.

In fact, research shows that people are more motivated to apply, are willing to accept lower
salaries, and are less likely to quit if jobs provide meaningful work (Achor, Kellerman, Reece,
& Robichaux, 2018; Hu & Hirsh, 2017)

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES

2.1 | Meaningfulness and job performance

Meaningful work is ranked by employees as more important than virtually all other aspects
of work, including pay, rewards, promotion, or working conditions (Achor, Reece, Kellerman,
& Robichaux, 2018)

2.2 | Meaningfulness and promotive voice behaviors

Meaningfulness stimulates interest in work and the urge to be creative, broadening people's
mindsets so that they are open to new ideas. When the mindset is broadened, the theory
predicts that people actively look to build intellectual, social, or psychological resources
(Fredrickson, 1998). In finding one's work meaningful, a person may seek out additional
information to improve the process by which tasks are carried out (intellectual resources);
connect with people in different departments in the organization to find synergies to improve
the organization's products or processes (social resources); or take up development
opportunities that provide them with confidence in their role (psychological resources)
(Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005; Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004). Meaningfulness therefore
broadens employees' mindsets and builds their resources, which drives and enables
employees to make constructive suggestions to improve workplace functioning.

Hypothesis 1 Meaningfulness is positively associated with promotive voice behaviors.

2.3 The mediating role of promotive voice behaviors

Promotive voice behaviors include suggestions from employees that might help
organizations seize business opportunities or enable them to correct problems that occur
(Morrison, 2011). Consequently, supervisors view promotive voice behaviors as a valuable
contribution to the organization and thus as an important element of employees' job
performance (Chamberlin, Newton, & LePine, 2017). Promotive voice behaviors might also
be seen as a way for employees to showcase their expertise and commitment and thus
correspond to their supervisors' notion of “model employees” (Allen & Rush, 1998;
MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1993; Morrison, 2011). Lastly, making constructive
suggestions is not always formally mandated by organizations and often goes beyond the
call of duty (MacKenzie et al., 1993). In this regard, DeNisi, Cafferty, and Meglino (1984)
argued that raters (e.g., direct supervisors) search for particularly noteworthy performance
information and that behaviors that are attributed to stable and internal causes are most
likely to be considered in the performance evaluation. Raters therefore perceive promotive
voice behaviors as particularly distinct performance signals, and as a result, remember and
use this information when evaluating employees' job performance (MacKenzie et al., 1993;
Morrison, 2011).
Hypothesis 2 Promotive voice behaviors are positively associated with employee job
performance ratings.

meaningfulness broadens people's mindsets and found that work engagement mediates the
negative relationship between meaningfulness and absenteeism. We build on the work of
Soane et al. (2013) to suggest that the broadening and building effect of meaningfulness
also translates into higher job performance ratings, via promotive voice.

Hypothesis 3 Promotive voice behaviors mediate the relationship between meaningfulness

and employee job performance ratings

2.4 | The moderating role of LMX

While meaningfulness of work represents the broadening process (Soane et al., 2013),
thereby instilling employees to think outside the box and develop ideas for improving
workplace functioning (Morrison, 2011), it is not guaranteed that those who find their work
meaningful will actually engage in voice behaviors. For instance, employees are only able to
convert their feelings about a job into enhanced performance when they have the
opportunity to express their voice (Jackson & Wall, 1991; Karasek, 1979; Wall, Corbett,
Martin, Clegg, & Jackson, 1990), and employees may decide it is not worth their while to
voice their suggestions to management if the benefits do not outweigh the costs (Detert &
Burris, 2007). In this regard,

direct supervisors play an instrumental role because they can provide employees with the
sense of autonomy and motivation needed to engage in voice behaviors at work.

According to Graen and Uhl-Bien's (1995) LMX theory, the quality of the relationship
between supervisors and followers (i.e., LMX) differs with regard to resources, information,
and support exchanged by each party. Employees who have positive exchange relationships
with their supervisors have trust, respect, and like them. In contrast, employees who have
negative exchange relationships with their supervisors generally do not regard them as
worthy of trust or respect (Graen & UhlBien, 1995). We suggest that LMX strengthens the
positive relationship between meaningfulness and promotive voice behaviors, and ultimately
job performance, because high-quality leaders provide employees with the positive and safe
environment needed to experience recurring positive emotions (Fredrickson, 1998).
Employees with high LMX perceive their supervisors as more open to voice, more
approachable, and interested in their input (Detert & Burris, 2007). These high-quality social
interactions are likely to amplify the broaden-and-build process that is impelled by
meaningfulness because they create space for positive socio-emotional experiences
(Fredrickson, 2001; Shantz & Alfes, 2015). In contrast, when LMX is low, leaders signal less
interest in their employees' voice, thereby decreasing the latter's perceived chances that
their voice will be effective to affect change. This, in turn, leads to negative feelings (e.g.,
futility and resignation) that stifle the broaden-and-build process (Fredrickson, 1998). LMX
may also influences the relationship between meaningfulness and job performance via
promotive voice because of the perceived safety that is provided in high-quality LMX
relationships (Morrison, 2011). According to Fredrickson (1998), feelings of safety are
necessary building blocks for broadening individuals' thoughtaction repertoires. In contrast,
when people feel unsafe, they are more likely to have narrowed mindsets that hamper
thoughtful and creative behavior (Fredrickson, 1998). Since promotive voice behaviors often
criticize the status quo, and upward targets (e.g., supervisors) could feel challenged and
retaliate, employees might fear negative personal outcomes of voice behaviors (Detert &
Burris, 2007). However, when LMX is high, supervisors exhibit openness and accessibility,
which signals to employees experiencing meaningfulness that it is safe for them to suggest
new ideas and voice their opinions on work-related matters. Indeed, research has shown
that high-quality LMX fosters a climate of psychological safety in which employees feel free
and unthreatened to voice their opinion (Agarwal, Datta, Blake-Beard, & Bhargava, 2012)