The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0143-7739.htm

Does leader integrity facilitate Leader

integrity and
employee voice? A moderated employee voice

mediation model of perceived risk

and leader consultation
Jinyun Duan Received 6 August 2019
Revised 9 May 2020
East China Normal University, Shanghai, China 2 July 2020
Zhaojun Guo Accepted 8 August 2020

Soochow University, Suzhou, China, and

Chad Brinsfield
Department of Management, University of Saint Thomas, Saint Paul,
Minnesota, USA
Abstract
Purpose – This study draws on uncertainty management theory to advance our understanding of the
relationship between leader integrity and employee voice.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors collected data in China by surveying 274 supervisor-
subordinate dyads at two different points in time. In addition to the direct relationship between leader integrity
and employee voice, they also examined the moderating effect of leader consultation and the mediating effect of
perceived risk of voice.
Findings – The authors found that leader integrity had a positive effect on employee voice, and perceived risk
of voice mediated this relationship. They also found that leader consultation moderated the relationship
between leader integrity and employee voice, as well as moderating the mediating role of perceived risk
of voice.
Originality/value – Although prior research has examined the relationship between leadership and voice, it
has not clearly explicated the effects of leader integrity on voice. In addition, the findings of this study
regarding the moderating role of leader consultation, and the mediating role of perceived risk of voice, offer
novel insights regarding the nature of the relationship between leader integrity and employee voice.
Keywords Voice behavior, Leader integrity, Perceived risk of voice, Leader consultation, Uncertainty
management theory
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Employee voice is the discretionary communication of ideas, suggestions, concerns or
opinions about work-related issues with the intent to improve organizational or unit
functioning (LePine and Van Dyne, 1998; Morrison, 2011). Employee voice has been linked to
many desirable individual and organizational outcomes (e.g. improved decision-making,
innovation, enhanced perceptions of fairness, attenuated withdrawal/exit; see Bashshur and
Oc, 2015). In contemporary organizations, voice is ever more important due to the uncertainty
associated with increasingly complex, dynamic and competitive environments. To effectively
deal with changing social, technological and economic landscapes, organizations need to be
more innovative and adaptable – this requires employees at all levels to readily share their
ideas, question assumptions and challenge authority (see Grant, 2013; Morrison, 2011).
Despite these imperatives, employees are frequently reluctant to express voice, because
Leadership & Organization
Conflict of interest: All the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Development Journal
This study is supported by Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. 2019ECNU- © Emerald Publishing Limited
0143-7739
HWFW020). DOI 10.1108/LODJ-08-2019-0353
LODJ doing so is often perceived as risky or futile (Brinsfield, 2013; Milliken et al., 2003). This
recognition has led scholars to explore a wide range of factors that can affect employee
voice (e.g. pro-social motivation, psychological safety, implicit voice theories, silence motives,
job attitudes; for reviews, see Chamberlin et al., 2017; Morrison, 2011). Not surprisingly, many
of these factors are shaped by perceptions of leadership (Ashford et al., 2009).
Over the years, a considerable amount of research has examined how different aspects of
leadership affect employee voice (see Morrison, 2011). Morrison (2014) categorized this work
according to leader openness, leader-subordinate consultation, leader-member exchange
(LMX), transformational leadership, leader influence, abusive leadership and ethical
leadership. There is little doubt that this work has enhanced our understanding of the
ways that leadership can impact employee voice. Although work continues across these
different perspectives, more recently, there has been increasing interest in the relationship
between ethical leadership and employee voice. The popular press is regularly replete with
reports of leader misconduct, and such accounts routinely portray conditions that stifle
employee voice (Harlos, 2016). Moreover, this growing body of research paints a compelling
picture – employees are generally more willing to express voice when they perceive their
leader as ethical (e.g. Lee et al., 2017; Mo and Shi, 2018; Walumbwa and Schaubroeck, 2009).
Related to ethical leadership, a leadership quality that has received limited explicit
attention regarding voice, is leadership integrity – both in terms of its impact on voice, and on
how that impact is realized (see Peng and Wei, 2019; Walumbwa and Schaubroeck, 2009).
This is surprising considering the influence that perceptions of leader integrity can have on
factors that underlie employees’ motivation and willingness to express voice (e.g. pro-social
motivation, perceptions of trust, psychological safety; see Palanski and Vogelgesang, 2011;
Simons et al., 2015; Zhu and Akhtar, 2014).
A possible reason for this paucity of research is the assumption that what is known about
ethical leadership directly applies to leader integrity. However, Moorman et al. (2013) contend
that ethical leadership and leader integrity should not be viewed as synonymous. According
to Moorman et al., ethical leadership is distinct from leader integrity because ethical
leadership is commonly defined as both “the demonstration of normatively appropriate
conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships” and “the promotion of
such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision
making” (Brown et al., 2005, p. 120). The two-part nature of this definition reflects not only
what ethical leadership is but also the leadership responsibility to communicate and reinforce
ethical behavior to their followers. Although the first part of the definition partly aligns with
integrity as perceived moral behavior, the second part goes well beyond this conception and
is grounded in a social learning perspective (Bandura, 1977).
Definitions and measures of leader integrity have evolved over the years, but much like
the study of ethical leadership, the study of leader integrity has suffered from a lack of
construct clarity (see Moorman et al., 2013). For instance, Palanski and Yammarino (2007)
identified seven different integrity dimensions. However, two of these have subsequently
driven most of the research in the management sciences. The first is what Simons (1999)
referred to as behavioral integrity – consistency between a leader’s words and deeds. The
second describes integrity as general moral and ethical behavior and includes some (but not
all) properties of ethical leader behavior (Brown et al., 2005; Moorman et al., 2013). To reconcile
these perspectives, Moorman et al. (2012, 2013) examined the approaches used by followers to
form attributions of leader integrity. In a content analysis of open-ended questions about how
followers judge leader integrity, and a subsequent construct validation study, they found
themes of consistency and themes of moral behavior. Notably absent from these findings are
the social learning facets of leader responsibility to communicate and reinforce ethical
behavior to their followers (see Trevino and Brown, 2014). Moreover, attributions of leader
integrity involve more than behavioral integrity (i.e. alignment of words and deeds), which
has been the primary focus of research (e.g. Peng and Wei, 2019) and which may not capture Leader
leader integrity as perceived by followers (Moorman et al., 2018). integrity and
employee voice
An uncertainty management perspective on leadership integrity and employee voice
Scholars contend that one of the reasons employees care about leader integrity is that it
serves as a useful source of information that helps reduce the uncertainty in the decision to
follow (Moorman and Grover, 2009). This is important in decisions to express voice, as these
decisions are often predictive in nature (Detert and Burris, 2007). That is, employees try to
surmise what the likely outcomes will be if they express voice or not – a process often fraught
with uncertainty (Aryee et al., 2017; Bormann and Rowold, 2016). Because of the potential of
leadership to impact factors that facilitate or impede voice, and the inherent uncertainty for
employees expressing voice, we adopt an uncertainty management perspective in examining
how leader integrity can impact employee voice. Specifically, we draw upon uncertainty
management theory (UMT; Lind and van den Bos, 2002; van den Bos and Lind, 2002) to
inform our understanding of how and why perceptions of leadership integrity can help
employees navigate the nexus of uncertainty and voice.
Research shows that people are often averse to feelings of uncertainty and are motivated
to reduce it (e.g. Fiske and Taylor, 1991). Moreover, recent advances in cognitive science
suggest that prediction and uncertainty reduction are primary functions of the neocortex.
The brain is continually scanning the environment for cues and patterns to give it a sense of
certainty about what to expect (Hohwy, 2013). Within the management sciences, UMT was
developed to explain how perceptions of fairness serve as a heuristic for attenuating
uncertainty or alleviating the discomfort generated by it (Lind and van den Bos, 2002; van den
Bos and Lind, 2002). Within the bounds of the theory, uncertainty is defined as an inability to
predict the future and is associated with situations that create doubt or conflicts between
cognitions and behaviors (van den Bos and Lind, 2002).
These types of uncertainty are often associated with employees’ decisions to express voice
or to remain silent. For example, Saunders et al. (1992) found that uncertainty about how to
approach one’s supervisor, and uncertainty about how one’s supervisor will respond to voice,
were both predictive of voice. Similarly, Brinsfield (2013) found employees’ feelings of
uncertainty regarding the situation or what to say was a commonly reported motive for
remaining silent. Moreover, because voice challenges the status quo, scholars suggest that
uncertainty is ubiquitous in weighing the potential risks and benefits of this behavior (Detert
and Burris, 2007).
It is an established aspect of social cognitive psychology that people use heuristics, or
cognitive shortcuts, to form impressions or judgments of other people (Fiske and Taylor, 1991).
According to UMT, the complexity of human relationships makes it nearly impossible to have
perfect information about relational outcomes. Therefore, perceptions of fairness serve as a
heuristic to enable people to make faster and less effortful evaluations about this uncertainty, or
serve as a proxy for relevant information that may be lacking (Lind and van den Bos, 2002).
Moreover, the uncertainty management model suggests that because yielding to the authority
of another person raises the possibility of exploitation, people frequently feel uneasy about their
relationships with authorities (van den Bos and Miedema, 2000). This is exacerbated regarding
voice because speaking up draws other’s attention toward the person who is expressing voice,
which can increase the salience of feelings of uncertainty (Greenberger and Strasser, 1986). To
manage this uneasiness, Van den Bos et al. (1998) contend that people seek general information
about whether they can expect to be treated fairly.
Moreover, scholars have found that different types of fairness information may substitute
for one another in this process. The global judgments used in discerning fairness can come from
distributive, procedural or interactional justice, or even from one’s affective state (Lind and van
LODJ den Bos, 2002; Van den Bos, 2003). Extending this reasoning, Moorman and Grover (2009)
suggest that attributions of leader integrity may, much like fairness judgments, serve as useful
information for followers in deciding to trust and follow a leader. The notion that leader
integrity may function as a heuristic is also reflected in research on trust. For example, Lewicki
and Brinsfield (2011) contend that perceptions of trustworthiness, which involve perceptions of
integrity, may function as a decision heuristic, with psychological underpinnings similar to the
general heuristics that have received much attention among cognitive/decision scientists (i.e.
representativeness, availability, anchoring and adjustment, affect; Bazerman, 2006; Tversky
and Kahneman, 1981). Hence, relative to voice, UMT suggests that positive perceptions of
leader integrity will reduce the feelings of uncertainty that can suppress voice (Moorman and
Grover, 2009). Therefore, we offer the following hypothesis:
H1. Leader integrity is positively related to employee voice behavior.

The mediating role of perceived risk of voice

Few insights from research on employee voice have received more support than the notion
that employees refrain from speaking up due to the perceived risks of doing so (see Morrison,
2011). And because perceptions of leader integrity provide relevant information about trust
and fairness (Mayer et al., 1995; Moorman and Grover, 2009), which can assuage feelings of
risk and uncertainty (van den Bos and Lind, 2002), it is likely that perceptions of leader
integrity affect employee voice behavior through employees’ perception of risk.
Relatedly, as Detert and Edmondson (2011) point out, much of the research on voice and
silence implicitly or explicitly has positioned psychological safety (i.e. belief that the team is
safe for interpersonal risk-taking; Edmondson, 1999) as a mediator between antecedent
variables and voice behavior. However, psychological safety is a broad concept that involves
several forms of interpersonal risk (e.g. risk of seeking feedback; Edmondson, 2003). Only one
of the seven items in Edmondson’s (1999) team psychological safety scale explicitly addresses
the risks associated with the expression of voice. As a construct representing the perception
of safety for overall interpersonal risk-taking, psychological safety has received considerable
validation evidence (Newman et al., 2017). As a construct representing the perception of
safety regarding the risks associated with speaking up, it appears to lack construct clarity
(see Suddaby, 2010).
Therefore, to examine our UMT-based reasoning that leader integrity will affect employee
voice via heuristic information and uncertainty reduction, we draw upon the relatively novel,
and plausibly more precise, construct of perceived risk of voice (see Wei et al., 2015). Wei et al.
developed this construct based on perceived relationship costs (Zhang et al., 2011), findings
regarding the fears and beliefs about voice (Milliken et al., 2003) and their own scale
development study about the perceived negative consequences of voice (see Wei et al., 2015).
We reason that the examination of perceived risk of voice as a mediating factor avoids the
potential confounds of other types of risk associated with the broader concept of
psychological safety. Therefore, we offer the following hypothesis:
H2. Perceived risk of voice mediates the relationship between leader integrity and
employee voice behavior.

The moderating effect of leader consulting behavior

Yukl et al. (2008) defined consultation as “the agent asks the target person to suggest
improvements or help plan a proposed activity or change for which the target person’s support is
desired” (p. 610). For our purposes, the agent is the employee’s direct supervisor. Previous
research on leader-subordinate consultation and voice has primary focused on its effects on
employees’ perception of their influence in the workplace, which can enhance the underlying pro-
social motives to express voice (e.g. Tangirala and Ramanujam, 2012). We assert that this is not Leader
the only way that leader-subordinate consultation can positively influence employee voice – it can integrity and
also affect the perceived risk of voice, especially when a leader is perceived to be high in integrity.
Research on procedural and interactional justice suggests that leader-subordinate
employee voice
consultation is an effective way to enhance employees’ perceptions of fairness (Gordon and
Fryxell, 1993; Lind et al., 1990), which, according to UMT, can help alleviate uncertainty
regarding leadership, and subsequently the perceived risks of voice. Research on procedural
justice has shown that one way to enhance employees’ perceptions of fairness is to grant them
input into the decision-making process (see Blader and Tyler, 2005). In their seminal work,
Thibaut and Walker (1975) termed this process control. According to Thibaut and Walker,
input is valued because people do not ultimately have complete control over their outcomes;
thus, input to the decision provides the next best alternative in their attempts to positively
affect their outcomes. Leader consultation embodies the notion of process control as the
leader specifically asks employees for their input into the decision process (Yukl et al., 2008).
Similarly, research on interactional justice (i.e. the fairness of the interpersonal treatment
individuals receive from a decision-maker with whom they interact; Bies and Moag, 1986)
suggests that leader consultation may impact the negative relationship between leader integrity
and perceived risk of voice. Scholars contend that perceptions of interactional justice are reflected
in perceptions of social sensitivity (demonstrating concern and respect for the individual) and
informational adequacy (providing information relevant for decision-making; Greenberg, 1993;
Colquitt, 2001). Leader consultation can embody both of these facets of interactional justice. The
collaborative efforts of the leader that are inherent in leader consultation signal trust, respect and
benevolence toward the subordinate (Gilstrap and Collins, 2012; Gillespie and Mann, 2004), which
enhances their perception of fairness and reduces uncertainty (van den Bos and Lind, 2002).
Leader consultation can also address the informational desires of employees (Fiske, 2004), as the
sharing of information is an inherent aspect of consultation, which also has been shown to
alleviate anxiety (Wood and de Menezes, 2011) .
Another way that perceptions of leader integrity and leader consultation can interact to
affect perceived risk of voice involves what scholars have termed the “charade of
consultation” (Argyris, 1998; Roberto, 2013). For example, this can occur when a leader a
priori makes a decision, and then goes to his/her subordinate to “consult” with them
about the issue. The leader might even entertain a discussion of multiple options, yet then
steer the conversation toward the alternative he or she preferred from the outset. Often, the
subordinate sees through the charade (Roberto, 2013), and trust is diminished and the
perceived risk of voice is increased. We therefore reason that when a leader is viewed as
higher in integrity, which embodies alignment between words and deeds, this “charade of
consultation” is less likely to manifest. Based on this reasoning, we offer the following
hypotheses:
H3. Perceived leader integrity and leader consultation will interact such that the negative
relationship between leader integrity and perceived risk of voice will be stronger
when leader consultation is higher.
Based on hypotheses 2 and 3, we offer the following moderated mediation hypothesis.
H4. The mediation effect of perceived risk of voice on the relationship between leader
integrity and employee voice will be stronger when leader consultation is higher.
Construct proliferation and lack of construct clarity and precision are commonly cited
concerns in the management sciences (e.g. Klein and Delery, 2012; Suddaby, 2010). Therefore,
to further support the construct and criterion validity (Nunnally, 1978) of the focal variables
in this study, we also include measures of LMX (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995) and leadership
empowerment behavior (Ahearne et al., 2005) as control variables (see Figure 1).
LODJ
Leader
Consultation
(T2- employee rated)

Leader Integrity Perceived Risk of

Employee Voice
(T1- employee rated) Voice
Figure 1. (T2- leader rated)
(T2- employee rated)
The research model

LMX asserts that leaders differentiate between employees and do not use the same leadership
style with all subordinates. High-quality LMX relationships are characterized by liking,
respect and loyalty, wherein leaders provide more attention and support to subordinates
(Liden and Maslyn, 1998). In exchange, subordinates devote more time and energy to the job
(Dienesch and Liden, 1986). LMX is likely related to leader consultative behavior vis-
a-vis
attention and support, and with voice via social exchange (Blau, 1964; Van Dyne et al., 2008).
And, high-quality LMX relationships are more likely to emerge when leader integrity is high
(Chen and Farh, 2010).
Leadership empowerment behavior is a leadership behavior that grants more authority
and responsibility to subordinates and increases their sense of self-efficacy, control and
engagement (Ahearne et al., 2005). Leadership empowerment behavior is likely related to
employee voice via this increased sense of self-efficacy and reduced uncertainty (Morrison,
2011). Leadership empowerment behavior has also been shown to enhance employees’
motivation and involvement with their work (Thomas and Velthouse, 1990), which can
result in the increased motivation and willingness to express voice (see Brinsfield
et al., 2009).

Methods
Participants and procedures
Data were collected using questionnaires administered in 36 organizations across various
industries in China, including manufacturing, sales, e-commerce and service. To reduce the
possibility of common method bias, samples were collected from employees and their direct
supervisors. In addition, there were two data collection phases, with a one-month interval
between each phase. In the first phase, employees completed a questionnaire that included the
perceived leader integrity scale, and the following control variables: LMX, leadership
empowerment behavior and demographic characteristics. One month later, an additional
questionnaire was given to the same employees who completed the first questionnaire. This
questionnaire included the leader-subordinate consultation scale and the perceived risk of
voice scale. At this same time, the employees’ direct supervisors were given a questionnaire
that asked them to rate their employee’s voice behavior.
In order to ensure anonymity and minimize possible errors in sample collection, we put
all questionnaires into numbered envelopes that were jointly administered by one of the
researchers and an assistant from the organization’s HR department. After completing
the questionnaire, subjects were instructed to seal the envelopes and return them to the
researcher. After the questionnaires from both phases were collected, the questionnaires were
collated, and the data were analyzed.
 In the first phase of the survey, 400 questionnaires were sent out and 386 useable Leader
questionnaires were received (response rate of 96.5%). In the second phase, the 386 subjects integrity and
who completed the questionnaire in the first phase were given the additional questionnaire.
At the same time, their direct superiors were given the questionnaire asking them to rate their
employee voice
employee’s voice behavior. Due to some employees leaving their positions, being on vacation
and so forth, 274 complete samples were received in this second phase (response rate 70.9%).
Of these 274 employees, 50.4% were male, the mean age was 29.39 years (SD 5 6.57) and their
average organization tenure was 4.75 years (SD 5 4.32); 63.5% of paired leaders were male,
and, on average, employees and leaders worked together for 2.81 years (SD 5 2.37).

Measures
Perceived leader integrity. We measured perceived leader integrity with the 15-item scale
developed by Moorman et al. (2013). Sample items include “Never treat subordinates with
prejudice and discrimination.” Participants rated their direct supervisor’s perceived integrity
on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 5 never; 5 5 always). Cronbach’s α 5 0.93.
Perceived risk of voice. We used the scale developed by Wei et al. (2015) to measure the
perceived risk of voice. Sample items include “If I spoke up he or she would think that I do not
respect him/her.” All items were assessed on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 5 very unlikely;
7 5 very likely). Cronbach’s α 5 0.95.
Employee voice behavior. We measured employee voice behavior with the six-item scale
developed by Van Dyne and LePine (1998). Sample items include “When his/her opinion may
be helpful to the department, he/she would speak out.” All items were measured on a 5-point
Likert-type scale (1 5 never; 5 5 always). The scale was completed by the employee’s direct
supervisor. Cronbach’s α 5 0.88.
Leader consultation. We used four-item scale developed by Yukl et al. (2008) to measure
perceived leader consultation. Example items include “Invites you to suggest ways to
improve a preliminary plan or proposal that he/she wants you to support or help implement.”
All items were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 5 never; 5 5 always).
Cronbach’s α 5 0.88.
Control variables. To help isolate the effects of leader integrity on perceived risk of voice
and employee voice behavior, we controlled for other leader-subordinate attributes that have
the potential to impact employees’ perception of risk and voice behavior. Specifically, we
controlled for LMX which entails the quality of the supervisor-subordinate relationship
(Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995). All items were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 5 not at
all; 7 5 great extent). Cronbach’s α 5 0.89.
We also controlled for leadership empowerment behavior (Zhang and Bartol, 2010 from
Ahearne et al., 2005). We measured leadership empowerment behavior with a four-
dimensional scale consisting of the following subdimensions: enhancing the meaningfulness
of work, fostering participation in decision-making, expressing confidence in high
performance and providing autonomy from bureaucratic constraints (Ahearne et al., 2005).
All items were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 5 strongly disagree, 5 5 strongly
agree). Cronbach’s α 5 0.92.
Lastly, we also controlled demographic and job-related factors that may be differentially
associated with employee voice. These factors include supervisors’ and subordinates’ gender,
age, job position, organization tenure and the length of time each supervisor-subordinate
dyad had worked together (see Detert and Burris, 2007; Islam and Zyphur, 2005; Miceli et al.,
2008). We translated all English items into Chinese following the translation and back-
translation procedures advocated by Brislin (1970).
LODJ Results
Confirmatory factor analyses
We conducted confirmatory factor analysis with MPLU7.4. For leadership integrity, two first-
order dimensions were formed by items to be used as indicators of the overall leadership
integrity construct. And for empowering leadership, we used items to form four first-order
dimensions. Except for these two, for all other variables, items themselves were indicators of
their corresponding latent variables. The results (shown in Table 1) indicated that the data
fits six-factor model best (X2/df 5 2.08, CFI 5 0.91, TFI 5 0.90, RMSEA 5 0.06) among all
alternative models. Thus, the results provided support for the discriminant validity for the
core variables in this study.

Descriptive statistics
The descriptive statistics are shown in Table 2. Correlations indicate that leader integrity was
positively related to employee voice (r 5 0.40, p < 0.001). Leader integrity was negatively
related to perceived risk of voice (r 5 0.44, p < 0.001). Perceived risk of voice was negatively
related to employee voice (r 5 0.31, p < 0.001). At the same time, leader consultation was
positively related to employee voice (r 5 0.43, p < 0.001) and negatively related to perceived
risk of voice (r 5 0.20, p < 0.01). These results show preliminary support for Hypotheses 1
and 2.
In addition, LMX was positively related to leader integrity, leader consultation and
employee voice (r 5 0.55, p < 0.001; r 5 0.46, p < 0.001; r 5 0.36, p < 0.001), and was negatively
related to perceived risk of voice (r 5 0.37, p < 0.001); Similarly, empowering leadership was
positively related to leader integrity, leader consultation and employee voice (r 5 0.49,
p < 0.001; r 5 0.47, p < 0.001; r 5 0.38, p < 0.001), and was negatively related to perceived risk
of voice (r 5 0.34, p < 0.001). These findings confirm the need for controlling for LMX and
empowering leadership in our subsequent hypotheses testing.

Hypotheses testing
The main effect of leader integrity on employee voice
Hypothesis 1 suggests that leader integrity has a positive impact on employee voice. To test
this hypothesis, SPSS18 was used to conduct ridge regression analyses. First, employee voice
was set as the dependent variable. Then we input employees’ gender, age, organization

X2 df X2/df AIC BIC CFI TLI RMSEA (90%CI)

1 518.18 203 2.55 12,619.71 12,879.85 0.92 0.91 0.08[0.07,0.08]

2 615.60 206 2.99 12,728.38 12,977.68 0.89 0.88 0.09[0.08,0.09]
3 1,098.75 206 5.33 13,297.10 13,546.40 0.77 0.74 0.13[0.12,0.13]
4 711.85 206 3.46 12,842.75 13,092.06 0.87 0.85 0.10[0.09,0.10]
5 1,205.34 208 5.79 13,420.96 13,663.04 0.74 0.71 0.13[0.13,0.14]
6 1742.02 209 8.34 14,051.34 14,289.81 0.60 0.55 0.16[0.16,0.17]
Note(s): AIC 5 Akaike information criterion
BIC 5 Bayesian information criterion
1. Four-factor model: leader consultation, leader integrity, perceived risk of voice, employee voice
2. Three-factor model combine leader consultation and leader integrity
3. Three-factor model combine leader consultation and perceived risk of voice
Table 1. 4. Three-factor model combine leader integrity and perceived risk of voice
Confirmatory factor 5. Two-factor model combine leader consultation, leader integrity and perceived risk of voice
analyses (N 5 274) 6. Signal-factor model combine all variables into one factor
 Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Gender(employee) 1.50 0.50

2. Age(employee) 29.39 6.57 0.0.11
3. Tenure(employee) 4.75 4.32 0.04 0.75***
4. Work together 2.81 2.37 0.01 0.62*** 0.66**
5. Gender(leader) 1.37 0.50 0.37*** 0.15* 0.05 0.08
6. Age(leader) 35.09 7.64 0.08 0.33*** 0.29** 0.32*** 0.06
7. Empowering 4.00 0.66 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.92
leadership
8. LMX 3.72 0.74 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.09 0.01 0.05 0.79*** 0.89
*
9. Leader consultation 3.80 0.77 0.14 0.01 0.07 0.09 0.04 0.01 0.47*** 0.46*** 0.88
10. Perceived voice 2.16 0.93 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.34*** 0.37*** 0.20** 0.95
risk
*** *** ***
11. Leader integrity 3.96 0.69 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.01 0.49 0.55 0.58 0.44*** 0.93
*** *** ***
12. Employee voice 3.72 0.68 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.38 0.36 0.43 0.31*** 0.40*** 0.88
Note(s): SD 5 standard deviations; Gender 1 5 men 2 5 women; age, organization tenure, work together (year). The diagonal enlarged numbers represent the alpha
coefficient of the questionnaire in this study
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
integrity and
Leader
employee voice

Table 2.

statistics (N 5 274)
Descriptive
LODJ tenure, work time with leader, leaders’ gender, empowering leadership and LMX into
regression equation, and finally we input leader integrity. In accord with the results shown in
the Table 4, leader integrity was positively correlated with employee voice (M2, β 5 0.12,
p < 0.001). That is, leader integrity had a significant positive impact on employee voice
behavior. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is supported.
Test of mediating effect of perceived risk of voice
According to Hypothesis 2, the perceived risk of voice plays a mediating role in the positive
relationship between leader integrity and employee voice. We conducted hierarchical ridge
regression analysis to test this hypothesis. On the basis of the main effect test, we input the
perceived risk of voice as the dependent variable, and leader integrity as the independent
variable. As shown in Table 4, there was a significant negative relationship between leader
integrity and perceived risk of voice (M6, β 5 0.19, p < 0.001), that is, the higher the leader
integrity, the lower the employee’s perceived risk of voice.
Next, leader integrity and perceived risk of voice were input into the ridge regression
equation simultaneously. The results showed that the coefficients of leader integrity (M3,
β 5 0.11, p < 0.01) and perceived risk of voice (M3, β 5 0.06, p < 0.001) both were significant.
That is to say, partial mediation of perceived risk of voice was found in the positive
relationship between leader integrity and employee voice behavior. In order to verify the
mediating role of perceived risk of voice more rigorously, this study refers to the
bootstrapping approach of Preacher et al. (2006) for further verification. Moreover, in accord
with the ridge regression analysis we conducted, we tested the mediating effect of perceived
risk of voice according to the method recommended by Edwards and Lambert (2007). The
results are shown in Table 3.
The indirect effect of leader integrity on employee voice was 0.07, and 95% confidence
intervals (CI) were [0.03, 0.11] and did not include zero, indicating that the mediating effect of
perceived risk of voice was significant which provides support for Hypothesis 2.

Effect S.E./Boot S.E. 95% CI

Table 3. Leader integrity total effect of voice 0.13* 0.02

The mediating role of Leader integrity direct effect of voice 0.09*** 0.02
perceived risk of voice Leader integrity indirect effect of voice 0.04* 0.02 [0.00,0.03]
(bootstrap) Note(s): N 5 274, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

4.2
Low Leader
Consultation
Perceived Risk of Voice

3.8

Figure 2.
Moderating effect of
leader consultation 3.6
Low Leader Integrity High Leader Integrity
Employee voice(M1–M4) Perceived risk of voice(M5–M8)
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8

Intercept 2.83*** 2.50*** 2.72*** 2.50*** 3.35*** 3.87*** 3.91*** 3.97***

Control
Gender(em) 0.20 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00
Age(em) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
OT(em) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01
WT(em) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Gender(le) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Age(le) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
EL 0.12*** 0.11*** 0.10*** 0.08*** 0.15*** 0.12*** 0.12*** 0.12***
LMX 0.09*** 0.07*** 0.07*** 0.06*** 0.15*** 0.12*** 0.11*** 0.11***
Independent variable
Leader integrity 0.12*** 0.11** 0.09*** 0.19*** 0.18*** 0.18***
Mediator variable
Perceived risk of voice 0.06*** 0.05***
Moderator variable
Leader consultation 0.10*** 0.02 0.02
Interaction
Leader integrity 3 leader consultation 0.09*
R2 0.13 0.17 0.19 0.23 0.12 0.18 0.18 0.19
F 4.74*** 6.09*** 6.12*** 6.97*** 4.46*** 6.41*** 5.70*** 5.58***
△R2 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.01
Note(s): em 5 employee, le 5 leader; OT 5 organization tenure; WT 5 work together; EL 5 empowering leadership. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
integrity and
Leader
employee voice

Hierarchical ridge
Table 4.

results (N 5 274)
regression
LODJ Test of moderating effect of leader consultation
Hypothesis 3 proposes that leader consultation moderates the relationship between leader
integrity and perceived risk of voice. Hierarchical ridge regression was used to test this
hypothesis. The perceived risk of voice was input as the dependent variable, and then we
input the control variables, independent variable (leadership integrity), moderator variable
(leader consultation) and finally the interaction item, which was obtained by the
multiplication of independent variable and moderator variable after centralization.
Table 4, M8, shows the results of the hierarchical ridge regression. The interaction
between the independent variable (leader integrity) and the moderator variable (leader
consultation) had a significant effect on perceived risk of voice (M8, β 5 0.09, p < 0.05). The
moderating effect of leader consultation on the relationship between leader integrity and
perceived risk of voice was significant.
To examine the moderating effect of leader consultation on the main effect more clearly,
we conducted a simple slope test proposed by Preacher et al. (2006). An SD was added or
subtracted from the mean of the moderator variable (leader-subordinate consultation), and
then the ridge regression analyses of leader integrity and perceived risk of voice were
conducted, respectively. The results are shown in Figure 2.
When leader consultation was high and the level of leader integrity was high, employees’
perceived risk of voice was lower. Therefore, leader consultation positively moderated the
relationship between leader integrity and perceived risk of voice. Hypothesis 3 is supported.

Test of moderated mediating effect

In general, if we want to show that the moderated mediating effect is valid, we must
demonstrate that when the moderator variable takes a higher or lower value, the mediation
effect will change accordingly. On the basis of the ridge regression analysis we conducted, we
tested Hypothesis 4 by bootstrap method with SPSS18 according to the equations
recommended by Edwards and Lambert (2007). The results are shown in Table 5. At a high
level of leader consultation, the estimated value of the indirect effect of leader integrity on
employee voice (via perceived risk of voice) was 0.10, and 95% CI calculated by bias corrected
percentile method did not contain zero; therefore, it is significant at a 95% CI. Under the lower
level of leader consultation, the estimated value of the indirect effect of leader integrity on
employee voice (via perceived risk of voice) was 0.06, and 95% CI calculated by bias corrected
percentile method did not include zero; therefore, it is significant. The effect value of the
difference was 0.04, which also is significant at a 95% CI. That is to say, the moderated
mediation model proposed by the Hypothesis 4 is valid. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 is supported.

Supplemental analysis
To further discriminate empowering leadership from leader consultation, we conducted a
supplemental regression analysis. We conducted regression analysis under two different
conditions, with select variables removed and the procedure unchanged. According to the
results of hierarchical ridge regression analysis, when (1) removing all control variables, after
inputting both leader integrity and perceived risk of voice into the ridge regression analysis,

Indirect effect
Leader consultation Estimate S.E. Est./S.E. 95% CI
Table 5.
Moderated mediation High 0.10 0.03 2.88 [0.05,0.16]
effect test Low 0.06 0.02 2.67 [0.03,0.10]
results (N 5 274) Differences 0.04 0.02 2.21 [0.02,0.08]
the coefficients of leader integrity (β 5 0.14, p < 0.001) and perceived risk of voice (β 5 0.07, Leader
p < 0.001) with employee voice were still significant, which is consistent with the original integrity and
results. In addition, the interaction between leader integrity and leader consultation had a
significant effect on perceived risk of voice (β 5 0.08, p < 0.05). That is, the results still
employee voice
support our hypothesis; (2) when removing only the empowering leadership variable (given
its similarity to consultative leadership), leader integrity was positively correlated with
employee voice (β 5 0.13, p < 0.001) and was negatively correlated with perceived risk of
voice (β 5 0.20, p < 0.001). After inputting both leader integrity and perceived risk of voice
into the equation, leader integrity (β 5 0.12, p < 0.001) and perceived risk of voice (β 5 0.06,
p < 0.001) were significantly correlated with employee voice, respectively. The interaction
between leader integrity and leader consultation was negatively correlated with perceived
risk of voice (β 5 0.08, p < 0.05).

Discussion
Much has been written about the importance of leader integrity, and it is increasingly the
focus of systematic research; however, our understanding of how it impacts individual and
organizational outcomes is still developing (Moorman et al., 2013). In this study, we examined
the effects of leader integrity on employee voice. This is important because voice has been
shown to affect employees’ psychological well-being (Cortina and Magley, 2003), as well as
team and organizational outcomes such as innovation and decision-making (Bashshur and
Oc, 2015).
This study makes several notable contributions to our understanding of leadership and
employee voice. First, although prior research has examined the relationship between
leadership and voice (e.g. Detert and Burris, 2007; Duan et al., 2017), this prior research has not
clearly explicated the effects of leader integrity on voice. Moreover, as we discussed earlier,
we think there is compelling evidence why leader integrity should not be viewed as
tantamount to ethical leadership or behavioral integrity (see Moorman et al., 2013, 2018). In
addition, the control variables that we included in our analysis (i.e. LMX and leadership
empowerment behavior) add to our understanding of the discriminant and criterion validity
of Moorman et al.’s (2013) measure of perceived leader integrity.
In addition, prior research has shown trust to be associated with voice (Premeaux and
Bedeian, 2003) and a number of factors related to voice (e.g. information sharing,
organizational citizenship behavior; McEvily et al., 2003; Restubog et al., 2008). However,
trust is commonly defined as “a psychological state comprising the intention to accept
vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another”
(Rousseau et al., 1998, p. 395). Therefore, studies that have examined the relationship between
trust and voice may infer the integrity of the trustee, but this is not equivalent to directly
examining perceptions of leader integrity.
On the other hand, measures of trustworthiness do share conceptual similarities
with measures of leader integrity; however, much of the research on trustworthiness
combines multiple dimensions of trustworthiness into an aggregate measure (e.g. Costa
and Anderson, 2011) which confounds the effects of integrity with the other dimensions
(i.e. benevolence and ability; Mayer et al., 1995) of trustworthiness. Research that isolates
the effects of leader integrity on voice, or examines mechanisms through which these
effects occur, is lacking.
Similarly, much of the prior research on employee voice has explicitly or implicitly placed
psychological safety as a mediator between antecedent variables and voice behavior (Detert
and Edmondson, 2011). Prior research has shown that behavioral integrity can influence
perceptions of psychological safety (Palanski and Vogelgesang, 2011). However,
psychological safety is defined as a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal
LODJ risk-taking (Edmondson, 1999). Our examination of perceived risk of voice as a mediating
factor is more precise relative to the risks associated with voice, and hence avoids the
potential confounds of other types of risk (e.g. seeking feedback; Edmondson, 2003)
associated with the broader concept of psychological safety.
Our research also advances our understanding of how leader-subordinate consultation
can enhance voice. Prior research that has examined this relationship has focused on the
effects that consultation can have on the employees’ pro-social motivation and self-efficacy
(Tangirala and Ramanujam, 2012). Our findings augment this prior work by showing that
leader-subordinate consultation can also reduce the perceived risk of voice, and hence
increase voice behavior, when the leader is perceived as high in integrity.
The results of this study suggest several recommendations for practice. First, our results
provide empirical evidence for yet another reason organizations should value integrity in
their leaders. Although platitudes about leader integrity are easy to find in the scholarly and
practitioner literatures, the prevalent malfeasance and low levels of trust in business
(Edelman, 2019) suggest that too many leaders still place their own self-interest above leading
with integrity. This is all the more important as rapid innovation is increasingly a strategic
imperative that requires input from employees at all levels.
Our findings also provide empirical evidence of the benefits of leader-subordinate
consultation. Although these findings are not novel in and of themselves, the interaction
effects we found between leader integrity and consultation suggest that consultation is more
effective when leader integrity is higher. One possible reason for this is the “charade of
consultation” (Roberto, 2013) that employees experience when a leader is viewed as low in
integrity.

Limitations
The nature of our sample entails several limitations. There is considerable heterogeneity
in our sample considering the diverse array of industries and organizations we sampled
across. This is potentially both a strength and weakness of this study. It is a potential
strength in that our findings are less likely due to idiosyncrasies and homogeneity of
experience related to one particular industry or organization (see Mathieu and Zajac, 1990).
However, this also precluded examining how these effects may be artifacts of a particular
industry or organization. Moreover, the variety of industries from which we sampled was not
comprehensive, nor does the size of the sample from each individual industry or organization
enable statistically powerful conclusions to be drawn for each industry or organization.
Similarly, this study was conducted in China, a culture that is relatively unique regarding
perceptions of leadership effectiveness (see Chen and Farh, 2010). It is not clear how these
results would generalize to other cultures.
Construct proliferation and construct redundancy are serious problems in industrial/
organizational psychology, organizational behavior and other social science areas
(Le et al., 2010). Therefore, it is important to establish that our study provides insights
beyond that of prior research involving ostensibly distinct, yet conceptually similar,
constructs. To some extent, we accomplished this conceptually and empirically, yet more
work is needed in this regard. We controlled for LMX and leader empowerment behavior
and found that perceptions of leader integrity and leader-subordinate consultation had
significant effects that were not captured by measures of these related constructs. We also
discussed the reasons that our measure of perceived leader integrity provides insights not
captured by measures of ethical leadership, behavioral integrity and trust. We also
provide conceptual justification for our use of perceived risk of voice and how this measure
is more precise than the more commonly examined mediating factor of psychological
safety.
Conclusion Leader
This study helps explain how leader integrity influences employees’ voice behavior. We integrity and
theorized that perceptions of leader integrity can impact the uncertainty that is often inherent
in employees’ decisions to speak up or remain silent about important issues at work. Our
employee voice
findings that the relationship between leader integrity and voice is mediated by the perceived
risk of voice suggest that leader integrity does have this effect. Moreover, our findings that
leader consultation moderates this relationship shows how these leader behaviors can be
effective in further attenuating perceptions of risk and uncertainty and in fostering
employee voice.

References
Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J. and Rapp, A. (2005), “To empower or not to empower your sales force? an
empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer
satisfaction and performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90, pp. 945-955.
Argyris, C. (1998), “Empowerment: the emperor’s new clothes”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76,
pp. 98-105.
Aryee, S., Walumbwa, F.O., Mondejar, R. and Chu, C.W.L. (2017), “Core self-evaluations and employee
voice behavior: test of a dual-motivational pathway”, Journal of Management, Vol. 43,
pp. 946-966.
Ashford, S.J., Sutcliffe, K.M. and Christianson, M.K. (2009), “Speaking up and speaking out: the
leadership dynamics of voice in organizations”, Greenberg, J. and Edwards, M. (Eds), Voice and
Silence in Organizations, Emerald, Bingley, pp. 175-202.
Bandura, A. (1977), Social Learning Theory, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bashshur, M.R. and Oc, B. (2015), “When voice matters: a multilevel review of the impact of voice in
organizations”, Journal of Management, Vol. 41, pp. 1530-1554.
Bazerman, M.H. (2006), Judgment and Managerial Decision Making, 6th ed, John Wiley and Sons, New
York, NY.
Bies, R.J. and Moag, J.S. (1986), “Interactional justice: communication criteria of fairness”, Lewicki, R.J.,
Sheppard, B.H. and Bazerman, M.H. (Eds), Research on Negotiations in Organizations, JAI Press,
Greenwich, CT, Vol. 1, pp. 43-55.
Blader, S.L. and Tyler, T.R. (2005), “How can theories of organizational justice explain the effects of
fairness?” Greenberg, J. and Colquitt, J.A. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Justice, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 329-354.
Blau, P. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Bormann, K.C. and Rowold, J. (2016), “Ethical leadership’s potential and boundaries in organizational
change: a moderated mediation model of employee silence”, German Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 30, pp. 225-245.
Brinsfield, C.T. (2013), “Employee silence motives: investigation of dimensionality and development of
measures”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 34, pp. 671-697.
Brinsfield, C.T., Edwards, M.S. and Greenberg, J. (2009), “Voice and silence in organizations: historical
review and current conceptualizations”, Greenberg, J. and Edwards, M.S. (Eds), Voice and
Silence in Organizations: Historical Review and Current Conceptualizations, Emerald,
Bingley, pp. 3-33.
Brislin, R.W. (1970), “Back-translation for cross-cultural research”, Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 185-216.
no, L.K. and Harrison, D.A. (2005), “Ethical leadership: a social learning perspective
Brown, M.E., Trevi~
for construct development and testing”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 97, pp. 117-134.
LODJ Chamberlin, M., Newton, D.W. and LePine, J.A. (2017), “A meta-analysis of voice and its promotive
and prohibitive forms: identification of key associations, distinctions, and future research
directions”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 70, pp. 11-71.
Chen, C.C. and Farh, J.L. (2010), “Developments in understanding Chinese leadership: paternalism and
its elaborations, moderations, and alternatives”, The Oxford Handbook of Chinese Psychology,
pp. 599-622, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Colquitt, J.A. (2001), “On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a
measure”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86, pp. 386-400.
Cortina, L.M. and Magley, V.J. (2003), “Raising voice, risking retaliation: events following interpersonal
mistreatment in the workplace”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 8, pp. 247-265.
Costa, A.C. and Anderson, N. (2011), “Measuring trust in teams: Development and validation of a
multifaceted measure of formative and reflective indicators of team trust”, European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 119-154.
Detert, J.R. and Burris, E.R. (2007), “Leadership behavior and employee voice: is the door really open?”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50, pp. 869-884.
Detert, J.R. and Edmondson, A.C. (2011), “Implicit voice theories: taken-for-granted rules of self-
censorship at work”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 54, pp. 461-488.
Dienesch, R.M. and Liden, R.C. (1986), “Leader–member exchange model of leadership: a critique and
further development”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11, pp. 618-634.
Duan, J., Li, C., Xu, Y. and Wu, C.h. (2017), “Transformational leadership and employee voice behavior:
a Pygmalion mechanism”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 38, pp. 650-670.
Edelman (2019), Edelman Trust Barometer, available at: www.edelman.com/trust/2019.
Edmondson, A.C. (1999), “Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams”, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 44, pp. 350-383.
Edmondson, A.C. (2003), “Managing the risk of learning: psychological safety in work teams”, in
West, M. (Ed.), International Handbook of Organizational Teamwork and Cooperative Working,
John Wiley and Sons, London, pp. 255-276.
Edwards, J.R. and Lambert, L.S. (2007), “Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: a general
analytical framework using moderated path analysis”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 12, pp. 1-22.
Fiske, S.T. (2004), Social Beings: A Core Motives Approach to Social Psychology, John Wiley and Sons,
Danvers, MA.
Fiske, S.T. and Taylor, S. (1991), Social Cognition, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Gillespie, N.A. and Mann, L. (2004), “Transformational leadership and shared values: the building
blocks of trust”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 19, pp. 588-607.
Gilstrap, J.B. and Collins, B.J. (2012), “The importance of being trustworthy: trust as a mediator of the
relationship between leader behaviors and employee job satisfaction”, Journal of Leadership
and Organizational Studies, Vol. 19, pp. 152-163.
Gordon, M.E. and Fryxell, G.E. (1993), “The role of interpersonal justice in organizational grievance
systems”, in Cropanzano, R. (Ed.), Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness in Human
Resource Management, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 231-255.
Graen, G.B. and Uhl-Bien, M. (1995), “Relationship-based approach to leadership: development of
leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level
multi-domain perspective”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6, pp. 219-247.
Grant, A.M. (2013), “Rocking the boat but keeping it steady: the role of emotion regulation in employee
voice”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 56, pp. 1703-1723.
Greenberg, J. (1993), “The social side of fairness: interpersonal and informational classes of
organizational justice”, in Cropanzano, R. (Ed.), Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness
in Human Resource Management, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 79-103.
Greenberger, D.B. and Strasser, S. (1986), “Development and application of a model of personal control Leader
in organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11, pp. 164-177.
integrity and
Harlos, K. (2016), “Employee silence in the context of unethical behavior at work: a commentary”,
German Journal of Human Resource Management: Zeitschrift f€ ur Personalforschung, Vol. 30,
employee voice
pp. 345-355.
Hohwy, J. (2013), The Predictive Mind, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.
Islam, G. and Zyphur, M.J. (2005), “Power, voice, and hierarchy: exploring the antecedents of speaking
up in groups”, Group Dynamics Theory Research and Practice, Vol. 9, pp. 93-103.
Klein, H.J. and Delery, J.E. (2012), “Construct clarity in human resource management research:
introduction to the special issue”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 22, pp. 57-61.
Le, H., Schmidt, F.L., Harter, J.K. and Lauver, K.J. (2010), “The problem of empirical redundancy of
constructs in organizational research: an empirical investigation”, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 112, pp. 112-125.
Lee, D., Choi, Y., Youn, S. and Chun, J.U. (2017), “Ethical leadership and employee moral voice: the
mediating role of moral efficacy and the moderating role of leader–follower value congruence”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 141, pp. 47-57.
LePine, J.A. and Van Dyne, L. (1998), “Predicting voice behavior in work groups”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 853-868.
Lewicki, R.J. and Brinsfield, C.T. (2011), “Framing trust: trust as a heuristic”, Donohue, W.A., Rogan,
R.R. and Kaufman, S. (Eds), Framing Matters: Perspectives on Negotiation Research and Practice
in Communication, Peter Lang Publishing, New York, NY, pp. 110-135.
Liden, R.C. and Maslyn, J.M. (1998), “Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: an empirical
assessment through scale development”, Journal of Management, Vol. 24, pp. 43-50.
Lind, E.A. and van den Bos, K. (2002), “When fairness works: toward a general theory of uncertainty
management”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24, pp. 181-223.
Lind, E.A., Kanfer, R. and Earley, P.C. (1990), “Voice, control, and procedural justice: instrumental and
noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 59, pp. 952-959.
Mathieu, J.E. and Zajac, D.M. (1990), “A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and
consequences of organizational commitment”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108, pp. 171-194.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995), “An integrative model of organizational trust”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 709-734.
McEvily, B., Perrone, V. and Zaheer, A. (2003), “Trust as an organizing principle”, Organization
Science, Vol. 14, pp. 91-103.
Miceli, M.P., Near, J.P. and Dworkin, T.M. (2008), Whistleblowing in Organizations, Routledge, New
York, NY.
Milliken, F.J., Morrison, E.W. and Hewlin, P.F. (2003), “An exploratory study of employee silence:
issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why”, Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 40, pp. 1453-1476.
Mo, S. and Shi, J. (2018), “The voice link: a moderated mediation model of how ethical leadership
affects individual task performance”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 152, pp. 91-101.
Moorman, R.H. and Grover, S. (2009), “Why does leader integrity matter to followers? an uncertainty
management-based explanation”, International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 5,
pp. 102-114.
Moorman, R.H., Darnold, T.C., Priesemuth, M. and Dunn, C.P. (2012), “Toward the measurement of
perceived leader integrity: introducing a multidimensional approach”, Journal of Change
Management, Vol. 12, pp. 383-398.
LODJ Moorman, R.H., Darnold, T.C. and Priesemuth, M. (2013), “Perceived leader integrity: supporting the
construct validity and utility of a multi-dimensional measure in two samples”, The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 24, pp. 427-444.
Moorman, R.H., Blakely, G.L. and Darnold, T.C. (2018), “Understanding how perceived leader integrity
affects follower trust: lessons from the use of multidimensional measures of integrity and trust”,
Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 25, pp. 277-289.
Morrison, E.W. (2011), “Employee voice behavior: integration and directions for future research”, The
Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 5, pp. 373-412.
Morrison, E.W. (2014), “Employee voice and silence”, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1, pp. 173-197.
Newman, A., Donohue, R. and Eva, N. (2017), “Psychological safety: a systematic review of the
literature”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 27, pp. 521-535.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Palanski, M.E. and Vogelgesang, G.R. (2011), “Virtuous creativity: the effects of leader behavioural
integrity on follower creative thinking and risk taking”, Canadian Journal of Administrative
Sciences, Vol. 28, pp. 259-269.
Palanski, M.E. and Yammarino, F.J. (2007), “Integrity and leadership: clearing the conceptual
confusion”, European Management Journal, Vol. 25, pp. 171-184.
Peng, H. and Wei, F. (2019), “How and when does leader behavioral integrity influence employee
voice? The roles of team independence climate and corporate ethical values”, Journal of
Business Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10551-019-04114-x.
Preacher, K.J., Curran, P.J. and Bauer, D.J. (2006), “Computational tools for probing interactions in
multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis”, Journal of
Educational and Behavioral Statistics, Vol. 31, pp. 437-448.
Premeaux, S.F. and Bedeian, A.G. (2003), “Breaking the silence: the moderating effects of self-
monitoring in predicting speaking up in the workplace”, Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 40, pp. 1537-1562.
Restubog, S.L.D., Hornsey, M.J., Bordia, P. and Esposo, S.R. (2008), “Effects of psychological contract
breach on organizational citizenship behaviour: insights from the group value model”, Journal
of Management Studies, Vol. 45, pp. 1377-1400.
Roberto, M.A. (2013), Why Great Leaders Don’t Take Yes for an Answer: Managing for Conflict and
Consensus, FT Press, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S. and Camerer, C. (1998), “Not so different after all: a cross-
discipline view of trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, pp. 393-404.
Saunders, D.M., Sheppard, B.H., Knight, V. and Roth, J. (1992), “Employee voice to supervisors”,
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 5, pp. 241-259.
Simons, T.L. (1999), “Behavioral integrity as a critical ingredient for transformational leadership”,
Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 12, pp. 89-104.
Simons, T., Leroy, H., Collewaert, V. and Masschelein, S. (2015), “How leader alignment of words and
deeds affects followers: a meta-analysis of behavioral integrity research”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 132, pp. 831-844.
Suddaby, R. (2010), “Editor’s comments: construct clarity in theories of management and
organization”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 35, pp. 346-357.
Tangirala, S. and Ramanujam, R. (2012), “Ask and you shall hear (but not always): examining the
relationship between manager consultation and employee voice”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 65,
pp. 251-282.
Thibaut, J. and Walker, L. (1975), Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Thomas, K.W. and Velthouse, B.A. (1990), “Cognitive elements of empowerment: an ‘interpretive’ Leader
model of intrinsic task motivation”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15, pp. 666-681.
integrity and
no, L.K. and Brown, M.E. (2014), “Ethical leadership”, in Day, D.V. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook
Trevi~
of Leadership and Organizations, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 524-538.
employee voice
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1981), “The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice”,
Science, Vol. 211, pp. 453-458.
van den Bos, K. and Lind, E.A. (2002), “Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments”, in
Zanna, M.P. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Academic Press, San Diego, CA,
Vol. 34, pp. 1-60.
van den Bos, K. and Miedema, J. (2000), “Toward understanding why fairness matters: the influence of
mortality salience on reactions to procedural fairness”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 79, pp. 355-366.
Van Dyne, L. and LePine, J.A. (1998), “Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: evidence of construct
and predictive validity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41, pp. 108-119.
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S. and Botero, I.C. (2003), “Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as
multidimensional constructs”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 40, pp. 1359-1392.
Van Dyne, L., Kamdar, D. and Joireman, J. (2008), “In-role perceptions buffer the negative impact of
low LMX on helping and enhance the positive impact of high LMX on voice”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 93, pp. 1195-1207.
Walumbwa, F.O. and Schaubroeck, J. (2009), “Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior:
mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 94, pp. 1275-1286.
Wei, X., Zhang, Z.X. and Chen, X.P. (2015), “I will speak up if my voice is socially desirable: a
moderated mediating process of promotive versus prohibitive voice”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 100, pp. 1641-1652.
Wood, S. and de Menezes, L.M. (2011), “High involvement management, high-performance work
systems and well-being”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 22,
pp. 1586-1610.
Yukl, G., Seifert, C.F. and Chavez, C. (2008), “Validation of the extended influence behavior
questionnaire”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 19, pp. 609-621.
Zhang, X. and Bartol, K.M. (2010), “Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: the
influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process
engagement”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53, pp. 107-128.
Zhang, Z.X., Zhang, Y. and Wang, M. (2011), “Harmony, illusory relationship costs, and conflict
resolution in Chinese contexts”, Leung, A.K.Y., Chiu, C.Y. and Hong, Y.Y. (Eds), Cultural
Processes: A Social Psychological Perspective, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY,
pp. 188-209.
Zhu, Y. and Akhtar, S. (2014), “How transformational leadership influences follower helping behavior:
the role of trust and prosocial motivation”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 35,
pp. 373-392.

Corresponding author
Chad Brinsfield can be contacted at: cbrinsfield@stthomas.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com