- مبلغ: ۸۶,۰۰۰ تومان
- مبلغ: ۹۱,۰۰۰ تومان
Direct forms of individual employee voice are potentially important yet underexplored antecedents of work engagement. Based largely in job demands–resources theorizing, we develop a conceptual multi-level framework that explores how individual employee perceptions of voice practices affect their level of work engagement. We argue that the extent to which voice practices might converge as ‘best practice’ to create work engagement is influenced by factors at three levels: macro-level national culture (the degree of power distance), meso-level organizational climate (the extent of empowering leadership and participation), and micro-level relationship quality between employee and supervisor (leader–member exchange). Positioning this framework in the human resource management convergence/divergence debate, we develop propositions for future research linking direct employee voice and work engagement.
Work engagement is broadly conceived as delivering positive organizational outcomes, and various antecedents have been identified to date (e.g. Khan, 1990; May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004; Saks, 2006; Schaufeli et al., 2002). We have suggested that direct employee voice functions as an important antecedent, generating work engagement based on the principles of the JD-R model (Demerouti et al., 2001): voicing concerns and opinions to influence the work context is a significant job resource. We have focused here on the contextual factors that affect employee perceptions of direct voice practices, which in turn are expected to increase work engagement as a result of the intention-enactment-experience mechanism of employee voice practices (Nishii & Wright, 2008). We have argued that there are both context-free (organizational climate) and context-dependent (LMX and power distance) factors that MNCs should consider when implementing voice practices in different countries. Whilst the context-free factors favor convergence, the context-dependent factors can result in inconsistent outcomes from implementing the same voice practices globally. In pursuing incongruent practices, this can result in employees rejecting them as inappropriate due to their lack of legitimacy in a given context (Paauwe, 2004).