The Importance of Ethical Leadership and Personal Control in Promoting Improvement-Centered Voice among Government Employees

The purpose of this article is to provide insight about the conditions in which government employees are more likely to engage in voice to improve performance of their organization. In this effort, the current research examines the direct and interactive effects of ethical leadership and perceptions of personal control on improvement-centered voice among government employees. These relationships are examined with data that were collected through two separate surveys from 477 employees and 161 managers working in a large state agency. The results indicate that ethical leadership and personal control, after controlling for employee characteristics, job satisfaction, procedural fairness, and performance monitoring, are related positively with supervisor ratings of subordinate voice behavior. The results also show that the effect of ethical leadership on voice becomes significantly stronger when employees perceive that they have higher levels of discretion over work behaviors and influence on decisions in their workgroup. Implications of these findings for research and practice are discussed. Government organizations around the globe are under increased pressure to reduce costs and find more efficient ways of providing public service. At the same time, the environments in which government organizations operate are becoming increasingly complex, dynamic, and interdependent (O’Toole and Meier 2011; Rainey 2009). There also is an increased demand from citizens for more responsive, transparent, and accountable government (Behn 2001; Kettl 2005; Pollitt and Bouckaert 2011). In such conditions, managers alone cannot tackle all the challenges. Employees working in government organizations also need to play a proactive role. Specifically, public sector employees not only need to perform their work duties diligently but also go above and beyond their formal job roles and requirements through engaging in extra role or citizenship behavior (Vigoda-Gadot and Golembiewski 2001). One particular form of extra-role employee behavior that is drawing considerable attention from organizational scholars and has been shown to improve organizational Address correspondence to the author at hassan.125@osu.edu. *The Ohio State University JPART 25:697–719 at O io State U niersity on N ovem er 4, 2015 http://jpaordjournals.org/ D ow nladed from Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 698 performance is voice (Morrison 2014). It includes speaking up about critical work issues and problems, providing constructive ideas and suggestions, and taking personal initiatives to get others involved in addressing the issues and problems that affect the organization (LePine and Van Dyne 1998; Van Dyne and LePine 1998; Van Dyne, Graham, and Dienesch 1994; Van Dyne, Cummings, and Parks 1995). Such proactive efforts may help government organizations to improve performance and “compensate for bureaucratic red-tape, slow and unbendable procedures, and insensitivity and inflexibility in the provision of services” (Vigoda-Gadot and Beeri 2012, 573). Being proactive and speaking up requires taking risks as such behavior may challenge the status quo or standard way of doing things (Detert and Burris 2007; Detert and Trevino 2010; Grant 2013; Grant and Ashford 2008; Morrison and Milliken 2000). An employee also can potentially upset her interpersonal relationship with others in the workplace by engaging in voice. For example, an employee who highlights a problem or offers a suggestion that runs counter to existing norms and work practices or affects others in the workgroup in a negative way may be viewed as “a complainer,” “a troublemaker,” or “not a team player” (Detert and Burris 2007; Detert and Trevino 2010; Grant 2013; Morrison and Milliken 2000). Employees working in government organizations, therefore, may choose to not “rock the boat” and speak up unless conditions that facilitate such behavior are created and nurtured. Although a variety of factors may influence an employee’s decision calculus, one that is likely to be critical for her willingness to speak up is her concerns for safety (Miceli, Near, and Dworkin 2008). The likelihood that the employee will remain silent is high when she fears that speaking up will lead to negative consequences (Morrison and Milliken 2000). The current research suggests that ethical leadership may play a critical role in lowering safety concerns that often discourage government employees from engaging in voice. Because ethical managers1 are transparent, honest, and trustworthy and act in the best interest of the organization and society, they are likely to be respected and trusted by employees (Brown and Trevino 2006; Brown, Trevino, and Harrison 2005; Trevino, Brown, and Hartman 2003). Such managers also are likely to be more receptive to employee concerns, opinions, and suggestions. Moreover, subordinates of ethical managers are likely to be less concerned about the negative repercussions of speaking up because these managers are fair decision makers and emphasize doing what is morally right and beneficial for others both within and outside of the organization. Lowering safety concerns is important but may not be sufficient to encourage public employees to engage in voice. The effectiveness of ethical leadership in promoting voice may actually depend on the favorability of certain conditions in the workplace. An important situational factor that is likely to moderate the influence of ethical leadership on voice is personal control; that is, the level of discretion that employees perceive to have over work behaviors and their perceived influence on decisions or outcomes in the workgroup (Ashforth and Saks 2000; Brockner et al. 2004; Greenberger et al. 1989). Unless an employee believes that she has discretion over her work behaviors and is able to influence others to initiate and sustain meaningful 1 The terms “manager” and “leader” in this article are used interchangeably, though some scholars have argued that managers are not necessarily leaders, whereas others have suggested that leadership is one several roles that managers need to perform in organizations (Yukl 2013). at O io State U niersity on N ovem er 4, 2015 http://jpaordjournals.org/ D ow nladed from Hassan Ethical Leadership, Personal Control and Employee Voice 699 change in her workgroup, she may not feel compelled to voice even when she has an ethical manager. In other words, speaking up may appear futile if she is not able to bring the necessary change or improvement in the workgroup. Accordingly, this study proposes and tests a situational/contingency model of voice in which ethical leadership and perceived control are expected to affect public employees’ voice behavior in both direct and indirect ways. This article aims to contribute to public administration (PA) scholarship in several ways. Extant research shows that speaking up in a constructive manner about work issues and problems can improve performance in organizations (Detert et al. 2013; Edmondson 2003). Few studies in PA, however, examined factors that promote such behavior among government employees (Vigoda-Gadot and Beeri 2012). Prior research on voice focused primarily on whistle-blowing (Miceli and Near 1984, 1985, 1988), bureaucratic resistance (Brower and Abolafia 1995), principled-dissent (O’Leary 1994, 2006) and citizen voice-orientations (Vigoda-Gadot 2007). Although there is some evidence from private sector samples that ethical leadership and personal control are related positively with improvement-centered voice (Tangirala and Ramanujam 2008; Venkataramani and Tangirala 2010; Walumbwa and Schaubroeck 2009; Walumbwa, Morrison, and Christensen 2012), no prior study examined the interplay of ethical leadership and personal control on such behavior. This study aims to provide insight about conditions in which ethical leadership is likely to be more effective in promoting voice among government employees. THEORY AND HYPOTHESES