| Literature DB >> 35046738 |
Jing Lv1, Zhifei Zhang2, Zhigang Gao3.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Employee voice has been considered as an important means to understand the cutting-edge information, gain social status and performance advantage for leaders, employees and the organization, respectively. However, our knowledge about how and when employees' emotions influence voice remains limited. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: In order to better illustrate the role of emotion on voice, based on emotion as social information theory and similarity attraction theory, we proposed a research model through which emotion recognition ability affects voice via perceived ambidextrous leadership. A sample of 182 comprised of full-time employees and their 43 immediate supervisors was collected through questionnaires in China, and analyzed via hierarchical regression method.Entities:
Keywords: emotion recognition ability; leader-subordinate gender similarity; perceived ambidextrous leadership; prohibitive voice; promotive voice
Year: 2022 PMID: 35046738 PMCID: PMC8763323 DOI: 10.2147/PRBM.S338036
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Psychol Res Behav Manag ISSN: 1179-1578
Figure 1Shows the research model of this study. In the research model, we argue that subordinate’ s emotional recognition ability can influence both promotive and prohibitive voice through perceived ambidextrous leadership. Moreover, gender similarity (an leader and his/her subordinates have the same gender) can strengthen the effect of emotional recognition ability on perceived ambidextrous leadership, thereby enhancing promotive and prohibitive voice.
Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations of Variables
| Variables | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. SERA | 4.091 | 0.728 | 0.863 | ||||
| 2. PAL | 4.089 | 0.621 | 0.499** | 0.780 | |||
| 3. Promotive voice | 3.747 | 0.799 | 0.442** | 0.376** | 0.818 | ||
| 4. Prohibitive voice | 4.028 | 0.759 | 0.430** | 0.288** | 0.669** | 0.879 | |
| 5. Gender similarity | 0.401 | 0.491 | −0.017 | 0.068 | −0.087 | −0.099 | NA |
Notes: N = 43, n = 182; the value on the diagonal means the square root of AVE; **p < 0.01 (double tail).
Abbreviations: SERA, subordinate emotional recognition ability; PAL, perceived ambidextrous leadership.
Results of Confirmatory Factor Analyses
| Model | RMSEA | SRMR | CFI | NFI | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Four-factor model | 687.56 | 293 | 2.347 | 0.086 | 0.071 | 0.95 | 0.92 |
| Three-factor model | 934.83 | 296 | 3.158 | 0.109 | 0.081 | 0.94 | 0.90 |
| Two-factor model | 1284.30 | 298 | 4.310 | 0.135 | 0.100 | 0.90 | 0.87 |
| Single-factor model | 3306.47 | 299 | 11.058 | 0.236 | 0.150 | 0.81 | 0.79 |
Notes: Four-factor model: subordinate emotional recognition ability, perceived ambidextrous leadership, promotive voice and prohibitive voice; Three-factor model: subordinate emotional recognition ability, perceived ambidextrous leadership, promotive voice + prohibitive voice; Two-factor model: subordinate emotional recognition ability + perceived ambidextrous leadership, promotive voice + prohibitive voice; Single-factor model: subordinate emotional recognition ability + perceived ambidextrous leadership + promotive voice + prohibitive voice.
The Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis
| Variables | Promotive Voice | Prohibitive Voice | Promotive Voice | Prohibitive Voice | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| —— | —— | Gender Similarity | Gender Dissimilarity | Gender Similarity | Gender Dissimilarity | |||||||
| Model1 | Model2 | Model3 | Model4 | Model5 | Model6 | Model7 | Model8 | Model9 | Model10 | Model11 | Model12 | |
| Employee age | −0.038 | 0.036 | −0.141 | −0.111 | −0.104 | 0.023 | 0.047 | 0.056 | −0.213 | −0.115 | −0.095 | −0.113 |
| Employee education | −0.109 | −0.093 | 0.009 | 0.016 | −0.146 | −0.115 | −0.097 | −0.098 | −0.015 | 0.011 | −0.042 | −0.040 |
| Age similarity | −0.143 | −0.108 | −0.268** | −0.254* | −0.264* | −0.171 | 0.042 | 0.038 | −0.336* | −0.267* | −0.194 | −0.187 |
| Education similarity | −0.041 | −0.040 | 0.047 | 0.049 | −0.069 | −0.083 | −0.002 | 0.003 | −0.010 | −0.016 | 0.142 | 0.132 |
| SERA | 0.439** | 0.329** | 0.428** | 0.381** | 0.366** | 0.203* | 0.536** | 0.512** | 0.344** | 0.209* | 0.541** | 0.586** |
| PAL | 0.225** | 0.095 | 0.337** | 0.049 | 0.271* | −0.093 | ||||||
| 0.227 | 0.262 | 0.222 | 0.228 | 0.223 | 0.299 | 0.276 | 0.277 | 0.179 | 0.228 | 0.307 | 0.313 | |
| 10.261** | 10.282** | 9.917** | 8.514** | 5.863** | 7.196** | 5.101** | 4.221** | 4.399** | 4.915** | 5.935** | 5.004** | |
Notes: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
Abbreviations: SERA, subordinate emotional recognition ability; PAL, perceived ambidextrous leadership.
The Robustness Test on Perceived Ambidextrous Leadership as a Mediator
| IV | Sobel Test | Effect | Coeff | se | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LLCI | ULCI | |||||
| Promotive voice | 2.676** | Indirect effect | 0.121 | 0.052 | 0.035 | 0.239 |
| Direct effect | 0.360 | 0.083 | 0.197 | 0.524 | ||
| Total effect | 0.481 | 0.073 | 0.337 | 0.625 | ||
| Prohibitive voice | 1.156 | Indirect effect | 0.049 | 0.049 | −0.037 | 0.155 |
| Direct effect | 0.400 | 0.081 | 0.236 | 0.557 | ||
| Total effect | 0.446 | 0.070 | 0.308 | 0.583 | ||
Note: **p < 0.01.
The Robustness Test on Leader-Subordinate Gender Similarity as a Moderator
| IV | Condition | Sobel Test | Effects | Coeff | se | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LLCI | ULCI | ||||||
| Promotive voice | Gender similarity | 2.933** | Indirect effect | 0.196 | 0.069 | 0.081 | 0.358 |
| Direct effect | 0.259 | 0.115 | 0.032 | 0.487 | |||
| Gender dissimilarity | 0.264 | Indirect effect | 0.016 | 0.069 | −0.088 | 0.184 | |
| Direct effect | 0.499 | 0.119 | 0.261 | 0.736 | |||
| Prohibitive voice | Gender similarity | 2.551* | Indirect effect | 0.156 | 0.085 | 0.018 | 0.359 |
| Direct effect | 0.204 | 0.107 | −0.008 | 0.415 | |||
| Gender dissimilarity | −1.050 | Indirect effect | −0.068 | 0.061 | −0.205 | 0.042 | |
| Direct effect | 0.609 | 0.122 | 0.367 | 0.851 | |||
Notes: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
Figure 2Shows the results of the structure equation model. Various indexes provide good fits (χ2=786.22, df=296, RMSEA=0.095, CFI=0.94, NFI=0.91, **p < 0.01). The results indicate that subordinate’ s emotional recognition ability have a positive impact on perceived ambidextrous leadership (β=0.62, p < 0.01), and thus promote promotive voice (β=0.38, p < 0.01) and prohibitive voice (β=0.45, p < 0.01). In addition, gender similarity negatively affects the first stage mediation effect (β=−0.44, p < 0.01). That is, when an leader and his/her subordinates have the same gender, the mediation effect of perceived ambidextrous leadership will be stronger.