Employee voice and innovative work behaviour: empirical evidence from South Africa

Figures & data

Figure 1. The research framework representing the relationship between EV, leadership style, and CfI as predictors for IWB.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for IWB, EV, leadership styles, and CfI (N = 620)

Construct	Mean	Std. Dev.	Skewness*		Kurtosis^#
			Value	Z	Value	Z
IWB	2.608	0.942	0.289	2.944	−0.406	−2.071
SV	2.203	1.134	1.178	12.007	1.493	7.620
CV	2.043	1.140	1.506	15.342	2.616	13.350
DfV	5.880	1.368	−1.336	−13.610	1.207	6.159
DsV	6.149	1.250	−1.868	−19.031	3.291	16.794
TsL	2.592	1.689	1.229	12.525	0.654	3.338
TfL	2.640	1.608	1.056	10.764	0.271	1.384
DL	2.470	0.860	0.480	4.895	0.031	0.157
EL	2.693	1.401	1.081	11.011	0.845	4.311
CfI	2.577	0.496	−0.219	−2.228	1.526	7.787

*Standard Error for skewness = .098. ^#Standard Error for kurtosis = .196.

The sub-dimensions of employee voice (EV) are presented in this table as follows: SV: supportive voice; CV: constructive voice; DfV: defensive voice; DsV: destructive voice. Four leadership styles are; TsL: transactional; TfL: transformational; DL: directive, and EL: empowering. CfI is the abbreviation for climate for Innovation.

Table 2. Correlations between IWB, and antecedents to IWB, namely EV, leadership styles, and CfI, as well as reliability coefficients (N = 620)

	Correlation with IWB	p-value	Practical significance	Cronbach alpha
SV	.331	<.001	Medium	.878
CV	.577	<.001	Large	.931
DfV	−.079	.050	Insignificantly small	.904
DsV	−.072	.073	Insignificantly small	.897
TsL	.211	<.001	Small	.957
TfL	.184	<.001	Small	.924
DL	.122	.002	Small	.889
EL	.296	<.001	Small/Medium	.992
CfI	.305	<.001	Medium	.754

Note: The sub-dimensions of employee voice (EV) are presented in this table as follows: SV: supportive voice; CV: constructive voice; DfV: defensive voice; DsV: destructive voice. Four leadership styles are; TsL: transactional; TfL: transformational; DL: directive, and EL: empowering. CfI is the abbreviation for climate for Innovation.

Table 3. Regression model fit: IWB being predicted by control variables, EV, leadership styles and CfI (N = 620)

Model	R	R^2	ΔR^2	Adjusted R^2	Std. Error of the Estimate
1	.223	.050	-	.042	.914
2	.592	.351	.301	.341	.758
3	.612	.375	.024	.361	.747
4	.622	.387	.012	.372	.740

Table 4. Standardised regression coefficients: IWB predicted by control variables, EV, leadership styles and CfI (N = 620)

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4
Sex	.123**	.038*	.029	.023
Role in organisation	.014	.025*	.013	.008
Schooling	.096*	.068	.044	.029
Race	.111**	.093	.093**	.091**
Post level	−.178**	−.082*	−.061	−.058
SV	-	.113**	.099**	.090*
CV	-	.505**	.486***	.474***
DfV	-	−.045	−.057	−.073
DsV	-	.031	.053	.059
TsL	-	-	−.010	−.012
TfL	-	-	−.030	−.049
DL	-	-	.030	.023
EL	-	-	.167**	.136**
CfI	-	-	-	.128**

***< .001; ** < .01; * < .05

Figure 2. The results of the interplay between EV, leadership style, and CfI as predictors of IWB.