International Journal of Manpower

Team-member exchange, voice behavior, and creative work involvement

Hsi-An Shih, Nikodemus Hans Setiadi Wijaya,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Hsi-An Shih, Nikodemus Hans Setiadi Wijaya, (2017) "Team-member exchange, voice behavior, and creative work
involvement", International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 38 Issue: 3, doi: 10.1108/IJM-09-2015-0139
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJM-09-2015-0139
Downloaded on: 03 May 2017, At: 19:32 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 14 times since 2017*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:161653 []
For Authors
Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 19:32 03 May 2017 (PT)

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Running head: TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND CREATIVE WORK INVOLVEMENT 1

Team-member exchange, voice behavior, and creative work involvement

Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 19:32 03 May 2017 (PT)
 TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND CREATIVE WORK INVOLVEMENT 2

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to conceptualize the links among team-member exchange

(TMX), voice behavior, and creative work involvement.

Design/methodology/approach – A total of 260 employees were participants in this study. All

were alumni of a Business School in Indonesia who were working in various companies. Data

were gathered at two time points four months apart. Hierarchical regression and bootstrapping

analyses were conducted to examine the relationships among the study variables.
Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 19:32 03 May 2017 (PT)

Findings - Results from the analyses showed positive effects of TMX on both voice behavior

and creative work involvement. A positive effect of voice behavior on creative work

involvement was found. The results also exhibited a partial mediating effect of voice behavior on

the relationship between TMX and creative work involvement.

Practical implications – Our findings point to the importance of maintaining TMX quality in

work teams for enhancing employee voice and creativity. Organizations may need to develop

members’ reciprocal relationship skill in teams and maintain the roles of team leaders to develop

the quality of TMX. It is also suggested that the practice of self-management teams may

stimulate deeper TMX relationships and voice behavior of employees.

Originality/value – This paper offers new insight on how levels of TMX may impact members’

voice behavior and creative work involvement. Longitudinal data may provide a more accurate

prediction of the links among TMX, voice behavior, and creative work involvement.

Keywords Team-member exchange (TMX), voice behavior, creative work involvement, social

exchange theory, social penetration theory.

Paper type Research paper

 TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND CREATIVE WORK INVOLVEMENT 3

Team-member exchange, voice behavior, and creative work involvement

Introduction
Employee involvement in creative tasks has been an interesting topic in scholarly

literature for some time (Atwater & Carmeli, 2009; Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2007). Scholars

have defined creative work involvement as an employee’s engagement in creative processes

associated with work (Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2007). Creative work involvement is therefore a

specific type of engagement that directly corresponds to creative outcomes that include novel
Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 19:32 03 May 2017 (PT)

ideas, products, services, procedures, or processes (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993), which

in turn, support organizational creative performance (Volmer, Spurk, & Niessen, 2012). Scholars

have investigated factors influencing creative work involvement. Most of them have emphasized

the influences of personal factors such as psychological safety, vitality and commitment (e.g.,

Kark & Carmeli, 2009; Vinarski-Peretz, Binyamin, & Carmeli, 2011). Others have investigated

the effects of leadership attributes (Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon, & Ziv, 2010) and relationship

quality (Atwater & Carmeli, 2009; Vinarski-Peretz, et al., 2011; Volmer, et al., 2012).

To extend the prior findings, we proposed a different perspective. This study is aimed at

examining the effects of team-member exchange on creative work involvement both directly and

indirectly via voice behavior. In this study, team-member exchange (hereafter “TMX”) is defined

as the social exchange of an employee with his/her team members in terms of reciprocal

contributions of ideas, feedback and assistance (Seers, Petty, & Cashman, 1995). Meanwhile,

voice behavior is defined as non-required behavior that emphasizes expression of constructive

challenges at the group level with the intent to improve rather than merely criticize (LePine &

Van Dyne, 1998).

The study model relied on two basic ideas. First, prior research has implied the

importance of social exchange quality as it is related to employees’ perceptions of opportunities

 TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND CREATIVE WORK INVOLVEMENT 4

to speak up (Botero & Van Dyne, 2009; Rees, Alfes, & Gatenby, 2013) and to creative work

involvement (Atwater & Carmeli, 2009). We suggest that TMX may offer a potential

contribution to the enhancement of the voice behavior and creative work involvement in

employees. Second, it has also been argued that a high opportunity to reveal ideas or concerns

may strengthen employee engagement (Rees, et al., 2013). Because creative work involvement is

a specific type of engagement (Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2007), we see an opportunity to test the

relationship between voice behavior and creative work involvement. Extant literature, however,
Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 19:32 03 May 2017 (PT)

has remained unclear about the relationships among TMX, voice behavior, and creative work

involvement. In addition, although the relationship between voice behavior (as a response to

workplace stress) and creativity has been assessed by other authors (Ng & Feldman, 2012), this

study applies a different perspective of voice behavior, namely constructive or positive voice

(Van Dyne & LePine, 1998).

In connecting the variables, we implemented social exchange theory and social

penetration theory. Social exchange theory places an emphasis on the importance of reciprocity

among people in a social context (Gouldner, 1960). In this study, social exchange theory

explains how TMX may contribute to voice behavior and creative work involvement of

employees. Social penetration theory suggests that the deeper the relationship, the more people

are urged to express themselves, including through both their verbal and behavioral expressions

(Altman & Taylor, 1973). Social penetration theory describes how close relationships among

team members encourage employees to express more voice behavior and engage in more

creative tasks.

Creative work involvement and voice behavior are both pertinent to constructive ideas

(Kark & Carmeli, 2009; Morrison & Milliken, 2003); however, both have different focuses.
 TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND CREATIVE WORK INVOLVEMENT 5

Creative work involvement places more emphasis on employees’ real actions in regard to

creative tasks (e.g., use of such words as demonstrate, take, solve, etc.; see Carmeli &

Schaubroeck, 2007), whereas voice behavior refers to the expression of ideas and opinions (e.g.,

and uses such words as speak, communicate, etc. see Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Moreover,

TMX may differ from voice behavior. TMX discusses reciprocal relationships among

counterparts in teams (Seers, et al., 1995) and places importance on mutual help, support, and

attention among team members (Seers, 1989). The convergent and discriminant validity of the
Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 19:32 03 May 2017 (PT)

study variables were examined and are discussed later in this paper.

Literature Review

TMX and Voice Behavior

Voice behavior can be expressed with purposes such as responding appropriately to

dynamic business conditions, making good decisions, giving information to top managers or

even providing input for co-workers (Morrison, 2011). As a part of extra-role behavior (Van

Dyne & LePine, 1998), voice expression can play an important role in efforts to seek

improvements in work organization, quality, and productivity (Dundon, Wilkinson,

Marchington, & Ackers, 2004).

Social exchange theory emphasizes the importance of social reciprocity among people,

which expects individuals to help others who help them and to reciprocate good things with good

things (Gouldner, 1960). Social exchange relationships within organizations influence their

members’ willingness to be involved in in-role and extra-role duties (Albrecht, 2012). TMX, a

type of social exchange relationship within organizations, measures the reciprocity between a

member of a team and the peer group involved (e.g., giving assistance and sharing ideas or

feedback) that indicate the effectiveness of a team’s working relationship (Seers, et al., 1995). A
 TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND CREATIVE WORK INVOLVEMENT 6

high quality of TMX is characterized by mutual trust, respect, and by cooperation and

collaboration between a focal employee and teammates (Seers, 1989). Such conditions increase

employee satisfaction (Banks et al., 2014) and in turn, elicit the willingness of employees to

invest the time and effort needed to formulate ideas and suggestions for change (LePine & Van

Dyne, 1998).

The social penetration theory also suggests that the depth of relationships influences the

levels of interpersonal disclosure (Altman & Taylor, 1973; Greene, Derlega, & Mathews, 2006).
Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 19:32 03 May 2017 (PT)

Self-disclosure can be in the form of verbal (e.g., ideas, opinions), nonverbal (emotional cues),

and behavioral expressions (actions). In a high quality TMX relationship where a sense of strong

emotional attachment exists (H. Liao, Liu, & Loi, 2010; S. G. Scott & Bruce, 1994), employees

are more likely to be motivated to deliver voice because they feel that their opinions will be

valued even when the opinions are divergent (Morrison & Milliken, 2003). Similar to this notion,

it has been said that in an expressive social network characterized by quality friendships and

social support, knowledge sharing within a work team will be improved (Henttonen, Janhonen,

& Johanson, 2013). Moreover, compared with other organizational citizenship behaviors

(OCBs), voice behavior is a challenging behavior and may involve personal risk (Ng & Feldman,

2012). It is likely that employee voice behavior will be improved when employees enjoy close

relationships with teammates. Contrarily, when the relationship is less deep, disclosure of ideas

and opinions may be hampered. Expressing ideas in this situation becomes more risky because

employees can perceive a high possibility of being denied, receiving poor evaluations, or

receiving negative responses from others. Such unexpected responses cause discomfort when the

relationship is less than intimate (Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, 1973).

 TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND CREATIVE WORK INVOLVEMENT 7

In conclusion, expressing voice might become less comfortable when employees perceive

a lack of social protection and intimate relationships than it would otherwise. In contrast, an

environment conducive to social exchanges within teams may increase employees’ perceptions

of social support for voice behavior. It was expected in this study that employees’ perceptions of

the quality of TMX would contribute to their voice behavior. That is, the higher the quality of

TMX, the more employees will be encouraged to express voice behavior. Thus:

Hypothesis 1: TMX will be positively related to voice behavior.

Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 19:32 03 May 2017 (PT)

TMX and Creative Work Involvement

Creativity theorists suggest that group characteristics (i.e., cohesiveness, interaction) may

influence the creative behavior of employees (Amabile, 2013; Woodman, et al., 1993). Heaphy

and Dutton (2008, p. 151) theorized that “the psychological resourcefulness generated in positive

social interactions contribute to higher levels of psychological resources for engaging in a work

role.” Social penetration theory also suggests that the deeper the relationship, the more people

are willing to express specific behavior (Greene, et al., 2006). In line with the above notions, it

has been argued that satisfying social interaction may become a key driver of involvement

because it may elicit a sense of belonging to a group (Kular, Gatenby, Rees, Soane, & Truss,

2008).

Creativity should be an indicator of employee’s psychological and physical well-being in

the workplace (Albrecht, 2012). Specifically, good psychological and socio-emotional resources

provided by a high quality of social exchange improve the physical aspects that may lead to

involvement in creative tasks (Heaphy & Dutton, 2008). When provided with a sense of social

support, mutual respect and trust (Atwater & Carmeli, 2009), employees may acquire more

energy (a sense of being eager to act and capable of action) and vitality (a sense of being
 TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND CREATIVE WORK INVOLVEMENT 8

energetic, alive, and fully functioning) (Atwater & Carmeli, 2009; Kark & Carmeli, 2009;

Vinarski-Peretz, et al., 2011). Prior literature states that both energy and vitality are necessary for

optimal creative behavior (Atwater & Carmeli, 2009). Similarly, it has been suggested that when

people are embedded in a positive relational context, they are more likely to personally engage in

their work, particularly in complicated tasks like generating novel ideas (Vinarski-Peretz, et al.,

2011). Therefore, consistent with the social penetration perspective, it was expected that a high

quality of TMX will lead people in the group to be more willing to demonstrate creative
Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 19:32 03 May 2017 (PT)

behavior.

A high quality of TMX may also enhance levels of individual autonomy, namely a

feeling of having greater control over task performance (Unsworth & Clegg, 2010) and a sense

of being empowered (Liden, Erdogan, Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2006). Scholars have suggested that

these factors may promote creativity (Ohly, Sonnentag, & Pluntke, 2006; Zhang & Bartol, 2010).

Given good exchange relationships with others in groups, employee cognition that is essential for

effective creative tasks may be improved (May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004), namely employees may

develop applicable knowledge acquired from idea sharing and feedback (S. G. Scott & Bruce,

1994). In conclusion, it was expected that the closer the TMX relationship, the more employees

will be willing to engage in creative work involvement. Thus:

Hypothesis 2: TMX will be positively related to creative work involvement.

TMX, Voice Behavior, and Creative Work Involvement

Creative work involvement is pertinent to an engagement-related creative process. We

expected a positive impact of voice behavior on creative work involvement. Prior research has

demonstrated that employee voice may lead to positive self-attitude and, in turn, may increase

the motivation to engage in positive actions in the workplace (Burris, Detert, & Romney, 2013)
 TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND CREATIVE WORK INVOLVEMENT 9

and that it may also improve other aspects of performance (Ng & Feldman, 2012; Rees, et al.,

2013). The more effective employees perceive the voice mechanism to be, the more likely they

are to advance their opinions or concerns about actions in work-related situations (Rees, et al.,

2013). In line with this argument, Blanchard and his co-authors (1996) argued that by sharing

information, people are encouraged to act in the best possible way. For example, a meta analytic

study conducted by Ng and Feldman (2012) examined the impact of voice (i.e., voice as a

response to workplace stress) on some performance measures including creativity. They found
Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 19:32 03 May 2017 (PT)

that voice behavior was positively related to both self-rated and other-rated creativity. The

finding thus failed to support their competing hypothesis stating the negative effect of voice on

creativity.

Social exchange theory has suggested that a feeling of being either excluded or included

is very essential and has an influence on people’s attitudes and behavior (K. L. Scott, Restubog,

& Zagenczyk, 2013). Particularly, prior research has established the benefits of a high quality of

social exchange relationship on creativity (Atwater & Carmeli, 2009; Gong, Cheung, Wang, &

Huang, 2012). The central reason why employees with more voice are willing to engage in

creative work involvement is because they have a strong feeling of being valued and involved in

organizational communication (Schraeder & Jordan, 2011). Moreover, Gong, et al. (2012)

suggested that an environment conducive to social relationship facilitates information exchange

among members in a network. By delivering voice, employees may contribute to constructive

inputs for the groups and at the same time receive feedback with regards to their inputs from

others in the group. Employee voice therefore may also facilitate group learning and knowledge

acquisition (Henttonen, et al., 2013; Morrison, 2011), because it encourages information sharing

when decisions are being made (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). This suggests that in a situation
 TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND CREATIVE WORK INVOLVEMENT 10

where voice behavior is facilitated, knowledge sharing in the groups is developed, and self-

perception of having relevant knowledge related to creativity is also developed (see Gong, et al.,

2012 for a review).

According to the social penetration theory, this study suggests that comfortable

experiences with voice behavior and improvements that reflect employee’s sense of being

appreciated (Robinson, Perryman, & Hayday, 2004) will encourage them to continue to further

related actions (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). According to this theory, the more they feel that
Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 19:32 03 May 2017 (PT)

others value their voice, the more employees will initiate creative work involvement as the

initiation is a way for them to be able to maintain and develop the relationship (Greene, et al.,

2006). In addition, the deeper the relationship, the more the employees will feel that placing their

attention on the development of their society is necessary. From the employees’ perspective,

demonstrating creative work involvement in such a situation may be a better choice for the

betterment of the society as a whole (Premeaux & Bedeian, 2003). Consistent with the social

penetration tenet, it was expected that the more employees experience being heard or getting

respected for their opinions (Blanchard, et al., 1996; Burris, et al., 2013), the more they may be

willing to manifest their constructive voice in specific creative tasks (Ng & Feldman, 2012).

Taken together, although voice behavior may not be always related to expressing novel ideas, it

is believed that employees with more voice are also inclined to be willing to communicate novel

ideas and continue with efforts to put the ideas into practice. In conclusion, the extent to which

employees have perceptions of opportunities to express voice behavior will affect the degree of

their creative work involvement.

Therefore, it was also expected that voice behavior might play a role as a mediator

between TMX and creative work involvement. Social penetration theory is connected to social
 TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND CREATIVE WORK INVOLVEMENT 11

exchange theory in the sense that if a high quality of TMX encourages the voice behavior of

employees where their verbal disclosure gets positive reciprocal responses, the deeper the

relationship will become, and the more the employees may be eager to engage in voice behavior

in the future (Greene, et al., 2006) because they feel a greater opportunity to disclose voice and a

higher possibility that their ideas and opinions will be appreciated. Such situations will elicit

positive emotions in employees (Atwater & Carmeli, 2009) that correspond with disclosing

specific engagement related to their ideas (Rees, et al., 2013). In conclusion, in a high quality of
Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 19:32 03 May 2017 (PT)

TMX, enhancing an effective mechanism for delivering voice as perceived by employees may

provide a stronger experience of having intimate counterparts that in turn encourages them to

expand their disclosures in the area of creative work involvement. We therefore suggest that

TMX will also contribute to creative work involvement via voice behavior. Thus:

Hypothesis 3: Voice behavior (a) will be positively related to creative work involvement

and (b) will mediate the relationship between TMX and creative work involvement.

Method

Sample and procedure

All participants in this study were the alumni of a college of business in Indonesia. To

avoid survey bias due to the language barrier, we administrated our questionnaire in Indonesian.

We conducted a translation-retranslation procedure. First, an Indonesian native author translated

all scales into Indonesian. Second, we involved Indonesian PhD and master’s students who were

currently studying in Taiwan to check our Indonesian translation. We made the first revisions on

the Indonesian version. Third, we hired a professional translator to back translate the Indonesian

version into English (note that we did not provide the original English version to the translator at

this stage). Fourth, we then compared both English versions (i.e., the original and the one from
 TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND CREATIVE WORK INVOLVEMENT 12

the back translation). Lastly, if there were any significant differences between the two English

versions, we discussed them with the translator and made final revisions to our Indonesian

version.

We conducted two waves of online questionnaire surveys four months apart. First, at time

1, we distributed the survey to 920 selected alumni of the college. We selected alumni who were

working in organizations. At time 1, they completed the TMX and voice behavior scales. They

also completed all control variables at this time. We got 383 responses from time 1 (representing
Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 19:32 03 May 2017 (PT)

a 42% response rate). Second, at time 2, participants who responded at time 1 were asked to

participate in the second survey. At time 2, they completed the creative work involvement scale.

A short message service (SMS) reminder was sent one week after the second survey was sent to

remind each participant to complete the second survey. We used the participants’ names and

initials to match the data from both surveys. Eventually, we got 260 responses from time 2 that

could be matched with the data from time 1. All matched data were usable. Fifty five percent of

the participants were male. The average age was 31 years. Our participants were well-educated

since all of them had received an undergraduate degree, and 26% of them also held a master’s

degree. The average organizational and team tenures were 4.65 and 3.21 years, respectively.

Thirty two percent of the participants were working as clerical staff members, 46% as

professional staff members, and 22% as managerial staff members. Most of the participants were

working in organizations operating in tertiary industries (88%).

Measures

Measuring TMX. A ten-item scale from Seers, Petty, and Cashman (1995) was used to

measure TMX. Two items were dropped (see details in the next section). A sample item is “How

well do other members of your team recognize your potential?” Response options ranged from
 TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND CREATIVE WORK INVOLVEMENT 13

(1) to a very little extent to (5) to a very great extent. The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale with 8

items was .75.

Measuring voice behavior. A six-item scale from Van Dyne and LePine (1998) was used

to measure voice behavior. A sample item is “I develop and make recommendations concerning

issues that affect this work group.” Response options ranged from strongly disagree (1) to

strongly agree (5). The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .79.

Measuring creative work involvement. A nine-item scale from Carmeli and Schaubroeck
Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 19:32 03 May 2017 (PT)

(2007) was used to measure creative work involvement. A sample question is “I demonstrated

originality at my work.” Response options ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree

(5). The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .89.

Control variables. We included gender (male =1, female = 0), age (years), education

(undergraduate = 1, master’s = 2, doctorate = 3), organizational tenure (years) (Kark & Carmeli,

2009), team tenure (years) (Tse & Dasborough, 2008), and job type (S. G. Scott & Bruce, 1994).

We classified job type into three categories, namely clerical, professional, and managerial. We

coded these responses as (0, 0), (1, 0), and (0, 1), respectively, for clerical, professional, and

managerial staff members. For job type, we therefore had two dummy variables, namely

professional (1 = professional, 0 = otherwise) and managerial (1 = managerial, 0 = otherwise).

We presumed that clerical tasks were more structured and routine than the tasks assumed by

professional and managerial staff members. We also considered that members of managerial

staffs had more complex tasks as compared to those clerical and professional staff members, and

they were also presumed to have more personal discretion and autonomy in their work (see S. G.

Scott & Bruce, 1994 for further review). Finally, we also added type of industry as a control

variable (Atwater & Carmeli, 2009). We asked participants to provide the type of industry into
 TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND CREATIVE WORK INVOLVEMENT 14

their organizations were categorized. There were three groups of industries: primary industry

(e.g., farming, fishing, oil and mining, coded as 1), secondary industry (i.e., all manufacturing

companies, coded as 2), and tertiary industry (e.g., banking, education, insurance, coded as 3).

Data analysis
Preliminary assessment of primary variables
We conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to evaluate whether all items were

loaded in the respective factors. A varimax rotation method was used for the analysis. The results
Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 19:32 03 May 2017 (PT)

demonstrated that all voice behavior and creative work involvement items were well loaded in

their related factors. However, two TMX items were found to be cross-loaded in the voice

behavior variable and were removed. Eventually, a total of 23 items were included in further

analyses. The loadings of the items ranged from .48 to .83 and were in the acceptable range

(Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010).

Further, using a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) procedure, we reconfirmed the

convergent and discriminant validity of the primary variables. We tested the baseline model (all

variables were separated). As shown in Table 1, the baseline model exhibited satisfactory

goodness-of-fit. The model demonstrated that each item explained its respective factor at a

significant level p < .001. We also tested two alternative measurement models, namely a two-

factor model (TMX and voice behavior were merged; creative work involvement was

independent) and a one-factor model (all factors were combined). The two-factor model also

exhibited acceptable goodness-of-fit. However, the baseline model was significantly better than

the two-factor model, and much better than the one-factor model. The choice of the baseline

model was supported. In addition, the correlation coefficients among the variables were only

mediocre; namely, no indication of extremely high correlations was found (see Table 2). Thus,

evidence of convergent and discriminant validity was demonstrated.

 TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND CREATIVE WORK INVOLVEMENT 15

-------------------------------
Table 1 about here
-------------------------------
Results
Table 2 shows the means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations among the

variables. Significant correlations of creative work involvement with gender (r = .12, p < .05),

age (r = .22, p < .01), and managerial (r = .13, p < .05) were found. Creative work involvement

was also correlated with TMX (r = .34, p < .01) and voice behavior (r = .47, p < .01). TMX was
Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 19:32 03 May 2017 (PT)

correlated with voice behavior (r = .34, p < .01). Hence, positive correlations existed among the

study variables.

-------------------------------
Table 2 about here
-------------------------------
In order to find support for our hypotheses, we used a hierarchical regression analysis to

examine the effects of a group of variables on a dependent variable in a step-by-step manner.

More specifically, we followed the four conditions established by Baron and Kenny (1986) for

testing mediating effects. In the context of our study, the first condition is that TMX must relate

to creative work involvement. The second is that TMX must relate to voice behavior. The third is

that voice behavior must also relate to creative work involvement. The fourth is intended to

check whether the mediation relationship is partial or full. If TMX fails to explain creative work

involvement after voice behavior is controlled for, this evidence then indicates full mediation.

Otherwise, only partial mediation exists if the effect of TMX on creative work involvement

remains significant, but the strength of the effect decreases in magnitude.

Table 3 represents the results of the hierarchical regression analysis. In this study,

positive links between TMX and voice behavior (H1), TMX and creative work involvement
 TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND CREATIVE WORK INVOLVEMENT 16

(H2), and voice behavior and creative work involvement (H3a) were proposed. In addition, in

this study, the mediating effect of voice behavior on TMX and creative work involvement (H3b)

was also proposed. In Model 1, we regressed the effects of all control variables on voice

behavior. In Model 2, we added TMX. The results demonstrated that TMX had a positive

relationship with voice behavior (.27, p < .001). The results supported H1. In Model 3, we

regressed all control variables on creative work involvement. In Model 4, we added TMX. The

results showed that there was a positive relationship between TMX and creative work
Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 19:32 03 May 2017 (PT)

involvement (.32, p < .001). The results supported H2. In Model 5, we regressed all controls and

voice behavior on creative work involvement. The results indicated that voice behavior had a

positive relationship with creative work involvement (β = .43, p < .001). These results thus

supported H3a.

The results therefore confirmed the first three mediating effect testing conditions (i.e., the

significances of TMX
creative work involvement; TMX
voice behavior; and voice

behavior
creative work involvement). For the last condition, we regressed all controls, voice

behavior, and TMX on creative work involvement (Model 6). The results indicated that the effect

of TMX on creative work involvement remained significant (.22, p < .001) but decreased in

magnitude (from .32, p < .001, Model 4). The fourth condition was confirmed. The results

supported H3b. The mediating effect of voice behavior on the relationship between TMX and

creative work involvement was thus partial.

-------------------------------
Table 3 about here
-------------------------------
To validate the findings from our prior testing, we used a bootstrapping method in

AMOS to examine the direct and indirect effects of TMX on creative work involvement. All
 TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND CREATIVE WORK INVOLVEMENT 17

control variables were excluded in this analysis. As shown in Table 4, the paths TMX
creative

work involvement, TMX
voice behavior, and voice behavior
creative work involvement

estimates were all significant. The indirect effect of TMX on creative work involvement was .24

(p < .01, 95% CI = [.10, .61]). The results of the goodness-of-fit statistics for the partially

mediated model were χ2 = 289.07[200]; χ2/df = 1.45; CFI = .96; IFI = .96; NFI = .87; TLI = .94;

and RMSEA = .04. In comparison to the proposed model, we also tested a structural model by

eliminating the direct path of TMX and creative work involvement. The paths TMX
voice
Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 19:32 03 May 2017 (PT)

behavior and voice behavior
creative work involvement estimates were also significant (see

Figure 1). The fit indicators for the fully mediated model were χ2 = 296.51[201]; χ2/df = 1.48;

CFI = .95; IFI = .95; NFI = .87; TLI = .94; and RMSEA = .04. As expected, the partially

mediated model was statistically better than the fully mediated model (∆χ2 = 7.44, ∆df = 1, p <

.01). The bootstrapping analysis then validated support for all of the proposed hypotheses.

-------------------------------
Table 4 about here
-------------------------------
 TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND CREATIVE WORK INVOLVEMENT 18

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine the links among TMX, voice behavior, and

creative work involvement. A total of 260 longitudinal data from two waves of data collection

four months apart were used for analyses. We summarized the hypothesized paths with the

standardized estimates shown in Figure 1. As predicted, TMX positively influenced both voice

behavior and creative work involvement. Voice behavior also positively influenced creative

work involvement. Our mediation hypothesis was also found to be supported. The results
Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 19:32 03 May 2017 (PT)

indicate that the effect of TMX on creative work involvement can be either straightforward or

via voice behavior.

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

Figure 1 about here

-------------------------------
This study thus adds a novel understanding of the ability of TMX to increase employee

voice behavior and creative work involvement. It has been more than 25 years since TMX was

proposed as a new construct by Seer (1989). This construct however continues to attract scholars

as one type of exchange relationship in organizations that may offer unique implications for

employee attitudes and behavior. Prior research has demonstrated the impacts of TMX on

numerous work outcomes, for example, performance, job satisfaction, commitment, and

engagement (Banks, et al., 2014; F.-Y. Liao, Yang, Wang, Drown, & Shi, 2013). Since voice

behavior and creative work involvement may offer significant implications for overall

organizational performance (Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2007; Morrison, 2011), we clarify how

levels of TMX may impact the voluntary expression of constructive ideas and creative

involvement.
 TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND CREATIVE WORK INVOLVEMENT 19

This study delivers some implications for theory. The findings contribute to insights

related to the links among TMX, voice behavior, and creative work involvement. We found a

positive impact of TMX on voice behavior. This finding offers additional evidence of the

importance of social exchange relationships on team members’ voice behavior (i.e., LMX,

Botero & Van Dyne, 2009). The present study established the effect of TMX on employees’

creative work involvement. This finding thus validates the importance of social exchange quality

on individual creativity (Atwater & Carmeli, 2009; Vinarski-Peretz, et al., 2011). Although a
Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 19:32 03 May 2017 (PT)

previous work was an attempt to investigate the link of TMX and innovativeness (S. G. Scott &

Bruce, 1994), the research yielded an unsupported result. In addition, we established the

importance of employee voice on creative work involvement. This finding may extend prior

research that theorized the possibility of the effect of voice behavior on engagement (Rees, et al.,

2013). We thus augmented insights related to the effects of voice behavior since creative work

involvement is a specific type of engagement (Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2007; Kark & Carmeli,

2009). Taken together, the findings thus enrich the impacts of positive relational experiences on

various individual’s participation and engagement (Vinarski-Peretz, et al., 2011). In addition, we

extended the use of social exchange theory and social penetration theory, which was useful to

connect the study variables. More specifically, the social penetration perspective puts a strong

emphasis on how levels of relationship may influence people’s willingness to provide verbal and

behavioral disclosures. In this study, we demonstrated how a good quality of TMX representing

intimate relationships among group members can promote voice behavior and creative work

involvement in a group. Drawing on the both theories, we also explained the ability of voice

behavior to mediate the relationship between TMX and creative work involvement.
 TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND CREATIVE WORK INVOLVEMENT 20

This study offers several important insights for practice. Organizational creative

performance is impossible to achieve without involving members in creative tasks (Woodman &

Schoenfeldt, 1990). The question of how to enhance employees’ creative work involvement

therefore is partially answered by this study. Our study put an emphasis on the importance of

TMX and voice behavior. As found in this study, a high quality of TMX is a necessary condition

for employees to express their constructive voice and to become involved in creative tasks.

Organizations may need to consider some factors related to improving the emergence of
Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 19:32 03 May 2017 (PT)

opportunities for synergic interactions to occur within teams. For example, the extant literature

has suggested the role of team members (Seers, et al., 1995) and leadership (Yaping, Tae-Yeol,

Deog-Ro, & Jing, 2013) in promoting team communication and cohesion. Therefore,

organizations may need to teach team members how to better develop their reciprocal

relationship skills (Seers, et al., 1995). Also, organizations can increase the role of team leaders

in developing the quality of TMX. Moreover, Seers et al. (1995) suggested that the practice of

self-management among work teams can stimulate deeper social exchange relationships among

members. The authors also suggested when organizations adopt this practice, they must share

authority with their teams. Authority is necessary in order to manage activities of teams that lead

to achieving the goals of the teams effectively. We suggest that by working in such teams, self-

responsibility of the members may be improved because they are a part of the goal achievement,

where in turn, a sense of responsibility may encourage them to deliver more constructive voice.

Limitations and Future Directions

We wish to note some limitations of this study. First, although we collected data two

times, we relied on a single rater for all measures. Our data might still be contaminated with

inflated variance because TMX and voice behavior were taken at the same point in time. Future
 TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND CREATIVE WORK INVOLVEMENT 21

research may cover multiple raters. For example, although previous scholars have used self-

reported perceptions of creative work involvement (Kark & Carmeli, 2009), it might give a

different perspective if this scale can be measured by peers or intermediate supervisors. Second,

the data of our study were taken from only one country. In addition, 88% of our participants

were working in tertiary industries. Therefore, the data used in the present study may limit the

generalizability of the findings. Future research could replicate the findings by using participants

from other countries or industries (i.e., primary or secondary). Third, the participants of our
Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 19:32 03 May 2017 (PT)

study were working in a relatively wide variety of companies and departments. Nevertheless,

prior study on creative work involvement has used samples from participants working in diverse

organizations and occupations (Atwater & Carmeli, 2009; Kark & Carmeli, 2009). Atwater and

Carmeli (2009, p. 267), for example, sampled individuals from 24 different organizations with

approximately 50 job types. We must, however, admit that one organization should differ from

another in regard to viewing the importance of members’ creativity influencing employees’

perceptions of the necessity to develop their creative behavior in the workplace. Future research

may collect data from employees working in high-technology firms, creative industries (e.g.,

advertising, arts, software) or departments (e.g., R&D, marketing). Fourth, we used a one-

dimension construct of voice behavior. Meanwhile, extant literature has proposed different types

of voice behaviors (e.g., supportive, constructive, defensive, and destructive voice, see Maynes

& Podsakoff, 2013). The findings of our study were therefore limited. For example, the effects of

TMX on the types of voice behaviors may vary. Future research could expand the findings by

using the types of voice behaviors as either predictor or outcome variables in order to offer

different nuances of the relationships among the study variables.

 TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND CREATIVE WORK INVOLVEMENT 22

To expand our findings, future research may also consider other individual characteristics

that might influence creative work involvement, such as the need for achievement and learning

orientation. Need for achievement might contribute to creativity because it refers to one’s desire

to meet or exceed standards. Future researchers also may wish to investigate the influences of

some contextual variables such as job attributes (e.g., job autonomy, task variety, echelon, and

task significance) and resource availability. Job autonomy, for example, referring the degree of

control employees may have over their jobs (Spiegelaere, Gyes, Witte, Niesen, & Hootegem,
Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 19:32 03 May 2017 (PT)

2014), might impact employees’ motivation related to performing creative tasks. Since this study

also highlighted voice behavior, future researchers also can consider exploring various team

level variables such as gender composition and team conflict asymmetry that might be related to

voice behavior. Team conflict asymmetry refers to the dispersion or differences among group

members in regard to how they view group conflicts (Jehn, Rispens, & Thatcher, 2010). Team

conflict asymmetry might result in various levels of the delivery of constructive voice. Finally,

elaborating on some of the mentioned variables may offer a deeper insight into how to enhance

creative work involvement.

 TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND CREATIVE WORK INVOLVEMENT 23

References

Albrecht, S. L. (2012). The influence of job, team and organizational level resources on

employee well‐being, engagement, commitment and extra‐role performance.

International Journal of Manpower, 33(7), 840-853.

Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: the development of interpersonal

relationships. In L. Zhai (2012). International Journal of Applied Science and

Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 19:32 03 May 2017 (PT)

Technology, 58-66.

Amabile, T. M. (2013). Componential Theory of Creativity Encyclopedia of Management

Theory (pp. 135-140). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Atwater, L., & Carmeli, A. (2009). Leader–member exchange, feelings of energy, and

involvement in creative work. Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 264-275.

Banks, G. C., Batchelor, J. H., Seers, A., O'Boyle, E. H., Pollack, J. M., & Gower, K. (2014).

What does team-member exchange bring to the party? A meta-analytic review of team

and leader social exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(2), 273-295.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.

Blanchard, K., Carlos, J. P., & Randolph, A. (1996). Empowerment: Takes More Than a Minute

(Second ed.). San Fransisco: Barrett Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Botero, I. C., & Van Dyne, L. (2009). Employee voice behavior: interactive effects of LMX and

power distance in the United States and Colombia. Management Communication

Quarterly, 23(1), 84-104.

 TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND CREATIVE WORK INVOLVEMENT 24

Burris, E. R., Detert, J. R., & Romney, A. C. (2013). Speaking up vs. being heard: the

disagreement around and outcomes of employee voice. Organization Science, 24(1), 22-

38.

Carmeli, A., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Ziv, E. (2010). Inclusive leadership and employee

involvement in creative tasks in the workplace: the mediating role of psychological

safety. Creativity Research Journal, 22(3), 250-260.

Carmeli, A., & Schaubroeck, J. (2007). The influence of leaders' and other referents' normative
Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 19:32 03 May 2017 (PT)

expectations on individual involvement in creative work. Leadership Quarterly, 18(1),

35-48.

Dundon, T., Wilkinson, A., Marchington, M., & Ackers, P. (2004). The meanings and purpose of

employee voice. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(6), 1149-

1170.

Gong, Y., Cheung, S.-Y., Wang, M., & Huang, J.-C. (2012). Unfolding the proactive process for

creativity: integration of the employee proactivity, information exchange, and

psychological safety perspectives. Journal of Management, 38(5), 1611-1633.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. American

Sociological Review, 25(2), 161-178.

Greene, K., Derlega, V. J., & Mathews, A. (2006). Self-disclosure in personal relationships. In

A. Vengelisti & D. Perlman, Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships (pp. 409-

427). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis:

A Global Perspective (Seventh Edition ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

 TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND CREATIVE WORK INVOLVEMENT 25

Heaphy, E. D., & Dutton, J. E. (2008). Positive social interactions and the human body at work:

linking organizations and physiology. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 137-162.

Henttonen, K., Janhonen, M., & Johanson, J. E. (2013). Internal social networks in work teams:

structure, knowledge sharing and performance. International Journal of Manpower,

34(6), 616-634.

Jehn, K. A., Rispens, S., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (2010). The effects of conflict asymmetry on work

group and individual outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 596-616.

Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 19:32 03 May 2017 (PT)

Kark, R., & Carmeli, A. (2009). Alive and creating: the mediating role of vitality and aliveness

in the relationship between psychological safety and creative work involvement. Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 30(6), 785-804.

Kular, S., Gatenby, M., Rees, C., Soane, E., & Truss, K. (2008). Employee engagement: a

literature review. Kingston Hill, UK: Kingston Business School.

LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 83(6), 853-868.

Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children's intrinsic interest

with extrinsic reward: a test of the "overjustification" hypothesis. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 28, 129-137.

Liao, F.-Y., Yang, L.-Q., Wang, M., Drown, D., & Shi, J. (2013). Team-member exchange and

work engagement: does personality make a difference? Journal of Business and

Psychology, 28(1), 63-77.

Liao, H., Liu, D., & Loi, R. (2010). Looking at both sides of the social exchange coin: a social

cognitive perspective on the joint effects of relationship quality and differentiation on

creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 1090-1109.

 TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND CREATIVE WORK INVOLVEMENT 26

Liden, R. C., Erdogan, B., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2006). Leader-member exchange,

differentiation, and task interdependence: implications for individual and group

performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(6), 723-746.

May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of

meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work.

Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 11-37.

Maynes, T. D., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2013). Speaking more broadly: an examination of the nature,
Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 19:32 03 May 2017 (PT)

antecedents, and consequences of an expanded set of employee behaviors. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 98, 71-92.

Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: integration and directions for future research.

Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373-412.

Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2003). Speaking up, remaining silent: the dinamics of voice

and silent in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1353-1358.

Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2012). Employee voice behavior: a meta-analytic test of the

conservation of resources framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(2), 216-

234.

Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., & Pluntke, F. (2006). Routinization, work characteristics and their

relationships with creative and proactive behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

27(3), 257-279.

Premeaux, S. F., & Bedeian, A. G. (2003). Breaking the silence: the moderating effects of self-

monitoring in predicting speaking up in the workplace. Journal of Management Studies,

40(6), 1537-1562.
 TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND CREATIVE WORK INVOLVEMENT 27

Rees, C., Alfes, K., & Gatenby, M. (2013). Employee voice and engagement: connections and

consequences. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(14), 2780-

2798.

Robinson, D., Perryman, S., & Hayday, S. (2004). The drivers of employee engagement.

Brighton: IES.

Schraeder, M., & Jordan, M. (2011). Managing performance: a practical perspective on

managing employee performance. Journal for Quality and Participation, 34(2), 4.

Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 19:32 03 May 2017 (PT)

Scott, K. L., Restubog, S. L. D., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2013). A social exchange-based model of

the antecedents of workplace exclusion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(1), 37-48.

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model of

individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580-

607.

Seers, A. (1989). Team-member exchange quality: a new construct for role-making research.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43(1), 118-135.

Seers, A., Petty, M. M., & Cashman, J. F. (1995). Team-member exchange under team and

traditional management: a naturally occuring quasi-experiment. Group & Organization

Management, 20(1), 18-38.

Spiegelaere, S. D., Gyes, G. V., Witte, H. D., Niesen, W., & Hootegem, G. V. (2014).

Autonomy, innovative work behavior and the mediating effect of work engagement.

Creativity and Innovation Management, 23(3), 318-330.

Tse, H. H. M., & Dasborough, M. T. (2008). A study of exchange and emotions in team member

relationships. Group & Organization Management 33(2), 194-215.

 TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND CREATIVE WORK INVOLVEMENT 28

Unsworth, K. L., & Clegg, C. W. (2010). Why do employees undertake creative action? Journal

of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 83(1), 77-99.

Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: evidence of

construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108-119.

Vinarski-Peretz, H., Binyamin, G., & Carmeli, A. (2011). Subjective relational experiences and

employee innovative behaviors in the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78(2),

290-304.
Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 19:32 03 May 2017 (PT)

Volmer, J., Spurk, D., & Niessen, C. (2012). Leader–member exchange (LMX), job autonomy,

and creative work involvement. Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 456-465.

Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational

creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293-321.

Woodman, R. W., & Schoenfeldt, L. F. (1990). An interactionist model of creative behavior.

Journal of Creative Behavior, 24(1), 10-20.

Yaping, G., Tae-Yeol, K. I. M., Deog-Ro, L. E. E., & Jing, Z. H. U. (2013). A multilevel model

of team goal orientation, information exchange, and creativity. Academy of Management

Journal, 56(3), 827-851.

Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: the

influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process

engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107-128.

 Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 19:32 03 May 2017 (PT)

Table 1.

Measurement Model Comparison

Measurement Fit index Chi-square difference test

model
χ2 df χ2/df CFI IFI NFI TLI RMSEA ∆χ2 ∆df Sig.

Baseline 280.10*** 198 1.41 .96 .96 .87 .95 .04 - - -

Two-factor 371.63*** 199 1.87 .91 .92 .83 .89 .06 91.53 1 p < .001

One-factor 522.64*** 200 2.61 .84 .84 .77 .79 .08 242.54 2 p < .001

Note. N = 260; *** p < .001. ∆χ2 = chi-square difference against to the baseline model. ∆df = degree of freedom difference(s). Sig. =
significance level of differences in chi-square.
 Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 19:32 03 May 2017 (PT)

Table 2.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Gender .55 .50

2. Age 31.15 6.16 .17**

3. Education 1.27 .45 .02 .07

4. Organizational tenure 4.65 4.41 .12 .62** .13*

5. Team tenure 3.21 2.96 .04 .54** -.02 .68**

6. Professional .45 .50 .04 .06 .13* .12 .10

7. Managerial .22 .42 .12 .25** -.07 .07 .11 -.49**

8. Industry 2.84 .47 -.07 -.07 .00 -.01 -.03 .08 -.17**

9. TMX (T1) 3.82 .47 -.01 .17** .04 .14* .11 -.10 .16** .08 (.75)

10. Voice behavior (T1) 3.96 .46 .12 .29** .08 .18** .18** .01 .27** .07 .34** (.79)

11. Creative work involvement (T2) 3.95 .50 .12* .22** .03 .10 .06 .12 .13* .05 .34** .47** (.89)

Note. N = 260; * p < .05, ** p < .01 (two-tailed). Cronbach’s alphas are shown in the parentheses. T1 = time 1, T2 = time 2.
 Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 19:32 03 May 2017 (PT)

Table 3.

Hierarchical Regression Analysis: The Direct and Indirect Effects of TMX

Voice behavior (T1) Creative work involvement (T2)

Variable
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

Gender .05 .06 .07 .08 .05 .06

Age .19* .16* .22** .18* .13† .12

Education .07 .06 .00 -.01 -.03 -.04

Organizational tenure -.02 -.04 -.02 -.04 -.01 -.03

Team tenure .05 .05 -.08 -.08 -.10 -.10

†
Professional .12 .13* .20** .22** .15* .17**

Managerial .30*** .26*** .19* .15* .06 .05

Industry .13* .10† .04 .02 .01

TMX (T1) .27*** .32*** .22***

Voice behavior (T1) .43*** .37***

F 6.08*** 8.40*** 3.54** 6.87*** 9.68*** 10.71***

R2 .16 .23 .10 .20 .26 .30

Adjusted R2 .14 .21 .07 .17 .23 .27

Note. N = 260; † p < .1, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. T1 = time 1, T2 = time 2.
 Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 19:32 03 May 2017 (PT)

Table 4.
Bootstrapping Analysis: The Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects of TMX

Creative work
Voice behavior
involvement

Direct effects of TMX .53*** .25*

Direct effect of voice behavior - .45***

Indirect effect of TMX (.53 x .45) - .24**

Total effect of TMX (.25 + .24) - .49***

95% bootstrapped CI for the indirect effect (2000 resamples) - (.10, .61)
Note. N = 260; * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. CI = confidence interval.
 Figure 1. Structural Model: Standardized Parameter Estimates of Hypothesized Paths

.25*

Voice Creative work

TMX Behavior involvement
(Time 1) .53*** (.56***) (Time 1) .45*** (.60***) (Time 2)

R2 = .28 R2 = .38

Note. N = 260; * p < .05, *** p < .001. R2 = squared multiple correlations of the partial
Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 19:32 03 May 2017 (PT)

mediation model. The path coefficients in the parentheses were standardized parameter estimates

if the direct path of TMX to creative work involvement was eliminated.