Does LMX always promote employee voice? A dark side of migrant working in Saudi Arabia

Ghulam Ali Arain, Zeeshan Ahmed Bhatti, Jonathan Crawshaw, Imran Ali, Armando Papa

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Purpose: Drawing on the self-consistency theory, we tested a model where employees’ supervisor-based self-esteem (SBSE) is positively related to their promotive and prohibitive voice and mediates the positive relationship between leader-member exchange social comparison (LMXSC) and an employee’s promotive and prohibitive voice, but only for local rather than migrant workers.

Design/Methodology: To test our hypotheses, multi-source data were collected from 341 matched supervisor-supervisee dyads working in a diverse range of organizations in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA).

Findings: As predicted, employees’ SBSE is positively related to their promotive and prohibitive voice and mediates a positive relationship between their LMXSC and their promotive and prohibitive voice, but only for local workers. Our findings provide support for our self-consistency theory perspective on LMX, and new insight into the ‘dark side’ of migrant working – a lack of voice.

Originality: Our study responds to calls for more research that explores the roles played by macro-environmental factors on employees’ voice. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)148-167
JournalInternational Journal of Manpower
Volume43
Issue number1
Early online date28 Oct 2021
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 22 Apr 2022

Bibliographical note

© 2021 Emerald Publishing. This AAM is deposited under the CC BY-NC 4.0 licence. Any reuse is allowed in accordance with the terms outlined by the licence. To reuse the AAM for commercial purposes, permission should be sought by contacting permissions@emeraldinsight.com.

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Does LMX always promote employee voice? A dark side of migrant working in Saudi Arabia'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this