Employee Voice, Communication, and Horizontal Solidarity Behavior in a Crisis Context-Model Inventory

1. Abstract

The Employee Voice, Communication, and Horizontal Solidarity Behavior in a Crisis Context-Model Inventory, formulated by Rea Prouska, Margarita Nyfoudi, Alexandros Psychogios, Leslie T. Szamosi, and Adrian Wilkinson in 2023, is a psychometric and structural assessment tool designed to evaluate the triadic relationship linking organizational communication architecture, proactive employee communicative behaviors, and lateral prosocial supportive actions during severe macro-environmental turbulence. Grounded in social exchange theory, the instrument captures how informational transparency channeled through managerial tiers stimulates discretionary communicative agency (employee voice), which subsequently fosters or reinforces peer-to-peer reciprocal assistance (horizontal solidarity behavior). The inventory comprises a total of 14 items distributed across three psychometrically validated dimensions: Top-Down Employee Communication (3 items), Employee Voice (6 items), and Horizontal Solidarity Behavior (5 items). Operationalization employs a mixed-metric design: top-down communication is captured via a 5-point frequency/intensity Likert-type scale, whereas employee voice and horizontal solidarity are assessed through 7-point Likert and frequency scales, respectively.

Psychometric evaluation of the measurement model was conducted across two independent organizational samples operating within Greek small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) enduring protracted socioeconomic strain. Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated robust construct validity and superior structural fit for the hypothesized three-factor configuration over competing nested models (including single-factor common-method iterations and two-factor collapsed models). Goodness-of-fit indices across both cohorts satisfied rigorous psychometric benchmarks (Sample 1: χ² [74] = 152.034, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.929, RMSEA = 0.078, SRMR = 0.052, AIC = 6,643.411; Sample 2: χ² [74] = 218.623, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.917, RMSEA = 0.076, SRMR = 0.049, AIC = 13,552.780). All latent dimensions exhibited elevated internal consistency reliability, surpassing the standard Cronbach’s alpha threshold of α = 0.75 in both validation cohorts. Consequently, the inventory represents an empirical tool for scholars, organizational psychologists, and human resource practitioners seeking to assess organizational dynamics, lateral prosociality, and communicative climates in crisis-afflicted firms.

2. Keywords

Employee Voice, Top-Down Communication, Horizontal Solidarity, Prosocial Behavior, Crisis Context, Social Exchange Theory, Organizational Behavior, Psychometrics, Structural Equation Modeling, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, Organizational Resilience, Peer Support.

3. Authors

The measurement inventory and its conceptual model were developed and validated by a consortium of researchers in organizational behavior, human resource management, and employment relations:

• Rea Prouska (Corresponding Author)
  • ORCID: 0000-0001-6729-5964
  • Affiliation: London South Bank University, LSBU Business School, London, United Kingdom.
  • Email: [email protected]
• Margarita Nyfoudi
  • ORCID: 0000-0001-8850-2045
  • Affiliation: University of Birmingham, Birmingham Business School, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
• Alexandros Psychogios
  • ORCID: 0000-0002-8003-4758
  • Affiliation: Birmingham City University, Birmingham City Business School, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
• Leslie T. Szamosi
  • ORCID: 0000-0003-0470-7671
  • Affiliation: University of York Europe Campus, CITY College, Thessaloniki, Greece.
• Adrian Wilkinson
  • ORCID: 0000-0001-7231-2861
  • Affiliation: Griffith University, Department of Employment Relations and Human Resources, Griffith Business School, Brisbane, Australia.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Employee Voice, Communication, and Horizontal Solidarity Behavior in a Crisis Context-Model Inventory is to provide a psychometrically robust diagnostic instrument that elucidates how organizational structures and downward informational conduits facilitate or inhibit grassroots, laterally directed cooperative behaviors during sustained organizational and socioeconomic crises. Historically, organizational behavior literature has heavily concentrated on vertical exchanges—specifically examining leader-member exchange (LMX), vertical upward voice targeted at senior executives, and supervisory support mechanisms. While these vertical paradigms provide essential insights into hierarchical accountability, they frequently overlook horizontal, peer-to-peer behavioral dynamics, particularly the construct of horizontal solidarity behavior (SB), which becomes a vital operational determinant of collective survival in times of extreme resource scarcity, systemic turbulence, and structural instability.

In prolonged crisis scenarios, such as the acute macroeconomic and financial depression experienced by small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Southern Europe, formal organizational resources (e.g., promotional paths, financial bonuses, formal wellness initiatives, structural job security) diminish drastically. Consequently, firms must depend on informal social capital, lateral mutual assistance, and shared civic responsibility among front-line colleagues to maintain functional continuity and emotional resilience. This inventory addresses this requirement by operationalizing the systemic pathway running from supervisory informational clarity down to discretionary peer support. It explicitly explores the mediating role of employee voice, positing that downward organizational communication provides the requisite psychological safety, structural role clarity, and informational capital that empowers employees to articulate improvement-oriented suggestions and voice concerns. This active communicative stance subsequently translates into prosocial, supportive actions toward peers within the workplace.

From an applied perspective, the scale serves dual research and practical functions:

• Research Applications: It equips empirical researchers with a standardized measurement model to investigate organizational micro-dynamics under environmental stress. It enables complex structural equation modeling (SEM) to evaluate moderation, mediation, and conditional process models involving environmental hostility, organizational resilience, employee burnout, psychological contract violations, and prosocial organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs).
• Diagnostic and Organizational Interventions: For organizational consultants, HR directors, and industrial-organizational psychologists, the scale functions as an operational audit tool. Administering this inventory allows enterprises to identify blockages in vertical information conduits, quantify deficits in employee psychological empowerment or voice behavior, and locate units or teams lacking lateral solidarity. Pinpointing these deficits allows leadership to enact targeted communication protocols and psychological safety interventions before structural strain translates into operational collapse, disengagement, or toxic workplace detachment.

5. Psychological Construct

The inventory operationalizes a multi-dimensional conceptual space comprising three interconnected, yet empirically distinct, latent constructs: Top-Down Employee Communication, Employee Voice, and Horizontal Solidarity Behavior. Each dimension represents a specific behavioral or informational phenomenon that operates within the broader ecology of workplace social exchanges.

1. Top-Down Employee Communication

Top-Down Employee Communication represents the directional dissemination of operational, strategic, and task-based information from management to front-line personnel. Grounded in the classical organizational communication taxonomies established by Penley and Hawkins (1985), this construct does not measure informal conversational banter or top-down socialization; rather, it assesses the systematic provision of functional information concerning task performance, operational goals, supervisory expectations, and immediate work priorities. Under stable conditions, such communication serves basic coordinating functions. However, under macro-environmental crisis conditions characterized by high ambiguity, restructuring, and acute existential threat, top-down communication functions as a primary uncertainty-reduction mechanism. It delineates explicitly:

• What specific duties and functional tasks are expected of the employee;
• How managerial and supervisory echelons evaluate performance under revised, constrained operating parameters;
• How daily operational tasks must be prioritized when resource cutbacks eliminate slack time.

Within the psychometric architecture of this inventory, top-down communication operates as the primary informational input and structural antecedent, furnishing workers with the operational transparency needed to coordinate their day-to-day work tasks.

2. Employee Voice

Employee Voice is conceptualized not merely as formal grievance expression or reactive dissent, but as proactive, promotive, and constructive communicative behavior directed toward operational enhancement and organizational stewardship. Drawing directly from the validated conceptualization developed by Botero and Van Dyne (2009), voice in this context reflects discretionary communication of ideas, operational suggestions, and critical concerns intended to improve work processes, solve problems, and optimize unit-level functioning. Crucially, voice is non-prescribed: it falls outside formal job descriptions and inherently involves a calculative risk, as speaking up may disrupt the status quo, challenge supervisory authority, or contest established operational norms.

The inventory measures six distinct manifestations of this constructive agency, assessing whether an individual:

• Develops and proactively presents operational recommendations to supervisors regarding task-related matters;
• Actively stimulates and encourages colleagues to become engaged in organizational and operational debates;
• Courageously articulates personal perspectives to peers even when encountering severe ideological disagreement or cognitive divergence;
• Maintains personal cognitive vigilance by seeking information on matters where their input may add tangible value;
• Demonstrates voluntary involvement in initiatives designed to improve the collective socio-emotional climate and overall quality of life within the work unit;
• Pitches novel projects, innovative ideas, and procedural redesigns directly to managerial supervisors.

In this framework, voice functions as an active behavioral bridge: individuals who perceive open, transparent supervisory communication possess the requisite contextual understanding and psychological safety to engage their voice proactively rather than retreating into organizational silence.

3. Horizontal Solidarity Behavior

Horizontal Solidarity Behavior (SB) denotes deliberate, prosocial, and cooperative actions performed by employees toward their peers within the same hierarchical tier. Derived and adapted from the foundational work of Sanders and Schyns (2006) on solidarity behavior and generalized exchange, this construct departs from generalized organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) by isolating lateral, peer-directed, cooperative mechanics during challenging operational periods. Horizontal solidarity is inherently interpersonal and reciprocal; it reflects a shared social consciousness and communal bond forged under conditions of common exposure to external adversity.

The construct captures five concrete behavioral manifestations:

• Direct instrumental assistance provided to peers to facilitate the completion of their daily tasks and backlogs;
• Spontaneous prosocial intervention and discretionary problem-solving when unexpected, non-attributable crises or systemic failures emerge within the unit;
• Interpersonal psychological accountability, manifested as an authentic willingness to apologize to co-workers when errors, delays, or lapses occur;
• Distributive task justice, characterized by an intentional effort to equitably distribute both desirable and undesirable tasks among team members;
• Contractual and social fidelity, reflected in consistently honoring interpersonal commitments, informal pacts, and mutual agreements made with co-workers.

Taken together, these three dimensions operationalize a dynamic continuum spanning managerial informational input (Top-Down Communication), individual active engagement and voice (Employee Voice), and collective mutual aid (Horizontal Solidarity Behavior).

6. Theoretical Framework

The architectural foundation of the inventory is anchored primarily in Social Exchange Theory (SET) (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Emerson, 1976), augmented by the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989) and generalized exchange models within sociology and organizational behavior.

Social Exchange Theory and the Norm of Reciprocity

At its core, Social Exchange Theory posits that organizational life is governed by a series of interdependent, contingent interactions that generate mutual obligations independent of formal, transactional employment contracts. Central to SET is Gouldner’s (1960) universal norm of reciprocity, which dictates that when one party provides a beneficial resource to another, the receiving party experiences a psychological obligation to return favorable treatment. Traditionally, SET models examine bilateral, vertical dyads: the organization provides socio-emotional support, developmental opportunities, or organizational justice, and the employee reciprocates via heightened job performance, affective commitment, and upward citizenship behaviors.

Prouska and colleagues (2023) theoretically advanced this perspective by demonstrating that social exchanges in organizational crises transcend simple vertical dyads, branching out into lateral, network-based exchanges. When supervisors provide high-quality, transparent, and frequent downward communication regarding duties, priorities, and expectations, they are not merely transmitting administrative instructions. Within a volatile, crisis-laden environment where job loss, organizational failure, and salary freezes are salient threats, informational transparency is received as a high-value socio-emotional and instrumental resource. It reduces cognitive ambiguity, demonstrates managerial respect, and preserves the psychological safety of the workforce.

The Mediating Role of Promotive Voice

In accordance with SET, employees who receive this informational resource feel obligated to reciprocate. However, under severe crisis conditions, traditional vertical avenues of reciprocity (such as seeking formal promotions, achieving standardized incentive-based metrics, or receiving merit-based pay) are often non-functional. Instead, employees reciprocate through discretionary organizational agency: they exercise employee voice. They invest their cognitive and communicative energies into formulating suggestions, identifying operational bottlenecks, facilitating unit-level problem-solving, and challenging existing protocols to preserve organizational survival.

Furthermore, this exercise of voice acts as a psychological and social catalyst. In high-voice climates where employees openly converse, debate solutions, and address work unit quality of life, the barrier between individual cognitive effort and collaborative action dissolves. Voice shifts the climate from passive compliance to active stewardship, cultivating an environment characterized by generalized reciprocity.

Generalized Exchange and Lateral Solidarity

To explain the progression from individual voice to horizontal solidarity behavior, the framework integrates Bearman’s (1997) and Sanders and Schyns’ (2006) sociological theories of generalized exchange. Unlike restricted direct exchange (where Actor A provides a resource directly to Actor B with the explicit expectation that Actor B will directly reciprocate to Actor A), generalized exchange operates across an entire collective system: Actor A assists Actor B, Actor B assists Actor C, and the return benefit is mediated by the collective social fabric of the group.

When employees observe their colleagues actively speaking up, taking calculated interpersonal risks to improve the work unit, and investing effort in collective problem-solving, a powerful prosocial signaling effect occurs. The mutual perception of shared investment under conditions of shared crisis creates a collective “in-the-same-boat” psychological identification. Consequently, reciprocal obligations extend beyond the supervisor-subordinate relationship and diffuse laterally into peer relationships. Employees repay the psychological and informational benefits of a high-voice, transparent environment by demonstrating direct solidarity toward their peers: sharing arduous tasks, assisting overloaded colleagues, maintaining absolute fidelity to informal agreements, and absorbing operational shocks collectively.

Conservation of Resources Theory Integration

The model also draws upon Hobfoll’s (1989) Conservation of Resources (COR) theory. Macro-crises represent sustained threats of resource depletion (financial loss, status erosion, cognitive exhaustion). Downward communication acts as a primary resource infusion that halts cognitive depletion. Employee voice represents the proactive reinvestment of resources to protect the work unit from collective failure. Finally, horizontal solidarity behaviors constitute resource-pooling strategies, where employees combine their emotional, temporal, and physical capabilities to build a defensive buffer against external crisis pressures, enabling both individual well-being and collective organizational endurance.

7. Validity

The construct, convergent, and discriminant validities of the Employee Voice, Communication, and Horizontal Solidarity Behavior in a Crisis Context-Model Inventory were evaluated through a structural equation modeling (SEM) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) methodology applied across two separate corporate samples in Greece during a prolonged macroeconomic crisis.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity was established by comparing the hypothesized three-factor measurement model against competing theoretical models. The primary measurement model specified Top-Down Communication (3 items), Employee Voice (6 items), and Horizontal Solidarity Behavior (5 items) as three distinct, inter-correlated latent factors. To rigorously verify whether these constructs should be modeled independently, the authors subjected the data to nested model comparisons across two distinct empirical samples:

• Hypothesized Three-Factor Model: Specified all three constructs as independent latent variables. Across both cohorts, this configuration achieved satisfactory fit indices that complied with established psychometric standards (χ²/df ≤ 2.5 to 3.0, CFI > 0.90, RMSEA ≤ 0.08, SRMR ≤ 0.06).
• Alternative Two-Factor Model: Merged Top-Down Employee Communication and Employee Voice into a single communicative construct, while maintaining Horizontal Solidarity Behavior as a separate latent factor. This model demonstrated a statistically significant deterioration in fit compared to the three-factor model across all metrics, confirming that managerial information dissemination and discretionary employee voice represent distinct psychological dynamics.
• Alternative One-Factor Model (Harman’s Single-Factor Test): Forced all 14 indicators onto a solitary latent factor to evaluate the potential presence of common method variance (CMV) and common method bias (CMB). Across both samples, the one-factor model exhibited poor fit and elevated Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) values, confirming that common method bias did not account for the observed variance and that the 14 items measure three separate constructs.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity Evidence

Convergent validity was substantiated through confirmatory factor analytic item loadings. All 14 observed indicators loaded significantly (p < 0.001) onto their assigned latent constructs. Standardized factor loadings across dimensions were robust and uniform, confirming that the individual survey items adequately reflect their respective theoretical constructs.

Discriminant validity was established through factor inter-correlation analysis and model comparison tests. The correlation coefficients among Top-Down Communication, Employee Voice, and Horizontal Solidarity were moderate, ranging within expected theoretical bounds (typically r = 0.30 to 0.55), confirming that while these phenomena share common ground within a social exchange framework, they do not suffer from multi-collinearity or conceptual overlap. The superiority of the three-factor model over the two-factor collapsed model in chi-square difference testing (Δχ², p < 0.001) provided empirical support for discriminant validity, verifying that peer-directed solidarity cannot be reduced to voice, nor can downward communication be conflated with upward promotive suggestions.

Criterion and Predictive Validity

Predictive and criterion-related validity were established via structural path analyses within the original study. As theoretically postulated, Top-Down Communication accounted for significant variance in Employee Voice, which in turn predicted Horizontal Solidarity Behavior. Furthermore, mediation tests revealed that Employee Voice functions as a conduit through which managerial communication impacts peer-to-peer solidarity, confirming the instrument’s capacity to test process models within industrial-organizational psychology.

8. Reliability

The internal consistency reliability of the inventory was assessed across two distinct, non-overlapping employee samples working in small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) operating in Greece under ongoing economic stress.

Internal Consistency Reliability Statistics

Reliability was estimated utilizing Cronbach’s alpha (α) coefficients for each of the three subscales across both validation samples. In empirical organizational behavior research, an alpha value of 0.70 is widely accepted as the threshold for acceptable reliability, whereas values exceeding 0.80 indicate strong internal consistency.

• Top-Down Employee Communication Subscale (3 items): Demonstrated high internal consistency across both cohorts, comfortably exceeding the standard benchmark with values well above α = 0.75 in both Sample 1 and Sample 2. The high coherence among the three items indicates that they capture the underlying dimension of task and performance informational clarity without introducing item redundancy.
• Employee Voice Subscale (6 items): Exhibited high reliability across both samples (α > 0.75), aligning with the reliability coefficients historically established for Botero and Van Dyne’s (2009) voice scale in international contexts. The scale reliably captures an individual’s constructive voice efforts without internal item contradictions.
• Horizontal Solidarity Behavior Subscale (5 items): Yielded alpha coefficients surpassing the α = 0.75 criterion in both validation cohorts, corroborating Sanders and Schyns’ (2006) foundational reliability profiles. The items demonstrate that various operational manifestations of peer support (interpersonal assistance, apologizing for errors, task sharing, and keeping promises) cohere into a consistent behavioral construct.

Measurement Stability Across Independent Cohorts

A critical psychometric strength of this inventory is the cross-sample replication of its reliability estimates. The study did not rely on a single, isolated cohort; rather, the data collection sampled two independent organizational pools. The stability of Cronbach’s alpha values across both cohorts confirms that the internal consistency of the 14-item instrument is not an artifact of sample-specific characteristics, but reflects stable measurement properties across workplace environments under macroeconomic crisis conditions.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural properties and dimensionality of the inventory were investigated using rigorous Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) within a Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) framework. The analysis evaluated the hypothesized three-factor configuration, verifying whether the empirical covariance matrices aligned with the specified latent model.

Sample Characteristics and Estimation Procedure

Data were obtained from employees across diverse small- and medium-sized enterprises in Greece. Parameter estimation was conducted using maximum likelihood (ML) techniques. The measurement model was parameterized with 14 observed indicators loading onto 3 latent factors, generating 74 degrees of freedom (df = 74).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis Fit Statistics

The goodness-of-fit of the hypothesized three-factor measurement model was evaluated across multiple criteria, including the Model Chi-Square (χ²), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), and the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). Across both independent cohorts, the model converged with acceptable-to-good fit parameters:

• Sample 1 Validation Cohort:
  • Chi-Square Statistic: χ² [74] = 152.034 (p < 0.001)
  • Normed Chi-Square (χ²/df): 2.054 (well below the conservative 3.0 threshold, indicating good parsimonious fit)
  • Comparative Fit Index (CFI): 0.929 (exceeding the standard 0.90 cutoff)
  • Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): 0.078 (90% CI conforming to acceptable structural approximation, ≤ 0.08)
  • Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): 0.052 (well within the favorable ≤ 0.08 benchmark)
  • Akaike Information Criterion (AIC): 6,643.411
• Sample 2 Validation Cohort:
  • Chi-Square Statistic: χ² [74] = 218.623 (p < 0.001)
  • Normed Chi-Square (χ²/df): 2.954 (satisfying the ≤ 3.0 standard)
  • Comparative Fit Index (CFI): 0.917 (exceeding the 0.90 threshold)
  • Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): 0.076 (below the 0.08 cutoff)
  • Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): 0.049 (indicating low residual covariance)
  • Akaike Information Criterion (AIC): 13,552.780

Comparative Model Testing

To establish that the three-factor model provided the optimal structural representation of the data, Prouska et al. (2023) conducted statistical model comparisons against two competing nested architectures:

1. Two-Factor Model: Top-Down Communication items and Employee Voice items were collapsed into a single broad communicative latent variable, contrasted with Horizontal Solidarity Behavior. In both Sample 1 and Sample 2, the two-factor model exhibited significantly poorer fit, marked by sharp decreases in CFI, increases in RMSEA and SRMR, and substantially elevated AIC values, showing that downward supervisory communication and proactive employee voice do not represent a unitary communicative factor.
2. One-Factor Harman’s Model: All 14 items were constrained to load onto a single general factor. Across both samples, this model yielded poor fit indices (CFI dropping substantially below acceptable thresholds, RMSEA increasing above 0.12, and massive increases in χ² and AIC).

These formal nested chi-square difference tests confirmed that the hypothesized three-factor model was parsimonious and psychometrically superior, demonstrating that the three latent constructs maintain clear structural independence.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Employee Voice, Communication, and Horizontal Solidarity Behavior in a Crisis Context-Model Inventory is an objective, multi-scale survey questionnaire designed for organizational assessment. It comprises 14 standardized items categorized into three subscales, utilizing two distinct response metrics to capture behavioral frequencies and psychological attitudes accurately.

Test Overview and Structural Characteristics

• Test Type: Standardized self-report inventory / psychometric questionnaire.
• Target Population: Adult working populations, employees, supervisors, and front-line staff across public, private, and non-profit sectors, with specific calibration for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) navigating crisis or high-stress environments.
• Total Item Count: 14 items divided across 3 subscales:
  • Top-Down Employee Communication: 3 items.
  • Employee Voice: 6 items.
  • Horizontal Solidarity Behavior: 5 items.
• Item Formats and Rating Scales:
  • Top-Down Employee Communication Subscale: Rated on a 5-point Likert-type intensity/frequency scale ranging from 1 (“Not at all”) to 5 (“Very much”).
  • Employee Voice Subscale: Rated on a 7-point Likert agreement scale ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 7 (“Strongly Agree”).
  • Horizontal Solidarity Behavior Subscale: Rated on a 7-point behavioral frequency scale ranging from 1 (“Never”) to 7 (“Every day”).
• Administration Time: Approximately 5 to 8 minutes for total completion.
• Scoring Protocols:
  • All items are phrased positively; there are no reverse-coded items within the 14-item battery.
  • Subscale Scores: Calculated by computing the unweighted arithmetic mean (or sum) of the items assigned to each respective dimension. Retaining mean scores (ranging 1.00–5.00 for Communication, 1.00–7.00 for Voice, and 1.00–7.00 for Solidarity) is recommended to allow direct comparative interpretation across dimensions.
  • Global Composites: Because the subscales utilize disparate response metrics (5-point vs. 7-point), calculating an aggregate overall score across all 14 items without prior standardization (e.g., z-score transformation or conversion to a common 0–100 percentage metric) is psychometrically discouraged. Researchers should maintain the three subscale scores as distinct indicators in path models and structural equation modeling.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Test Publication Year: 2023.
• Original Journal Publication: British Journal of Management, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp. 91–110.
• Copyright & Licensing: The instrument was published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Under this open-access framework, users are permitted to copy, distribute, display, perform, and adapt the work, provided that appropriate credit is cited to the original authors (Prouska, Nyfoudi, Psychogios, Szamosi, & Wilkinson) and the primary publication source is formally referenced.
• Fee: Free. No financial payment, royalty, or commercial licensing fee is required for non-commercial research, academic inquiry, or educational training applications.
• Commercial Applications: While the CC BY 4.0 license permits broad usage, organizational consultants and commercial practitioners must ensure proper academic attribution to the authors and acknowledge that the psychometric validation norms were established within academic research settings.

12. References

The development, adaptation, and psychometric validation of the inventory draw upon the following scholarly literature:

• Bearman, P. S. (1997). Generalized exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 102(5), 1383–1415. https://doi.org/10.1086/231087
• Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley & Sons.
• Botero, I. C., & Van Dyne, L. (2009). Employee voice behavior: Interactive effects of LMX and power distance in the United States and Colombia. Management Communication Quarterly, 23(1), 84–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318909335415
• Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602
• Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2(1), 335–362. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.02.080176.002003
• Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623
• Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
• Penley, L. E., & Hawkins, B. L. (1985). Studying interpersonal communication in organizations: A leadership application. Academy of Management Journal, 28(2), 309–326. https://doi.org/10.2307/256203
• Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
• Prouska, R., Nyfoudi, M., Psychogios, A., Szamosi, L. T., & Wilkinson, A. (2023). Solidarity in action at a time of crisis: The role of employee voice in relation to communication and horizontal solidarity behaviour. British Journal of Management, 34(1), 91–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12598
• Sanders, K., & Schyns, B. (2006). Trust, homogeneity and solidarity: A study in two European countries. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(6), 1121–1135. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190600697461

13. Items of the Scale