With faster pace of change and more need for innovation, companies expect employees to be proactive. (Bolino et al., 2010; Bindl and Parker, 2010). The notion that proactive behaviour is desirable resulted in a big stream of academic research of the benefits of such behaviour. However, next to the benefits of improved organizational performance and innovation, proactive behaviour also has negative outcomes and is not always desirable. In order to focus my research I have chosen a specific proactive behaviour (voice). Voice behaviour is about task-based participation to have a greater control, upward problem-solving to improve work and complaints to management to express dissatisfaction (Marchington, 2007). Voice is one of the most controversial behaviours not only in the organization but also from a Western and Eastern European perspective.
This research will focus on supervisor perspective despite the self-originating nature of proactive behaviour (originating from the employee). Existing literature on proactive behaviour established the influence of context (e.g. Bindl and Parker, 2010). I suspect that proactive behaviour will differ and also will be evaluated differently by supervisors in various organizational and national cultures. These differences will be more significant for voice behaviour. This is why I ask: What is the influence of the cultural context (national and organizational) on supervisor evaluations of employee voice behaviour?