Next Article in Journal
Digitalization Driving High-Quality Converged Development of Rural Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Industries: Mechanisms, Effects, and Paths
Next Article in Special Issue
Employees’ Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility and Their Extra-Role Behaviors: A Psychological Mechanism
Previous Article in Journal
Recycled Waste Materials in Landscape Design for Sustainable Development (Al-Ahsa as a Model)
Previous Article in Special Issue
Distributive Justice, Goal Clarity, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Moderating Role of Transactional and Transformational Leadership
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 15
10.3390/su151511706
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Employee Strengths Mindset and Voice Behavior: The Roles of General Self-Efficacy and Leader–Member Exchange

by
Feng Liu
1,
Jun Liu
2,* and
He Ding
3
1
School of Business, Renmin University of China, 59 Zhongguancun Street, Haidian District, Beijing 100872, China
2
School of Management, Wuhan University of Technology, 122 Luoshi Road, Wuhan 430070, China
3
School of Economics and Management, North China Electric Power University, No. 2, Bei Nong Road, Changping District, Beijing 102206, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(15), 11706; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511706
Submission received: 5 June 2023 / Revised: 25 July 2023 / Accepted: 27 July 2023 / Published: 28 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Extra-Role Behaviors for Sustainable Organization Management)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The current paper aimed to explore the linkage between employee strengths mindset and voice behavior, and considered the mediating roles of general self-efficacy and leader–member exchange (LMX) in the relationship. We collected data from 556 participants from various Chinese organizations with a multi-wave design. The results of structural equation modelling analysis showed that employee strengths mindset has a positive association with voice behavior, and employee general self-efficacy and LMX, respectively, mediate the relationship between strengths mindset and voice behavior. More importantly, employee general self-efficacy and LMX also simultaneously mediate the relationship between strengths mindset and voice behavior. The current study is the first to investigate the employee strengths mindset–voice behavior linkage, and reveals the cognitive and relational mechanisms underlying the strengths mindset and voice behavior relationship.

1. Introduction

In the current uncertain and complex business environment, to achieve sustainable development, organizations not only depend on decisions that a top management team makes [1] but also on employee proactive behaviors [2]. Employee voice behavior, a concrete form of proactive behaviors [3], involves the extent to which an employee proactively provides suggestions for organization’s improvement and change [4]. Employee voice behavior serves as a key role in promoting organizational sustainable development [5] in that employee voice behavior can promote organizational innovation [6]. In addition, substantial research showed that employee voice behavior can also bring out various other positive outcomes such as enhanced procedural fairness [7], creative work involvement [8], and employee thriving [9]. Given that, it is important and meaningful to identify the antecedents to employee voice behavior [10]. Especially in the context of China’s high-quality development, all types of organizations need employees to take the initiative to make suggestions for the high-quality development of the organization [11]. Thus, exploring how to motivate employees to execute more voice behaviors has significant importance for the high-quality development of Chinese organizations.
Although extant literature has identified the driving forces of employee voice behavior from different perspectives such as leadership [12], work characteristics [13], employee traits [14], and human resource management practices [15], very little research considered the relationship between a strengths-based approach and employee voice behavior. Strengths-based approaches aim to promote human optimal functioning by focusing on individuals’ strengths [16].
Since strengths-based approaches such as strengths use, strengths-based intervention, and strengths-based leadership were found to have significant positive effect on employees’ attitudes, emotions, behaviors, and performance [17,18,19], more and more researchers have begun to attempt to develop more constructs relevant to strengths-based approaches so as to fully unleash the potential of strengths-based approaches in cultivating employees’ positive behaviors. Recently, researchers have developed an important new strengths-based approach construct (i.e., strengths mindset) by integrating mindset into strengths-based approaches [20]. Because an individual’s mindset plays a crucial role in determining an individual’s behaviors, we should devote more attention toward employee strengths mindset and its effectiveness [21].
Strengths mindset refers to the attitudes or belief that an individual indicates toward his/her own and others’ strengths [20]. Although Ding and Liu have confirmed that strengths mindset is conductive to increased positive affect, task performance, and innovative behavior, we have yet to know the association of strengths mindset with voice behavior. In a broad scope, we also found that very little research has explored whether strengths-based approaches are associated with employee voice behavior. Such a research gap limits us from completely understanding the effectiveness of strengths-based approaches in stimulating voice behavior. Jia et al. [22] have suggested that it is important and meaningful to investigate the influencing factors of voice behavior from the perspective of a strengths-based approach. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate how and why strengths mindset is related to employee voice behavior.
Employees who have a strengths mindset know their own strengths and can proactively capitalize on their strengths at work [20], which implies that they have a greater ability to provide ideas, suggestions, or information about problems. Given that the ability to voice is a proximal antecedent to voice behavior [23], it is reasonable to posit that there is a positive link between strengths mindset and voice behavior. Our first purpose is to test this positive relationship.
Additionally, we also investigated the mediational mechanism behind the relationship between strengths mindset and voice behavior. For one thing, we extrapolated that general self-efficacy mediates the linkage between strengths mindset and voice behavior. Self-efficacy theory suggests that past successful experience can stimulate individuals’ general self-efficacy, thereby leading to positive behaviors [24]. Employees with stronger strengths mindsets are always good at utilizing their strengths at work [20], which enables employees to achieve success more easily [25]. Such successful experience contributes to building employees’ general self-efficacy, which in turn, motivates employees to execute more voice behaviors [26]. Therefore, a strengths mindset can influence employee voice behavior through general self-efficacy. Our second purpose is to test this argument.
For another, we anticipated that leader–member exchange (LMX) is an important explanation for why strengths mindset can lead to enhanced voice behavior. Employees high in strengths mindset also pay more attention to others’ strengths [20]. For example, strengths mindset employees always appreciate and praise others’ strengths. Employees focusing on their leaders’ strengths can build a greater relationship with their leaders and derive more benefits from leaders. According to social exchange theory (SET), an employee who receives benefits from his/her leader will do some meaningful things as a reciprocation [27]. Based on this argument, employees with greater LMX are more willing to provide consecutive suggestions to tackle work problems for their leaders [28]. Thus, our third purpose is to examine whether strengths mindset has a positive relationship between voice behavior through LMX.
In sum, we aimed to theorize and test a dual-mediation model regarding strengths mindset and employee voice behavior in the Chinese context. Specifically, we considered general self-efficacy and LMX as mediators. Although strengths-based approaches such as strengths mindset may be more effective for Western countries’ employees, Chinese employees have also higher levels of strengths mindset. The work of Ding and Liu [20] showed that the mean of strengths mindset of Chinese employees was 4.15 (five-point Likert scale). Therefore, in the Chinese context, it is necessary and important to investigate the relationship of strengths mindset with voice behavior. Unfortunately, no study considers this issue. The current study has three main theoretical contributions. First, by investigating the relationship between strengths mindset and voice behavior, this study not only enriches research on the effectiveness of strengths mindset, but also offers a novel pathway of understanding the influencing factor of employee voice behavior. This paper is the first to consider the linkage between employee strengths mindset and voice behavior. Second, by revealing the mediational effect of general self-efficacy on the strengths mindset and voice behavior relationship, the paper can make us better understand the cognitive mechanism underlying the relationship between strengths mindset and voice behavior. Third, this study also considers LMX as a mediator between strengths mindset and voice behavior, which can help us better understand the relational mechanism underlying the linkage between strengths mindset and voice behavior.
This paper is organized as follows: First, according to extant literature on focal research variables, we developed hypotheses. Second, research methods including data collection and study sample, measures, and data analysis strategy were described. Third, a series of structural equation modelling (SEM) analyses were conducted to examine hypotheses. Finally, we discussed theoretical implications, managerial implications, research limitations, and future research directions.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Strengths Mindset and Voice Behavior

Since mindsets act as crucial roles in determining individuals’ attitudes, emotions, and behaviors [29], strengths mindset has increasingly received researchers’ attention in the field of organizational behavior and positive psychology. Strengths mindset includes cognitive and relational components. With respect to the cognitive component, employees high in strengths mindset are adept at using their strengths at work, which will make them have higher levels of positive self-cognition [30]. As for the relational component, strengths mindset employees always can focus on others’ strengths in ways such as appreciating, praising, and learning from others’ strengths [20], which is beneficial for building better relationships with others. Previous study has found that strengths mindset has positive predictive value for positive affect and employee performance [20]. Nevertheless, more research is needed to further examine the effectiveness of strengths mindset.
Voice behavior has been confirmed to be beneficial to employees and organizations. For example, Ng and Feldman [31] found that voice behavior has a positive effect on employee performance, and the work of Morrison [10] showed that employees’ voice behaviors contribute to high-quality decision making and error correction; there was also evidence indicating that employee voice behavior is positively related to innovative behavior [32]. Given that, a large majority of research explored the antecedents to voice behavior from a variety of perspectives [4]. For example, Ng and Feldman [33] found that idiosyncratic deals could significantly promote employee voice behavior; there was evidence demonstrating that empowerment and organizational commitment were positively related to voice behavior [34]. However, no study investigated whether strengths mindset is associated with voice behavior.
We assume that strengths mindset contributes to enhanced voice behavior. First, by definition, strengths mindset employees can make the most of their strengths at work [20]. Research found that strengths use serves as an important elicitor of organizational commitment [35], job satisfaction [36], and well-being [37]. Since these positive outcomes provide rich nutrients for employee voice behavior [38,39], it is reasonable to believe that strengths mindset has a positive linkage with voice behavior. Second, employees with a high level of strengths mindset can experience stronger positive affect [20]. Positive affect has been found to be able to enhance employee voice behavior in that employees scoring high on positive affect possess more emotional resources which are needed to execute voice behavior [40]. Thus, it is possible to expect that strengths mindset correlates with voice behavior. Third, previous research demonstrated that employees who have better performance are more inclined to proactively provide valuable suggestions [10]. Given that employees who have higher levels of strengths mindset can achieve higher levels of performance, voice behavior might be ignited by strengths mindset [20]. More importantly, the linkage between strengths mindset and voice behavior can be also elucidated by strengths theory suggesting that individuals focusing on strengths can execute more positive behaviors [41]. Since employees high in strengths mindset always focus on strengths [20] and voice behavior is a type of positive behavior [11], strengths mindset may be positively correlated with voice behavior. In sum, we proposed:
Hypothesis 1.
Strengths mindset has a positive association with voice behavior.

2.2. Mediating Effect of General Self-Efficacy

General self-efficacy represents one’s belief in the extent to which he/she has the capabilities to successfully complete various work tasks in a given situation [42]. When employees have greater general self-efficacy, they tend to make plans for the future [43], achieve higher levels of job performance [44], and experience greater positive affect [45], job satisfaction [46], and well-being [47]. Bandura [48] suggests that general self-efficacy is a key antecedent to individual’s behaviors. A host of studies found that general self-efficacy could also stimulate employees to execute more proactive behaviors [49], innovative behaviors [50], organizational citizenship behaviors [51], and knowledge-sharing behaviors [52]. More importantly, general self-efficacy has been verified to be beneficial to employee voice behavior in that confident employees have higher levels of autonomous motivation which is conductive to voice behavior [53,54].
Although general self-efficacy is generally treated as a trait-like or stable construct [55,56], recent research has found that general self-efficacy can also be cultivated. For example, the work of Fiori et al. [57] showed that social relations can foster individual’s general self-efficacy; Zeng et al. [58] found that post-traumatic growth has a significant and positive effect on general self-efficacy. The study of Ding and Quan [59] revealed that when leaders focus on subordinates’ strengths, subordinates’ general self-efficacy will be enhanced. Nevertheless, no study considered whether strengths mindset is correlated with general self-efficacy.
We expected that strengths mindset is positively related to general self-efficacy. For one thing, self-efficacy theory suggests that past successful experiences contribute to cultivating an individual’s self-efficacy [24]. Employees with a strengths mindset can capitalize on their strengths at work [20], which will make them more ready to complete given work tasks [60]. Such past successful experiences will activate employees’ general self-efficacy. For another, positive psychologists consistently believe that strengths use is very effective in boosting individual’s general self-efficacy [61]. A wealth of empirical studies have supported this point [62,63,64]. Since strengths use is a core outcome of strengths mindset [65], it is feasible to postulate that strengths mindset can boost employee’s general self-efficacy.
More importantly, previous research showed that strengths-based approaches such as strengths-based leadership will motivate employees to perform more positive behaviors through general self-efficacy [59]. That is, strengths mindset as a specific type of strengths-based approach may also enhance employee voice behavior through general self-efficacy, primarily because employees high in strengths mindset are more confident in executing positive behaviors such as voice behavior. Furthermore, strengths theory also provides an important rationale for the mediating role of general self-efficacy in the strengths mindset–voice behavior association. Specifically, strengths theory points out that individuals focusing on their own strengths have higher levels of self-efficacy and then execute more extra-role behaviors [61]. Therefore, based on the above reasoning, we proposed:
Hypothesis 2.
General self-efficacy serves as a mediator between strengths mindset and voice behavior.

2.3. Mediating Effect of LMX

LMX as a core construct of social exchange theory has been defined as “the relationship quality between leader and follower” [66]. Its basic tenet is that leaders will build different types of exchange relationships with their subordinates, and that these relationships’ quality determines leaders’ and subordinates’ behaviors [67]. High-quality LMX represents greater trust, respect, rewards, and support [68]. Social exchange theory suggests that if an individual receive benefits from another individual, the individual will provide benefits as a reciprocation [69]. Researchers have conducted a great deal of research on LMX based on social exchange theory. With respect to the effect of LMX, considerable research has found LMX to be correlated with increased organizational citizenship behaviors [70], job performance [71], organizational commitment [72], and job satisfaction [73], and decreased turnover intention [74], role ambiguity, and role conflict [75]. Importantly, LMX also plays an important role in promoting employee voice behavior in that such behavior can be regarded as a reciprocation to leaders’ support and trust that employees receive [76]. Previous empirical research has also verified the positive relationship of LMX with employee voice behavior [77,78].
In addition to researching the effects of LMX, substantial research has also investigated the influencing factors of LMX. A meta-analysis of Dulebohn et al. [75] found that subordinates’ characteristics such as competence, agreeableness, and positive affectivity, leadership such as transformational leadership and contingent reward behavior, and interpersonal relationship such as perceived similarity and leader trust are positively associated with LMX. However, little is known about the relationship between strengths mindset as a crucial subordinate characteristic and LMX. We postulated that strengths mindset has a positive relationship with LMX. For one thing, strengths mindset includes a relational component [20]. When subordinates appreciate, praise, and learn from their leaders’ strengths, leaders are more prone to form high-quality exchange relationships with them because leaders believe that they receive more respect and trust from subordinates [79]. For another, strengths mindset can produce more strengths use behaviors [20]. Given that LMX can be enhanced by strengths use behavior [80,81], strengths mindset is positively related to LMX.
According to the above arguments, strengths mindset has a positive association with LMX, and LMX contributes to enhanced voice behavior. Thus, we further believe that strengths mindset will have a positive linkage with voice behavior via LMX. Based on strengths theory, strengths use will improve LMX, which in turn, motivates subordinates to engage more at work as a reciprocation to leaders [81]. Similarly, strengths mindset as a crucial elicitor of strengths use [20] will also improve LMX and then promotes subordinates to execute more voice behaviors. As such, we obtained the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3.
LMX acts as a mediator between strengths mindset and voice behavior.
The proposed model is displayed in Figure 1.

3. Method

3.1. Data Collection and Study Sample

This study selected Chinese employees from various organizations in China (e.g., IT and energy industries) as samples by convenience sampling method. Such a sampling method has been widely used for survey research design [82]. The reason why we selected employees from various organizations is to extend the generalizability of our results. We recruited 45 MBA students who have a full-time job as our assistants, and requested each of them to invite 20 colleagues at least to join our survey. These MBA students received extra course credit as a reciprocation. We initially interviewed these students to know whether their organizations encourage employees to voice. These students indicated that their organizations or departments have a good climate for voice. A three-wave approach design was adopted to collect data with a time lag of two weeks. Previous research [83] has shown that a two-week interval is enough to reduce potential testing common method bias (CMB). Each participant received a fix code so that we could obtain matched data across three waves. Before collecting data, with respect to how to carry out the survey, we trained research assistants. After obtaining consent, the survey was conducted. We made a promise that the personal information of participants would be viewed as strictly confidential and merely utilized for academic research. Participation was voluntary.
At Wave 1, participants were invited to fill questionnaire including demographic variables and strengths mindset scale. At this phase, we received 783 questionnaires. Two weeks later, we invited participants who responded at Wave 1 completed general self-efficacy and LMX scales. At this wave, a total of 696 questionnaires were received (88.89% response rate). At Wave 3, participants were requested to complete voice behavior scale. A total of 608 participants responded to this survey (87.36% response rate). Finally, we derived 556 matched data. According to suggestion of Thompson (2000), the sample size should be 10–15 times of the number of measurement items (12 strengths mindset items, 10 general self-efficacy items, 7 LMX items, and 10 voice behavior items). Therefore, our sample size is appropriate.
Among them, 51.26% were male, 48.74% were female; 1.62% employees had doctoral degrees, 29.32% employees obtained a master’s degree, and 69.06% employees obtained a bachelor’s degree or under; employees who did not have any leadership responsibility represented 67.09%, and 32.91% were leaders. In addition, the mean of age was 32.61 (standard deviation = 6.24), and the mean of organizational tenure was 6.41 (standard deviation = 6.03).

3.2. Measurement Scales

Because general self-efficacy, LMX, and voice behavior scales were in an English-based edition, we obtained these scales’ Chinese edition by the “translation and back-translation” procedure suggested by Brislin [84]. All items of strengths mindset, general self-efficacy, and voice behavior were assessed by 5-point Likert scale ranging from “1 = strongly disagree” to “5 = strongly agree”.
Strengths mindset. We adopted 12-item Chinese Strengths Mindset scale developed by Ding and Liu [20] to measure strengths mindset. This scale has showed good discriminant validity, and convergent validity, and reliability. One example item was “I believe that strengths are the greatest area of success”. In this study, this scale’s Cronbach’s α was 0.93.
General self-efficacy. We adopted 10-item scale developed by Scholz et al. [85] to measure general self-efficacy. One example item was “I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough”. This scale’s Cronbach’s α was 0.88.
LMX. The 7-item scale used by Van Breukelen et al. [86] was used to measure LMX. An example item was “How well does your supervisor understand your job problems and needs?” (anchors: 1 = not a bit; 5 = a great deal). This scale’s Cronbach’s α was 0.97.
Voice behavior. We measured voice behavior with a 10-item scale developed by Liang et al. [87]. An example item was “I will take the initiative to speak reasonable suggestions to help achieve the organization goal”. This scale’s Cronbach’s α was 0.95.
Control variables. According to previous research on antecedents to voice behavior [12,88], gender, age, and education may influence employee voice behavior. Thus, we treated the three variables as control variables. Gender and education were coded as follows: “1 = male, 2 = female”; education: “1 = under bachelor’s degree, 2 = bachelor degree, 3 = master degree, 4 = doctor degree”. We required participants to demonstrate their age in years.

3.3. Data Analysis Strategy

To verify our hypotheses, we first conducted descriptive statistic and correlation analyses. Second, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was applied to test discriminant validity. Third, an unmeasured common method factor method was used for testing CMB. Third, SEM was utilized to examine Hypotheses 1–3 in that SEM is a more appropriate approach to testing a dual-mediation model [88].

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 reported means, standard deviations, and correlations of research variables. With respect to correlations, strengths mindset positively correlated with general self-efficacy, LMX, and voice behavior; general self-efficacy positively correlated with LMX, and voice behavior; LMX is positively related to voice behavior. These outcomes provide initial evidence for our hypotheses.

4.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

First, we deployed CFA to test the discriminant validity of strengths mindset, general self-efficacy, LMX, and voice behavior. To decrease inflated measurement errors because of multiple items [89], three random item parcels were created for strengths mindset, two random item parcels for general self-efficacy, and two item parcels for voice behavior based on its two dimensions (i.e., promotive voice and prohibitive voice). Analytical results were displayed in Table 2. The full-factor model concerning the four focal research variables reported an acceptable fit to the data (χ2 = 122.74, df = 71, χ2/df = 1.72, RMSEA = 0.04, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99, IFI = 0.99), and its fit to the data was better than others’ fit to the data.
Second, according to the recommendations of Podsakoff et al. [90], an unmeasured common factor method was employed to examine the data’s CMB. We created a common method factor and loaded it on all item parcels of strengths mindset, general self-efficacy, and voice behavior and on all items of LMX. Results showed that the five-factor model did not exhibit a better fit to the data (χ2 = 119.72, df = 70, χ2/df = 1.71, RMSEA = 0.04, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99, IFI = 0.99) than the four-factor model comprising the focal variables. Therefore, in this study did not exist serious CMB.

4.3. Hypothesis Testing

SEM with bootstrapping analysis (re-sample 5000) was used to test research hypotheses, and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were deployed to evaluate the significance of path coefficients. Hypothesis 1 posited that a strengths mindset is positively associated with voice behavior. To test this hypothesis, we created a SEM without mediator and controlled employees’ gender, age, and education (Model 1). This model showed a good fit to the data (χ2 = 36.35, df = 19, χ2/df = 1.91, RMSEA = 0.04, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.98, IFI = 0.99), and explained 26.86% of variance in voice behavior. The direct relationship between strengths mindset and voice behavior was significant (estimate = 0.56, 95% CI: [0.44, 0.69], p < 0.001), supporting Hypothesis 1.
Hypothesis 2 assumed that general self-efficacy serves as a mediator between strengths mindset and voice behavior. To verify the hypothesis, we created a new SEM by introducing general self-efficacy as a mediator into Model 1. This model fitted the data very well (χ2 = 57.21, df = 32, χ2/df = 1.79, RMSEA = 0.04, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99, IFI = 0.99), and explained 28.94% of variance in general self-efficacy and 40.96% of variance in voice behavior. Indirect relationship of strengths mindset with voice behavior was significant (estimate = 0.27, 95% CI: [0.19, 0.39], p < 0.001). Because a direct relationship between strengths mindset and voice behavior was significant after introducing general self-efficacy as a mediator (estimate = 0.30, 95% CI: [0.17, 0.44], p < 0.001), general self-efficacy partially mediates the relationship between strengths mindset and voice behavior.
Hypothesis 3 postulated that LMX mediates the association of strengths mindset with voice behavior. To verify this hypothesis, based on Model 1, we introduced LMX as a mediator and created a new SEM. This model fitted the data very well (χ2 = 165.89, df = 87, χ2/df = 1.91, RMSEA = 0.04, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99, IFI = 0.99), and explained 24.49% of variance in LMX and 40.60% of variance in voice behavior. Indirect effect of strengths mindset and voice behavior was significant (estimate = 0.24, 95% CI: [0.17, 0.32], p < 0.001). Because a direct relationship between strengths mindset and voice behavior was significant after introducing LMX as a mediator (estimate = 0.34, 95% CI: [0.22, 0.46], p < 0.001), LMX acts as a partially mediating role in the strengths mindset and voice behavior link.
Furthermore, we also simultaneously tested the mediational effects of general self-efficacy and LMX on the relationship between strengths mindset and voice behavior. This model fitted the data very well (χ2 = 189.47, df = 113, χ2/df = 1.68, RMSEA = 0.03, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99, IFI = 0.99). An indirect relationship of strengths mindset with voice behavior via general self-efficacy was significant (estimate = 0.17, 95% CI: [0.06, 0.28], p < 0.001), and an indirect effect of strengths mindset and voice behavior via LMX was significant (estimate = 0.14, 95% CI: [0.06, 0.23], p < 0.01). However, the two indirect effects did not have significant difference (estimate = 0.02, 95% CI: [−0.16, 0.20], p > 0.05).

5. Conclusions and Discussion

In the context of China’s high-quality development, all types of organizations need employees to provide advice for the high-quality development of the organization. To better stimulate employees to execute more voice behavior, this study investigated whether employee strengths mindset is linked with voice behavior, and considered the mediational effect of general self-efficacy and LMX on this relationship. We found that strengths mindset has a significant predictive value for voice behavior, and general self-efficacy and LMX, respectively, and simultaneously, mediate the association of strengths mindset with voice behavior. This study has several theoretical and practical implications.

5.1. Theoretical Implications

This study has several theoretical contributions. First, this study identified a new antecedent to employee voice behavior. We found that employees strengths mindset is conductive to increased voice behavior. This finding is consistent with the logic that strengths mindset employees can experience higher levels of organizational support for strengths use which is associated with increased voice behavior [22]. Although previous research has explored the relationship of growth mindset with voice behavior [91], the present paper is the first to consider the strengths mindset and voice behavior relationship. Ding and Liu [20] pointed out that both strengths mindset and growth mindset are the specific form of personal mindsets. However, growth mindset is distinguished from strengths mindset in that the former points to the belief about whether individuals view their intelligence as changeable [92], whether the latter refers to the attitudes and belief that individuals hold toward their own and others’ strengths [20]. Therefore, this study not only extends research on the relationship between personal mindsets and voice behavior, but also provides a new perspective of promoting employee voice behavior.
Second, this study reveals the cognitive mechanism underlying the linkage between strengths mindset and voice behavior. We confirmed the mediational role of general self-efficacy in the linkage between strengths mindset and voice behavior. Specifically, strengths mindset employees are good at taking advantage of their own strengths [20]. Employees who play to strengths at work have higher levels of self-efficacy [61,63], which in turn, motivates employees to carry out more positive and proactive behaviors such as voice behavior [93]. Although previous research has indicated that strengths mindset is able to influence employees’ behaviors through positive affect, we have yet to know whether strengths mindset has a positive effect on employees’ behavior through cognitive process. Therefore, this study contributes to enriching our understanding of the cognitive process mechanism underlying the strengths mindset and employee behavior linkage by confirming the mediational role of general self-efficacy in this linkage between strengths mindset and voice behavior.
Third, we also found that LMX significantly mediates the association of strengths mindset and voice behavior. According to the definition of strengths mindset, strengths mindset includes a relational component [20]. For example, when employees with a high level of strengths mindset proactively appreciate and praise their leaders’ strengths, these leaders will experience greater sense of satisfaction about self-value [94]. Such a sense of satisfaction in turn stimulates leaders to regard strengths mindset employees as insiders, which will improve employees’ perception of LMX. Social exchange theory suggests that employees with greater LMX will reciprocate their leaders by executing more voice behavior [95,96]. This study provides a piece of important evidence for relation attribute of strengths mindset. In addition, the present paper also contributes to a better understanding of the relational mechanism underlying the association between employee strengths mindset and voice behavior.

5.2. Managerial Implications

This study has several practical implications for Chinese organizations aimed at boosting employee voice behavior. First, cultivating employees’ strengths mindset is an effective way of enhancing voice behavior. Although strengths mindset like growth mindset is generally treated as a stable personal attribute, it is also changed by effective intervention strategy [97]. Therefore, to nurture employees’ strengths mindset, the employer organizations should design and implement employee strengths mindset intervention. The web-based strengths intervention developed by Harzer and Ruch [98] offers an initial scheme.
Second, stimulating employees’ self-efficacy is also an avenue for improving voice behavior. Previous research has provided a variety of approaches to fostering self-efficacy. For example, Bandura [99] pointed out that enactive attainments, vicarious experience, and verbal persuasion can enhance individual’s general self-efficacy; Appelbaum and Hare [100] found that helping employees set clear goals contributes to boosted general self-efficacy.
Third, we can also suggest that leaders improve their relations with their subordinates to enhance subordinates’ voice behavior. According to the work of Chan and Mak [101], benevolent leadership behaviors are quite effective in cultivating LMX. In addition, workplace fun [102], transformational leadership [103], and servant leadership [104] have been found to be beneficial for improving LMX.

5.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions

Several limitations should be noted to better understand our findings. First, our research data were collected from a single source. Although CMB testing showed that CMB of the data did not pose a serious threat to our results, we encourage researchers to re-test our hypotheses by collecting multi-source data so as to improve the robustness of our findings. In addition, the research design of this study does not allow us to examine the causal relationships between strengths mindset, general self-efficacy, LMX, and voice behavior. Hence, in future research, it is necessary to conduct experimental or longitudinal designs to address this issue. For example, researchers can conduct strengths mindset intervention research to examine the effects of strengths mindset.
Second, previous research has showed that positive affect mediates the effect of strengths mindset [20]. However, this study did not control positive affect as a mediator, which makes us fail to understand whether general self-efficacy and LMX have an incrementally mediating effect on the relationship between strengths mindset and voice behavior. Therefore, future research should control positive affect as a mediator so as to rule out its influence on the mediating effects of general self-efficacy and LMX.
Third, although this study revealed the cognitive and relational mechanisms underlying the relationship between strengths mindset and voice behavior, little is known about the boundary conditions of the effectiveness of strengths mindset. A great many researchers have pointed out that the expression of employees’ traits is contingent to trait-related external contexts such as leadership and human resource practices [105,106,107]. As such, future research should attempt to examine whether strengths-based leadership and strengths-based human resource system contribute to the expression of strengths mindset.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.L.; Methodology, J.L. and H.D.; Validation, J.L.; Investigation, F.L. and H.D.; Writing—original draft, F.L. and H.D.; Writing—review & editing, H.D.; Supervision, J.L.; Funding acquisition, J.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by “the State Key Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 72132009)” and “the National Nature Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 72202063)”.

Institutional Review Board Statement

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent Statement

Before collecting data, we obtained informed consent from all participants. With respect to this study, participation was voluntary, and we promised that all information about participants was merely employed for academic research and treated as strictly confidential, and that they were able to stop participating in our surveys at any step.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from FL (liufeng@ppsuc.edu.cn), upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the employees who participated in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kortmann, S. The mediating role of strategic orientations on the relationship between ambidexterity-oriented decisions and innovative ambidexterity. J. Prod. Innovat. Manag. 2015, 32, 666–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Caniëls, M.C.; Baaten, S.M. How a learning-oriented organizational climate is linked to different proactive behaviors: The role of employee resilience. Soc. Indic. Res. 2019, 143, 561–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Parker, S.K.; Collins, C.G. Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. J. Manag. 2010, 36, 633–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Morrison, E.W. Employee voice and silence. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. 2014, 1, 173–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Du, Y.; Wang, Z. How does emotional labor influence voice behavior? The roles of work engagement and perceived organizational support. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Shin, D.; Woodwark, M.J.; Konrad, A.M.; Jung, Y. Innovation strategy, voice practices, employee voice participation, and organizational innovation. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 147, 392–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Avery, D.R.; Quiñones, M.A. Disentangling the effects of voice: The incremental roles of opportunity, behavior, and instrumentality in predicting procedural fairness. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 87, 81–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Shih, H.A.; Wijaya, N.H.S. Team-member exchange, voice behavior, and creative work involvement. Int. J. Manpow. 2017, 38, 417–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chen, L.; Zhang, Z.D.; Jia, W.T. When and why leaders’ helping behavior promotes employees’ thriving: Exploring the role of voice behavior and perceived leader’s role overload. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 553512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Morrison, E.W. Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2011, 5, 373–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hsiung, H.H. Authentic leadership and employee voice behavior: A multi-level psychological process. J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 107, 349–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Li, Y.; Sun, J.M. Traditional Chinese leadership and employee voice behavior: A cross-level examination. Leadersh. Q. 2015, 26, 172–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Fuller, J.B.; Marler, L.E.; Hester, K. Promoting felt responsibility for constructive change and proactive behavior: Exploring aspects of an elaborated model of work design. J. Organ. Behav. 2006, 27, 1089–1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wijaya, N.H.S. Proactive personality, LMX, and voice behavior: Employee–supervisor sex (Dis) similarity as a moderator. Manag. Commun. Q. 2019, 33, 86–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ari, E.; Karatepe, O.M.; Rezapouraghdam, H.; Avci, T. A conceptual model for green human resource management: Indicators, differential pathways, and multiple pro-environmental outcomes. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. White, M.A.; Waters, L.E. A case study of ‘The Good School’: Examples of the use of Peterson’s strengths-based approach with students. J. Posit. Psychol. 2015, 10, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ding, H.; Yu, E. Strengths-based leadership and employee psychological well-being: A moderated mediation model. J. Career Dev. 2022, 49, 1108–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Green, Z.A. Character strengths intervention for nurturing well-being among Pakistan’s university students: A mixed-method study. Appl. Psychol. Health Well Being 2022, 14, 252–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ignjatovic, C.; Kern, M.L.; Oades, L.G. Flow support at work: Examining the relationship between strengths use and flow at work among school staff over a three-year period. J. Happiness Stud. 2022, 23, 455–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ding, H.; Liu, J. Paying close attention to strengths mindset: The relationship of employee strengths mindset with job performance. Curr. Psychol. 2022, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zahrt, O.H.; Crum, A.J. Effects of physical activity recommendations on mindset, behavior and perceived health. Prev. Med. Rep. 2020, 17, 101027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Jia, J.; Zhao, R.; Cai, Y.; Lv, H. I can and I am willing: A dual mediation model of a strengths-based psychological climate and voice behavior. Curr. Psychol. 2022, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Peng, J.C.; Chen, S.W. In search of a cross-level mechanism linking paternalistic leadership to employee voice behavior. Manag. Decis. 2022, 60, 2238–2255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bandura, A.; Adams, N.E. Analysis of self-efficacy theory of behavioral change. Cogn. Ther. Res. 1977, 1, 287–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mostert, K.; Theron, B.; de Beer, L.T. Validating strengths use and deficit correction behaviour scales for South African first-year students. Sa. J. Ind. Psychol. 2017, 43, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Liu, Y.L.; Yang, M.Y.; Hsu, C.T.; Liou, J.C. Investigating the Effects of Self-Efficacy and Participative Leadership on Voice Behavior. In Academy of Management Proceedings; Academy of Management: Briarcliff Manor, NY, USA, 2012; Volume 2012, p. 12242. [Google Scholar]
  27. Wayne, S.J.; Shore, L.M.; Liden, R.C. Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Acad. Manag. J. 1997, 40, 82–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hu, Y.; Zhu, L.; Zhou, M.; Li, J.; Maguire, P.; Sun, H.; Wang, D. Exploring the influence of ethical leadership on voice behavior: How leader-member exchange, psychological safety and psychological empowerment influence employees’ willingness to speak out. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 1718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Toding, M.; Mädamürk, K.; Venesaar, U.; Malleus, E. Teachers’ mindset and attitudes towards learners and learning environment to support students’ entrepreneurial attitudes in universities. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2023, 21, 100769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Steverink, N.; Lindenberg, S.; Spiegel, T.; Nieboer, A.P. The associations of different social needs with psychological strengths and subjective well-being: An empirical investigation based on social production function theory. J. Happiness Stud. 2020, 21, 799–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Ng, T.W.; Feldman, D.C. Employee voice behavior: A meta-analytic test of the conservation of resources framework. J. Organ. Behav. 2012, 33, 216–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lee, W.R.; Choi, S.B.; Kang, S.W. How leaders’ positive feedback influences employees’ innovative behavior: The mediating role of voice behavior and job autonomy. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ng, T.W.; Feldman, D.C. Idiosyncratic deals and voice behavior. J. Manag. 2015, 41, 893–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Raub, S.; Robert, C. Empowerment, organizational commitment, and voice behavior in the hospitality industry: Evidence from a multinational sample. Cornell. Hosp. Q. 2013, 54, 136–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ghielen, S.T.S.; van Woerkom, M.; Christina Meyers, M. Promoting positive outcomes through strengths interventions: A literature review. J. Posit. Psychol. 2018, 13, 573–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lavy, S.; Littman-Ovadia, H. My better self: Using strengths at work and work productivity, organizational citizenship behavior, and satisfaction. J. Career. Dev. 2017, 44, 95–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Proctor, C.; Maltby, J.; Linley, P.A. Strengths use as a predictor of well-being and health-related quality of life. J. Happiness Stud. 2011, 12, 153–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Duan, J.; Wang, X.; Brinsfield, C.T.; Liu, S. How enhancing employee well-being can encourage voice behavior: A desire fulfillment perspective. Hum. Perform. 2020, 33, 425–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lin, X.; Lam, L.W.; Zhang, L.L. The curvilinear relationship between job satisfaction and employee voice: Speaking up for the organization and the self. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2020, 37, 587–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Madrid, H.P. Emotion regulation, positive affect, and promotive voice behavior at work. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Clifton, D.O.; Nelson, P. Soar with Your Strengths; Dell: New York, NY, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  42. Wood, R.; Bandura, A. Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms and complex decision making. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1989, 56, 407–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Azizli, N.; Atkinson, B.E.; Baughman, H.M.; Giammarco, E.A. Relationships between general self-efficacy, planning for the future, and life satisfaction. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 2015, 82, 58–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kale, E. Attachment styles and job performance in the hospitality industry: The mediating role of general self-efficacy. J. Hum. Resour. 2020, 19, 23–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Luszczynska, A.; Gutiérrez-Doña, B.; Schwarzer, R. General self-efficacy in various domains of human functioning: Evidence from five countries. Int. J. Psychol. 2005, 40, 80–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Yao, Y.; Wang, W.; Wang, F.; Yao, W. General self-efficacy and the effect of hospital workplace violence on doctors’ stress and job satisfaction in China. Int. J. Occup. Med. Environ. 2014, 27, 389–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Siu, O.L.; Lu, C.Q.; Spector, P.E. Employees’ well-being in Greater China: The direct and moderating effects of general self-efficacy. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007, 56, 288–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control; Freeman: New York, NY, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  49. Raub, S.; Liao, H. Doing the right thing without being told: Joint effects of initiative climate and general self-efficacy on employee proactive customer service performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 2012, 97, 651–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  50. Mielniczuk, E.; Laguna, M. Positive affect mediates the relationship between self-efficacy and innovative behavior in entrepreneurs. J. Creat. Behav. 2020, 54, 267–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Paramasivam, G.M. Role of self-efficacy and family supportive organizational perceptions in teachers’ organizational citizenship behaviour. Asian Educ. Dev. Stud. 2015, 4, 394–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Brooke, J.; Mohd Rasdi, R.; Abu Samah, B. Modelling knowledge sharing behaviour using self-efficacy as a mediator. Eur. J. Train. Dev. 2017, 41, 144–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Eibl, B.; Lang, F.R.; Niessen, C. Employee voice at work: The role of employees’ gender, self-efficacy beliefs, and leadership. Eur. J. Train. Dev. 2020, 29, 570–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Wu, C.H.; Parker, S.K. The role of leader support in facilitating proactive work behavior: A perspective from attachment theory. J. Manag. 2017, 43, 1025–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Chen, G.; Gully, S.M.; Eden, D. Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organ. Res. Methods 2001, 4, 62–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Scherbaum, C.A.; Cohen-Charash, Y.; Kern, M.J. Measuring general self-efficacy: A comparison of three measures using item response theory. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2006, 66, 1047–1063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Fiori, K.L.; Mcilvane, J.M.; Brown, E.E.; Antonucci, T.C. Social relations and depressive symptomatology: Self-efficacy as a mediator. Aging Ment. Health 2006, 10, 227–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Zeng, W.; Zeng, Y.; Xu, Y.; Huang, D.; Shao, J.; Wu, J.; Wu, X. The influence of post-traumatic growth on college students’ creativity during the COVID-19 pandemic: The mediating role of general self-efficacy and the moderating role of deliberate rumination. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 665973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Ding, H.; Quan, G. How and when does follower’s strengths-based leadership relate to follower innovative behavior: The roles of self-efficacy and emotional exhaustion. J. Creat. Behav. 2021, 55, 591–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Pap, Z.; Tisu, L.; Vîrgă, D. From personal resources to proactive work strategies and performance: Testing the antecedents and outcomes of strengths use in a three-wave study. Career Dev. Int. 2023, 28, 55–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Bakker, A.B.; van Woerkom, M. Strengths use in organizations: A positive approach of occupational health. Can. Psychol. 2018, 59, 38–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Chu, X.; Zhang, L.; Li, M. Nurses’ strengths use and turnover intention: The roles of job crafting and self-efficacy. J. Adv. Nurs. 2022, 78, 2075–2084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. van Woerkom, M.; Oerlemans, W.; Bakker, A.B. Strengths use and work engagement: A weekly diary study. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2016, 25, 384–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. van Woerkom, M.; Meyers, M.C. Strengthening personal growth: The effects of a strengths intervention on personal growth initiative. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2019, 92, 98–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Jones-Smith, E. Strengths-Based Therapy: Connecting Theory, Practice and Skills; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  66. Schyns, B. Are group consensus in leader-member exchange (LMX) and shared work values related to organizational outcomes? Small Group Res. 2006, 37, 20–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Ilies, R.; Nahrgang, J.D.; Morgeson, F.P. Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007, 92, 269–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Dienesch, R.M.; Liden, R.C. Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1986, 11, 618–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Cropanzano, R.; Anthony, E.L.; Daniels, S.R.; Hall, A.V. Social exchange theory: A critical review with theoretical remedies. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2017, 11, 479–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Harris, T.B.; Li, N.; Kirkman, B.L. Leader–member exchange (LMX) in context: How LMX differentiation and LMX relational separation attenuate LMX’s influence on OCB and turnover intention. Leadersh. Q. 2014, 25, 314–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Janssen, O.; Van Yperen, N.W. Employees’ goal orientations, the quality of leader-member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Acad. Manag. J. 2004, 47, 368–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Eisenberger, R.; Karagonlar, G.; Stinglhamber, F.; Neves, P.; Becker, T.E.; Gonzalez-Morales, M.G.; Steiger-Mueller, M. Leader–member exchange and affective organizational commitment: The contribution of supervisor’s organizational embodiment. J. Appl. Psychol. 2010, 95, 1085–1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Lapierre, L.M.; Hackett, R.D. Trait conscientiousness, leader-member exchange, job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviour: A test of an integrative model. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2007, 80, 539–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Muldoon, J.; Keough, S.M.; Lovett, S. The mediating role of workplace attitudes on the leader–member exchange—Turnover intention relationship. Psychol.-Manag. J. 2018, 21, 229–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Dulebohn, J.H.; Bommer, W.H.; Liden, R.C.; Brouer, R.L.; Ferris, G.R. A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. J. Manag. 2012, 38, 1715–1759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Carnevale, J.B.; Huang, L.; Crede, M.; Harms, P.; Uhl-Bien, M. Leading to stimulate employees’ ideas: A quantitative review of leader–member exchange, employee voice, creativity, and innovative behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 2017, 66, 517–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Bhal, K.T.; Ansari, M.A. Leader-member exchange-subordinate outcomes relationship: Role of voice and justice. Leadersh. Org. Dev. J. 2007, 28, 20–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Jiang, Z.; Le, H.; Gollan, P.J. Cultural intelligence and voice behavior among migrant workers: The mediating role of leader–member exchange. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2018, 29, 1082–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Sue-Chan, C.; Au, A.K.; Hackett, R.D. Trust as a mediator of the relationship between leader/member behavior and leader-member-exchange quality. J. World Bus. 2012, 47, 459–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Els, C.; Viljoen, J.; Beer, L.D.; Brand-Labuschagne, L. The mediating effect of leader-member exchange between strengths use and work engagement. J. Psychol. Afr. 2016, 26, 22–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Viljoen, J. Investigating the Impact of Strengths Use on Well-Being: The Mediating Role of Leader-Member Exchange. Ph.D. Thesis, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  82. Karatepe, O.M.; Beirami, E.; Bouzari, M.; Safavi, H.P. Does work engagement mediate the effects of challenge stressors on job outcomes? Evidence from the hotel industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 36, 14–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Yan, Z.; Mansor, Z.D.; Choo, W.C.; Abdullah, A.R. Mitigating effect of psychological capital on employees’ withdrawal behavior in the presence of job attitudes: Evidence from five-star hotels in Malaysia. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 617023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Brislin, R.W. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 1970, 1, 185–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Scholz, U.; Doña, B.G.; Sud, S.; Schwarzer, R. Is general self-efficacy a universal construct? Psychometric findings from 25 countries. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 2002, 18, 242–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Van Breukelen, W.I.M.; Konst, D.; Van Der Vlist, R.E.N.E. Effects of LMX and differential treatment on work unit commitment. Psychol. Rep. 2002, 91, 220–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Liang, J.; Farh, C.I.C.; Farh, J.-L. Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Acad. Manag. J. 2012, 55, 72–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Duan, J.; Li, C.; Xu, Y.; Wu, C.H. Transformational leadership and employee voice behavior: A Pygmalion mechanism. J. Organ. Behav. 2017, 38, 650–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Alhija, F.N.A.; Wisenbaker, J. A Monte Carlo study investigating the impact of item parceling strategies on parameter estimates and their standard errors in CFA. Struct. Equ. Model. 2006, 13, 204–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Rogers, B.A.; Christian, J.S.; Jennings, R.E. “If I Can Change, So Can You”: The Growth Mindset at Work and Daily Prosocial Behavior. In Academy of Management Proceedings; Academy of Management: Briarcliff Manor, NY, USA, 2019; Volume 2019, p. 12001. [Google Scholar]
  92. Yeager, D.S.; Dweck, C.S. What can be learned from growth mindset controversies? Am. Psychol. 2020, 75, 1269–1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Li, X.; Xue, Y.; Liang, H.; Yan, D. The impact of paradoxical leadership on employee voice behavior: A moderated mediation model. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 537756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Lian, L.; Guo, S.; Wang, Q.; Hu, L.; Yang, X.; Li, X. Calling, character strengths, career identity, and job burnout in young Chinese university teachers: A chain-mediating model. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2021, 120, 105776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Duan, J.; Lapointe, É.; Xu, Y.; Brooks, S. Why do employees speak up? Examining the roles of LMX, perceived risk and perceived leader power in predicting voice behavior. J. Manag. Psychol. 2019, 34, 560–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Zhang, L.; Lou, M.; Guan, H. How and when perceived leader narcissism impacts employee voice behavior: A social exchange perspective. J. Manag. Organ. 2022, 28, 77–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Burnette, J.L.; Pollack, J.M.; Forsyth, R.B.; Hoyt, C.L.; Babij, A.D.; Thomas, F.N.; Coy, A.E. A growth mindset intervention: Enhancing students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy and career development. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2020, 44, 878–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Harzer, C.; Ruch, W. Your strengths are calling: Preliminary results of a web-based strengths intervention to increase calling. J. Happiness Stud. 2016, 17, 2237–2256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Bandura, A. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Am. Psychol. 1982, 37, 122–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Appelbaum, S.H.; Hare, A. Self-efficacy as a mediator of goal setting and performance: Some human resource applications. J. Manag. Psychol. 1996, 11, 33–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Chan, S.C.; Mak, W.M. Benevolent leadership and follower performance: The mediating role of leader–member exchange (LMX). Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2012, 29, 285–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Zhang, Z.; Chun, D.; Wang, X.; Liu, J. Does workplace fun affect employees’ voice behavior? Leader–member exchange as a mediator. Soc. Behav. Personal. 2021, 49, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Wang, H.; Law, K.S.; Hackett, R.D.; Wang, D.; Chen, Z.X. Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Acad. Manag. J. 2005, 48, 420–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Mostafa, A.M.S.; El-Motalib, E.A.A. Servant leadership, leader–member exchange and proactive behavior in the public health sector. Public Pers. Manag. 2019, 48, 309–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Chiang, Y.H.; Hsu, C.C.; Shih, H.A. Experienced high performance work system, extroversion personality, and creativity performance. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2015, 32, 531–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Luria, G.; Kahana, A.; Goldenberg, J.; Noam, Y. Contextual moderators for leadership potential based on trait activation theory. J. Organ. Behav. 2019, 40, 899–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Tett, R.P.; Toich, M.J.; Ozkum, S.B. Trait activation theory: A review of the literature and applications to five lines of personality dynamics research. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. 2021, 8, 199–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 11706 g001 550
Figure 1. The theoretical model.
Figure 1. The theoretical model.
Sustainability 15 11706 g001
Table
Table 1. Means, standard deviations and correlations.
Table 1. Means, standard deviations and correlations.
VariableMSD123456
1. Gender1.490.50-
2. Age32.616.24−0.11 *-
3. Education2.240.620.10 *−0.10 *-
4. Strengths mindset3.850.70−0.06−0.030.05-
5. General self-efficacy3.870.64−0.14 **−0.03−0.030.49 **-
6. LMX3.680.94−0.12 **−0.05−0.020.47 **0.71 **-
7. Voice behavior3.740.77−0.13 **0.04−0.050.44 **0.53 **0.53 **
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 2. Fit indices of measurement models.
Table 2. Fit indices of measurement models.
Modelsχ2dfχ2/dfRMSEACFITLIIFI
Four-factor model (Baseline)122.74711.730.040.990.990.99
Three-factor model a461.63746.240.100.950.940.95
Two-factor model b803.927610.580.130.910.890.91
One factor model c1609.407720.900.190.800.760.80
Notes: a general self-efficacy and LMX merged. b general self-efficacy, LMX, and voice behavior merged. c all variables were merged into one factor.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Liu, F.; Liu, J.; Ding, H. Employee Strengths Mindset and Voice Behavior: The Roles of General Self-Efficacy and Leader–Member Exchange. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11706. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511706

AMA Style

Liu F, Liu J, Ding H. Employee Strengths Mindset and Voice Behavior: The Roles of General Self-Efficacy and Leader–Member Exchange. Sustainability. 2023; 15(15):11706. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511706

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liu, Feng, Jun Liu, and He Ding. 2023. "Employee Strengths Mindset and Voice Behavior: The Roles of General Self-Efficacy and Leader–Member Exchange" Sustainability 15, no. 15: 11706. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511706

APA Style

Liu, F., Liu, J., & Ding, H. (2023). Employee Strengths Mindset and Voice Behavior: The Roles of General Self-Efficacy and Leader–Member Exchange. Sustainability, 15(15), 11706. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511706

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop