Introduction

Voice behavior is the expression of opinions or suggestions related to work issues to improve or change the current organizational state (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). It is associated with many positive organizational and employee outcomes, including team learning (Morrison et al., 2011), management innovation (Guzman & Espejo, 2019), creativity (Chen & Hou, 2016; Zhang et al., 2020), job satisfaction (Nawakitphaitoon & Zhang, 2021), and employee social status (Weiss & Morrison, 2019). However, many employees keep silent even if they have ideas for making improvements. This phenomenon might be more salient in Chinese than in Western settings, because Chinese culture emphasizes on hierarchy order (Huang et al., 2016). Thus, research on how to motivate Chinese employee voice behavior is particularly important to voice literature (Wu et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2015).

Organizational behavior studies have identified job conditions, individual traits, and organizational characteristics as predominant antecedents of voice (Ng et al., 2021). They are mainly based on the premise that voice is expressed directly and outside a structured process (Klaas et al., 2012). Thus, they consider the role of informal factors but neglect the role of formal factors in driving employee voice behavior (Mowbray et al., 2021). In contrast, human resource management/ employment relations (HRM/ER) discipline focus on the formal voice, which emphasize that voice is expressed through a specified procedure and evaluated by formal voice appraisal systems (Budd & Colvin, 2008). The siloed approach to exploring employee voice has resulted in a gap in the overall voice literature (Mowbray et al., 2021). While studies on voice have simultaneously considered the roles of formal channels (e.g., grievance process and works councils) and informal channels (e.g., informal discussion and word-of-mouth) (Klaas et al., 2012; Xu et al., 2020), they have not identified specific formal factors that motivate employee voice behavior. The latest qualitative research implied that formal voice mechanisms might foster employee voice (Mowbray et al., 2021), but it still can not clearly answer how a specific formal factor affects employee voice behavior.

The due process system is a type of formal factor. Previous research mainly focuses on the due process performance appraisal system (Folger et al., 1992) and explores reactions of appraisers and appraisees (e.g., perceived system fairness and attitudes toward the system) (Erdogan, 2002; Taylor et al., 1995, 1998). However, little is known about how due process systems influence organizational outcomes (Levy et al., 2015). Although Erdogan (2002) proposed that due process systems are related to organizational outcomes like prosocial organizational behaviors, no research has empirically investigated how due process systems influence employee voice behavior (i.e., a specific prosocial organizational behavior). Given that voice is a kind of extra-role performance (Chamberlin et al., 2017), and researchers’ call for extending due process in performance appraisal system to other areas (Pichler et al., 2020), we apply the due process performance appraisal system concept to voice and investigate how and when due process voice appraisal system affects voice behavior in Chinese setting.

We draw on the proactive motivation model to explain how due process voice appraisal system influences employee voice behavior. The proactive motivation model stresses that work contexts affect individual proactive motivational states (i.e., can do, energized to, and reason to motivations), which further influence proactive behavior (Parker et al., 2010). Due process voice appraisal system cultivates an environment with characteristics of adequate notice, fair hearing, and judgment based on evidence (Folger et al., 1992). This context helps employees understand what is expected to voice. It provides employees opportunities to defend their voice rationality and enables voice to be judged based on evidence. Thus, due process voice appraisal system may improve voice efficacy, conceptualized as the perception of employees’ effectiveness of their suggestions to bring about the desired result (Morrison, 2014) (i.e., can do motivation). Moreover, the fairness and respect that employees receive from due process voice appraisal system will develop organizational identification, which includes strong affects of pride and attachment (Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008) (i.e., energized to motivation). Due process voice appraisal system also focuses on employees’ growth and obtain needs, evoking a promotion focus (Neubert et al., 2008) (i.e., reason to motivation). Thus, due process voice appraisal system is linked to voice behavior via three proactive motivations.

Moreover, social information processing theory proposes that work environment provides cues for individuals, which influence their subsequent behaviors (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Leadership is an essential source of information cues in the work environment (Wadei et al., 2020). Authoritarian leadership is a typical leadership in China (Li & Sun, 2015). It releases signals that leaders demand unquestionable obedience from employees (Cheng et al., 2004). Then employees’ motivations to engage in voice are inhibited (Duan et al., 2018). Cues exhibited by authoritarian leadership are opposed to those provided by due process voice appraisal system. Thus, we propose that authoritarian leadership attenuates the positive indirect effect of due process voice appraisal system on voice behavior. The conceptual model is presented in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Theoretical model

Full size image

Our research contributes to voice research in several ways. First, our research unveils the overlooked role of a formal factor (i.e., the due process voice appraisal system) in employee voice behavior, which extends the understanding of the antecedents of employee voice behavior. Second, we provide a novel perspective for exploring the mechanism through which due process systems affect organizational outcomes. Prior research on due process systems mainly focuses on employee fairness perceptions (Taylor et al., 1995, 1998), but neglects employee psychological motivations. Our research uncovers the mediating role of voice efficacy, organizational identification, and promotion focus in the relationship between due process voice appraisal system and employee voice behavior based on the proactive motivation model. Finally, we identify authoritarian leadership as a moderator of the relationship between due process voice appraisal system and employee voice behavior. Our research is among the first to explore the boundary conditions for the effectiveness of due process systems.

Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development

Due Process Voice Appraisal System

Due process voice appraisal system is borrowed from Folger et al.’s (1992) concept of due process performance appraisal system, which originates from due process of law (Taylor et al., 1995). Folger et al. (1992) proposed that due process of law can be applied to performance appraisals, because the role of due process performance appraisal is analogous to due process of law, with both focusing on dispute resolution (Folger et al., 1992). Disputes in performance appraisals mainly arise from appraisers and appraisees having different views about the latter’s performance. However, appraisers have power over appraisees; therefore, to address the disputes, appraisees require the due process to balance power (Folger et al., 1992). The possible disputes arising in this process are similar to those in voice appraisal. This is because leaders have the authority to make decisions in response to employees’ suggestions (Janssen & Gao, 2015; Takeuchi et al., 2012), meaning that employees have little power over the outcomes of their voice. Thus, leaders and employees may have conflicting views about voice outcomes, generating the need for the due process voice appraisal system. Besides, voice is a kind of extra-role job performance (Chamberlin et al., 2017). The above analysis support applying the concept of due process performance appraisal system to voice literature.

Before we clarify the characteristics of due process voice appraisal system, we should expound the characteristics of due process performance appraisal system (Folger et al., 1992). The due process performance appraisal system has three characteristics. First, adequate notice stresses that performance goals and standards should be developed, published, and explained to employees (Folger et al., 1992). Employees will not have enough information to engage in the process without adequate notice (Levy et al., 2015). Thus, organizations should instruct employees how and what to do to meet appraisal standards and give timely feedback. Second, fair hearing requires organizations to provide formal review meetings where they tell the tentative assessment of employees’ performance and how they obtain the appraisal outcomes (Folger et al., 1992). Employees are permitted to challenge any element of the performance management process (Levy et al., 2015). To ensure that employees have the ability and knowledge to challenge the unfair results, organizations should train employees in the appraisal process (Folger et al., 1992). Third, judgment based on evidence requires organizations to use consistent performance appraisal standards, and be free from corruption, pressure, or personal prejudice (Folger et al., 1992). Moreover, organizations should use the best technology available to minimize bias (Folger et al., 1992). Prior studies have explored the positive effects of due process performance appraisal system. For instance, they found that the due process performance appraisal system is beneficial for employees’ perceived system fairness, appraisal accuracy, satisfaction with the appraisal, intention to remain with the organization, motivation to improve, and procedural justices (Erdogan et al., 2001; Erdogan, 2002; Pichler et al., 2020; Taylor et al., 1995, 1998), which may further influence organizational outcomes (Erdogan, 2002).

We propose that the characteristics of due process voice appraisal system are similar to those of due process performance appraisal system. First, adequate notice means that organizations should inform employees about the appraisal rules of voice in advance, and what is expected of their voice. In legal context, citizens can only obey the laws that have been published (Taylor et al., 1995). Similarly, employees should not be accountable for appraisal standards that have not been published and made available to them (Folger et al., 1992). Thus, organizations should institutionalize the voice appraisal process and fully explain it to employees, improving justice for appraisers and appraisees (Levy et al., 2015).

Second, fair hearing stresses giving employees the preliminary voice appraisal outcomes along with detailed reasons by those who are most familiar with them. Besides, it is important that employees are given the opportunity to defend the preliminary voice appraisal outcomes if they are not satisfied. Organizations should also train employees to have the ability to question (Folger et al., 1992). There are typically two main disputing bodies in fair hearing—appraisers and appraisees. Appraisers should be those who are most familiar with the appraised employees’ behavior (Folger et al., 1992; Taylor et al., 1995). Existing research assumes that leaders are typically the appraisers of voice (Janssen & Gao, 2015; Takeuchi et al., 2012). However, frontline employees know more about the workplace problems than do leaders, especially those whose work is related to the voice content. Consequently, coworkers who work in close proximity and are aware of the problems expressed by the voicer are more likely to make effective appraisals. Leaders may play a role in making the final decision based on the preliminary voice appraisal evidence. This is consistent with Thibaut and Walker’s (1975) model of procedural justice, which suggests that there is a difference in power between the two stages of decision-making process—the presentation and interpretation of evidence and the final decision. This model emphasizes that resolving disputes using a fair method permit disputants to have some control in the first stage and decision-makers to exercise total control in the second stage. Thus, to ensure the adequacy and reliability of evidence, the main disputing bodies in the voice appraisal system based on fair hearing should be voicers, and coworkers who work in close proximity.

Finally, judgment based on evidence means that the outcomes of voice is appraised based on evidence. The core of due process indicates that if one’s will is related to the will of another via the force of organized society, it should be done based on rational basis (Pound, 1943). According to this logic, the final outcomes of voice appraisal should be explained with evidence. Another method beneficial for the due process is to institutionalize the mechanisms for reviewing decisions (Folger et al., 1992). It is important for the due process to implement an appeal mechanism in which employees can appeal directly to the supervisor if they are not satisfied with the outcomes of the appraisal (Levy et al., 2015). Then a final decision can be made by an oversite committee including individuals representing related positions (Folger et al., 1992). Further, the best measurement technology available is needed to reduce bias (Folger et al., 1992). However, voice appraisal should not regard the technology or institutionalized rules as keys to ensuring the due process. In a word, voice appraisals should be based on evidence, provide rational reasons for appraisal, and include appeal mechanisms as well as reliable appraisal means.

The Proactive Motivation Model

The proactive motivation model proposes that contextual factors influence employee proactive behavior via three motivational states, including can do, energized to, and reason to motivation (Parker et al., 2010). The proactive motivation model is usually used to explain why employees engage in risky and challenging behavior, such as proactive behavior, knowledge sharing, and voice behavior (Ng et al., 2021; Ouyang et al., 2019; Qian et al., 2020; Zhang & Inness, 2019). Thus, this research employs the proactive motivation model to reveal how due process voice appraisal system affects employee voice behavior.

Can do motivation is the belief that one can successfully generate proactive outcomes (Parker et al., 2010). It is critical for generating voice behavior because voice behavior is a risky endeavor for employees. For example, employees may incur career punishment or negative appraisals for voice behavior (Burris, 2012). Can do motivation provides employees with the necessary assurance that risks associated with voice behavior can be overcome. It usually focuses on the concept of self-efficacy (Zhang & Inness, 2019). Voice efficacy develops from self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997), referring to employees’ belief in the effectiveness of their suggestions and their abilities to bring about the desired result. Therefore, voice efficacy means that employees believe they have the ability for voice, which is usually regarded as an important factor for employee voice (Morrison, 2014). We thus regard voice efficacy as the can do motivation to engage in voice behavior.

Energized to motivation refers to the positive affective states that energize employees to engage in proactive behavior (Parker et al., 2010). Organizational identification is defined as a perception of “oneness” with or belongingness to the organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Numerous researchers have shown that organizational identification incorporates both cognitive and affective components (Bergami & Bagozzi, 1996). Especially, the affective component plays a nonnegligible role (Edwards, 2005). A high level of organizational identification conveys strong feelings of pride and attachment (Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008), both of which are associated with activated positive affect such as affection, passion (Mugge et al., 2010) and energy (Abid et al., 2018; Parker & Bindl, 2010). Besides, pride along with organizational identification is also an activated positive affect (Sonnentag & Grant, 2012; Weisman et al., 2015), which encourages employees to engage in proactive behavior (Parker & Bindl, 2010). Therefore, organizational identification can represent the energized to motivation to engage in voice behavior.

Reason to motivation refers to one’s compelling reason to do the proactive behavior (Parker et al., 2010). Existing research shows that even employees with a high level of self-confidence will not engage in a proactive behavior without a compelling reason to do so (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Thus, employees need to have a strong internal force to bring about changes (Zhang & Inness, 2019). Work contexts usually contain different situational cues, which influence employee psychological motivations. Situational cues that emphasize growth needs and potential gains tend to evoke promotion focus (Higgins, 1997, 1998; Neubert et al., 2008). Individuals with promotion focus pay attention to pursuing opportunities to gain and away from maintaining the status quo (Neubert et al., 2008). They are more open to change and willing to engage in voice behavior, thus promotion focus can capture employees’ compelling reasons to engage in voice (Zhang & Inness, 2019). Thus, we choose promotion focus as the reason to motivation for voice behavior.

Voice Efficacy as the Can Do Motivation to Engage in Voice Behavior

Based on the proactive motivation model, due process voice appraisal system as a contextual variable may increase employee voice behavior via the can do motivation—voice efficacy. Specifically, adequate notice characteristic of due process voice appraisal system stresses that information about objectives and standards should be established and published in advance (Folger et al., 1992). It can help employees understand how, why, and what to do are conducive to positive voice outcomes. This means that standards and rules help employees “read the wind” for cues concerning the favorability of the context before expressing voice (Ashford et al., 1998). This process enables employees to have more control beliefs in their voice process, increasing the perceived effectiveness of their voice (Ng et al., 2021; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008). Moreover, the fair hearing characteristic provides employees the chance to challenge the rationality of their voice appraisal. This improves employees’ rights in the voice appraisal process, which may increase employees’ voice efficacy. To ensure that employees have sufficient knowledge to challenge unfair assessments, the due process voice appraisal system also requires that employees receive training in the appraisal processes (Taylor et al., 1995). Thus, the fair hearing of due process voice appraisal system endows employees with the knowledge and ability to defend the voice appraisal outcomes, which are necessary for a high level of efficacy to successfully engage in voice (Eibl et al., 2020). In addition, judgment based on evidence characteristic ensures that appraisal standards are consistent for all employees and are not yield to personal prejudice (Folger et al., 1992). Thus, the voice appraisal process is fair. Employees can succeed in voice as long as they provide adequate evidence, increasing their control beliefs in their voice process. In summary, the context cultivated by the due process voice appraisal system may improve employee voice efficacy.

Based on the proactive motivation model, voice efficacy as the can do motivation will further activate employee voice behavior. Previous research has revealed that voice behavior can be developed through voice efficacy (e.g., Edakkat Subhakaran & Dyaram, 2018; Xie et al., 2014). Thus, strengthening voice efficacy is critical to activate employee voice behavior (Kish-Gephart et al., 2009). In alignment with the discussion above, we propose that due process voice appraisal system will increase employee voice behavior, and through a high level of the can do motivation—voice efficacy, employees will engage in voice behavior. Thus, we proposed the following hypothesis:

  • Hypothesis 1: The positive relationship between due process voice appraisal system and employee voice behavior is mediated by voice efficacy.

Organizational Identification as the Energized to Motivation to Engage in Voice Behavior

Organizational identification as an indicator of the energized to motivation may also explain the positive relationship between due process voice appraisal system and employee voice behavior. Due process voice appraisal system cultivates an environment focusing on building rules for voice appraisal and empowering abilities to defend their voice. It involves organizations protecting employees’ rights in decision-making processes and holding employees in high standing (Taylor et al., 1995). Thus, due process voice appraisal system may help employees perceive that they are insiders, fostering employees’ identification with their organization (Tyler & Blader, 2003). Moreover, due process voice appraisal system also stresses that the appraisal results should be judged based on evidence. Such context may ensure employees’ perceptions of procedural justice (Erdogan, 2002). Tyler and Blader (2003) propose that employees will identify with the organization if the organization treats them in a procedurally just manner. Thus, due process voice appraisal system may improve organizational identification.

Employees with a high level of organizational identification will feel proud (Mugge et al., 2010) and be energized at work (Abid et al., 2018), representing an activated positive affect. According to the proactive motivation model, this activated positive affect encourages employees to exhibit approach-oriented behaviors (Parker et al., 2010). Voice is an important approach-oriented behavior (Ng et al., 2021). Hence, voice behavior may be positively affected by organizational identification. Besides, research shows that employees with a high level of organizational identification have a sense of shared fate with the organization (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). They may internalize organizational values as their own (Wang et al., 2018), thus they will devote more effort to benefiting their coworkers and the organization, such as engaging in voice behavior (Wang et al., 2018). In summary, in line with the discussion above, we propose that due process voice appraisal system may increase the energized to motivation—organizational identification, which improves voice behavior. Thus, we hypothesize that:

  • Hypothesis 2: The positive relationship between due process voice appraisal system and employee voice behavior is mediated by organizational identification.

Promotion Focus as the Reason to Motivation to Engage in Voice Behavior

In addition to can do motivation and energized to motivation, the proactive motivation model proposes that the reason to motivation is also important for activating proactive behavior (Parker et al., 2010). Promotion focus as a type of the reason to motivation may also help explain the positive relationship between due process voice appraisal system and employee voice behavior. Specifically, promotion focus is evoked when attention to gains and needs for growth are emphasized in the work context (Neubert et al., 2008). Due process voice appraisal system can provide situational cues that evoke employee promotion focus. On the one hand, due process voice appraisal system ensures that employees’ voice will be fairly heard in the organization, increasing employees’ perceptions of the fairness of the voice appraisal system. Employees’ reactions to the fairness of the appraisal system affect employees’ motivation to develop unused potential (Taylor et al., 1995). This fulfills employees’ desire for growth needs, which fosters promotion focus (Wang et al., 2018; Zhu et al., 2019). On the other hand, due process voice appraisal system stresses that the organization should provide training to employees to endow them the ability and knowledge to defend their voice. Such knowledge and ability can inspire employee growth, which is conducive to activating promotion focus (Neubert et al., 2008). Additionally, studies show that the adequate notice, fair hearing, and judgment based on evidence characteristics can enhance employees’ control over the decision-making processes, perceptions of self-worth, and standing in the organization (Taylor et al., 1995). Such outcomes may lead to personal gains and then evoke promotion focus (Neubert et al., 2008). Thus, situational cues of due process voice appraisal system help employees in achieving development and potential gains, evoking promotion focus (Wang et al., 2018).

In the context of employee voice, promotion focus is particularly relevant because it is related to risk-taking (Brockner & Higgins, 2001), accomplishments, and change (Johnson et al., 2017). Individuals with a promotion focus eagerly pursue gains and success (Wang et al., 2022). Studies show that promotion focus is positively associated with voice behavior (Wang et al., 2022). Thus, the promotion focus evoked by due process voice appraisal system improves employee voice behavior. In summary, due process voice appraisal system may increase the reason to motivation—promotion focus, which improves voice behavior. Based on the above analysis, we propose the following hypothesis:

  • Hypothesis 3: The positive relationship between due process voice appraisal system and employee voice behavior is mediated by employees’ promotion focus.

Moderating Role of Authoritarian Leadership

Even if the due process appraisal system is implemented, leaders can influence appraisees’ perceptions of the actual openness of the system, in turn affecting appraisees’ reactions (Levy et al., 2015). That is, simply implementing a system for employee voice is not sufficient to encourage voice behavior; it must consider leader characteristics. In our research, we examine the role of authoritarian leadership in moderating the relationships between due process voice appraisal system and voice behavior via three proactive motivations. Social information processing theory claims that the social environment where individuals work provides much information (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Individuals will code and interpret such information, which determines their subsequent motivations and behaviors (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). As a critical source of information in the work environment, leadership provides important cues or signals for employees (Wadei et al., 2020; Zohar, 2000). Authoritarian leadership is a prevalent leadership in Chinese culture (Li & Sun, 2015; Zhang et al., 2021), referring to leaders’ personal dominance over their subordinates, making unilateral decisions, and centralizing authority in themselves (Tsui et al., 2004). Existing research shows that authoritarian leaders limit employees’ behaviors to explicit in-role requirements and demotivate employees to engage in work beyond their duties (Chen et al., 2014; Zhang & Xie, 2017), thus constraining employee voice motivations and subsequent voice behavior (Duan et al., 2018). We propose that authoritarian leadership attenuates the positive relationship between due process voice appraisal system and voice behavior via three proactive motivations.

Leaders with high authoritarian leadership behave in a commanding fashion in front of employees and do not provide employees with explanations for their decisions (Zheng et al., 2021). They exhibit cues that employees must obey their instructions (Zhang & Xie, 2017), or employees will be punished (Chan et al., 2013). Besides, employees are given no discretion to solve problems in the workplace. It signals that leaders have no trust in employee ability and do not value or respect employees (Li & Sun, 2015). These cues all contradict the due process voice appraisal system, which empowers employees to participate in voice appraisal processes and imposes constraints on leaders’ power. Thus, if the due process voice appraisal system is implemented by authoritarian leaders, employees may interpret the environment as not truly open and just regard it as a mere formalization. Employees will perceive that voice is not welcomed in the organization. That is to say, even if the due process voice appraisal system is implemented, the contrary cues presented by high authoritarian leadership may decrease employees’ can do (voice efficacy), energized to (organizational identification), and reason to (promotion focus) motivational states. Then employee voice behavior will be inhibited. In contrast, low authoritarian leadership does not emphasize leaders’ dominance or power over employees. It will not prevent employees’ correct interpretations of cues presented by the due process voice appraisal system. Thus, there may be a positive effect of due process voice appraisal system on voice behavior via three motivations when authoritarian leadership is low. In summary, it is reasonable to predict that authoritarian leadership attenuates the positive relationship between due process voice appraisal system and employee voice behavior via voice efficacy, organizational identification, and promotion focus. Based on the above analysis, we predict that:

  • Hypothesis 4: Authoritarian leadership moderates the indirect effect of due process voice appraisal on employee voice behavior via voice efficacy such that the positive effect is weaker when authoritarian leadership is high, compared to when it is low.

  • Hypothesis 5: Authoritarian leadership moderates the indirect effect of due process voice appraisal on employee voice behavior via organizational identification such that the positive effect is weaker when authoritarian leadership is high, compared to when it is low.

  • Hypothesis 6: Authoritarian leadership moderates the indirect effect of due process voice appraisal on employee voice behavior via promotion focus such that the positive effect is weaker when authoritarian leadership is high, compared to when it is low.

Research Methodology

Research Context and Design

We collected data by conducting a quasi-filed experiment at CB (a pseudonym for anonymity). It was a large tourism enterprise in the service industry with over 1,000 employees in China. At first, voice in CB was treated in a similar way to that of other organizations. Whether the voice was endorsed would be determined by those in power (i.e., leaders). Given the importance of employee voice, in December 2016, CB implemented a new voice appraisal system to stimulate employee voice behavior. It was akin to the due process voice appraisal system, including Folger et al.’s (1992) adequate notice, fair hearing, and judgment based on evidence characteristics. Specifically, CB first established rules and standards related to what was expected for employee voice in advance. All rules and standards were made into manuals and explained for employees to ensure that they could have comprehensive understandings. Second, the new voice appraisal system empowered coworkers who worked in close proximity to voicers (i.e., those who were familiar with the voice performance) to serve as preliminary appraisers. To encourage more employees to engage in the voice appraisal process, CB implemented a digital voice platform in which employees could read and comment on voice posts. The comment and discussion processes contained coworkers’ tentative appraisal of voicers. Voicers could challenge the appraisals if they were not satisfied. CB also focused on training employees’ abilities to question. Third, CB’s new voice appraisal system emphasized that the voice appraisal relied on evidence and reason. Anyone should comply with the institutionalized voice appraisal system without yielding to power. Overall, the new voice appraisal system provided employees a chance to experience a due process voice appraisal system.

It is fortunate that the enterprise randomly selected five departments rather than all departments to implement the new due process voice appraisal system. Six months after the new voice appraisal system had been implemented, we contacted 200 participants from departments with the new voice appraisal system (experimental group), and 180 participants from the departments without a formal system to appraise voice (control group). Participants were asked to be candid in responses because they would be kept confidential and be only seen by the researchers. Participants in both groups were asked to complete a questionnaire included the demographic variables, voice behavior, voice efficacy, organizational identification, promotion focus, and authoritarian leadership. Finally, we obtained 265 useful questionnaires (control N = 100, experimental N = 165), for an overall response rate of 69.74%. Employees completing the study were highly educated (55.85% had bachelor’s degrees), and most were male (57.36%). Their main work tenure was over 10 years (31.70%), and their main age is around 26–35 (53.21%). Analyses of the demographic variables showed that there were no significant differences in age (χ2 = 6.58, p > 0.05), education (χ2 = 4.03, p > 0.05), gender (χ2 = 0.37, p > 0.05), and tenure (χ2 = 7.45, p > 0.05).

Measurements

The measures in this study are reliable scales and the items in each variable are 5-point Likert scales (from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) except where otherwise noted. All these scales were back-translated following produce recommended by Brislin’s (1980).

Due Process Voice Appraisal System

According to Folger et al. (1992) and Taylor et al.’s (1995) description of due process performance appraisal system, we conclude three characteristics of due process voice appraisal system, which are consistent with the practice of CB’s voice appraisal system. Thus, the independent variable was coded 1 for using the new due process voice appraisal system (experimental group) and 0 for using the traditional voice appraisal ways (control group).

Voice Behavior

According to Liu et al.’s (2013), we use four items from Van Dyne and LePine’s (1998) to assess employee voice behavior. The four-item scale was widely used in previous studies (e.g., Venkataramani et al., 2016). A sample item was “I develop and make recommendations concerning issues that affect our organization” (α = 0.75).

Voice Efficacy

Duan and Wei’s (2012) 7-item scale were used to measure voice efficacy. A sample item was “I can find appropriate opportunities to express my thoughts to my organization” (α = 0.90).

Organizational Identification

We accessed organizational identification using the measure of Smidts et al. (2001). The measure consisted of five items. A sample item was “I feel proud to work for this organization” (α = 0.94).

Promotion Focus

Promotion focus was measured by nine items created by Neubert et al. (2008). A sample item included “I focus on accomplishing job tasks that will further my advancement” (α = 0.80). Responses were on a 7-point scale.

Authoritarian Leadership

To measure authoritarian leadership, we used the measure of Zhang et al. (2011), which included five items. A sample item was “My supervisor makes unilateral decisions and takes individual actions” (α = 0.74).

Control Variables

According to prior research, we controlled participants’ demographic variables, including gender, age, education, and work tenure. Prior studies have shown that these variables are related to employee voice behavior (Wang et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2015). Participates’ gender was coded as: 1 = male, 2 = female; age was coded as: 1 = ‘25 or below 25’, 2 = ‘26–35’, 3 = ‘36–45’, 4 = ‘46–55’, 5 = ‘56 or above 56’; education level was coded as: 1 = high school or below, 2 = junior college degree, 3 = bachelor degree, 4 = master degree or higher; work tenure was coded as: 1 = ‘below 1’, 2 = ‘1–3’, 3 = ‘4–6’, 4 = ‘7–9’, 5 = ‘above 10’.

Additional Measures

To check whether our manipulation was successful, we asked participants to evaluate the way to voice appraisal in their organization (perceptions of due process voice appraisal system). We referred to and adapted the scale in Taylor et al., (1995) and Taylor et al., (1998) to measure due process voice appraisal system, which was assessed by three items based on three characteristics. Adequate notice was assessed by asking “Whether the expectation for voice performance is told in your organization”. Fair hearing was assessed by asking “Do you have the right to appeal if you are not satisfied with the voice appraisal result”. Judgment based on evidence was assessed by asking “Whether the method to appraise voice is useful”. Participates responded on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

Common Method Bias Testing

The data has been retrieved from a single source, which may entail the common method bias problem. To address this problem, we have ensured the confidentiality and anonymity of participants. We also adopted Harman’s single-factor test (Podsakoff et al., 2003) and the results showed that the variance elucidated by the first single factor was 31.27% (i.e., < 40%). The results indicate that common method bias in this study is not a serious problem.

Data Analysis and Results

We conducted manipulation checks to assess whether the experimental group had a high level of due process voice appraisal system than the control group. First, one of the authors worked there for one month as a trainee under the due process voice appraisal system during the manipulation. CEO of CB frequently shared the progress of system implementation they have made with our team. We also interviewed some employees as well as managers to understand their perceptions of due process. All these experiences aimed to ensure the implemented system in the experimental group consistent with the due process voice appraisal system. Second, as expected, the participants in the experimental group rated a high level of due process voice appraisal system than participants in the control group (M = 3.96, SD = 0.45) (t = 4.46, p < 0.001). Thus, the manipulation works as expected.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and correlations for our key variables. The results showed that due process voice appraisal system was positively correlated with voice behavior (r = 0.26, p < 0.01). The correlations were also significant between due process voice appraisal system and three proposed mediating mechanisms: voice efficacy (r = 0.19, p < 0.01), organizational identification (r = 0.16, p < 0.01), and promotion focus (r = 0.20, p < 0.01), with employees working in a due process voice appraisal system showed high levels of voice behavior (M = 3.79, SD = 0.48, t = 4.45, p < 0.001), voice efficacy (M = 3.65, SD = 0.56, t = 3.18, p < 0.01), organizational identification (M = 4.32, SD = 0.67, t = 2.61, p < 0.01), and promotion focus (M = 5.27, SD = 0.80, t = 3.24, p < 0.001) than employees working without a due process voice appraisal system. In addition, voice efficacy (r = 0.72, p < 0.01), organizational identification (r = 0.52, p < 0.01), and promotion focus (r = 0.38, p < 0.01) were all positively related to voice behavior respectively.

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and correlations among key variables
Full size table

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Prior to our hypothesis testing, confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) was conducted to evaluate the construct validity of variables by Mplus 7.4. As shown in Table 2, the hypothesized five-factor model was the best fit to the data (χ2 = 682.57, df = 388, χ2/ df = 1.76, CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.06) compared to alternative models (see Table 2). The results supported the construct validity of our key variables.

Table 2 Model fits of measurement models
Full size table

Hypotheses Testing

We used the PROCESS Model 4 (Hayes, 2017) to test the multiple mediations of our model based on 5000 iterations with a 95% confidence interval. The direct relationship between due process voice appraisal system and voice behavior, and the mediating roles of voice efficacy, organizational identification, and promotion focus on the above relationships were tested.

As shown in Table 3, due process voice appraisal system positively and significantly predicts voice efficacy (b = 0.25, p < 0.01), organizational identification (b = 0.24, p < 0.01), and promotion focus (b = 0.32, p < 0.01). In turn, the three mediators of voice efficacy (b = 0.51, p < 0.001), organizational identification (b = 0.08, p < 0.05), and promotion focus (b = 0.08, p < 0.01) were positively and significantly related to the outcome variable of voice behavior.

Table 3 Regression results
Full size table

In addition, Table 4 showed the results of direct effects, indirect effects and total effects between due process voice appraisal system and voice behavior. The results showed that the direct relationship between due process voice appraisal system and voice behavior was significant (effect = 0.12, 95% CI = [0.03, 0.21]). When adding the three mediators, the indirect effects of due process voice appraisal system on voice behavior via voice efficacy (effect = 0.12, 95% CI = [0.04, 0.22]), organizational identification (effect = 0.02, 95% CI = [0.001, 0.05]), and promotion focus (effect = 0.03, 95% CI = [0.005, 0.05]) were all positive and significant. The total indirect effect was 0.17 (95% CI = [0.07, 0.28]). Thus, these results suggested that Hypotheses 1, 2 and 3 were supported.

Table 4 Direct, indirect and total effects through three mediation models
Full size table

Although not hypothesized, whether authoritarian leadership moderates the relationship between due process voice appraisal system and three proactive motivations were tested. The predictors were mean centered before the interaction was generated. The results indicated that the interaction between due process voice appraisal system and authoritarian leadership was significantly related to voice efficacy (b = -0.31, p < 0.01) and organizational identification (b = -0.34, p < 0.01). However, the interaction term of due process voice appraisal system and authoritarian leadership was not significantly related to promotion focus (b = -0.14, ns).

Figures 2 and 3 depicted the interaction plots. The simple slope analysis showed that due process voice appraisal system had a stronger positive relationship with voice efficacy (simple slope = 0.57, p < 0.001) and organizational identification (simple slope = 0.58, p < 0.001) when authoritarian leadership was low (1 SD below the mean). However, another simple slope analysis showed that due process voice appraisal system did not have a significant relationship with voice efficacy (simple slope = -0.05, p > 0.05) and organizational identification (simple slope = -0.10, p > 0.05) when authoritarian leadership was high (1 SD above the mean).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Conditional effect of due process voice appraisal system on voice efficacy

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Conditional Effect of Due Process Voice Appraisal System on Organizational Identification

Full size image

Finally, the conditional indirect effects were tested by bias-corrected bootstrapping using the PROCESS Model 7 (see Table 5). The results showed that when authoritarian leadership was low, due process voice appraisal system had a significant indirect effect on voice behavior through voice efficacy (estimate = 0.28, 95% CI [0.11, 0.46]). When authoritarian leadership was high, however, the mediated model was nonsignificant (estimate = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.16]). The index of moderated mediation was significant (estimate = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.37, -0.01]), providing full support for Hypothesis 4.

Table 5 Results of conditional indirect effect
Full size table

We followed the same procedure in testing Hypothesis 5 (see Table 5). The results showed that when authoritarian leadership was low, due process voice appraisal system had a significant indirect effect on voice behavior through organizational identification (estimate = 0.16, 95% CI [0.04, 0.31]). When authoritarian leadership was high, the mediated model was nonsignificant (estimate = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.08]). The index of moderated mediation was significant (estimate = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.27, -0.01]). Therefore, Hypothesis 5 was supported. Besides, as shown in Table 5, when authoritarian leadership was low, due process voice appraisal system had a significant indirect effect on voice behavior through promotion focus (estimate = 0.09, 95% CI [0.01, 0.20]). When authoritarian leadership was high, the mediated model was nonsignificant (estimate = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.11]). The index of moderated mediation was not significant (estimate = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.04]). Therefore, Hypothesis 6 was not supported.

Discussion

The present research provides support for a theoretical model on the due process voice appraisal system and employee voice behavior. Drawing on the proactive motivation model (Parker et al., 2010), we found that when the due process voice appraisal system was implemented, employees experienced high voice efficacy, organizational identification, and promotion focus, which were proactive motivations for employees to engage in voice behavior. Additionally, the results showed that the indirect effects of due process voice appraisal system on voice behavior through voice efficacy and organizational identification were weaker for a leader with authoritarian leadership. However, authoritarian leadership did not moderate the relationship between due process voice appraisal system and promotion focus. Our findings offer meaningful theoretical contributions to the application of the due process metaphor to employee voice behavior.

Theoretical Implications

This research makes several contributions to the literature on the due process and voice. First, we contribute to employee voice literature by extending its antecedents. Organizational behavior literature on voice antecedents focuses on the role of informal factors but neglects the role of formal factors in driving employee voice behavior (Mowbray et al., 2021). Our research provides evidence that due process voice appraisal system as a formal factor motivates employee voice behavior. It contributes to Mowbray et al.’s (2015) call for adopting and integrating the concepts from the organizational behavior and HRM/ER discipline. Meanwhile, existing literature on the due process mainly pay attention to the reactions of appraisees and appraisers (Pichler et al., 2020; Taylor et al., 1995, 1998), but little attention has been focused on how due process systems influence organizational behaviors. Scholars call for future research to explore the effects of due process systems on organizational outcomes like prosocial organizational behavior (Levy et al., 2015; Pichler et al., 2020). Our research answers these calls by linking due process voice appraisal system and employee voice behavior in Chinese setting. By doing so, we also provide evidence for applying due process in non-Western culture and contribute to calls for extending due process in performance appraisal to other areas of human resource practices (Pichler et al., 2020; Taylor et al., 1998).

Second, this study found that three proactive motivations played the underlying mechanism through which due process voice appraisal system affects employee voice behavior. The proactive motivation model suggests that contextual factors (e.g., leadership, interpersonal climate, work design) influence individual proactive motivation states and thereby influence their proactive behaviors (Parker et al., 2010). We extend Parker et al.’s (2010) model by highlighting due process voice appraisal system as an important linking pin between distal contextual influences and proximal motivational states that encourage employee voice behavior. Moreover, unlike existing due process studies that focus on employee reactions like fairness perception (Clarke et al., 2013; Erdogan, 2002; Pichler et al., 2020), our research provides a novel lens for exploring the mechanisms through which due process systems influence organizational outcomes. Besides, although previous researchers have acknowledged the role of proactive motivation in proactive behavior (Parker et al., 2010), few have incorporated specific motivational mechanisms, especially in voice research (Ng et al., 2021). Hence, we also extend voice research by examining three specific types of proactive motivation (i.e., voice efficacy, organizational identification, promotion focus) as precursors of voice.

Third, prior research focuses on the direct relationships between due process and outcomes, without considering moderating processes. Levy et al. (2015) suggested that supervisor behaviors may affect the effectiveness of due process. We further provide empirical evidence that authoritarian leadership is a specific factor that should be considered in understanding the effectiveness of due process voice appraisal system in Chinese setting. Specifically, we found the moderating role of authoritarian leadership in the relationship between due process voice appraisal system and voice behavior through voice efficacy and organizational identification. However, authoritarian leadership did not significantly moderate the relationship between due process voice appraisal system and voice behavior through promotion focus. This may be because promotion focus and prevention focus can coexist and be activated depending on different situational cues (Neubert et al., 2013). Authoritarian leadership causes employees to focus on potential losses and arouses a prevention focus (Chou, 2012), which leads to in-role performance and deviant behavior (Neubert et al., 2008). That is to say, cues from due process voice appraisal system and authoritarian leadership induce different foci and behaviors. Thus, authoritarian leadership did not moderate the relationship between due process voice appraisal system and promotion focus. Our results contribute to Parker et al.’s (2010) call for exploring moderators that strengthen or weaken relationships between work contextual factors and proactive motivation states. Besides, to our knowledge this research is among the first to examine the joint effects of formal factors and informal factors on employee voice behavior.

Relatedly, our study contributes to expanding our understanding of the culture role in employee voice behavior. Many scholars explore the culture role in employee voice behavior. For example, Park and Nawakitphaitoon (2018) found that conflict avoidance as the cultural value significantly moderates the positive association between LMX and employee voice in the Korean sample but not in the United States sample. Wu et al. (2020) considered two culture values and examined how authoritarian leadership and guanxi interact to determine employee voice in Chinese organizations. Our study further suggests that authoritarian leadership as a prevalent leadership in Chinese culture (Li & Sun, 2015; Zhang et al., 2021) moderates the relationship between due process voice appraisal system and employee voice behavior, which enriches existing research on the role of culture values in employee voice behavior in Chinese context.

Practical Implications

Our research has three main implications for practice. First, our results indicate that due process voice appraisal system increases employee voice behavior. Given that the due process can motivate employees to speak out, potentially influencing organization innovation and transformation (Ng et al., 2021), organizations should consider developing the due process voice appraisal system with adequate notice, fair hearing, and judgment based on evidence, where employees feel able, energized, and reasonable to engage in voice behavior. For example, organizations could predetermine the rules for voice appraisal to inform employees about how their voice will be appraised. They could also give employees chances to defend their voice and encourage employees to participate in the appraisal process. Appraisal outcomes should be based on evidence and be consistent among employees (Taylor et al., 1995). It is also effective to provide an appeal chance if employees are not satisfied with the appraisal outcomes. Of course, managers should be realistic in choosing what practices can minimize costs and maximize effectiveness (Meuer, 2017). Considering that it is complicated and requires substantial resources (e.g., manager training, process design) for organizations to implement all aspects of due process (Levy et al., 2015; Pichler et al., 2020), human resource managers can choose to implement the aspects of due process voice appraisal system that are most relevant to their organizations or fit with their organizational culture.

Second, employees need motivations to voice in the workplace, but these motivations are not necessarily easy to find (Morrison, 2014; Ng et al., 2021). Considering the mediating role of voice efficacy, organizational identification, and promotion focus in due process voice appraisal system—employee voice behavior relation, managers can take steps from these three perspectives in addition to providing a due process voice appraisal system. For example, given the important role of voice efficacy, managers can develop training in communication for employees (e.g., the use of critical language and assertion), which provides employees with confidence and ability to voice and raise challenging issues (Okuyama et al., 2014). Moreover, given the similar importance of organizational identification, managers need to enhance practices like fostering employee pride in what an organization stands for (Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008). To prime a promotion focus, managers should provide cues that employees can obtain growth and achievements rather than loss or non-loss situations via voice. Managers can design the most useful reward and compensation (Mowbray et al., 2021) that can motivate employee promotion focus.

Third, our results suggest that not all organizations implementing the due process voice appraisal system will generate a high level of voice behavior. Leaders play a critical role in facilitating employee voice behavior (Zhang & Inness, 2019). Thus, organizations should consider how well the leadership matched the due process voice appraisal system in motivating employee voice. If organizations tend to implement the due process voice appraisal system, they should be cautious with leaders with authoritarian leadership; otherwise, the due process voice appraisal system may become another bureaucratic system (Folger et al., 1992) and lose its positive effect on employee voice behavior. Employees’ perceptions of whether the management is indeed open for voice is critical (Avery & Quiñones, 2002; Knoll & Redman, 2016). Open-minded leaders will encourage employees to believe that the due process voice appraisal system is truly open. Thus, it may be appropriate for organizations to select open-minded leaders when implementing a due process voice appraisal system.

Limitations and Future Research

As with any research, our research has several limitations, providing opportunities for future research. First, although many research have suggested that due process now applies globally (Levy et al., 2015), and we have tested it in Chinese context, it is undeniable that the due process concept originates from Western culture (Folger et al., 1992; Levy et al., 2015). Future researchers could use qualitative methods to explore other characteristics of due process voice appraisal system in Chinese context and explore how various types of characteristics influence employee reactions and behaviors. Moreover, future research could also consider developing a rigorous and reliable assessment in Chinese context to measure employees’ actual perceptions of due process voice appraisal system. By doing so, we can extend the understanding of how due process voice appraisal system influences various organizational outcomes (e.g., effectiveness, turn over, and counterproductive behavior).

Second, due to irresistible factors and shortcomings of experimental design, we only got 132 valid samples when measuring the perceived due process voice appraisal system. Thus, the results that participants in the experimental group rated a high level of due process voice appraisal system than participants in the control group were obtained by conducting manipulation checks with 132 samples. This is a limitation for our manipulation checks. Even though, Chi-squared tests showed that control group and experimental group in partial sample (N = 132) and total sample (N = 265) showed no significant differences in age, education, gender and tenure, which suggested that the manipulation check results obtained from partial samples might substitute those from the total samples to some extent; and other measures we took such as interviews may ensure our manipulation works. Prior study indicates that it is difficult to conduct a quasi-experiment to test the due process metaphor (Levy et al., 2015). We suggest future research to replicate and extend our conclusions by a more rigorous method.

In addition, all the data were self-reported, which is a potential limitation. Self-report measures have been employed by a majority of the studies on employee voice (e.g., Hu & Jiang, 2018; Wang et al., 2014). Self-report measures of voice behavior can capture the full range of voice behavior than that observed by others (Liu et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2014). However, alternative forms of data collection which employs supervisor and colleague ratings can further minimize common method bias (Wang et al., 2014). Besides, all variables were collected at the same time point that may also induce common method bias. Although the results of Harman’s single-factor test showed that common method bias in this study was not a serious problem, future research should consider designing a more rigorous procedure to collect data from multi-time points and multiple sources to control this issue (Lu & Lu, 2020).

Finally, we only considered authoritarian leadership as a boundary condition in our research model. However, appraisee characteristics could also influence appraisal results (Levy et al., 2015). For instance, conscientious individuals are more likely to change themselves and display person–environment fit behaviors (Parker et al., 2010). These individuals may be more receptive to the due process voice appraisal system compared with less conscientious individuals. Thus, future research could consider the moderating role of appraisee characteristics for the relationship between due process voice appraisal system and employee voice behavior. Moreover, culture values may also moderate the relationship between due process voice appraisal system and employee voice behavior. Apart from authoritarian leadership, guanxi is also a key sociocultural concept in Chinese society (Chen & Chen, 2009). We encourage scholars to explore the moderating role of various culture values like guanxi in Chinese context on the effects of due process voice appraisal system on employee voice behavior.