Helping and Voice Behaviors scale

Description

This measure, (Helping and Voice Behaviors) developed by Van Dyne and LePine (1998), uses 13 items to describe two job behaviors called helping and voice. These two work behav­ iors are viewed as extrarole behaviors in that they are actions that employees may undertake at their own discretion and are not part of their formal job role. Helping is defined as proactive behavior that emphasizes small acts of consideration. It can be characterized as cooperative behavior that empha­ sizes harmony and builds working relationships. Voice is defined as pro­ active behavior that emphasizes expressions of challenge to the status quo in order to improve organizational performance. Employees exercising voice will tend to make innovative suggestions for change even when others dis­ agree (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998).

Reliability

Coefficient alpha values for helping behaviors rated by self, peers, and supervisors ranged from .85 to .95. Alpha values for voice rated by self, peers, and supervisors ranged from .82 to .96. Test-retest reliability was .81 for helping behaviors and .78 for voice behaviors. Where there were mul­ tiple peer ratings of the same employee, within-group correlation of the ratings averaged .85 and ranged from.77 to .89 (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998).

Validity

Self, peer, and supervisor ratings of helping behaviors and voice behaviors were all positively correlated. Self-rated helping correlated positively with performance. Self-rated voice correlated positively with education level and job level. Peer-rated helping and voice both correlated positively with edu­ cation level, being male, and job level; both also correlated negatively with employee age. Supervisor-rated helping and voice correlated positively with job level; both correlated negatively with age and tenure in the work group. Supervisor-rated voice also correlated positively with employee education level (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Confirmatory factor analysis showed that helping, voice, and in-role behaviors were empirically distinct and that the factor structure of these dimensions was the same across time periods and across ratings by employees, their peers, and their supervisors (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998).

Source

Items

Responses are obtained using a 7-point Likert-type scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree. The items provided are worded for peer reporting. For supervisor reports, the items are reworded to replace co­ worker with subordinate. For self-reporting, each item begins with J.

Helping items:

1. This particular co-worker volunteers to do things for this work group
2. This particular co-worker helps orient new employees in this group
3. This particular co-worker attends functions that help the work group
4. This particular co-worker assists others in this group with their work for the benefit of the work group
5. This particular co-worker gets involved to benefit this work group
6. This particular co-worker helps others in this group learn about the work
7. This particular co-worker helps others in this group with their work responsibilities

Voice items:

1. This particular co-worker develops and makes recommendations concerning issues that affect this work group
2. This particular co-worker speaks up and encourages others in this group to get involved in issues that affect this group
3. This particular co-worker communicates his/her opinions about work issues to others in this group even if his/her opinion is different and others in this group disagree with him/her
4. This particular co-worker keeps well informed about issues where his/her opinion might be useful to this work group
5. This particular co-worker gets involved with issues that affect the quality of life here in this group
6. This particular co-worker speaks up in this group with ideas for new projects or changes in procedures