Employee voice is defined as employees’ expression of challenging but constructive ideas and suggestions about work-related issues that are intended to improve organizational performance (Detert & Burris, 2007). It has gained extensive interest from researchers (Wilkinson et al., 2020a), primarily because of claims that this behavior has important benefits for both individuals and the organization, including innovation, organizational learning, and job attitudes (Morrison, 2011). Therefore, it is not surprising that encouraging employee voice is considered a high priority in many organizations.

Employee voice usually happens in supervisor–subordinate dyads (Carnevale et al., 2017; Detert & Burris, 2007). Prior studies have examined the relationship between leader–member exchange (LMX), referring to reciprocal exchange relationships between supervisors and their subordinates (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), and employee voice (Carnevale et al., 2017). Rockstuhl et al. (2012) performed a meta-analysis of LMX correlates across 23 countries and revealed that the relationship of LMX to its outcomes differed between Western and Asian countries. In a Western context, employees with high-quality LMX will work harder compared to employees with low-quality LMX (Carnevale et al., 2017), whereas in China subordinates will still work hard for their supervisors even if they do not obtain adequate resources and support (Rockstuhl et al., 2012). Wilkinson et al. (2020b) pointed out that few studies have explored the state of employee voice in Asian compared to Western regions.

Recently, some scholars have conducted studies with Chinese samples, and found a positive link between LMX and employee voice (Chan & Yeung, 2016; M. Kim, 2017), and others have reported that LMX positively affects employee voice through mediators such as affective commitment, psychological meaningfulness, and perception of psychological safety (Song et al., 2017; Zhao, 2014). However, Xie et al. (2019) argued that high-quality LMX does not necessarily lead to a better employee outcome in the Chinese context. Thus, there is still a wide scope for researchers to explore the mechanisms underlying the LMX–employee voice relationship in the Chinese context. As Z. Zhang et al. (2021) suggested, cultural values should be considered when LMX and its influence are examined.

Researchers have found that Zhongyong thinking, which is a core aspect of Confucian values, is positively related to Chinese employees’ use of voice. Qu et al. (2018) based their research on employee–coworker dyads and reported that employees with greater Zhongyong thinking performed more voice behavior. Yang et al. (2021) surveyed a sample of Master of Business Administration students employed by a variety of Chinese companies and found that Zhongyong thinking did not necessarily lead directly to employee voice; rather, perceived psychological safety connected the two variables. Thus, we emphasized Zhongyong thinking to describe the mechanism linking LMX to Chinese employees’ voice.

Leader–Member Exchange and Employee Voice

LMX has been found to be an important precursor of employee extrarole behaviors, including use of voice (Khan & Malik, 2017). Researchers have identified that LMX is a crucial contextual element in the organizational climate spurring employee voice (Carnevale et al., 2017; Morrison, 2011). Confucian values are prevalent in Asian cultures, whereby senior authority ranks over junior authority (K. H. Kim, 2009). Thus, Chinese subordinates have learned obedience to their supervisors (A. Y. Zhang et al., 2011). Voice is a challenge-oriented behavior, and often viewed as questioning authority rather than as making well-intentioned suggestions (Burris, 2012). Thus, employees evaluate the consequences before engaging in voice behavior (Liang et al., 2012). High-quality LMX relationships are characterized by mutual trust, respect, and loyalty, which reduces employees’ perceived risk of using voice and enhances their confidence in speaking up (Duan et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2021). From a social exchange perspective, employees in a high-quality LMX relationship have more opportunities to communicate and exchange information with their leader; in contrast, employees in a low-quality LMX relationship have less access to their leader, and therefore receive less support and information (Kacmar et al., 2003; Urbach & Fay, 2021). Thus, we formed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Leader–member exchange will be positively associated with employee voice.

The Mediating Role of Zhongyong Thinking

Zhongyong is a thinking style characterized by individuals considering a situation from multiple perspectives and engaging in behaviors appropriate to account for the whole situation (Wu & Lin, 2005). People with high-level Zhongyong thinking show high openness because they tend to use a holistic and flexible thought-processing strategy to interact with the external world and understand the universal connection between the self and the world (Chang & Yang, 2014; Lin et al., 2021). Lin et al. (2021) noted that the characteristics of openness in Chinese culture, such as lixing yu sibian (rational thinking) and qiuxin yu sibian (novelty-seeking thinking), are similar to bianzheng (dialectics) and pingheng (balance), which are the features of Zhongyong thinking. Therefore, Zhongyong thinking has a function similar to the personality trait of openness. Individuals with high-level openness are described as creative and imaginative, and willing to express constructive voice (Çetin, 2013). Accordingly, we expected that employees with high (vs. low) Zhongyong thinking would be more likely to engage in voice behavior.

Chinese culture emphasizes guanxi, namely, interpersonal relationships, with tremendous weight placed on interpersonal harmony (Wei & Li, 2013), which is the core concept of Zhongyong thinking (Fan, 2021). LMX is similar to leader–member guanxi because both concepts highlight the importance of leader–member relationship quality and emphasize the principle of reciprocity (Nie & Lämsä, 2015). A good-quality LMX relationship may help in building harmony in an organization, in that good relationships between leaders and members facilitate a supportive leadership climate, which is a key precursor of organizational harmony (Lau et al., 2021). In view of the fact that harmony is the core of Zhongyong thinking, we expected that high-quality LMX would be conducive to and promote Zhongyong thinking, and that under this condition employees would engage in positive behaviors, such as voice behavior, aimed toward the improvement of organizational performance. Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Zhongyong thinking will mediate the relationship between leader–member exchange and employee voice.

Figure 1 illustrates the research model.

Method

Participants and Procedure

We conducted this study in accordance with the ethical standards of the research committee of our university. Data were collected from a state-owned organization located in South China. Staff members of the human resources department of the organization assisted us in distributing a survey packet, which also contained a cover letter briefing participants on the purpose of the research. We assured them that participation was voluntary, and that their responses would remain confidential. We distributed 295 survey packets and 252 valid responses were returned (rate of response = 85.42%).

The demographic characteristics of the sample were as follows: 26.98% worked in the manufacturing department (n = 68), 36.51% in sales and marketing (n = 92), 17.86% in administration and services (n = 45), and 18.65% in other departments (n = 47). There were 57.54% men (n = 145) and 42.46% woman (n = 107). The mean age was 37.54 years (SD = 12.47, range = 26–52). The participants had a mean organizational tenure of 7.36 years (SD = 4.43, range = 3–15). In addition, 55.16% (n = 139) had a level of education of college or below, 36.11% (n = 91) held a bachelor’s degree, and 8.73% (n = 22) held a master’s degree or higher level of education.

Measures

The LMX and employee voice scales were originally developed in English and the measure of Zhongyong thinking was written in Chinese. The English measures were translated into Chinese and then back into English by an English teacher at a Chinese university. All responses were made on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

Leader–Member Exchange
Employees rated LMX using a seven-item scale developed and validated by Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995). Sample items are “My supervisor understands my job problems and needs” and “My supervisor uses their influence to help me with problems at work.”

Zhongyong Thinking
Employees rated Zhongyong thinking using a 13-item scale adopted from Wu and Lin (2005). The scale features three dimensions: multithinking (four items; e.g., “I am used to thinking about the same thing from different perspectives”), holism (five items; e.g., “I will adjust my original idea after taking into account the views of others”), and harmoniousness (four items; e.g., “I will consider the harmony of the whole when deciding on opinions”).

Employee Voice
Supervisors assessed employee voice using a six-item scale developed by Van Dyne and LePine (1998). Sample items are “This employee speaks up with ideas for new projects or changes in procedures at work” and “This employee gets involved in issues that affect the quality of life in the work unit.”

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, correlations, Cronbach’s alphas, composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE) values for the study variables. Significant positive relationships were observed among all constructs. Cronbach’s alpha values were above the .70 criterion, showing high internal consistency.

To assess the convergent and discriminant validity of the research constructs, we performed a confirmatory factory analysis with Amos 24. Using the indices of chi-squared/degrees of freedom ratio (χ²/df), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI), and Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), we compared the fit of the hypothesized three-factor model (LMX, Zhongyong thinking, and employee voice) to a single-factor model in which all measures of the three variables were set to load on one factor. The results show that the three-factor model fit the data better, χ² = 129.23, χ²/df = 1.28, RMSEA = .03, CFI = .99, TLI = .98, than the single-factor model, χ² = 925.94, χ²/df = 8.90, RMSEA = .18, CFI = .62, TLI = .56. In addition, CR was greater than .70 and AVE exceeded .50. Therefore, the measures had good convergent and discriminant validity.

Hypothesis Testing

We used structural equation modeling to test the proposed hypotheses, calculating 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The direct path connecting LMX and employee voice was significant and positive, β = .41, p < .01, 95% CI [0.27, 0.53], meaning that Hypothesis 1 was supported. In addition, LMX was significantly and positively related to Zhongyong thinking, β = .43, p < .01, 95% CI [0.31, 0.55], and Zhongyong thinking was significantly and positively related to employee voice, β = .18, p < .01, 95% CI [0.04, 0.32]. To test the significance of the indirect effect, we used the bias-corrected bootstrapping method (2,000 resamples). The results indicate that Zhongyong thinking significantly mediated the association between LMX and employee voice, indirect effect = .08, 95% CI [0.02, 0.16]. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was supported.

Discussion

We examined the mediating effect of Zhongyong thinking in the link between LMX and employee voice. The results provided empirical evidence and support for our two hypotheses. Practically speaking, LMX was positively associated with voice, and Zhongyong thinking partially mediated this relationship.

Theoretical Implications

Our findings contribute to the literature in several ways. First, although some studies have been conducted on the LMX–employee voice relationship in the Chinese context, the underlying mechanisms are still to be explored. In response to the call for further examination of LMX with its outcomes incorporating cultural values (Z. Zhang et al., 2021), we viewed Zhongyong thinking as a crucial mechanism through which LMX affects Chinese employees’ voice. This study is among the first to integrate the Zhongyong thinking literature with both LMX and voice theory. Our findings supported the well-established association between LMX and employee voice, which was also revealed by Chan and Yeung (2016), M. Kim (2017), Song et al. (2017) and Zhao (2014). Further, we found that Zhongyong thinking functioned as an intervening variable that accounts for the mechanistic processes in the LMX–employee voice association. These findings provide insight in a new context, in which cultural context plays a role in this relationship.

Additionally, this research extends the employee voice literature. Our findings provide support for the positive link between Zhongyong thinking and employee voice, which is inconsistent with the findings of Yang et al. (2021). It is possible that sample selection has had an impact in this regard. Yang et al. found that Zhongyong thinking had only an indirect effect on employee voice via perceived psychological safety, implying that Zhongyong thinking cannot facilitate employee voice unless such thinking enhances the individual’s sense of safety. We collected our data from employees of a state-owned organization in which employees are provided with welfare security and lifetime employment (Gu & Nie, 2003). The sense of safety was already available at the outset of our study for the participants involved in our study, in contrast to those who took part in Yang et al.’s study.

Managerial Implications

In practice, our findings have important implications for organizations. First, we found that high-quality LMX was positively associated with employees’ voice behavior. Thus, leadership development programs should be implemented to help managers enhance the relationship quality with their employees. Second, the results of this study support the importance of Zhongyong thinking when linking LMX to employee voice. Managers of organizations in China should implement training programs integrating Asian philosophical values into Western management strategies to cultivate employees’ Zhongyong thinking.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

First, this study used a cross-sectional design, which prevented us from obtaining evidence about causality. Future studies could use a longitudinal or experimental design to draw causal inferences. Second, the sample comprised employees of a state-owned organization in China, which may not represent employees of other Chinese organizations. Employees’ perception of psychological safety may vary in different organizations, especially between state-owned versus private companies. We suggest that scholars incorporate perceived psychological safety into our model in future. Third, we examined Zhongyong thinking as a mediating mechanism behind the LMX–employee voice relationship. As noted above, in Chinese culture there is an emphasis on guanxi, which is also closely related to LMX (Nie & Lämsä, 2015). Thus, future researchers may incorporate guanxi into our model in order to explain the relationship between LMX and employee voice.

References

Burris, E. R. (2012). The risks and rewards of speaking up: Managerial responses to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 851–875.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0562

Carnevale, J. B., Huang, L., Crede, M., Harms, P., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2017). Leading to stimulate employees’ ideas: A quantitative review of leader–member exchange, employee voice, creativity, and innovative behavior. Applied Psychology, 66(4), 517–552.
https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12102

Çetin, S. (2013). Impact of teachers’ perceptions of organizational support, management openness and personality traits on voice. Educational Research and Reviews, 8(18), 1709–1721.
https://bit.ly/3841Psi

Chan, S. C. H., & Yeung, D. (2016). The impact of leader-member exchange (LMX) and empowerment on employee voice behavior. Nang Yan Business Journal, 4(1), 44–55.
https://bit.ly/3L1NzyU

Chang, T.-Y., & Yang, C.-T. (2014). Individual differences in Zhong-Yong tendency and processing capacity. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 1316.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01316

Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869–884.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.26279183

Duan, J., Lapointe, É., Xu, Y., & Brooks, S. (2019). Why do employees speak up? Examining the roles of LMX, perceived risk and perceived leader power in predicting voice behavior. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 34(8), 560–572.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-11-2018-0534

Fan, Z. (2021). Knowledge sharing mediates the relationship between Zhongyong thinking and employee creativity. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 49(1), Article e9686.
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.9686

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.
https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5

Gu, H., & Nie, Z. (2003). “Abnormal welfare” in state-owned enterprises and exit of state-owned enterprises [In Chinese]. Economic Review, 1, 46–54.
https://doi.org/10.19361/j.er.2003.01.008

Kacmar, K. M., Witt, L. A., Zivnuska, S., & Gully, S. M. (2003). The interactive effect of leader-member exchange and communication frequency on performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 764–772.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.764

Khan, M. N., & Malik, M. F. (2017). “My leader’s group is my group.” Leader-member exchange and employees’ behaviours. European Business Review, 29(5), 551–571.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-01-2016-0013

Kim, K. H. (2009). Cultural influence on creativity: The relationship between Asian culture (Confucianism) and creativity among Korean educators. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 43(2), 73–93.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2009.tb01307.x

Kim, M. (2017). The effects of leader–member exchange on Generation Y employees’ organizational behaviours in China. International Journal of Tourism Sciences, 17(2), 140–152.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15980634.2017.1318591

Lau, W. K., Nguyen, L. D., Pham, L. N. T., & Cernas-Ortiz, D. A. (2021). The mediating role of harmony in effective leadership in China: From a Confucianism perspective. Asia Pacific Business Review. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13602381.2021.1948216

Liang, J., Farh, C. I. C., & Farh, J.-L. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 71–92.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0176

Lin, R.-M., Hong, Y.-J., Xiao, H.-W., Chen, Y.-P., & Lian, R. (2021). Openness to experience and dispositional awe: The moderating role of subjective socioeconomic status and mediating role of Zhong-Yong thinking style in Chinese undergraduates. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 62(4), 617–624.
https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12728

Liu, J., Wang, J., Geng, Z., & Wang, Y. (2021). Linking leader–member exchange to employee voice behavior: The mediating role of self-efficacy. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 49(12), Article e10950.
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.10950

Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373–412.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2011.574506

Nie, D., & Lämsä, A.-M. (2015). The leader–member exchange theory in the Chinese context and the ethical challenge of guanxi. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(4), 851–861.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1983-9

Qu, Y., Wu, W., Tang, F., Si, H., & Xia, Y. (2018). Why do I conform to your ideas? The role of coworkers’ regulatory focus in explaining the influence of zhongyong on harmony voice. Chinese Management Studies, 12(2), 346–368.
https://doi.org/10.1108/CMS-03-2017-0056

Rockstuhl, T., Dulebohn, J. H., Ang, S., & Shore, L. M. (2012). Leader–member exchange (LMX) and culture: A meta-analysis of correlates of LMX across 23 countries. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1097–1130.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029978

Song, X., Wu, W., Hao, S., Lu, X., Zhang, Y., & Liu, Y. (2017). On-work or off-work relationship? An engagement model of how and when leader–member exchange and leader–member guanxi promote voice behavior. Chinese Management Studies, 11(3), 441–462.
https://doi.org/10.1108/CMS-03-2017-0058

Urbach, T., & Fay, D. (2021). Leader member exchange in leaders’ support for voice: Good relationships matter in situations of power threat. Applied Psychology, 70(2), 674–708.
https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12245

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.
https://doi.org/10.5465/256902

Wei, X., & Li, Q. (2013). The Confucian value of harmony and its influence on Chinese social interaction. Cross-Cultural Communication, 9(1), 60–66.
https://doi.org/10.3968/j.ccc.1923670020130901.12018

Wilkinson, A., Barry, M., & Morrison, E. (2020a). Toward an integration of research on employee voice. Human Resource Management Review, 30(1), Article 100677.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.12.001

Wilkinson, A., Sun, J.-M., & Mowbray, P. K. (2020b). Employee voice in the Asia Pacific. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 58(4), 471–484.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12274

Wu, C., & Lin, Y. (2005). Development of a Zhongyong thinking style scale [In Chinese]. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 24, 247–300.

Xie, Z., Li, N., Jiang, W., & Kirkman, B. L. (2019). The paradox of leader-member exchange (LMX) differentiation: How treating followers differently can both enhance and impede employee performance. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 18(4), 165–176.
https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000231

Yang, G., Ji, Y., & Xu, Q. (2021). Does Zhongyong thinking affect voice behavior? The mediating role of psychological safety. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 49(8), Article e10469.
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.10469

Zhang, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., & Wang, D. X. (2011). Leadership behaviors and group creativity in Chinese organizations: The role of group processes. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 851–862.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.007

Zhang, Z., Chun, D., Wang, X., & Liu, J. (2021). Does workplace fun affect employees’ voice behavior? Leader–member exchange as a mediator. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 49(12), Article e11083.
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.11083

Zhao, H. (2014). Relative leader-member exchange and employee voice: Mediating role of affective commitment and moderating role of Chinese traditionality. Chinese Management Studies, 8(1), 27–40.
https://doi.org/10.1108/CMS-01-2013-0016

Burris, E. R. (2012). The risks and rewards of speaking up: Managerial responses to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 851–875.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0562

Carnevale, J. B., Huang, L., Crede, M., Harms, P., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2017). Leading to stimulate employees’ ideas: A quantitative review of leader–member exchange, employee voice, creativity, and innovative behavior. Applied Psychology, 66(4), 517–552.
https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12102

Çetin, S. (2013). Impact of teachers’ perceptions of organizational support, management openness and personality traits on voice. Educational Research and Reviews, 8(18), 1709–1721.
https://bit.ly/3841Psi

Chan, S. C. H., & Yeung, D. (2016). The impact of leader-member exchange (LMX) and empowerment on employee voice behavior. Nang Yan Business Journal, 4(1), 44–55.
https://bit.ly/3L1NzyU

Chang, T.-Y., & Yang, C.-T. (2014). Individual differences in Zhong-Yong tendency and processing capacity. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 1316.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01316

Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869–884.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.26279183

Duan, J., Lapointe, É., Xu, Y., & Brooks, S. (2019). Why do employees speak up? Examining the roles of LMX, perceived risk and perceived leader power in predicting voice behavior. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 34(8), 560–572.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-11-2018-0534

Fan, Z. (2021). Knowledge sharing mediates the relationship between Zhongyong thinking and employee creativity. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 49(1), Article e9686.
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.9686

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.
https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5

Gu, H., & Nie, Z. (2003). “Abnormal welfare” in state-owned enterprises and exit of state-owned enterprises [In Chinese]. Economic Review, 1, 46–54.
https://doi.org/10.19361/j.er.2003.01.008

Kacmar, K. M., Witt, L. A., Zivnuska, S., & Gully, S. M. (2003). The interactive effect of leader-member exchange and communication frequency on performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 764–772.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.764

Khan, M. N., & Malik, M. F. (2017). “My leader’s group is my group.” Leader-member exchange and employees’ behaviours. European Business Review, 29(5), 551–571.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-01-2016-0013

Kim, K. H. (2009). Cultural influence on creativity: The relationship between Asian culture (Confucianism) and creativity among Korean educators. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 43(2), 73–93.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2009.tb01307.x

Kim, M. (2017). The effects of leader–member exchange on Generation Y employees’ organizational behaviours in China. International Journal of Tourism Sciences, 17(2), 140–152.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15980634.2017.1318591

Lau, W. K., Nguyen, L. D., Pham, L. N. T., & Cernas-Ortiz, D. A. (2021). The mediating role of harmony in effective leadership in China: From a Confucianism perspective. Asia Pacific Business Review. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13602381.2021.1948216

Liang, J., Farh, C. I. C., & Farh, J.-L. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 71–92.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0176

Lin, R.-M., Hong, Y.-J., Xiao, H.-W., Chen, Y.-P., & Lian, R. (2021). Openness to experience and dispositional awe: The moderating role of subjective socioeconomic status and mediating role of Zhong-Yong thinking style in Chinese undergraduates. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 62(4), 617–624.
https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12728

Liu, J., Wang, J., Geng, Z., & Wang, Y. (2021). Linking leader–member exchange to employee voice behavior: The mediating role of self-efficacy. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 49(12), Article e10950.
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.10950

Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373–412.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2011.574506

Nie, D., & Lämsä, A.-M. (2015). The leader–member exchange theory in the Chinese context and the ethical challenge of guanxi. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(4), 851–861.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1983-9

Qu, Y., Wu, W., Tang, F., Si, H., & Xia, Y. (2018). Why do I conform to your ideas? The role of coworkers’ regulatory focus in explaining the influence of zhongyong on harmony voice. Chinese Management Studies, 12(2), 346–368.
https://doi.org/10.1108/CMS-03-2017-0056

Rockstuhl, T., Dulebohn, J. H., Ang, S., & Shore, L. M. (2012). Leader–member exchange (LMX) and culture: A meta-analysis of correlates of LMX across 23 countries. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1097–1130.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029978

Song, X., Wu, W., Hao, S., Lu, X., Zhang, Y., & Liu, Y. (2017). On-work or off-work relationship? An engagement model of how and when leader–member exchange and leader–member guanxi promote voice behavior. Chinese Management Studies, 11(3), 441–462.
https://doi.org/10.1108/CMS-03-2017-0058

Urbach, T., & Fay, D. (2021). Leader member exchange in leaders’ support for voice: Good relationships matter in situations of power threat. Applied Psychology, 70(2), 674–708.
https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12245

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.
https://doi.org/10.5465/256902

Wei, X., & Li, Q. (2013). The Confucian value of harmony and its influence on Chinese social interaction. Cross-Cultural Communication, 9(1), 60–66.
https://doi.org/10.3968/j.ccc.1923670020130901.12018

Wilkinson, A., Barry, M., & Morrison, E. (2020a). Toward an integration of research on employee voice. Human Resource Management Review, 30(1), Article 100677.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.12.001

Wilkinson, A., Sun, J.-M., & Mowbray, P. K. (2020b). Employee voice in the Asia Pacific. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 58(4), 471–484.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12274

Wu, C., & Lin, Y. (2005). Development of a Zhongyong thinking style scale [In Chinese]. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 24, 247–300.

Xie, Z., Li, N., Jiang, W., & Kirkman, B. L. (2019). The paradox of leader-member exchange (LMX) differentiation: How treating followers differently can both enhance and impede employee performance. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 18(4), 165–176.
https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000231

Yang, G., Ji, Y., & Xu, Q. (2021). Does Zhongyong thinking affect voice behavior? The mediating role of psychological safety. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 49(8), Article e10469.
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.10469

Zhang, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., & Wang, D. X. (2011). Leadership behaviors and group creativity in Chinese organizations: The role of group processes. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 851–862.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.007

Zhang, Z., Chun, D., Wang, X., & Liu, J. (2021). Does workplace fun affect employees’ voice behavior? Leader–member exchange as a mediator. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 49(12), Article e11083.
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.11083

Zhao, H. (2014). Relative leader-member exchange and employee voice: Mediating role of affective commitment and moderating role of Chinese traditionality. Chinese Management Studies, 8(1), 27–40.
https://doi.org/10.1108/CMS-01-2013-0016

Shengqing Ma, School of Economics and Management, Qinghai Normal University, Haihu Avenue, North District, Xining, Qinghai, 810000, People’s Republic of China. Email: [email protected]