MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING THE RESEARCH PROJECT IS CONDUCTED AT

NATIONAL ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY

NATIONAL ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY

---------------------------------

Supervisors:
HOANG LE AN 1.
2.

TEAM COLLECTIVE VOICE AND ITS Reviewers:

ROLES IN PROMOTING TEAM 1.
2.
INNOVATIVE PERFORMANCE 3.

SPECIALIZATION: BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION The dissertation defense at the university level

SPECIALIZATION CODE: 9340101 at the National Economics University
On……………., 2023

PHD DISSERTATION SUMMARY

The dissertation is archived at:

- The National Library of Vietnam
- The Library of the National Economics University
HANOI – 2023
 RESEARCH PROJECTS RELATED TO
THE DISSERTATION BY THE PHD CANDIDATE
1. Hoang, A.L., Phan, A.T.T., Dong, D.X., Tran, T.T.H. and Nguyen,
C.T. (2023), "Exploring team collective voice: the case of software
development teams in Vietnam", International Journal of
Organization Theory & Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 1/2, pp. 78-97.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOTB-02-2022-0036
2. Hoang, A.L. (2023), “The role of employee voice and team member
satisfaction on different types of team performance”, Journal of
Finance & Accounting Research, No. 02 (21) – 2023, pp. 128-133.
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Rationale
Organizations today increasingly seek proactive employee contributions
as valuable inputs (Wilkinson & Fay, 2011) for innovation/adaptation
processes to deal with a fast-changing external environment. One type
of proactivity is employee voice, which refers to employees’ expressions
of ideas, suggestions, or attempts to change the unfavorable status quo
(Detert & Burris, 2007). It is widely recognized that employee voice
would improve employee job engagement (Cheng et al., 2013), team and
organization performance (Frazier & Bowler, 2015; Li et al., 2017),
promote creativity and innovation (Guo, 2016; Miao et al., 2020;
Rasheed et al., 2017), etc.
Multiple studies have asserted that voice is multilevel (Frazier & Bowler,
2015; Huang & Paterson, 2017; Li et al., 2017), including individual and
collective levels. Collective forms of voice, such as team voice, offer
employees a safer way to express their views (Huang & Paterson, 2017),
which is particularly important in some contexts, such as China (Jing et
al., 2022; Wu et al., 2020). However, team voice has been significantly
understudied with only a few studies have touched the issue such as
Frazier (2009), Frazier & Bowler (2015), Huang & Paterson (2017), Kim
et al. (2010), Li et al. (2017), Torre (2018) and Walumbwa et al. (2012).
However, the term has been understood differently among those scholars
without speciating different views and digging into the nature of team
voice itself.
In addition, voice literature seems to have a Western bias (Wilkinson et
al., 2020). Studies of voice in Eastern countries are rare. Since human
and organizational behaviors, such as voice, are highly influenced by
institutional features (Scott, 1995), this research argues that voice
behavior is highly context-specific. In Eastern contexts such as China
1
and Vietnam, the voice of individual employees is restricted by
contextual features such as authoritative leadership, large power
distance, collectivism, valuing harmony over conflict, face-saving and
relationship-keeping, and respect for elders (Garner, 2012; Jing et al.,
2022; Kassing, 1997; Zhang et al., 2015). This means a more collective
form of voice would practically hold greater significance in these
contexts as an alternative mechanism to hinder individual voice and
contribute to enhancing organizational outcomes. This urges for further
examination of team voice both conceptually and empirically.
1.2. Research objectives and research questions
The concept of team collective voice was proposed to differentiate it
from other team voice concepts in previous literature. Thence, the
following research objectives are aimed to achieve:
- Exploring the true connotations and conceptualization of team
collective voice, its characteristics, and formation process.
- Developing the precise method to measure team collective voice
and investigating the influence of team collective voice on team
innovative performance.
- Comparing the use and impacts of team collective voice and
individual voice.
The objectives are refined into these five research questions: (1) Does
team collective voice exist in Vietnam organizations and what is the
nature of team collective voice?; (2) In what situations is team collective
voice used?; (3) What types of team collective voice are used, and how
are they formed?; (4) How is the use of team collective voice compared
to individual voice?; (5) How does team collective voice influence team
innovative performance?
2 3
1.3. Research subject and scope
Research subject
The key research subject of this dissertation is the team collective voice
of work teams in organizations, which is defined as the expression of
shared views, ideas, suggestions, or opinions of a work team to either
higher management, other teams, or individuals in the organization in an
attempt to challenge or change the current status quo.
In addition, this study also compared the use of these two levels of voice,
and also their influence on team innovative performance.
Research scope
In both phases of the study, employees from Information and
Communication Technologies (ICT) were targeted. This sector was
chosen owing to its growing importance in Vietnam's economic
development (Bukht & Heeks, 2017; Dahlman et al., 2016; ITU, 2016;
Nguyen, 2021; Vu, 2022) as well as the profession's nature of working
in teams (Rubin, 2012), which contributes to its appropriateness for
researching about team collective voice.
To answer the research questions, this dissertation has adopted
exploratory sequential mixed methods which include two phases of
conducting research order (Creswell & Clark, 2017). The first phase was
an exploratory qualitative study to address the development in the
conceptualization of team collective voice. Data was collected through
semi-structured interviews with 30 employees to generate insights about
the team collective voice. The second phase was a quantitative study
with cross-sectional data collected from surveying employees. 765
survey respondents working in 157 ICT teams have participated in this
study. Both phases' data was collected from different organizations in
Hanoi and Hochiminh City, which are the two biggest cities in Vietnam
where most of the ICT firms are based.
 reviewed literature, which includes three main categories, individual,
CHAPTER 1. LITERATURE REVIEW organizational factors, and external environment as shown in Figure 1.1.

1.1. Employee voice

Figure 1.1. Map of individual voice antecedents
The term voice has appeared since 1970 in the model of Exit, Voice, and
Loyalty (Hirschman, 1970). Since then, various authors have studied and
theoretical and empirical developed this term. They can be categorized
into three perspectives toward voice conceptualizations: Response to
dissatisfaction; Fairness indication; and Extra role behavior. Literature
has also explored employee voice as a multilevel concept (Frazier &
Bowler, 2015; Huang & Paterson, 2017) including individual voice and
collective voice. Collective voice refers to the articulation of employees'
input who normally have joint experiences (i.e. desires, challenges,
frustrations, and joys) and speak in unity through some form of collective
employee representation (Jing et al., 2022; Lavelle et al., 2010). The
In terms of team voice, the majority of studies have positioned team
collective voice at team level has been understudied. There are only 24
voice as the aggregation of members' voices. As a result, the influencing
papers investigating collective voice at team level found with diverse
factors of team voice all share a common purpose which is the attempt
definitions, connotations, and measurements, including:
to reduce employees' perceived risk when raising voice through either
(1) Team voice as team influence having high CSEs individuals (Wang & Hu, 2018), suitable leadership
(2) Team voice as the aggregation of members’ voice styles (Chen et al., 2022; Frazier & Bowler, 2015; Walumbwa et al.,
(3) Team voice as shared voice 2012; Ye et al., 2019; Zheng et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2021) or voice
1.2. Factors influencing employee voice climate (Brykman & Maerz, 2022; Chen et al., 2022; Zheng et al., 2022;
Studies addressing individual voice antecedents are abundant. Most of Zhou et al., 2021). This further highlights the shortage of literature on
them were conducted in isolation and focused on a single or several exploring team voice as shared voice behavior. No study has addressed
determinants of voice in a variety of contexts and methods. Only a few those elements affecting the use of team shared voice.
integrative research have been done to draw overview pictures of 1.3. The impacts of employee voice on innovative performance
workplace voice determinants (Klaas et al., 2012; Morrison, 2014). A Literature regarding the individual voice and innovation/innovative
map of individual voice antecedents has been constructed based on the performance mostly approached this relationship as employee voice
provides new ideas, suggestions, or opinions about work-related issues

4 5
(Anand et al., 2007; Lopez‐Cabrales et al., 2009). In addition, employee
voice also contributes more directly to innovation by pointing out errors
or problems in both formulation and implementation stages (Enz &
Schwenk, 1991) and suggesting solutions (Bogosian, 2011). There are
only a few studies that have taken a theoretical view of this relationship.
Rasheed et al. (2017) used a resource-based view (RBV) and Basheer et
al. (2021) used organizational justice theory to explain how voice may
influence organizational innovation.
In terms of team voice, it also contributes to performance and innovation
through the generation of ideas, opinions, knowledge and information
sharing, team learning, and thorough discussion of different perspectives
between team members leading to better decision-making and problem-
solving (Frazier & Bowler, 2015; He et al., 2021; Walumbwa et al.,
2012; Ye et al., 2019). Based on regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997),
Li et al. (2017) asserted that the content of voice messages, either
promotive or prohibitive, has a very important role and results in
different pathways and team outcomes. Empirically, Li et al. (2017)
found team promotive voice positively influences team innovation,
while that of team prohibitive voice is team monitoring.
In summary, although studies do not explicitly apply and point out their
theoretical perspectives, it seems that literature has been quite united in
taking the RBV when considering employee voice as a resource of new
ideas contributing to innovation and success of organizations. Other
views have not yet been well developed. In addition, these influence
mechanisms of team voice are not much different from those of
individual voice since these authors mostly conceptualized team voice
as the aggregation of members' voice – the extent to which individual
members express their views within the team context.
6 7
1.4. Research gaps in team voice literature
The review of the literature has revealed several gaps in employee voice
research that require further investigation. First, there are divergent
understandings of team voice and how it is measured. Kim et al.'s (2010)
and Torre's (2019) team voice mainly captured team autonomy, which is
a working style rather than the expression of opinions. Other authors
assessed the team-level construct by aggregating team members' voice
behavior (Brykman & Maerz, 2022; Chen et al., 2022; He et al., 2021; Li
et al., 2017; Podsakoff et al., 2015; Sessions et al., 2020; Um-e-Rubbab
et al., 2022; Wang & Hu, 2018; Zhou et al., 2021). This way of
operationalizing the concept captures only the shared perceptions of team
members regarding the level of members' voices. This is distinctive with
the team's shared voice – members have a shared opinion about a specific
work-related issue – which I believe should be the precise interpretation
of the term, in line with Frazier & Bowler (2015), Huang & Paterson
(2017) and Jing et al. (2022). The current measurements have also been
unable to accurately reflect this collective attribute of shared voice.
Second, they did not specify how employees could reach a consensus
view before raising their team voice. Whether the team proactively
moves toward consensus and strategically raises their team voice, or
takes a more natural approach. This might reveal the multi-dimensional
feature of the term.
Third, research addressing the roles of team voice as shared voice on
team performance is scant and none of them have targeted team
innovative performance as well as compared it with the impact of
individual voice.
One explanation for this shortage in literature might be the Western bias
of the current voice literature (Wilkinson et al., 2020). Eastern countries
with some specific institutional characteristics may have very different
employee voice behavior.
 CHAPTER 2. THEORETICAL BASIS AND HYPOTHESES
DEVELOPMENT
2.1. Institutional Theory and Vietnamese institutional context
The Institutional Theory focuses on the roles of social and political
systems in influencing human behavior. Institutions are multifaceted,
durable social structures including symbolic systems, legal systems,
moral standards, social norms, and routines (Guy, 2000; Scott, 2014) and
are transported by various carriers including cultures, structures, and
routines (Scott, 1995). By following the rules of the game, people receive
legitimacy (Suchman, 1995, 574).
Applying the Institutional Theory, this study suggests that several
Vietnamese institutional characteristics might together contribute to the
unpopularity of individual voice in Vietnam including Confucianism, the
communist economic system, language, and the weak role of trade union.
2.2. The important role of routines and The Evolutionary Theory
of Economic Change
Researchers have emphasized the role of institutional changes - changes
in taken-for-granted rules and recombination of practices and resources
to resolve existing problems – will lead to innovation (Tuominen et al.,
2020; Vargo et al., 2015). Routines are one major carrier of institutional
elements. They are described as part of the cognitive institutional pillar
that governs individuals' and organizations' behavior. They are normally
taken for granted and viewed as the way things are (March & Olsen,
1989; Scott, 2014; Ugwuibe et al., 2021). In addition to institutional
change, researchers argued that the introduction of changes such as new
technology must go with modifications in routines to become viable and
sustainable in practice (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006; Scott, 2001),
otherwise, things are just new artifacts (Pentland & Feldman, 2008).
8 9
Hence, this concept of routine is especially important when studying the
association of institutions, institutional changes and innovation.
Centering the concept of routine, Nelson & Winter (1982) agree with
Stene (1940) that organizational routines capture the regular and
predictable behavior of firms including well-specified technical routines,
procedures in employee acquisition, inventory ordering, as well as
research and development, investment decisions, and business strategies.
Nelson & Winter (1982) distinguished three classes of routines including
operating characteristics, investment routine, and high-level revision
routines - search - a routine-guided process to change other routines.
In line with Institutional Theory studies, Nelson & Winter (1982) also
suggested that innovation is triggered by the deviation from routines and
associated with search – firms' responses to external market changes. In
addition, routines can also change endogenously by their ongoing
performance and interaction with other practices (Feldman, 2000;
Feldman & Orlikowski, 2011; Feldman & Pentland, 2003; Feldman et
al., 2016).
2.3. Research model and hypotheses development
Based on a comprehensive review of the literature regarding employee
voice behavior with a focus on team voice in Chapter 1 and a detailed
analysis of the Institutional Theory and the Evolutionary Theory of
Economic Change in this Chapter, the following hypotheses and a
research model were developed.
2.3.1. Employee voice as exogenous routine changes
H1. Individual voice positively influences Team innovative performance
H2. Team collective voice positively influences Team innovative
performance
2.3.2.Team autonomy as endogenous routine changes
H3. Team autonomy positively influences Team innovative performance
2.3.3.Individual voice, Team collective voice, and the mediation effect
H4. Individual voice positively influences Team collective voice
H5. Team collective voice mediates the relationship between Individual
voice and Team innovative performance
Figure 2.1. The research model
10
CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1. Research context
The study was carried out with Information and Communication
Technologies (ICT) teams working in different organizations in
Vietnam. This industry has increasingly become important in Vietnam
recently. With the fast development of the industry, ICT companies and
teams have to deal with deadlines, fast-changing customer requirements
and technology, intense competition, and innovation demand. Various
team issues would arise that need team resolutions and a team voice to
be tackled, making it a rich and interesting context for examining team
collective voice.
3.2. Sequential mixed-methods research design
Applying the exploratory sequential mixed-methods design, this study
was carried out in two stages, qualitative and quantitative, respectively
from 2019 to 2022. The first stage qualitatively explored the team
collective voice behavior of different ICT teams to confirm the existence
of this type of voice and uncover its characteristics. Following the
grounded theory methodology, theoretical sampling was applied. Each
interview lasted from 60 to 90 minutes. 21 interviews were conducted
from March 2019 to June 2019 and the other 9 interviews were from June
2022 to July 2022. All informants were informed about the
confidentiality of the research process and asked for their consent to
record the interview. With the consent of 29/30 interviewees, the 29
interviews were recorded and then transcribed into 140 pages of data.
The second stage involves the construction of a quantitative research
model based on the findings from the first stage in a larger sample. The
questionnaire was constructed with the adaptation of previous studies'
measurements. Questionnaires were administered over the period of two
11
months from July 2022 to August 2022. Employees and managers
working in ICT departments of large telecommunication companies in
Vietnam participated in this study with 765 qualified responses from
employees that belong to 157 work teams based on the organizational
structure.
The central variable of this study is team collective voice, which is
defined as a team-level construct. Therefore, this quantitative research
was designed at the team level of analysis. All variables were aggregates
of individual responses (all items were worded with the team, not the
individual, as the referent, except for individual voice). Data
aggregations were conditionally performed with theoretical and
empirical justification criteria provided by Chan (1998), James et al.
(1984), Bliese (2000), Fleiss (2011) and LeBreton & Senter (2008). All
the hypotheses were also posited at the team level. Data were analyzed
by SPSS 20 and SPSS Amos 25.
12
CHAPTER 4. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
4.1. Qualitative findings and analysis
4.1.1.The nature of team collective voice
In Vietnamese, team collective voice is called “tiếng nói chung.” The
researcher detected the existence of tiếng nói chung in eight of the 9
studied companies.
The nature of team collective voice can be described by three primary
characteristics: (1) there is a final voice of the team; (2) to have a
consensus opinion, the team must go through an agreement process that
involves lateral voice, intensive discussions, and debates; (3) There is an
influence process includes elements such as who the representatives are,
how to convey the proposals to authorized persons, etc.
4.1.2.The utilization of team collective voice
Team collective voice is utilized in two main situations in which either
individual voice or organizational voice is weak or insufficient to address
the issues. In both cases, there are situations in which in order to change
the unfavorable status quo or to achieve the desired outcomes, team
collective voice has altered organizational routines.
4.1.3.Types of team collective voice, their formation, and influence on
performance
Four different types of team collective voice are proposed based on two
dimensions: (1) the impacts of raised issues on teams/individual
members and (2) planned/improvised issues.
13
Figure 4.1. Team collective voice typology 4.2. Quantitative findings and analysis
4.2.1. Reliability assessment of the measurement scales
Following the guidance of Hair et al. (2018), the author has conducted
several statistical analyses to evaluate the reliability of the measurement
scales including Cronbach's Alpha, and corrected item-total correlation
coefficients. All items have good Cronbach's Alphas and all the
corrected item-total correlation coefficients are larger than 0.3
illustrating reliable measurement scales.
The EFA and CFA were also performed and presented satisfactory
results.
4.2.2. Common method bias
Following the recommendations of Podsakoff et al. (2003) in reducing
common method bias, this study has applied both procedural remedies
and statistical controls - the single-common-method-factor or common
latent factor approach. All items were loaded into one common factor
besides their theoretical factors. Standardized regression weights of this
model than compared with the original model without the common latent
factor. The result shows that common method bias was not a problem in
this study.
4.2.3. Data aggregation
Previous studies have developed indexes to justify the appropriateness
of aggregating measures to team level, the within-group agreement rwg(j)
(James et al., 1984), and the intraclass correlations ICC(1) and ICC(2) as
indicators of interrater reliability and group-mean reliability,
respectively (Bliese, 2000). The calculated indicators support the
aggregation of all variables to team level.

14 15
4.2.4. Hypothesis testing CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Five regression models were performed and provided support results for 5.1. Discussions
all hypotheses. The statistical analysis yields the following key findings.
The literature review in Chapter 1 has identified several research gaps
First, individual voice was positively related to team collective voice and
relating to team voice including the insufficient understanding of the
team innovative performance. Team collective voice and team autonomy
characteristics and measurement of team voice as shared voice – team
were also found to have a positive direct relationship with team
collective voice, as well as what would happen before and after having
innovative performance. In addition, teams with more experienced
team collective voice, in other words, the formation process and the
members are found to have a higher level of team innovative
impacts of team collective voice. Thus, these research gaps support the
performance. In addition, the effect sizes (Cohen's f2) (Cohen, 1988) of
establishment of three building blocks of the study that center on team
individual voice, team collective voice, and team autonomy were
collective voice as shown in Figure 5.1. These blocks provide a
calculated, indicating the largest effect size of team collective voice in
visualized way to better understand the discussions of qualitative
comparison to team autonomy and individual voice. Finally, team
findings and quantitative findings.
collective voice fully mediates the relationship between individual voice
and team innovative performance. Figure 5.1. Three building blocks of the study

5.2. Theoretical contributions

This study makes several contributions to the employee voice literature
as well as the Institutional Theory (Scott, 1995) and the Evolutionary
Theory of Economic Change (Nelson & Winter, 1982). First, regarding
employee voice literature, this study has clarified different connotations
of employee voice at the team level. Team collective voice was defined
to distinguish it from other conceptualizations as the expression of
shared views, ideas, suggestions, or opinions of a work team to either
higher management, other teams, or individuals in the organization in an
attempt to challenge or change the current status quo. In addition, having
acknowledged the difference, this study developed a precise way to
measure team collective voice that is able to assess the shared voice

16 17
behavior. Second, the Institutional Theory has allowed Vietnam
contextual characteristics to be highlighted as important influencing
factors on employee voice, emphasizing the importance of team
collective voice in Vietnam organizations. In addition, the study also
contributes to HR relations and human rights literature by emphasizing
the emergence of team collective voice as a necessary channel to protect
individual benefits and rights. Third, this study offers a fuller picture that
unfolds the reasons why and under what conditions team collective is
important and nurtured and the detailed process of developing team
collective voice. In addition, a categorization of four types of team
collective voice was proposed based on two dimensions. The
construction of the typology contributes comprehensively to this
conceptual work of team collective voice by revealing its
multidimensionality.
Fourth, one limitation of the Institutional Theory is that it emphasizes
the impacts of the environment on human and organizational behavior,
while internal factors and their associations with institutions, such as
resources or leadership, have not been prioritized. The role of leadership
and management was quite blurred. Organizations have been positioned
as passive entities following the external “rules of the game” (Nguyen,
2015). Assisting in addressing this limitation, the current research
illustrated that employee voice has an active role in changing routines
and institutions in a way that also highlights the role of the leader or
management of the organizations in creating exogenous routine changes.
It also interacted, and embraced the institutional environment
characteristics and pointed out the difference between individual voice
and team collective voice. In order to create changes in routines or also
institutional changes in this context, individual voice is not strong
enough. Team collective voice is necessary to influence management
decisions, thus leading to changes.
18
Finally, contributing to the Evolutionary Theory of Economic Changes
(Nelson & Winter, 1982), the researcher suggested that employee voice
can be a search routine that is used to change other lower-order routines.
This is distinctive from Nelson and Winter's (1982) idea of search. Not
only can search take the form of tangible organizational units (i.e.,
research and development) or research projects (Nelson & Winter, 1982)
but also a less tangible form that exists in day-to-day practice such as
employee voice. Employee voice also triggers routine changes
exogenously through the process of management influence and
positively contributes to organizational outcomes. This also offers
another path that employee voice can lead to innovation through change
in routines since it is suggested that innovation should be routinized to
become viable and sustainable in practice (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006;
Scott, 2001), otherwise, things are just new artifacts (Pentland &
Feldman, 2008).
5.3. Practical implications
5.3.1. Implications for team members
This study helps raise awareness about the existence and crucial roles of
team collective voice as an alternative to individual voice. Although this
collective behavior has been found to be used by many team members,
not all of them have conscious awareness and knowledge about it.
Besides management's effort in promoting employee voice, from
employees' perspective, being able to recognize the institutional
limitations of individual voice, thereby, having an appropriate strategy
to raise their voice differently is considerably important.
Lateral voice – voice with peers or colleagues such as sharing problems
or venting can be the start of a radical change in organizational routines
or innovation. The study has brought the whole process of team
collective voice to light, promoting the understanding and application of
19
the possible paths to initiate ideas, gather support, and make changes. In
addition, the typology of team collective voice provides clearer guidance
for employees to utilize team collective voice and select the right type
that matches their purpose. This means with different focuses such as
voice for team development or members’ career development or just for
operational issues, employees can have their voice establishment
strategically designed to achieve the most effective outcomes.
5.3.2. Implications for management
Similarly, company management should pay more attention to the
benefits that team collective voice can bring to the company. It might be
a vital resource containing numerous innovations or constructive
changes to organizations that could be lost if this voice mechanism is not
fostered. Thus, managers should consider proper enablements fostering
team collective voice. One thing to consider first is to support its
formation with suitable team structuring, supportive HRM policies, and
socializing opportunities—for employees to share their thoughts, ideas,
and opinions, which are the input for team collective voice. For example,
regarding team structure, if team members are about the same age as each
other, they would find it easier to share problems or ideas as they have
many similarities in terms of goals, interests, ways of thinking, etc., and
low power distance. Further research is needed to identify those
enablements that are suited for the firm's culture, characteristics,
structure, policies, etc. Mechanisms for team collective voice itself also
need to be supported by creating and acknowledging channels or
opportunities for representatives to escalate their teams' voices.
However, managers also need to find a balance, as the use of team
collective voice might mitigate individual voice, which in some cases is
more valuable than the team’s shared view. Team collective voice might
be used as an instrument to silence individual members’ voices to
20
prioritize group benefits. This concern is highly possible in this study
context since individuals are likely to avoid voice behavior. In a worse
case in which team collective voice is too potent and valued, it might
turn into situations that are similar to groupthink, whereby members are
deeply driven by the desire for group unanimity, ignore logical
alternatives then make irrational and poor decisions (Janis, 1991).
Therefore, it is a challenge for organizations to balance the use of team
collective voice to achieve optimal results. This is another interesting
avenue for further studies to find that optimal point.
Digital forms of communication should be considered as another major
channel of employee voice under the changing working model that
involves remote working or busy schedules restricting employees’
opportunities to gather and socialize. Organizations should have
appropriate policies to enable this mechanism, such as installing an
internal online communication platform.
The study also offers two pathways that managers can utilize to nurture
team innovative performance. Based on the organization's
characteristics, appropriate policies, and practices should be in place to
harness the benefits of these two mechanisms. Team collective voice
would be a more effective way to lead to innovative contributions in a
more controlled environment in which changes in routine can almost
only take place when there are interventions from the managers. On the
other hand, in a less controlled environment, teams are given a
significant degree of autonomy, which allows innovative changes to take
place supporting the fine-tuning and improvement of routines.
5.4. Limitations and future research directions
There are a number of limitations of this study that need to be
acknowledged. First, qualitative data was collected solely through
interviews. This would limit the opportunities to collect useful data about
21
the interested topic since the formation and the use of team collective distinctive characteristics. The generalization issue can also be found in
voice sometimes do not present themselves frequently during day-to-day terms of context. Even though Vietnam exhibits certain typical Eastern
work, months may be needed to form and raise team collective voice. cultural and institutional characteristics, it cannot be generalized for
Thus, for full observation, future research could seek to enrich the data- other Eastern cultures since other institutional factors would vary widely
gathering process through observation data or longitudinal data among countries that also complicatedly participate in shaping human
collection. behavior. Thus, future research can improve this shortage by expanding
Quantitative data also has some drawbacks. All constructs were the research to examine team collective voice and its influence on
measured by common raters, which brought about some degree of performance in other industries and cultures.
common method bias, even though mitigation measures had taken place.
This means the measurement of team innovative performance is
subjective. It was assessed by the perception of team members regarding
their team performance. A more objective measurement can limit biases
and improve the reliability of the findings, such as the number of
innovative ideas or products that are developed and designed by the
team, and periodically innovative performance appraisal. However, this
is challenging because not all companies and industries have producing
new products or ideas as their main responsibility or have clear and
measurable innovative performance criteria to be assessed.
Another limitation is the study has not been able to separate different
influencing factors on each type of team collective voice and the
different mechanisms that influence performance. Interview data was not
strong enough for the author to generalize those findings regarding each
type’s determinations and influences on performance. Future research
can perhaps delve deeper into the different types of team collective voice
and investigate how different conditions will influence each type and the
various performance implications for each team collective voice so
teams can use the right strategies to enhance the desired types.
The sample was selected from the ICT industry, which limits the
generalization of this research findings to other industries that have

22 23
 CONCLUSION

This dissertation aims to investigate team collective voice behavior

which is proposed by the researcher to distinguish it from previous team
voice concepts used in the literature. It can be defined as the expression
of shared views, ideas, suggestions, or opinions of a work team to either
higher management, other teams, or individuals in the organization in an
attempt to challenge or change the current status quo. The study has built
its theoretical basis based on two theories of Institutional Theory (Scott,
1995) and the Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (Nelson &
Winter, 1982), which do not seem to be related, but have a shared
concept of routine and together supported the explanation of the
importance of team collective voice in the context of Vietnam
organizations as well as toward team innovative performance.
The exploratory sequential mixed methods design was found to be the
most appropriate method for the current study’s objectives with a
qualitative study followed by a quantitative one. Both types of data were
collected from employees of ICT organizations in Vietnam with 30
interviewees and 765 survey participants. Data analysis and finding
discussions have brought satisfying results and met the research
objectives and research questions.

24