Helping and Voice Behaviors Scale

Abstract

The Helping and Voice Behaviors scale is a 13-item measure developed by Van Dyne and LePine (1998) designed to assess two specific dimensions of organizational behavior. These dimensions, Helping and Voice, are classified as extra-role behaviors, meaning they are discretionary actions that fall outside an employee’s formal job description. Helping behavior emphasizes proactive, cooperative acts that foster harmony and build positive working relationships.

In contrast, Voice behavior involves proactive expressions of constructive challenge aimed at improving organizational performance, often through innovative suggestions that may challenge the status quo (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). This instrument provides a valuable tool for measuring the voluntary contributions employees make beyond their mandated duties.

Keywords

Helping behavior, Voice behavior, Extra-role behaviors, Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB), Organizational performance, Job attitudes, Work relationships, Organizational behavior, Employee discretion.

Authors

Linn Van Dyne, Jeffrey A. LePine

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Helping and Voice Behaviors scale is to quantitatively assess the frequency and intensity of two distinct types of employee extra-role contributions within a work setting. By separating Helping (affiliative, cooperative) from Voice (challenging, change-oriented), the scale allows researchers and practitioners to analyze the independent effects of these discretionary behaviors on organizational outcomes.

The instrument provides a robust measure for evaluating behaviors that are critical for organizational effectiveness but are not mandated by formal job roles, thereby contributing significantly to the study of citizenship behavior and proactive employee engagement.

Construct

The scale measures two empirically distinct extra-role behaviors:

• Helping Behavior: Defined as proactive, voluntary acts of consideration and cooperation intended to facilitate interpersonal harmony and build strong working relationships within the group. These are typically small, supportive actions aimed at immediate colleagues or the work group environment.
• Voice Behavior: Defined as proactive behavior focused on challenging existing procedures or policies to improve organizational functioning. This involves communicating opinions, making innovative suggestions for change, and speaking up about issues, even when facing potential disagreement from peers or superiors.

Validity

The scale demonstrates strong evidence of construct and predictive validity across multiple sources of rating (self, peer, and supervisor). A key finding is the positive correlation among ratings of both Helping and Voice behaviors across all rater types, suggesting convergent assessment of these constructs.

Regarding external correlates, self-rated Helping positively correlated with overall job performance. Self-rated Voice positively correlated with both education level and job level. Peer and supervisor ratings revealed complex demographic relationships: both behaviors, when rated by peers and supervisors, positively correlated with job level and education level (supervisor-rated voice only), but negatively correlated with employee age. Additionally, supervisor ratings showed a negative correlation between both behaviors and tenure in the work group.

Reliability

The Helping and Voice Behaviors scale exhibits high internal reliability, indicating strong consistency among the items within each subscale. Coefficient alpha values for Helping behavior, across self, peer, and supervisor ratings, consistently ranged from 0.85 to 0.95. Similarly, alpha values for Voice behavior demonstrated high consistency, ranging from 0.82 to 0.96 across the different rater perspectives.

Furthermore, the measure showed adequate temporal stability. Test-retest reliability over time was measured at 0.81 for Helping behaviors and 0.78 for Voice behaviors. When multiple peer ratings were used for the same employee, the within-group correlation of these ratings averaged 0.85, with a range of 0.77 to 0.89, confirming strong inter-rater agreement.

Factor Analysis

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was utilized to empirically test the hypothesized structure of the scale. The results strongly supported the conceptual distinction between the two extra-role dimensions (Helping and Voice) and the traditional measure of in-role behaviors. This analysis confirmed that Helping, Voice, and in-role behaviors represent three empirically distinct constructs.

Crucially, the CFA confirmed that the factor structure remained invariant across different organizational contexts. Specifically, the factor structure was consistent across different time periods and maintained stability regardless of the source of the rating (employees, peers, or supervisors) (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998).

Instrument

Test Type: Organizational Behavior Scale / Psychological Survey

Format: Self-report, Peer-report, or Supervisor-report utilizing a 7-point Likert-type scale.

Language Available: Original publication in English (US).

Population Group: Working adults / Employees in organizational settings.

Age Group: Adults (No specific age range specified, typically 18+).

Population Details: Applicable to employees across various job levels and educational backgrounds within a work group context.

Test Methodology: 13 items total (7 Helping, 6 Voice). Responses range from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Wording is adjusted based on the rater (co-worker, subordinate, or self).

Keywords

Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Proactive behavior, Employee engagement, Work group dynamics, CFA, Internal consistency, Test-retest, Organizational psychology.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A

Correspondence Address: N/A

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 1998

Permissions and Fees: Items were reproduced with permission of the Academy of Management via Copyright Clearance Center for use in the format textbook. Researchers should contact the authors or the Academy of Management for specific usage rights and fees.

Reference’s

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. © 1998 by Academy of Management.

Items of the Helping and Voice Behaviors scale

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

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 I.

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