psychological state (Diener, Ng, Harter, & Arora, Reference Diener, Ng, Harter and Arora2010), a basic tenet of creative performance (Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, Reference Shalley, Zhou and Oldham2004). Therefore, in this study, we explore the mediating role of psychosocial prosperity in the association between each type of voice behavior (promotive, prohibitive) and employees’ creative performance.
Research shows that employees’ creativity can be affected when they perceive a lack of control and autonomy (Choi et al., Reference Choi, Anderson and Veillette2009). Therefore, this study explores the moderating role of perceived influence at work and expects that the positive effect of each voice form on psychosocial prosperity will be more substantial when the employee perceives a significant influence at work. Alienated employees are affected by negative emotions (Clark, Halbesleben, Lester, & Heintz, Reference Clark, Halbesleben, Lester and Heintz2010) that interfere with their creative processes. Therefore, this study explores the moderating role of work alienation and expects that higher alienation will undermine the positive effect of employees’ psychosocial prosperity on their creative performance.
Scholars have relied predominantly on the intrinsic motivation framework to predict creative performance (Choi et al., Reference Choi, Anderson and Veillette2009). But, Byron and Khazanchi (Reference Byron and Khazanchi2012) warn that depending solely on intrinsic motivation can be misleading because rewards (the primary determinant of motivation) can positively and negatively affect creative performance. Therefore, the current study draws on the AMO theory to make informed decisions on employee creative performance. According to the theory, creative performance is a determinant of the employees’ ability (perceived influence at work), motivation (psychosocial prosperity), and opportunities (voice behavior) to perform (Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg, Kalleberg, & Bailey, Reference Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg, Kalleberg and Bailey2000; MacInnis & Jaworski, Reference MacInnis and Jaworski1989).
Literature suggests that the mechanism through which voice behavior influences employees’ creative performance is relatively unexplored and needs to be studied (Song et al., Reference Song, Wu and Gu2017). This study addresses this gap by examining psychosocial prosperity as a mediator. Second, some scholars have called for research to use the ability, motivation, and opportunity domain to explain individual behavior (Wang, Baba, Hackett, & Hong, Reference Wang, Baba, Hackett and Hong2019). This study heeds their call and aims to utilize the AMO framework to explain creative performance. Third, studies examining the relationship between different voice forms on individuals’ creative performance are inadequate (Song et al., Reference Song, Wu and Gu2017). Also, Xue, Song, and Tang (Reference Xue, Song and Tang2015) suggest future studies to examine the individual outcomes of voice. By investigating the impact of two dimensions of voice on creative performance, this study heeds their calls and adds to the literature on employee voice. Studies show that promotive voice leads to positive outcomes, and prohibitive voice leads to adverse effects (Chamberlin et al., Reference Chamberlin, Newton and Lepine2017; Song et al., Reference Song, Wu and Gu2017). However, we expect that both promotive and prohibitive voice forms positively influence employees’ creative performance. The similarly hypothesized relationship proposed in this study contradicts past research by suggesting that prohibitive voice does not always lead to adverse outcomes, offering critical insights for researchers and practitioners. Lastly, employee perception and attitudinal factors are crucial in predicting creativity (Choi, Reference Choi2004). This study offers strength to such claims by testing the moderating effect of work alienation and perceived work influence in the link between voice and creative performance, which forms the fourth contribution.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT
AMO Theory
Ability is the possession of required skills and knowledge to engage in a behavior; motivation is the internal drive to perform, and opportunity points to the situational and contextual factors that affect the behavior (Hughes, Reference Hughes2007). MacInnis and Jaworski (Reference MacInnis and Jaworski1989) used the AMO framework to explain consumer behavior. They theorized that motivation is a necessary psychological condition for consumer behavior. They also noted that ability and opportunity are boundary conditions that help translate the motivation to actual behavior. Later, the same constructs of ability, motivation, and opportunity were used in human resource management to explain employee behavior (Appelbaum et al., Reference Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg, Kalleberg and Bailey2000). They differed from the conceptualization of MacInnis and Jaworski (Reference MacInnis and Jaworski1989) and theorized that abilities, motivation, and opportunities could directly predict employee behavior. By integrating the conceptualization of MacInnis and Jaworski (Reference MacInnis and Jaworski1989) and Appelbaum et al. (Reference Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg, Kalleberg and Bailey2000), we argue that abilities, motivation, and opportunities can act as antecedents or moderators and interact with each other to predict employee behavior.
The presence of voice opportunity, which refers to a potential improvement or problem area, is a fundamental element of voice behavior (Morrison, Reference Morrison2014). Therefore, voice behavior vouches for the ‘opportunity’ domain of the AMO framework. Next, motivation refers to an inner psychological state that stimulates an individual's enthusiasm to achieve specific goals (Conrad, Ghosh, & Isaacson, Reference Conrad, Ghosh and Isaacson2015). This enthusiasm is maintained only when employees feel respected, have a sense of achievement, and have a satisfying social relationship representing psychosocial prosperity's relatedness and autonomy dimensions (Diener, Ng, et al., Reference Diener, Ng, Harter and Arora2010). Research also suggests that financial, physical, emotional, and familial well-being are critical to employees’ motivation (Wiley, Reference Wiley1997). Therefore, employees’ psychosocial prosperity, a collective well-being measure, exemplifies the ‘motivation’ aspect (Molix & Nichols, Reference Molix and Nichols2013) of the AMO framework. Third, employees’ perception of influence at work can impact their well-being and performance (Spector, Reference Spector2002). Perceived influence at work represents the employees’ ability to control and contribute to the environment and therefore represents the ‘ability’ dimension of the AMO framework. Research shows that employees’ creativity can be affected when they perceive a lack of control and autonomy (Choi et al., Reference Choi, Anderson and Veillette2009). Based on this conceptualization of AMO theory, this study explains how the creative performance (behavior) of an employee is predicted by voice behavior (opportunity), psychosocial prosperity (motivation), and the moderating effects of perceived influence at work (ability). Studies show that motivational states can take different forms, including inverse states like low motivation or amotivation that can cause detrimental effects (Hascher & Hagenauer, Reference Hascher and Hagenauer2010). According to the authors, alienation is a psychological state resulting from amotivated disposition that can cause emotional distraction and reduce psychological investment. Therefore, to account for amotivational states in the AMO model of creative performance, this study furthermore examines the moderating role of work alienation in the relationship between psychosocial prosperity and creative performance.
Employee Voice Behavior
Employee voice is ‘the discretionary provision of information intended to improve organizational functioning’ (Detert & Burris, Reference Detert and Burris2007: 869). Voice means communicating opinions, suggestions, ideas, or concerns to the person who can act on the voice to benefit the organization (Morrison, Reference Morrison2014). Liang et al. (Reference Liang, Farh and Farh2012) classified voice as either promotive or prohibitive based on its content. Promotive voice points to the communication of ideas and suggestions for enhancing organizational functioning. In contrast, the prohibitive form of voice points to problem areas that, if unattended, can produce adverse effects for the company (Liang et al., Reference Liang, Farh and Farh2012). Although these two forms of voice vary in terms of their content, they both benefit the organization.
While many studies that examined the implications of voice report positive outcomes to the individual and the organization, some studies testify to the resulting adverse effects. Thus, the literature offers mixed results (Bashshur & Oc, Reference Bashshur and Oc2015). Concerning the positive effects, voice can lead to increased efficiency (Xue et al., Reference Xue, Song and Tang2015), better performance (Bashshur & Oc, Reference Bashshur and Oc2015), and also extrinsic and intrinsic rewards for the voicer (Detert & Burris, Reference Detert and Burris2007). On the contrary, voice can lead to adverse outcomes like loss of resources (Detert & Burris, Reference Detert and Burris2007), damaged image (Morrison, Reference Morrison2011), damaged relationships, and poor performance ratings (Duan, Li, Xu, & Wu, Reference Duan, Li, Xu and Wu2017). While some studies endorse a positive link between voice and performance (Ng & Feldman, Reference Ng and Feldman2012; Song et al., Reference Song, Wu and Gu2017), others expose the negative association (Hung, Yeh, & Shih, Reference Hung, Yeh and Shih2012). Thus, it is worthy of examining how voice behavior relates to a variant of performance like creative performance. Besides, engaging in voice behavior consumes their time and energy leading to the depletion of their resources (Lin & Johnson, Reference Lin and Johnson2015). The authors showed that prohibitive voice carries more risks, consumes more resources, and leads to more adverse outcomes than promotive voice. Consequently, it becomes essential to find whether each voice type has varying effects on creative performance.
Employee Creative Performance
Creativity refers to generating innovative ideas that can potentially improve organizational functioning (Mumford, Reference Mumford2011). Thus, creativity is the inherent precursor to innovation. When organizations are oriented toward innovation, they are essentially encouraging the creative performance of the individuals. Creative performance can be either process or product-oriented (Zhou & Oldham, Reference Zhou and Oldham2001). The former refers to the mental processes deemed creative, while the latter is measured solely by the quality of the creative performance. Thus, the product-oriented definition of creative performance refers to ‘the novel and useful ideas concerning products, services, methods, or procedures that are ultimately produced’ (Zhang & Bartol, Reference Zhang and Bartol2010). Like much of the creativity literature, the current study adopts this product-oriented definition of creative performance, where creativity is measured by the novelty and usefulness of the outcome (Song et al., Reference Song, Wu and Gu2017; Zhang & Bartol, Reference Zhang and Bartol2010).
Scholars have shown increased interest in ascertaining the various individual and contextual factors that contribute to creative performance because of the multiple benefits of creativity (Byron & Khazanchi, Reference Byron and Khazanchi2012; Choi et al., Reference Choi, Anderson and Veillette2009). Besides augmenting organizational functioning, creative performance improves employees’ overall performance (Zhang & Bartol, Reference Zhang and Bartol2010). Although creativity yields extensive benefits for the individual and organization, engaging in creative performance is challenging for the employees (Tierney & Farmer, Reference Tierney and Farmer2011). Therefore, as Shalley and Gilson (Reference Shalley and Gilson2004) noted, it becomes vital to identify its antecedents to leverage employees’ creative performance. Although scholars have identified the various individual and contextual predictors of creative performance, there remains a void in explaining why and how these antecedents influence creativity (Choi, Reference Choi2004). To address this gap, we examine whether psychosocial prosperity acts as a mechanism through which voice affects creative performance.
Psychosocial Prosperity
The self-determination theory states that competence, autonomy, and relatedness are essential for optimal human functioning (Ryan & Deci, Reference Ryan and Deci2000). Molix and Nichols (Reference Molix and Nichols2013) describe competence as the individual's ability to deal with challenges and perform efficiently. Relatedness is the feeling of maintaining secure social connections with friends and families, while autonomy is the individual's belief in having choices and authority to make decisions. The satisfaction of these three needs is psychosocial prosperity which has little relationship with economic prosperity (Diener, Ng, et al., Reference Diener, Ng, Harter and Arora2010). In their study, countries with moderate economic development showed much higher psychosocial prosperity than countries with higher economic growth. They suggest that societies focus on improving psychosocial well-being and not just economic well-being. Therefore, we study the psychosocial prosperity of employees as the construct is immune to their financial conditions.
Another reason to study psychosocial prosperity is that society does not influence it (Tay & Diener, Reference Tay and Diener2011). Their study shows that irrespective of their economic status, people tend to achieve psychosocial prosperity. They stress that psychosocial prosperity can help individuals gain well-being even before getting their basic needs fulfilled. Thus, neither culture nor their financial status has little role in their psychosocial prosperity and is therefore considered a valid measure of employees well-being.
Employee Voice Behavior and Creative Performance
An idea or solution qualifies as creative performance only if it is innovative and applicable, whereas voice is an idea or concern without any implementable solution (Morrison, Reference Morrison2011; Zhang & Bartol, Reference Zhang and Bartol2010). Similarly, creative performance encompasses different phases like problem/opportunity detection, information gathering and coding, idea and alternative generation, and implementation (Zhang & Bartol, Reference Zhang and Bartol2010). However, voice involves the communication of a problem or improvement area to the management. After voicing an idea to management, the employee may continue searching, generating, and implementing solutions to the problem. Thus, creative performance acts as an extension of voice, so it is relevant to expect that voice leads to creative performance.
In their study, Song et al. (Reference Song, Wu and Gu2017) mention that creative processes require plentiful resources because of their risky nature. Voice behavior can help in accumulating these valuable resources (Fuller, Barnett, Hester, Relyea, & Frey, Reference Fuller, Barnett, Hester, Relyea and Frey2007). Therefore, they argue that voice can lead to creative performance. However, the conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, Reference Hobfoll1989) suggests that the two voice forms vary in nature, risks, and resource consumption. Considering these arguments, most scholars expect that promotive voice leads to positive outcomes while prohibitive voice leads to adverse effects for the employee (Song et al., Reference Song, Gu, Wu and Xu2019). However, by banking on AMO theory, we expect that creative performance is unaffected by type and content of the voice.
According to AMO theory, creative performance is a work behavior that depends on the employees’ ability, motivation, and opportunity to perform. Voice opportunity, which refers to a potential problem or improvement area, is a fundamental prerequisite of voice (Morrison, Reference Morrison2011, Reference Morrison2014). Thus, when an employee engages in voice behavior, it also manifests an opportunity to perform and contribute to organizational improvements. Promotive voice points to an opportunity to improve the future state, while prohibitive voice highlights the opportunity to correct an existing problem. Thus, both promotive and prohibitive voice behavior stands for the opportunity dimension in the AMO framework and can lead to the employee's creative performance. Besides, the promotive form of voice is future-oriented and suggests improvement, and is positively received by the leaders (Liang et al., Reference Liang, Farh and Farh2012). This positive reception can help the employees gain valuable information from the management through discussions and viewpoints triggered by their voice, inciting other creative processes (Song et al., Reference Song, Wu and Gu2017). Therefore, employees’ creative performance is enhanced.
On the other hand, a prohibitive voice is prevention-focused and expresses concern in work practices (Liang et al., Reference Liang, Farh and Farh2012). Employees vent their dissatisfaction through their voice which harnesses their affective states and cognitive processes (Song et al., Reference Song, Wu and Gu2017), leading to improved creativity. Hung et al. (Reference Hung, Yeh and Shih2012) also note that expressing dissatisfaction through voice can incite the employees’ creative abilities. Thus, basing our arguments on the works of Hung et al. (Reference Hung, Yeh and Shih2012) and Song et al. (Reference Song, Wu and Gu2017), we can claim that prohibitive voice also leads to creative performance. Based on the above arguments, we hypothesize that promotive and prohibitive voice behavior is positively related to employee creative performance.
Hypothesis 1a: Promotive voice behavior is positively associated with creative performance. Hypothesis 1b: Prohibitive voice behavior is positively associated with creative performance.
The Mediating Role of Psychosocial Prosperity
Psychosocial prosperity refers to the satisfaction of employees’ psychological and social demands (Diener, Ng, et al., Reference Diener, Ng, Harter and Arora2010). Wiley (Reference Wiley1997) analyzed the results of 40 years of motivation research studies and found that financial, physical, emotional, and familial well-being together predicts employee motivation. Therefore, psychosocial prosperity, a collective well-being measure, can be considered a proxy to employee motivation. According to AMO theory, the motivation of employees is a significant predictor of their work behavior. Considering that psychosocial prosperity constitutes the AMO framework's motivation dimension, we expect it to improve creative performance.
Song et al. (Reference Song, Gu, Wu and Xu2019), in their study examining the differential effects of two voice forms, note that promotive voice benefits the employee by gaining managerial support while prohibitive voice benefits the employee by venting out their dissatisfaction. When employees engage in promotive voice behavior, their leaders reciprocate with resource support (Song et al., Reference Song, Wu and Gu2017). This feeling of possessing surplus resources contributes to the psychosocial prosperity of employees (Hobfoll, Reference Hobfoll1989). Studies show that employees use their prohibitive voices to vent their work-related frustration (Avery & Quinones, Reference Avery and Quinones2002). Communication literature also supports these claims by suggesting that expressing thoughts and feelings can reduce stress and burnout (Miller, Zook, & Ellis, Reference Miller, Zook and Ellis1989). Thus, we can argue that engaging in prohibitive voice behavior also enhances the psychosocial prosperity of employees. Therefore, when employees engage in voice behavior, their positive moods get incited irrespective of the type of voice, leading to psychosocial prosperity. Empirical studies show that positive feelings drive employees’ creative performance (Madjar, Oldham, & Pratt, Reference Madjar, Oldham and Pratt2002). Judge, Erez, and Bono (Reference Judge, Erez and Bono1998) also mention that employees with positive moods are better performers than peers with negative feelings. Considering the above arguments, we expect that voice behavior affects the employees’ psychosocial prosperity, leading to creative performance. That is, psychosocial prosperity acts as a pathway through which voice relates to creative performance. Therefore, we hypothesize that employees’ psychosocial prosperity mediates the positive relationship between voice behavior (promotive and prohibitive) and creative performance.
Hypothesis 2a: Psychosocial prosperity mediates the positive relationship between promotive voice behavior and creative performance. Hypothesis 2b: Psychosocial prosperity mediates the positive relationship between prohibitive voice behavior and creative performance.
The Moderating Role of Perceived Influence at Work
Perceived influence at work is the employees’ self-belief about actualizing the desired results by influencing the decisions of superiors and peers at work through their opinions and behaviors (Spreitzer, Reference Spreitzer1995; Tangirala & Ramanujam, Reference Tangirala and Ramanujam2012). It is an indicator of employees’ ability to control their work environment. Thus, perceived influence at work adds to the ‘ability’ dimension of the AMO framework. According to Spector (Reference Spector2002), the work environment constitutes various events and conditions, some of which can lead to stress if perceived as a threat to employees’ well-being. Confidence in their ability to control these contextual threats can help the employees shun these stressors. Besides, employees who are confident of their abilities believe that their voice will not be discarded, reducing the stress associated with fear of rejection (Bashshur & Oc, Reference Bashshur and Oc2015).
Furthermore, as theorized in the previous sections, both promotive and prohibitive voices can lead to employees’ positive feelings. These positive feelings are amplified with a greater sense of control and influence over the work outcomes (Fox & Spector, Reference Fox and Spector2015). Based on these arguments, we expect that although voice behavior extends a positive relationship with psychosocial prosperity, the association is stronger for employees who perceive a more significant influence at work than employees with low perceived influence. Therefore, we hypothesize that perceived influence at work acts as a boundary condition in the relationship between psychosocial prosperity and creative performance.
Hypothesis 3a: Perceived influence at work moderates the positive relationship between promotive voice and psychosocial prosperity such that higher perceived influence at work strengthens the positive effect.
Hypothesis 3b: Perceived influence at work moderates the positive relationship between prohibitive voice and psychosocial prosperity such that higher perceived influence at work strengthens the positive effect.
The Moderating Role of Work Alienation
Alienation from work was first noted by Karl Marx, who attributed it to society's economic disparity (Özer, Uğurluoğlu, Saygılı, & Sonğur, Reference Özer, Uğurluoğlu, Saygılı and Sonğur2019). Employees in such communities viewed their owners as capitalists who ill-treated their employees. Therefore, they alienated themselves from the products, processes, managers, and consumers (Marx & Engels, Reference Marx and Engels2009). Seeman (Reference Seeman1975) viewed alienation as a personal factor and included the dimensions of ‘powerlessness, meaninglessness, isolation, self-estrangement, and normlessness’. Powerlessness refers to the lack of autonomy and freedom to make decisions leading to alienation (Seeman, Reference Seeman1975). Under the meaningless dimension, employees cannot connect their contribution to the organizational outcomes. Therefore, they feel incapable of attaining personal goals and future dreams (Seeman, Reference Seeman1975, Reference Seeman1983). Isolation refers to distancing themselves from organizational goals and other people. Such employees feel lonely, disconnected from society, and lacks trust in the system (Mottaz, Reference Mottaz1981). The self-estrangement dimension refers to the state where employees cannot reflect their values and desires and, therefore, do not find a personal connection with work (Mottaz, Reference Mottaz1981). The normlessness dimension refers to the lack of conformity between social norms and individual behavior, which leads to actions that are generally not considered acceptable in the culture (Özer et al., Reference Özer, Uğurluoğlu, Saygılı and Sonğur2019; Seeman, Reference Seeman1975).
Some researchers oppose this multidimensional treatment of alienation and claim that these dimensions are nothing but antecedents (Mottaz, Reference Mottaz1981). Besides, an empirical study proved that the multidimensional treatment of alienation construct is very similar to the job satisfaction construct (Lefkowitz & Brigando, Reference Lefkowitz and Brigando1980). Therefore, Nair and Vohra (Reference Nair and Vohra2009: 296) treated alienation as a unidimensional construct and defined it as ‘estrangement, or disconnection from work, the context, or self’, which we adopt in the current study.
Alienation refers to a state of psychological disengagement from work activities that interferes with the cognitive processes required for performing job tasks (Hirschfeld, Reference Hirschfeld2002), suggesting a possible moderation effect. The disengagement theory also offers cues that alienation acts as a moderator by amplifying or attenuating the impact of favorable contexts on employee behaviors (Moore, Reference Moore2015). Shantz, Alfes, and Truss (Reference Shantz, Alfes and Truss2014) noted that alienation is not the opposite of any factor but a discrete construct. They revealed that alienation could occur with other constructs by showing that even satisfied employees may be alienated from their work. Satisfaction is an essential characteristic of psychological well-being (Panaccio & Vandenberghe, Reference Panaccio and Vandenberghe2009), which suggests a possible co-existence of work alienation and psychosocial prosperity in the work context. While psychosocial prosperity is characterized as a positive state of mind, alienation from work creates negative emotions. Besides, alienation affects the cognitive processes that are crucial for creative performance. Therefore, work alienation can impact the hypothesized positive link between psychosocial prosperity and creative performance. We argue that under conditions of high work alienation, the positive effect of psychosocial prosperity on creative performance is weakened because of the negative emotions (Clark et al., Reference Clark, Halbesleben, Lester and Heintz2010) and cognitive interference (Hirschfeld, Reference Hirschfeld2002) induced by work alienation. Accordingly, we hypothesize that work alienation weakens the positive relationship between psychosocial prosperity and creative performance. The hypothesized model is shown in Figure 1.
Hypothesis 4a: Work alienation moderates the relationship between psychosocial prosperity (derived from promotive voice) and creative performance such that high levels of alienation weaken the relationship.
Hypothesis 4b: Work alienation moderates the relationship between psychosocial prosperity (derived from prohibitive voice) and creative performance such that high levels of alienation weaken the relationship.
Figure 1. Hypothesized model
METHODS
Samples and Procedures
We conducted this study among professionals from Information Technology (IT) sector companies operating in India. Voice plays a vital role in such knowledge-intensive industries as employees get the support and structure to share ideas to enhance their organization's functioning (Li, Wu, Liu, Kwan, & Liu, Reference Li, Wu, Liu, Kwan and Liu2014). Thus, the study on Indian IT employees can offer insights into their voice behavior and their creative performance. Using a cross-sectional design, we collected responses using an online questionnaire sent to participants (respondents) identified through convenience sampling, working in different parts of the country.
We assessed the items for all variables except demographic variables using a seven-point Likert-type scale that ranged from ‘strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘strongly agree’ (7). All survey questions used were adopted from previous scales. We first checked these adopted scale items for culture-specific questions. We found all the scales applicable and valid for the Indian culture and IT industry and therefore proceeded with our data collection. After the data collection process, 285 valid responses were received (Prince & Rao, Reference Prince and Rao2021), which we used in this study. This research focuses only on the OB aspect of voice and discards the structured voice mechanism that might differ between organizations. Therefore, responses were not identified and screened based on the employee's designation or the firm's size. Of the total 285 respondents, most were male (71.2%) and in the age category 21–30 years (62.8%).
We used self-reported data for all the factors, as employee behaviors can be measured more accurately with self-reported than other-reported data (Ng & Lucianetti, Reference Ng and Lucianetti2018). Likewise, Holland, Cooper, Pyman, and Teicher (Reference Holland, Cooper, Pyman and Teicher2012) suggest that perceptual data can be used to measure individual attitudes. Thus, our decision to use self-reported data for all the study variables can be justified.
Measures
We adapted the most widely used scales in the existing literature to measure each of our study variables. Although some of the original measures used a five-point scale, this study measures all variables using a seven-point Likert-type scale. Literature suggests that a scale's validity is impervious to minor adjustments to the measurement formats (Li et al., Reference Li, Wu, Liu, Kwan and Liu2014; Wong, Peng, Shi, & Mao, Reference Wong, Peng, Shi and Mao2011). We used the 10-item scale developed by Liang et al. (Reference Liang, Farh and Farh2012) to measure the two dimensions of voice behavior (promotive and prohibitive). Each dimension was measured with five items. Cronbach's alpha for the promotive and prohibitive voice scale was 0.948 and 0.932, respectively. Psychosocial prosperity was measured with the 8-item scale created by Diener, Wirtz, et al. (Reference Diener, Wirtz, Tov, Kim-Prieto, Choi, Oishi and Biswas-Diener2010). The reliability of this scale (α) was 0.962. We adopted the 3-item scale used by Nair and Vohra (Reference Nair and Vohra2009) to measure alienation from work. The Cronbach's alpha for the alienation scale was 0.872. We measured perceived influence at work with the 3-item scale used by Tangirala and Ramanujam (Reference Tangirala and Ramanujam2012) and creative performance with the 4-item scale used by Song et al. (Reference Song, Wu and Gu2017). Cronbach's alpha for these scales were 0.942 and 0.900, respectively. Appendix I lists the items used to measure the study variables.
Since most of these scales were developed in the Western context, they need to be tested for relevance before using in a different cultural setting. Therefore, before collecting the data, the instrument was pre-tested to identify any potential problems with the instrument and questions (Zikmund, Babin, Carr, & Griffin, Reference Zikmund, Babin and Carr2010). First, the instrument was circulated to 12 research scholars with diverse experience in an academic institute of higher learning and asked them about the comprehension, relatedness, and length of the survey. Then, the pre-test was conducted among three academicians and five professionals to ascertain any issues with the instrument. The time taken to complete the survey was also noted to report in the introduction in the full-scale survey. All the respondents in the pre-test expressed that the questions were understandable, relatable, and they had no confusion in the questions or their presentations. Thus, the contextual validity of the scales was established before collecting the data.
Control variables
We controlled for the employee's demographic variables like age, gender, marital status, and organizational tenure as these variables are found to influence behavioral outcomes of the individual (Janssen & Gao, Reference Janssen and Gao2015; Jena, Bhattacharyya, & Pradhan, Reference Jena, Bhattacharyya and Pradhan2017). We re-coded the demographic variables based on their categories for our analyses.
RESULTS
We used the Gaskins’ Master Validity plugin for AMOS 22 to check the scale's reliability and validity (Gaskin & Lim, Reference Gaskin and Lim2016). To analyze and test the proposed hypotheses, we used SPSS 22. We tested the mediation effect with model 4 and the moderated-mediation effect with model 21 of the Hayes’ PROCESS macro in SPSS (Hayes, Reference Hayes2013).
Descriptive statistics like mean, standard deviation, correlations, and reliabilities of all the constructs used in this study were examined using SPSS. A summary of the descriptive statistics is provided in Table 1. We then tested the 6-factor confirmatory factor analysis model and compared it with other models. We examined the different fit indices and found that the proposed 6-factor model showed a good fit. Similarly, all the latent variables’ factor loadings were significant, leading us to approve convergent validity. We compared our hypothesized model to other alternative models to examine the discriminant validity and found that our hypothesized 6-factor model showed a better fit than the alternate models. Thus, the divergent validity of the constructs was established, enabling us to proceed further with our analyses. Table 2 provides a comparison of the fit indices of different models.
Table 1. Means, standard deviation, and correlations
Notes: N = 285. Internal consistency reliabilities appear in parentheses along the diagonal.
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
The values in bold represents the reliability coefficient.
Gen (Gender), Age, and MS (Marital status) were dummy coded based on their categorization.
Ten, Work Tenure; PMV, Promotive Voice Behavior; PHV, Prohibitive Voice Behavior; PIW, Perceived Influence at Work; PSP, Psychosocial Prosperity; CP, Creative Performance; ALN, Alienation.
Table 2. Results of confirmatory factor analysis
Notes: df, Degrees of Freedom; SRMR, Standardized Root Mean Residual; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; GFI, Goodness-of-Fit Index; RMSEA, Root-Mean-Square Error of Approximation.
Test of Hypotheses
Before proceeding with the hypotheses testing, we checked for multicollinearity among the study variables using variable inflation factor (VIF; Kline, Reference Kline, Agresti and Finlay2016). The author points out that VIF values above 10 are an indication of multicollinearity. The VIFs of all the factors were less than 10, suggesting that multicollinearity was not an issue, and therefore, we proceeded with our analyses. This study used the Hayes Process module in SPSS to test all the hypotheses. Hypothesis 1a predicted that promotive voice behavior is positively associated with the creative performance of employees. As mentioned in Table 3, promotive voice behavior showed a significant and positive effect on creative performance (β = 0.33, p < 0.05); thus, Hypothesis 1a was supported. Results show that prohibitive voice behavior is positively associated with the employee's creative performance (β = 0.16, p < 0.05), supporting Hypothesis 1b.
Table 3. Results of mediation analyses
Notes: Total Effect – The effect of the independent variable (PMV or PHV) on CP in the absence of mediating variable PSP; Direct effect – The effect of the independent variable (PMV or PHV) on CP when the mediating variable PSP is included in the model.
a Bootstrapped confidence intervals for 5,000 bootstrap samples at 90% confidence interval.
b Bootstrapped confidence intervals for 5,000 bootstrap samples at 95% confidence interval.
Mediation analysis
We then tested for the mediation effect of psychosocial prosperity using model 4 of the Hayes Process module in SPSS. As shown in Table 3, we found a positive and significant effect of promotive voice on psychosocial prosperity (β = 0.76, p < 0.05) and creative performance (β = 0.18, p < 0.05). The total effect (β = 0.46, p < 0.05, 95% CI (0.3592, 0.5701)), direct effect (β = 0.33, p < 0.05, 95% CI (0.1724, 0.4902)), and indirect effect (β = 0.13, 90% CI (0.0054, 0.2589)) were significant and positive. Thus, it can be inferred that psychosocial prosperity partially mediates the positive relationship between promotive voice behavior and creative performance. Therefore, Hypothesis 2a was supported. Also, as shown in Table 3, we found prohibitive voice's positive and significant effect on psychosocial prosperity (β = 0.71, p < 0.05) and creative performance (β = 0.31, p < 0.05). We examined the total effect (β = 0.38, p < 0.05, 95% CI (0.2731, 0.4938)), direct effect (β = 0.16, p < 0.05, 95% CI (0.0126, 0.3143)), and indirect effect (β = 0.22, 95% CI (0.0959, 0.3557)) and found them to be positive and significant. It can be inferred that psychosocial prosperity partially mediates the relationship between prohibitive voice behavior and creative performance. Thus, Hypothesis 2b was supported.
Agler and De Boeck (Reference Agler and De Boeck2017) advocate using confidence intervals and effect sizes to validate the presence and magnitude of effect because there can be meaningful effects even when the p-values are above the traditionally followed 0.05 (Field, Reference Field2018). The standardized indirect effect is a preferred effect size measure in mediation analyses because this measure is not highly influenced by sample size and can be directly interpreted (Cheung, Reference Cheung2009). In the present research, the standardized indirect effect or the index of mediation (Field, Reference Field2018) of 5,000 bootstrap samples at a 90% confidence interval shows that the effect of promotive voice on creative performance through psychosocial prosperity is 0.13, with the confidence always above zero (0.01, 0.26), signifying a meaningful mediation effect (H3a). Similarly, a test of 5,000 bootstrap samples at a 95% confidence interval shows that the effect of prohibitive voice on creative performance through psychosocial prosperity is 0.22, and the confidence is above zero (0.10, 0.36), signifying a meaningful indirect effect (H3b). Based on the recommendations of Cheung (Reference Cheung2009), the indirect effect through PSP is considered ‘small’ for both promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors.
Moderation analysis
This study used model 21 of the Hayes Process module in SPSS to check the moderator's effects. As shown in Table 4, the interaction between promotive voice behavior and perceived influence at work on psychosocial prosperity produced significant positive results at the 90% confidence interval (β = 0.04). However, the interaction effect of prohibitive voice behavior and perceived influence at work did not reveal significant results. Therefore, Hypothesis 3a was supported, but Hypothesis 3b was not supported.
Table 4. Results of moderation analyses
Notes: ΔR 2 represents the change in the R 2 value.
a Results for 5,000 bootstrap samples at the 90% confidence interval.
b Results for 5,000 bootstrap samples at the 95% confidence interval.
Similarly, Hypothesis 4a and 4b predicted that work alienation moderated the positive relationship between psychosocial prosperity (garnered from promotive voice and prohibitive voice) and creative performance such that it dampens the relationship. As shown in Table 4, the interaction between psychosocial prosperity and alienation on creative performance produced significant negative results for both paths involving promotive voice (β = −0.15, p < 0.05) and prohibitive voice behavior (β = −0.13, p < 0.05). Specifically, the moderation effect was tested for values at one standard deviation (S.D.) above and below the mean. For paths involving promotive voice, the interaction effect was 0.44 (−1 S.D.) and 0.14 (+1 S.D.), while for prohibitive voice the interaction effect was 0.52 (−1 S.D.) and 0.26 (+1 S.D.). Thus, it can be found that as the value of moderator increases, the interaction effect decreases, revealing a weakening effect. Therefore, Hypotheses 4a and 4b were supported. This study affirms that high levels of alienation from work weaken the positive effect of psychosocial prosperity on creative performance. However, the moderated mediation model did not produce significant results.
The effect of moderating variable was measured by the change in R 2 value induced by its inclusion in the model. Aguinis, Beaty, Boik, and Pierce (Reference Aguinis, Beaty, Boik and Pierce2005) noted that the average effect size of moderation is only 0.009 and claimed that effect sizes in 0.005, 0.01, and 0.025 can be considered small, medium, and large effects, respectively, while testing moderation. In the present study, a test of 5,000 bootstrap samples at the 90% confidence interval shows that the moderating effect of perceived influence in the relationship between promotive voice and psychosocial prosperity (H3a) is 0.002, which is a small effect (Aguinis et al., Reference Aguinis, Beaty, Boik and Pierce2005). However, the moderating effect did not affect the path involving prohibitive voice (H3b). A test of 5,000 bootstrap samples at the 95% confidence interval shows that the moderating effect of work alienation in the relationship between psychosocial prosperity and creative performance is 0.02 for both voice forms (H4a, H4b), which is considered a large effect (Aguinis et al., Reference Aguinis, Beaty, Boik and Pierce2005).
Post Hoc Analysis
Additionally, we conducted a post hoc analysis to check whether the two voice forms vary in strength in their relationship with creative performance. A comparison of the standardized path coefficients of the relationships reveals the difference in their strengths (Kwan & Chan, Reference Kwan and Chan2011). The results show that promotive voice is more strongly related to both psychosocial prosperity (β = 0.58) and creative performance (β = 0.36) as compared to prohibitive voice's relationship with psychosocial prosperity (β = 0.54) and creative performance (β = 0.16).
DISCUSSION
There is a gap in understanding each voice type's specific outcomes as most empirical studies have treated voice as a unidimensional construct (Chamberlin et al., Reference Chamberlin, Newton and Lepine2017). Our research addresses these gaps by considering the two forms of voice behavior and explores their relationship with creative performance. The current study theorized and found that both forms of voice are positively related to creative performance. This finding adds strength to the claims that using voice to vent out dissatisfaction or to suggest improvements can incite their creative abilities (Hung et al., Reference Hung, Yeh and Shih2012). Thus, this study contradicts Song et al. (Reference Song, Wu and Gu2017) and reveals that creative performance is unaffected by the type of voice, and mere engagement in voice behavior can enhance employees’ creative performance.
The effect size results show that only close to 25% of the variance in creative performance is explained by voice behavior, which is possible because voice is one of the many factors influencing creative performance. Also, there is only a small mediating effect of psychosocial prosperity in the positive relationship between voice forms and creative performance. However, the small yet meaningful effect of psychosocial prosperity indicates that employees’ psychosocial well-being is one of the many pathways affecting their creative performance. The communication literature suggests that expressing feelings and thoughts can reduce stress and burnout (Miller et al., Reference Miller, Zook and Ellis1989). Besides, voicing their ideas gives the employee a sense of self-congruence and reduces hypocrisy, contributing to their positive feelings (Avey, Wernsing, & Palanski, Reference Avey, Wernsing and Palanski2012). Congruent with these claims, our study showed that when employees engage in voice behavior, irrespective of the type, their positive moods get incited, promoting their creative performance. These results manifest the mediating role of psychosocial prosperity in the relationship between voice types and creative performance.
We also found that perceived influence at work shows a small moderating effect in the positive relationship between promotive voice and psychosocial prosperity. But as Aguinis et al. (Reference Aguinis, Beaty, Boik and Pierce2005), in moderation, such low effect sizes are common, especially in social sciences because of the heterogeneous nature of the samples. The moderator's impact on the link between prohibitive voice and psychosocial prosperity did not yield significant results. Employees are aware of the risks associated with the prohibitive form of voice. But they voice without worrying about the consequences because their voice is a channel to express frustration or dissatisfaction with work. Therefore, employees’ prohibitive voice and the resulting stress reduction could have positively influenced their psychosocial prosperity regardless of their perception of influence. The results also reveal that alienation from work dampens the effect of psychosocial prosperity on creative performance. Negative emotions caused by alienation (Clark et al., Reference Clark, Halbesleben, Lester and Heintz2010) could have subdued the positive mood created by psychosocial prosperity during their interaction. Therefore, this interaction could have led to reduced creative performance. The high moderating effect of work alienation revealed from the effect size highlights its detrimental effect on creative performance and adds evidence to the claims by Clark et al. (Reference Clark, Halbesleben, Lester and Heintz2010).
Contributions and Implications
Our study contributes to the literature in many ways. First, the literature claims that the relationship between voice and its outcomes varies based on the type of voice (Morrison, Reference Morrison2011). However, the current study negates these claims and reveals that both promotive and prohibitive voices extend a similar relationship with psychosocial prosperity and creative performance. Thus, this study strengthens the voice literature and highlights that voice impacts employee creative performance, but the type of voice does not affect the relationship. Our study's results also answer the call made by some researchers (Liang et al., Reference Liang, Farh and Farh2012; Song et al., Reference Song, Wu and Gu2017) to study the effect of different types of voice behavior. Second, this study establishes the mediating role of psychosocial prosperity, an accurate measure of employee well-being (Diener, Ng, et al., Reference Diener, Ng, Harter and Arora2010) in the association between employee voice behavior and creative performance. This finding echoes the results of past well-being studies that emphasized the importance of well-being on employee performance (Wright & Walton, Reference Wright and Walton2003). Thus, the current study contributes to the literature on well-being. Besides, the role of psychosocial prosperity established in this research adds strength to the beliefs that psychological processes mediate the relationship between personal factors and creative performance (Choi, Reference Choi2004). Third, past research shows that alienation from work can cause adverse reactions for the organization by impacting employees’ commitment to the work (Özer et al., Reference Özer, Uğurluoğlu, Saygılı and Sonğur2019). The current research strengthens the claim and shows that a high level of alienation from work weakens the positive relationship between psychosocial prosperity and creative performance. Thus, our study highlights the role of work alienation in affecting the outcomes of voice hinting future studies to treat work alienation as a control variable when exploring the outcomes of voice behavior. Fourth, our study examines creative performance, which is a specific form of employee performance, as an outcome of voice behavior. While past studies showed that voice reduces employees’ job performance (Chamberlin et al., Reference Chamberlin, Newton and Lepine2017; Hung et al., Reference Hung, Yeh and Shih2012; Song et al., Reference Song, Gu, Wu and Xu2019), our study revealed the positive influence of voice on creative performance, thus contributing to the literature on employee performance. Besides, studying creative performance as an outcome enriches the research exploring the differential effects of voice on the employee's innovation and creativity (Song et al., Reference Song, Wu and Gu2017). Fifth, this study exposed that belief in their influence at work strengthens the positive effect of employees’ promotive voice on their psychosocial prosperity. However, the moderating effect of perceived influence in the association between prohibitive voice and psychosocial prosperity is insignificant. Thus, this study helps advance our understanding of the difference between the two types of voice and highlights the role of contextual factors in prohibitive voice. Lastly, much of the creativity literature has studied it from the motivation and rewards perspective (Choi, Reference Choi2004). This study treats creative performance as a work behavior explained by the employee's ability, motivation, and opportunity and thus contributes to the literature on AMO theory. Besides, our research conducted in India offers insights on voice and creativity in a non-Western culture. Thus, this research answers scholars’ call to study voice in different cultures (Choi & Moon, Reference Choi and Moon2017; Wu, Wang, & Lu, Reference Wu, Wang and Lu2018).
The findings of this research also offer significant implications for practitioners. Research shows that creativity is a quality that can be developed in an employee (Scott, Leritz, & Mumford, Reference Scott, Leritz and Mumford2004), directing managers to look for ways to improve their employees’ creativity. The current study offers one such solution by suggesting that employees can enhance their creative performance by engaging in voice behavior. When organizations focus on creating an environment where employees feel free to voice their opinions, it leads to higher creative performance. Second, managers can note that employees’ psychosocial prosperity can be increased by enabling them to engage in voice behavior. The positive feelings and psychosocial prosperity derived from voicing can lead to many benefits for the employee. The study also shows that employees’ perceived influence over work outcomes helps them amplify the positive moods resulting from promotive voice, leading to creative performance. Managers should note that perceived influence may help amplify the positive effects of promotive voice. But when it comes to the outcomes of prohibitive voice, perceived influence will not suffice. Therefore, managers should understand that prohibitive voice may require additional contextual support than promotive voice to reap higher benefits. Third, our study shows that alienation from work dampens the relationship between psychosocial prosperity and creative performance. Managers should periodically look for signs of alienation from their employees and act on them such that the overall creativity of the organization is unaffected. Management should take measures to bring in attitudinal changes to the employee such that they feel they have a good influence at their workplace. These measures can include customized training programs for the team with which the employee routinely interacts.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
There are certain limitations in our study which pave the way for future research. First, this study was conducted before the onset of the pandemic, and extending these findings to the post-pandemic era can be misleading. Remote working and other organizational changes induced by the pandemic have changed employee voice behavior (Akingbola, Reference Akingbola2020). It would be interesting to conduct a similar study on remote working employees and compare the results with our findings to ascertain the pandemic's actual impact on employee voice behavior. Although we tried to examine the outcomes of engaging in voice behavior, past research suggests that the results depend on the employee's motive (Fuller et al., Reference Fuller, Barnett, Hester, Relyea and Frey2007; Xue et al., Reference Xue, Song and Tang2015). Thus taking cues from impression management theory (Leary & Kowalski, Reference Leary and Kowalski1990), future studies should examine the effect of promotive and prohibitive voice on creative performance for different types of motives. On the same note, managers perceive the individual's motivation to engage in voice behavior and react accordingly (Bashshur & Oc, Reference Bashshur and Oc2015). However, the current study did not explore or control the role of contextual factors in affecting voice outcomes. Studying the effect of managerial characteristics like openness, leadership style, personality, LMX, change-orientation, and feedback-seeking behavior in the relationship between voice types and psychosocial prosperity and creative performance can significantly strengthen voice literature. It would be interesting to examine how a highly voicing employee's psychosocial prosperity can impact their peers’ voice behavior and psychosocial prosperity, which Bashshur and Oc (Reference Bashshur and Oc2015) mentioned as group effect. Another avenue for future research is to measure the impact of voice quality on outcomes like creative performance and psychosocial prosperity. We used self-reported measures to evaluate all the variables, which could lead to common method bias. Although there are definite advantages to using the self-reported measures, the bias cannot be discarded entirely. Therefore, further studies can use a combination of self-reported and other-reported data. Although voice behavior and creative performance are considered a lifeline during times of distress, there is a paucity of research that empirically validates this claim. There could be no better time to empirically validate the influence of voice and creative performance in uplifting a distressed company than in these times where the world has witnessed one of the worst pandemics in the name of COVID-19. Comparative case studies that validate the role of voice and creative performance in uplifting the organization can significantly enhance the literature on employee behavior and human performance.
Another limitation is the cross-sectional data, which questions the causality claimed in this study. The product-oriented creative performance studied in this research involves different phases like problem/opportunity detection, information gathering and coding, idea and alternative generation, and implementation (Zhang & Bartol, Reference Zhang and Bartol2010). Employee voice concerns the disclosure of opinions, suggestions, or concerns without necessarily suggesting solutions and thus caters only to the initial phases of creative performance. Also, creative performance culminates with the implementation phase, which rules out the need for voicing the already implemented idea. Thus, when product-oriented creative performance is considered, the impact of voice on creative performance is justified. Besides, studies also suggest that voice is a precursor to creativity (Hung et al., Reference Hung, Yeh and Shih2012). However, there is a possibility that an employee's creative performance and experience of managerial receptivity can affect the subsequent and future voice behavior of the employee, suggesting the possibility of reverse-causality. Therefore, the impact of creative performance on subsequent voice behaviors is an important scope for future researchers. Future studies can conduct experimental studies to ascertain whether the process-oriented creative performance acts as an antecedent or consequence of voice behavior. Also, in this study, we explored the moderating role of work alienation and perceived influence as literature provides evidence for the potential moderating effect of these factors in employee behaviors. However, there is a possibility that they act as antecedents to employee voice behavior and creative performance, which we have not explored in this study. Therefore, future works can examine the predictive role of work alienation and perceived work influence. Although literature reveals that voice can be stressful because it suggests changes to the status quo, studies also show that it can lead to positive feelings because it makes them feel that their actions are in harmony with their ideology and principles (Avey et al., Reference Avey, Wernsing and Palanski2012). In the current research, we hypothesized and found support for the positive feelings resulting from voice behavior. However, the voice literature will greatly benefit if future studies can ascertain the factors or conditions that will determine whether voice leads to negative or positive feelings.
CONCLUSION
By relying on AMO theory, this study reveals that an individual's creative performance can be fostered by managing their voice behavior and psychosocial prosperity. The research shows that the two forms of voice (promotive and prohibitive) positively affect creative performance through psychosocial prosperity. The study also notes that employee's feelings of alienation from work and perception of their influence at work play a massive role in determining the employee's engagement in creative performance.
NOTES
We wish to thank the two anonymous reviewers, the editor, and the editor-in-chief, for their constructive comments.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data used in this research and the instrument used to collect the data can be accessed at: https://osf.io/q7ebs/?view_only=cc2b062b5d594f39a318d1fa728cc2cf
APPENDIX I Measurement Items
