Document1

EMPLOYEE VOICE AND JOB

SATISFACTION IN AUSTRALIA:

THE CENTRALITY OF DIRECT

VOICE

P E T E R H O L L A N D , A M A N D A P Y M A N , B R I A N K . C O O P E R , A N D J U L I A N T E I C H E R

This study examines the relationship between employee voice and job satis-faction using data from the 2007 Australian Workplace Representation Survey (AWRPS) of 1,022 employees. Drawing on human resource management and industrial relations literature, we test hypotheses concerning the relationship between direct and union voice arrangements and job satisfaction. This rela-tionship represents a gap in the literature, which is important from both theo-retical and practical perspectives. Controlling for a range of personal, job, and workplace characteristics, regression analyses suggest that although evidence of voice complementarity exists, direct voice appears to be the central voice arrangement underpinning employees’ job satisfaction. The article concludes by highlighting the study’s implications for management practice and identifi es avenues for further research. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Keywords: job involvement, communication, unions, employee participa-tion, employee relations, organizational effectiveness and satisfaction, em-ployee voice

Introduction

This study extends research on em-ployee voice and job satisfaction by examining the relationship between these two variables. While both em-ployee voice and job satisfaction

have been the subject of considerable re-search, the potential link between voice ar-rangements and job satisfaction has largely been neglected (Cox, Zagelmeyer, & March-ington, 2006; Oshagbemi, 1999; Spector,

1997; Wright, 2006). Neglecting a potential relationship between these two variables is surprising for three reasons. First, employee voice has been shown to be positively related to other work behaviors, attitudes, job out-comes, and organizational performance (Cox et al., 2006; Jones, Jones, Latreille, & Sloane, 2009; Wood & Wall 2007). Second, the effect of employee involvement on job satisfaction is well established from the contemporary psychology literature. This has led to the

Correspondence to: Amanda Pyman, senior lecturer, HRM and Employment Relations, Department of Management, Monash University, Caulfield, Victoria, Australia, Phone: + 61 3 9903 2036, Fax: + 61 3 9903 2718, E-mail: [email protected].

Human Resource Management,Human Resource Management, January–February 2011, Vol. 50, No. 1, Pp. 95 – 111

© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).

DOI: 10.1002/hrm.20406

96 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2011

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

advocacy of “job enrichment” initiatives, and, more recently, a call for employee in-volvement practices to promote organiza-

tional commitment and perfor-mance (Green & Tsitsianis, 2005, p. 412). Third, job satisfaction is known to be a significant attitudi-nal variable associated with em-ployee commitment and both job and organizational performance. For example, reviews of interna-tional research reveal considerable meta-analytic evidence (e.g., Har-ter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002) that job satisfaction reliably predicts a range of organizational-level outcomes, including customer satisfaction, productivity, em-ployee turnover and absenteeism, service quality, and financial per-formance (e.g., Fulmer, Gerhant, & Scott, 2003; Hammer & Avgar, 2007; Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006; Jones et al., 2009; Saari & Judge, 2004; Wang & Lee, 2009).

In this study, we focus on the relationship between employee voice arrangements and job satis-faction for two additional reasons. First, the contours of employee voice in advanced market econo-mies have changed significantly, with a relentless decline in repre-sentative, participatory structures through trade unions (Charlwood & Terry, 2007), and an increase in alternative representative and par-ticipatory arrangements, including non-union employee representa-tion and direct two-way communication (direct voice; e.g., Charlwood & Terry, 2007; Holland, Pyman, Cooper, & Teicher, 2009). Australia is no exception in this regard, as the results presented in this paper demonstrate. Second, job satisfaction is of particular in-terest in view of systematic and significant workplace changes in the late 20th and early 21st centu-ries, which have likely altered the

balance between work-role inputs and work-role outputs, both with attendant impacts on job satisfaction (Sousa-Poza & Sousa-Poza, 2000). Important changes to work-role inputs and work-role outputs include: changing lev-els of task discretion and employee involve-ment; increased job-risk; the increased skills of jobs and workers; and widespread evidence of work intensification, increased stress, and de-teriorating work-life balance (Green, 2006; Green & Tsitsianis, 2005; Sousa-Poza & Sousa-Poza, 2000).

In this article, we investigate two main questions. The first question relates to the relationship between discrete employee voice arrangements and job satisfaction: To what extent do employee voice arrange-ments affect job satisfaction? The second question relates to complementarity: Do employees with multiple voice arrangements in their workplace have higher job satisfac-tion? Based on Cox et al. (2006), we define complementarity as the co-existence and reinforcement of employee voice arrange-ments; that is, dual-channel employee voice arrangements that depend on one another for successful operation. The present study contributes to the literature by examining empirically how employee voice regimes are linked with job satisfaction using cross-sec-tional data from a large, representative sam-ple of Australian employees. The paper also makes important contributions to both the-ory and practice. First, it contributes to the-ory because employee voice arrangements and job satisfaction are both pivotal to indi-vidual and organizational performance. Likewise, it contributes to practice because employer agency and human resource man-agement strategy play a key role in formulat-ing, implementing, and operating employee voice arrangements and their subsequent impact on job satisfaction.

Employee Voice and Job Satisfaction

As Danford, Durbin, Richardson, Tailby, and Stewart (2009) note, the concepts of worker participation and employee voice remain highly imprecise, too often underpinned by the nebulous idea of “participation in

The paper also

makes important

contributions to both

theory and practice.

First, it contributes

to theory because

employee voice

arrangements and

job satisfaction

are both pivotal

to individual and

organizational

performance.

Likewise, it

contributes to

practice because

employer agency

and human resource

management

strategy play a key

role in formulating,

implementing, and

operating employee

voice arrangements

and their

subsequent impact

on job satisfaction.

EMPLOYEE VOICE AND JOB SATISFACTION IN AUSTRALIA 97


management decision making” (p. 338). Aca-demics have given considerable scrutiny to the principles and practice of employee par-ticipation in recent years, with much of this research seeking to establish or refute pro-posed links between participation processes and better organizational governance and performance (Danford et al., 2009, p. 337). Within the human resource management (HRM) literature, researchers have increas-ingly advocated employee voice as a means to engender employee commitment and en-hance organizational performance and com-petitiveness (e.g., Boxall, Purcell, & Wright, 2007; Wood & Wall, 2007). In this way, it parallels the trajectory of the employee par-ticipation literature in the 1970s and 1980s, with employers advocating the contribution of participation to performance in response to union rights based on advocacy for indus-trial democracy (Vaughan, 1986, pp. 33–37).

Employee voice originated in due process, employee rights, and justice in the employ-ment relationship (McCabe & Lewin, 1992) and is inextricably linked to the purposes of unions (Freeman & Medoff, 1984). As March-ington (2007) argued:

Voice is probably the area in HRM where tensions between the organisa-tion and workers’ goals and between shareholders’ and stakeholders’ views are the most apparent, because it con-nects with the question of managerial prerogatives and social legitimacy. (p. 142)

Voice arrangements can be direct or rep-resentative and can be delivered in several ways: via a union, through management ini-tiatives, or as part of a dual channel where management-led voice and union representa-tion are both present (Bryson, Gomez, Kretschmer, & Willman, 2007, p. 395). The degree of influence or power attached to each voice arrangement varies significantly (Cox et al., 2006). In practice, it has been observed that the decline in collective voice in Austra-lia and other Anglo-American countries has been accompanied by the diffusion of direct voice, with priority being placed on voice as

a means to enhance productivity and em-ployee commitment to the organization (Boxall et al., 2007; Wood & Wall, 2007).

Understanding Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction has been developed more extensively—both theoretically and empiri-cally— than employee voice within the liter-atures of sociology, industrial psychology, and organizational behaviour (e.g., Hoste, Sevatos, & Cooper, 2006; Oshagbemi, 1999; Spence Laschinger, Finegan, & Shamian, 2001; Wright, 2006). At its sim-plest level, job satisfaction is an attitudinal variable that describes the extent to which people like or dislike their work (Saari & Judge, 2004; Spector, 1997). Lok and Crawford (2001) extended this argument, suggesting that job satisfaction is a person’s perception or appraisal of the degree of fit between that individual and the organi-zation. This is consistent with Locke’s (1976, p. 1299) classic definition of job satisfaction as a pleasurable or positive emotional state, resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experience. Implicit in this definition of job satisfaction as an employee attitude is the importance and interdependence of both af-fect (feeling) and cognition (thinking) (Locke, 1976; Saari & Judge, 2004).

Empirical research has shown that orga-nizational variables are more strongly related to job satisfaction than are personal attri-butes (Blegen, 1993). Several researchers have identified significant relationships between individual empowerment (as an organiza-tional practice) and job satisfaction; therefore, information sharing and autonomy are central HRM practices underpinning empow-erment (e.g., Seibert, Silver & Randolph, 2004; Spence Laschinger et al., 2001; Ugboro & Obeng, 2000; Wang & Lee, 2009). Workers’ who enjoy more autonomy have been found to have a greater preference for participation (Gardell, 1977), but the two concepts (au-tonomy and voice/participation) are concep-tually different (Wood & Wall, 2007). Draw-ing on prior theory and research, therefore,

Voice arrangements

can be direct or

representative and

can be delivered in

several ways.



we examine the relationship between employee voice arrangements as an organiza-tional variable and job satisfaction.

Recognizing that employee voice may have a positive impact on various dimensions of organizational per-formance has led to a wider conceptualization of voice that extends beyond union activity. In the absence of statutory regulation (e.g., laws relating to European Works Councils and In-formation and Consultation and co-determination in Germany), employers can choose from a vari-ety of employee voice arrange-ments (Willman, Bryson, & Gomez, 2006). Both internal and external influences to the firm, therefore, shape employers’ choices of voice arrangements. Brewster, Croucher, Wood, and Brookes (2007, p. 1251) argued that the changing contours of the external environment, including national governments’ moves toward labor-market dereg-ulation, increased competition, the global decline of organized labor, and the spread of neo-liberal ide-ologies have provided a favorable environment for the spreading of HRM. This has led to gradually supplanting collective voice arrangements with individual arrangements geared toward

enhancing productivity rather than workplace democracy. Management has used this oppor-tunity to develop a new style of HRM that features high commitment, high involvement management, or high performance work systems in which direct communication and employee involvement in productivity or qual-ity enhancing innovations play a central role (Cox et al., 2006). Involvement or voice is seen as a means to secure workers’ consent to ex-pend discretionary effort (Edwards, 2003). This discretion can be harnessed in three ways: (1) through providing for employee participation in substantive “shopfloor” decisions; (2) pro-viding the necessary skills to make employees’ efforts meaningful; and (3) ensuring that

employees have the appropriate motivation (Applebaum, Bailey, Berg, & Kalleberg, 2000 as cited in Wood & Wall, 2007, p. 1340).

Consistent with these developments, the human relations school of thought has linked employee voice to efficiency arguments, which present employee involvement largely as the motivational effects of enhancing em-ployees’ perceptions of the firm as a commu-nity (Brewster et al., 2007). These themes have been echoed in subsequent HRM litera-ture, in which direct employee voice arrangements—defined here as two-way communication channels between employ-ees and management—have been linked to empowerment. In this context, information sharing, task discretion, and autonomy are key practices that underpin empowerment and are positively related to job satisfaction (e.g., Ackers, Marchington, Wilkinson, & Dundon, 2005; Green & Tsitsianis, 2005).

From a theoretical viewpoint, the HRM literature has argued that the employer, in ex-change for granting employees’ direct voice, can more effectively engage employees by fa-cilitating communication between manage-ment and workers in the absence of a “distant” intermediary (Bryson, 2004). It has been fur-ther argued that treating employees as indi-viduals rather than as a collective may mean managers can better understand employees and respond to their diverse needs and inter-ests (Bryson, 2004). Direct voice can therefore elicit positive benefits for the firm by promot-ing or instilling organizational values and corporate culture that facilitate employee mo-tivation and commitment (Flood & Toner, 1997, as cited in Verma, 2005) and potentially enhance satisfaction, quality, loyalty, produc-tivity, and organizational performance. These benefits may accrue to the firm through in-creased information flows to and from man-agement, which promote better solutions to problems and lower quit rates (Willman et al., 2006). Empirical support exists for these argu-ments; for example, Bryson (2004) found that direct voice was more effective in eliciting (per-ceived) managerial responsiveness than repre-sentative voice. Based on the theoretical argu-ments and prior research, therefore, we expect a positive relationship between direct employee

Direct voice

can therefore

elicit positive

benefits for the

firm by promoting

or instilling

organizational

values and

corporate culture

that facilitate

employee motivation

and commitment and

potentially enhance

satisfaction, quality,

loyalty, productivity,

and organizational

performance.



voice and job satisfaction, and present our first hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Direct voice will be positively as-sociated with job satisfaction.

Union Voice and Job Satisfaction

Despite the assumed benefits of direct em-ployee voice in the HRM literature, the industrial relations literature has argued that for voice to be effective in influencing management behavior it must be a union voice (Freeman & Medoff, 1984). The assumption is that trade unions, as a “third party” or external voice, are best placed to jointly regulate the employment relation-ship, to deliver organizational justice, and to provide a balance between equity and efficiency. These effects are supposed to occur because unions are “independent” representatives of employee interests and are accountable democratically to their members (Brewster et al., 2007; Charlwood & Terry, 2007; Tailby, Richardson, Upchurch, Danford, & Stewart, 2007; Wood & Fenton-O’Creevy, 2005). Because of the inherent character of unions, they have collective resources and sanctions for non-compli-ance, making them less susceptible to man-agerial influence and control (Tailby et al., 2007; Wilkinson, Dundon, Marchington, & Ackers, 2004). Relatedly, union voice allows employees greater freedom to raise concerns without fear of being victimized; as a means to ensure fair treatment from management (Verma, 2005). Freeman and Medoff (1984) also recognized this strength of union voice, arguing that unions have a positive effect on organizational performance by reducing grievances, which in turn promotes em-ployee satisfaction and reduces labor turn-over and absenteeism. Importantly, union voice may also provide an avenue through which workers can suggest improvements to working practices, such as training and health and safety, and may provide greater job security. Such factors enhance employee discretionary effort (Freeman & Medoff, 1984; Kroumova & Lazarova, 2009). Em-pirics showing that union settings positively

influence the number of voice arrangements available and the number of employees in-volved in participation programs also pro-vide a strong case for the efficacy of union voice (e.g., Benson, 2000; Goll, 1991; Verma, 2005). The presence of a union, however, does not guarantee bargaining; thus, a union cannot ensure that workers have the oppor-tunity to voice their concerns (Verma, 2005; Wood & Wall, 2007).

Empirical research has examined the relationship between union voice and job satisfaction with mixed results, partly because different researchers have used dif-ferent proxies for union voice (e.g., pres-ence, membership) and job satisfaction. For example, Renaud (2002) found that union membership had a negative relationship with job satisfaction. Several theoretical arguments have been advanced to explain the negative relationship between unions and job satisfaction. First, employees with lower job satisfaction are more likely to join a union to try to improve their employment terms and conditions (Charlwood, 2002; Freeman & Medoff, 1984). Second and related, unionized workers are more likely to be dissatisfied than their non-union counterparts. This is because for unions, giving workers a voice in workplace matters is a primary goal. Unions thus raise aware-ness of management inadequacies and man-agement failure, which can adversely affect job satisfaction (Gallie, White, Cheng & Tomlinson, 1998; Garcia-Serrano, 2009; Guest & Conway, 1999; Verma, 2005).

A third argument is that unionized jobs tend to be inherently less pleasant than non-union jobs; thus, workers become primed to look for improvements (Garcia-Serrano, 2009; Hammer & Avgar, 2007). While this proposi-tion is debatable with the rise of unorganized, low-skilled work in Anglo-American countries, it is important that any empirical investiga-tion of the impact of unions on job satisfac-tion includes measures for working conditions and job attributes such as employee autonomy in the workplace. This leads to a fourth argu-ment that Bryson (2004) and others (e.g., Bryson & McKay, 1997) have advanced: that unions increase the number of dissatisfied



employees by encouraging them to express a voice rather than quitting, because this is less costly than leaving the organization. This ex-pression of voice may then lead to a poorer industrial relations climate and adversely af-fect job satisfaction. Garcia-Serrano (2009) ar-gued, however, that this dissatisfaction is not genuine; that there is a distinction between true and voiced dissatisfaction and voiced dis-satisfaction is a device unions use to demand more in bargaining. By implication, Guest and Conway (2004) and Kochan (1979) argued that unions must sustain expectations of fu-ture benefits to retain members, because dis-satisfaction in itself will not necessarily per-suade employees to join unions. Employees also need to believe that unionization will re-duce their level of dissatisfaction.

A final argument is that unions, by their nature, protect jobs by restricting job classifi-cations and maintaining demarcations. These stringencies reduce autonomy and challenge, which are key determinants of job satisfaction (Hammer & Avgar, 2007). As Bryson, Cappel-lari, and Lucifora (2004) noted, however, the role of a union is to increase job satisfaction. Thus, findings that identify a negative rela-tionship may be linked to spurious correla-tions. For example, people predisposed to joining unions may have higher expectations at the outset, or sorting—the notion that job dissatisfaction, generated by the heterogeneity of jobs or individuals—causes unionization (Bryson, Cappellari, & Lucifora 2004; Garcia-Serrano, 2009). Despite inconsistent empirical findings regarding the impact of union voice on job satisfaction, on the basis of the theo-retical propositions discussed we propose our second hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Union voice will be negatively associated with job satisfaction.

Voice Complementarity and Job SatisfactionAt a practical level, given the changing con-tours of employee voice in advanced market economies, including Australia, and docu-mented trends of the increased use of multi-ple (“dual-channel”) voice arrangements,1 it

is clear that employers have a choice regard-ing the employee voice arrangements they adopt. As Willman et al. (2006) explained, this can be thought of as an employer deci-sion regarding workplace governance under conditions of uncertainty and risk. As Hyman (2004) argued, however, the relative efficacy and sustainability of voice arrangements is tied closely to other systemic social and eco-nomic features, including the national busi-ness system. Recognizing both employer agency and the influence of national busi-ness systems on governance within and be-yond the firm has led to an argument that mutually reinforcing voice arrangements may coexist, optimizing employee wages and working conditions, productivity, and orga-nizational performance (Brewster et al., 2007). Cox et al. (2006) referred to this as the breadth of participatory practices, assuming that combinations of direct and indirect voice arrangements can generate positive synergies that enable workers and their repre-sentatives to assemble information and en-gage more confidently with management. Importantly, employers’ constrained choices in adopting certain configurations of partici-patory arrangements are connected with the presence of employee voice in the workplace, though these relationships have not been precisely determined.

The notion that employee voice arrange-ments are complementary challenges earlier theoretical arguments of “union substitution,” which assumed that firms used substitution tactics to make union organization unviable or undesirable for employees (Fiorito, 2001; Kochan, 1980). Indeed, at the core of the mu-tual gains model is the idea that unions can exist alongside other institutions, and through these institutions and their own enhanced involvement in strategic and production deci-sions, employee voice will increase (Bryson, 2004; Kochan & Osterman 1994; Bryson 2004). Even without a significant extension in the union role, employees will gain by having a direct voice in areas traditionally outside the union’s remit (Cox et al., 2006, ). In addition, mutual gains organizations2 are deemed to provide the best results for employers and em-ployees when combined in bundles: a coher-



ent, complementary, and mutually reinforcing combination of HRM practices, including em-ployee involvement (Kauhanen, 2009). Con-sistent with this notion, it is argued that the simultaneous multiple voice arrangements are strengthened by one another and better reflect the heterogeneous qualities of a modern work-force across a diverse spectrum of workplace issues (Bryson, 2004; Storey 1992). Further, they provide the potential for employees to be involved in different ways and for cross-fertil-izing ideas. This, therefore, generates employee autonomy and power-sharing between man-agement and unions (Bryson, 2004; Bryson et al., 2007; Cox et al., 2006; Pfeffer, 1994). The net result is that the employees’ discre-tionary effort translates into higher productiv-ity (Kauhanen, 2009). Considering all of these factors together, employee job satisfaction is expected to be greater.

An increasing number of empirical studies have addressed the question of voice comple-mentarity. As Cox et al. (2006) noted, while some conflicting evidence exists on the impact of employee voice arrangements operating sin-gly and in combination, on balance, research has found that combinations of voice arrange-ments appear to have a stronger positive im-pact than negative impact. For example, Bryson (2004) found that the most effective voice ar-rangements combined direct and non-union representative participation. Similarly, Charl-wood and Terry’s (2007) analysis of the 2004 United Kingdom Workplace Employment Re-lations Survey (WERS) data revealed that com-plementary voice arrangements were most effective for employers and employees in rela-tion to wage dispersion, organizational justice, and productivity. In Australia, multiple voice arrangements were also found to be most effec-tive for employees themselves, as measured by perceived managerial responsiveness to employee needs, job control, and influence over job rewards (Pyman, Cooper, Teicher, & Holland, 2006). Similarly, in the European car components industry, Sako (1998) found that a combination of direct and consultative par-ticipation was more effective in improving quality and the contribution of employees’ ideas; although the extent of union involve-ment in joint consultative committees was not

considered. In this vein, evidence suggests that union support of joint consultation is associ-ated with better outcomes for employers and employees (Eaton & Voos, 1992). Unions are assumed to have a posi-tive impact on the effectiveness of participation programs because they provide greater job security, protect employees against arbitrary managerial decisions (Strauss, 1998), and increase opportunities for collectively engaging with man-agement. Empirical evidence indi-cating that union and direct voice arrangements coexist in the majority of unionized workplaces also supports the notion of the complementary of voice (e.g., Bryson, 2004). On the basis of the theoretical propositions and em-pirical research discussed, we pro-pose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: A complementary interaction will be observed be-tween union and direct voice, such that job satisfaction will be higher where both voice arrangements are present.

Method

Sample and ProcedureThe data reported in this study were drawn from responses to the 2007 Aus-tralian Workplace Representation Survey (AWRPS), a representative, national survey that investigated workers’ responses and at-titudes to workplace participation, represen-tation, and influence. The survey instrument was based on the 1994–1995 Worker Repre-sentation and Participation Survey conducted in the United States (Freeman & Rogers, 1999), the 2001 British Worker Representa-tion and Participation Survey (Diamond & Freeman, 2002), the 2003 New Zealand Worker Representation and Participation Sur-vey (Haynes, Boxall & Macky, 2003), and a previous 2004 AWRPS (see Teicher, Holland, Pyman, & Cooper 2007). Questions from other country surveys were adapted to con-

The data reported

in this study

were drawn from

responses to the

2007 Australian

Workplace

Representation

Survey (AWRPS),

a representative,

national survey

that investigated

workers’ responses

and attitudes

to workplace

participation,

representation, and

influence.



form to the institutional and demographic contexts in Australia and questions from the original AWRPS (2004) were revised and up-dated.

A total of 1,022 employees sampled ran-domly from residential telephone directories were surveyed nationally. Respondents were given the option to complete the survey by telephone interview (using computer-assisted telephone interviewing [CATI]) or online (a web-based survey). Potential respondents were contacted between October and November 2007. The sample was limited to Australian residents engaged in paid employ-ment for more than 10 hours3 per week who had left secondary school. Self-employed per-sons and company owners were excluded from the survey. The sample was stratified by Australian state/territory to reflect the geo-graphical distribution of the population as reported in the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Census of Population and Housing.

Fifty percent of the respondents were fe-male and the mean age of the sample was 40.8 years (SD � 12.19). The mean number of hours worked per week was 35.65 (SD � 12.68), with 62.1% working full-time (de-fined as 35 hours or more per week). The majority of respondents (78.2%) were non-manual workers, and 68% were employed in the private sector. Just under a third of re-spondents (32.2%) reported that they worked in organizations with 500 or more employees and a quarter worked in organizations with less than 20 employees. The mean number of years employees had worked for their current employer was 6.09 with a median of 3 (SD = 7.27). Of the respondents, 18% were union members, a figure consistent with the official national estimate of 18.9% (ABS, 2008).

Measures

Job Satisfaction

Our dependent variable was based on re-sponses to the statement: “Overall, I am satis-fied with my job.” Responses were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 � strongly dis-agree to 5 � strongly agree, with a neutral midpoint. Our measure is an indicator of

global job satisfaction. Measures of global job satisfaction are commonly used in large-scale survey research in which an overall assess-ment of employee attitudes is desired (Saari & Judge, 2004; Spector, 1997). In this case, our rationale for using a single-item measure of global job satisfaction was to keep the survey instrument relatively brief to minimize both respondent load and non-response. We also note, however, that a large body of research has used single-item measures of overall job satisfaction. This research has found that such measures have excellent test-retest reli-ability and show convergent validity with multi-item measures of job satisfaction (Saari & Judge, 2004; Wanous, Reichers, & Hudy, 1997). For example, Wanous et al. (1997) demonstrated that single-item measures of overall job satisfaction converge quite strongly with multi-item measures of overall job satis-faction (r corrected for reliability � .67).

Employee Voice Arrangements

Our measures of voice were adapted from Bryson (2004). Union voice was operational-ized as collective representation and manage-rial recognition, referring to the presence of a union (of any kind) at the workplace. Forty percent of respondents reported their work-place had a union voice. Direct voice was pres-ent where one of the following two-way com-munication channels existed: (1) regular meetings between senior management and all staff (reported by 54.6% of the sample); (2) a formal employee involvement program, such as quality circles (11.5% of the sample); or (3) a semi-autonomous workgroup (14.9% of the sample). Sixty percent of respondents reported the presence of direct voice in the workplace, with 41.5% reporting the pres-ence of one direct voice channel; 14.5% re-porting the presence of two; and 3.5% report-ing the presence of all three direct voice channels. To examine whether the effect of direct voice on job satisfaction was additive, following Bryson (2004), we constructed an index measuring the number of direct voice arrangements reported as present in the workplace. This index has a potential range from 0 to 3 (M � 0.81, Mdn � 1, SD = 0.81).



Control Variables

Consistent with Bryson’s (2004) recommenda-tions, we controlled for a range of individual, job, and workplace characteristics in the re-gression analyses. Specifically, the analyses controlled for gender, age in years, occupation (manual versus non-manual), hours worked each week, organizational size (as measured by the estimated number of employees in the or-ganization), sector (private versus non-private), gross weekly wage, organizational tenure (years), and individual union membership.

Job Autonomy

We also included job autonomy as a covariate, because voice is conceptually different from job autonomy, yet overlaps with voice (see Wood & Wall, 2007). Job autonomy refers to the amount of freedom an employee has in carrying out his or her work (Humphrey, Nah-rgang, & Morgeson, 2007). As a motivating work characteristic, job autonomy has been found to be strongly correlated with job satis-faction (Humphrey et al., 2007; Saari & Judge, 2004; Spector, 1997). Employee perceptions of job autonomy could act, therefore, as a con-founding variable in the voice-job satisfaction relationship. In our survey, employees were asked to rate their level of influence and in-volvement over selected aspects of their job on a 4-point scale, ranging from 0 � none to 3 � a lot, across four items: (1) deciding when and how to do your job and organize your work; (2) setting working hours; (3) the pace of work; and, (4) deciding how to work with new equipment or software. A principal com-ponents analysis of the four items supported a single-factor, with a Cronbach’s alpha coeffi-cient of .79. The scores on the four items were averaged to form a composite measure (the possible range of scores is 0 to 3), with higher scores indicating greater perceived job auton-omy. The mean score on our measure of job autonomy was 1.73 (SD = 0.84).

Methods of Analysis

Because our dependent variable was ordinal in nature, we used ordered probit regression. To

disentangle whether the presence of direct voice and union voice has an interactive rela-tionship with job satisfaction, we conducted a moderated regression analysis. Specifically, we ran a regression model with the presence of union voice, the presence of direct voice, and a product (multiplicative) term, representing the interaction of the two dummy coded voice arrange-ments. We also examined whether the relationships between em-ployee voice and job satisfaction were contingent on the number of employees in an organization and whether the organization was pri-vate (for profit) versus non-private (public and not-for-profit/volun-tary). We tested these relationships by examining the interaction of voice arrangements with organiza-tional size and sector variables. These relationships were tested for two reasons. First, organizational size and sec-tor are known to be important determinants of employers’ choices and hence the adoption of voice arrangements (Bryson et al., 2007; Willman et al., 2006). Second, empirical re-search has shown that these contextual vari-ables also affect the viability and effectiveness of different voice arrangements (Brewster et al., 2007; Haynes, Boxall, & Macky, 2005). Finally, prior to the analysis, the data were screened for outliers and multicollinearity among the predictors. The results were ade-quate.

Results

As Table I illustrates, the majority of employ-ees (70%) were satisfied with their job, a find-ing consistent with much of the previous research on job satisfaction (e.g., Saari & Judge, 2004; Spector, 1997). Approximately 12% of respondents were dissatisfied with their job and another 16.8% were neutral. Interestingly, our reported levels of job dissat-isfaction (95% confidence limits: 10.9% to 15.1%) are higher than the 7.6% reported by Sousa-Poza and Sousa-Poza (2000) in their study of job satisfaction in 21 countries (N � 15,324).

We also included

job autonomy

as a covariate,

because voice

is conceptually

different from job

autonomy, yet

overlaps with voice.



The results of the ordered probit regres-sion analyses predicting job satisfaction are shown in Table II. Following Bryson (2004), we included managerial and professional employees in the analyses because they are likely to be managed by other senior people in an organization. The effect on results is negligible if managerial and professional employees are excluded from the analysis. Although not central to the present study, it is of interest to note that of the control

variables, job autonomy was the stron-gest predictor of job satisfaction. This is con-sistent with research that has identified a lack of reliable socio-demographic predictors of job satisfaction and confirms that job auton-omy is a strong correlate of employee atti-tudes (Spector, 1997).

Hypothesis 1 predicted that direct voice would be positively associated with job satisfaction. As shown in Table II, Model 1, the probability of an employee being satisfied

T A B L E I Distribution of Job Satisfaction

Employees’ Responses Percent

Strongly disagree 4.2

Disagree 8.2

Neither agree nor disagree 16.8

Agree 48.6

Strongly agree 21.4

No answer 0.7

Note: N = 1,022.

T A B L E I I Results of Ordered Probit Regression Predicting Job Satisfaction

Predictor Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Male –0.12 (0.11) –0.11 (0.11) –0.12 (0.11)

Age 0.01 (0.00) 0.01 (0.00) 0.01 (0.01)

Hours worked –0.01 (0.01) –0.01 (0.01) –0.01 (0.01)

Non-manual work –0.07 (0.13) –0.04 (0.13) –0.08 (0.13)

Gross weekly wage –0.01 (0.02) –0.01 (0.02) –0.01 (0.02)

Organizational tenure 0.01 (0.01) 0.01 (0.01) –0.01 (0.01)

Private sector 0.07 (0.12) 0.09 (0.12) 0.06 (0.12)

Union member 0.06 (0.15) 0.07 (0.15) 0.07 (0.15)

Organizational size 0.01 (0.01) 0.01 (0.00) 0.01 (0.01)

Job autonomy 0.66* (0.07) 0.64* (0.07) 0.66* (0.07)

Union voice 0.01 (0.13) –0.01 (0.13) –0.22 (0.18)

Direct voice 0.52* (0.10) 0.37* (0.06)

Index of direct voice 0.29* (0.06)

Union * direct 0.37 (0.20)

Nagelkerke Pseudo-R2 0.25 0.24 0.25

Note: *p < .05. Probit regression coeffi cients reported. Standard errors in parentheses.



with his or her job increased when direct voice was present in the workplace (B = 0.52, p < 0.05). Hypothesis 1, therefore, was sup-ported. There were no statistically significant interactions of organizational size or sector (private versus non-private organizations) with direct voice and job satisfaction.

As shown in Table II, Model 2, the additive direct voice index was statistically significant and positive (B = 0.29, p < 0.05), indicating that as the number of reported direct voice arrange-ments in the workplace increases, job satisfac-tion increases. This additive effect of direct voice provides further support for Hypothesis 1 and suggests employers and employees can gain benefits from investing in multiple chan-nels of direct voice arrangements.

Having established that direct voice was positively associated with job satisfaction, we examined which of the three direct voice arrangements was most influential. With all controls included in the model, regular meet-ings between management and staff (B = 0.35, p < .05) and semi-autonomous workgroups (B = 0.47, p < 0.05) were associated with higher job satisfaction. There was no statistically sig-nificant relationship between the presence of a formal employee involvement program and job satisfaction (B = 0.10, p > 0.05).

Hypothesis 2 predicted that union voice will be negatively associated with job satisfac-tion. As shown in Table II, Model 1, the regression coefficient for union voice was not statistically significant (B = 0.01, p > 0.05). We also tested whether union voice was re-lated to job satisfaction without direct voice included in the model. Again, the coefficient for union voice was not significantly different from zero (B = 0.07, p > 0.05). Hence, Hypothesis 2 was not supported. We found no statistically significant interactions of organizational size or sector with union voice and job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 3 states that complementar-ity will be observed between union and direct voice, such that job satisfaction will be higher in workplaces with complementary voice arrangements. This hypothesis implies that the sign of the interaction term will be positive. The interaction of direct voice and union voice was positive (see Table II, Model

3), but just failed to reach statistical signifi-cance at the 95% level of confidence (B = 0.37, p = .064). Given the well known diffi-culties in detecting interaction effects, even in relatively large samples (Agui-nis, 1995), we interpret this evi-dence as providing partial support for Hypothesis 3.

Discussion

This study intended to answer two questions: (1) to what extent employee voice arrangements af-fect job satisfaction and (2) whether employees with comple-mentary voice arrangements re-port higher job satisfaction. Con-sistent with our expectations, the relationship between direct voice and job satisfaction was positive (even after controlling for job au-tonomy). This finding supports the notion that such arrange-ments can induce management and employees to interact and cooperate. By breaking down barriers, employees and man-agement may be more willing to share knowl-edge and engage more effectively in joint problem solving, thereby improving organi-zational effectiveness and efficiency (Tailby et al., 2007). In addition, and consistent with the literature (Bryson, 2004; Storey, 1992), direct voice may result in managers respond-ing better to the heterogeneous needs of the workforce, thus generating higher levels of employee engagement and job satisfaction. Further analyses of the data showed that regular meetings between management and staff and the existence of semi-autonomous workgroups were positively associated with job satisfaction. In addition, additive combi-nations of direct voice arrangements were positively associated with job satisfaction, implying that having more direct voice arrangements has a greater influence on job satisfaction (cf. Bryson, 2004).

Contrary to our expectations, we found no evidence that union voice was negatively associated with job satisfaction, despite con-trolling for personal, job, and workplace

In addition, additive

combinations

of direct voice

arrangements were

positively associated

with job satisfaction,

implying that having

more direct voice

arrangements has a

greater influence on

job satisfaction.



characteristics, including job autonomy. This finding is not entirely surprising given the plethora of empirical studies that have reported inconclusive findings regarding the impact of union voice on job satisfaction. One explanation for our finding lies in mea-surement problems. Our measure of union

voice captures the presence of a union only. We did not measure union voice using other proxies such as the presence of union del-egates at the workplace, union membership and density rates, or union efficacy. These additional proxies of union voice, particu-larly the degree to which unions’ are perceived to be effective, may directly influence job satisfaction.

We found some evidence that complementary voice arrange-ments had a positive relationship with job satisfaction. This pro-vides some support for previous research that has identified the benefits of dual-channel voice, such as participating in and con-tributing to organizational deci-sion making (e.g., Bryson, 2004; Charlwood & Terry, 2007; Pyman et al., 2006; Sako, 1998). Our evi-dence for complementarity sup-ports the thesis in the HRM litera-ture—in particular the notion of

mutual gains—that unions can coexist along-side direct voice arrangements. Further re-search is needed, however, to understand the dynamics of reinforcement where comple-mentary voice arrangements co-exist; that is, how unions and management engage and establish bundles of voice arrangements that have desirable outcomes for both parties. Such an investigation should be undertaken at the organizational level using matched employer-employee data to determine whether the presence of unions makes a dif-ference to job satisfaction or whether the presence of direct voice in the workplace drives job satisfaction. This issue is an impor-tant one, particularly in view of the ongoing debates about the impact of unions on man-agerial practices and HRM policies (see

Verma, 2005). This study’s results also rein-force the importance of further analysing the relationship between employee voice ar-rangements and job satisfaction given that this relationship has been largely neglected in the literature. Our results reveal that this relationship is important because only some types of voice arrangements appear to influ-ence job satisfaction.

Implications for Practitioners

Our findings have several implications for HR practitioners given that employee voice and job satisfaction in the workplace are both fun-damental to the employment relationship. Our results indicate that direct employee voice was positively related to job satisfaction. This highlights the important role of the human resource manager, who is potentially the focal point for establishing and implementing direct voice in the workplace and disseminating this among not only the managerial ranks, but em-ployees at lower levels.

Although employee voice arrangements can be costly and time consuming to develop and implement, our results show that direct voice has tangible intrinsic benefits and is therefore worthy of investment. Intrinsic ben-efits include enhanced employee job satisfac-tion through increased involvement and par-ticipation in the workplace. These intrinsic benefits will then be manifest in extrinsic benefits, including enhanced task and organi-zational performance and lower turnover. These issues are fundamental to practicing human resource managers.

Limitations

Despite this study’s theoretical and practi-cal contributions, we acknowledge that our research design has some limitations and raises questions for future research. First, the cross-sectional nature of our data does not allow us to make causal inferences. The use of panel data would strengthen causal inferences. Second, as Cox et al. (2006) ar-gued, there is a need to investigate the subtleties of employee voice in practice; in particular to examine how embedded (the

This highlights the

important role of

the human resource

manager, who is

potentially the focal

point for establishing

and implementing

direct voice in the

workplace and

disseminating this

among not only the

managerial ranks,

but employees at

lower levels.



depth and breadth) employee voice ar-rangements are at the workplace level. This is particularly pertinent in light of this pa-per’s analyses, which measure the presence of voice arrangements only. Indeed, pres-ence does not guarantee the quality, legiti-macy, effectiveness, or application of voice. For example, we cannot determine from our direct voice measure the frequency, quality, or impact of regular staff meetings, a formal employee involvement program, and semi-autonomous workgroups on indi-vidual-level and organizational-level out-comes. The depth and breadth of direct voice practices and managers’ underlying motives in introducing such arrangements are important issues, particularly in light of empirical evidence that suggests direct voice arrangements are often co-opted by management (Freeman, Boxall, & Haynes, 2007). Thus, future research should further investigate the depth and breadth of direct voice arrangements in the workplace, par-ticularly the extent to which they provide for effective communication, grievance systems, and organizational justice, rather than serving as a channel to legitimate managerial actions and decisions. In addi-tion, we acknowledge that we did not ex-amine non-union representative voice ar-rangements in this study. Given our findings that direct and multiple voice ar-rangements are associated with job satis-faction, it is reasonable to assume that non-union representative voice arrange-ments might also be associated with job satisfaction, either in isolation or when combined with union and direct voice ar-rangements.

A plausible explanation for the overall pattern of our results is that the impact of employee voice arrangements on job satis-faction varies, depending on the degree to which employee voice arrangements are embedded at the workplace level. In this light, further case study research is needed to understand under what conditions em-bedding employee voice arrangements en-hances employees’ job satisfaction in addi-tion to other individual-level and organizational-level outcomes.

Third, we acknowledge that our data are self-report. These data are useful in identify-ing employees’ attitudes and per-ceptions, but can be subject to error such as incomplete knowl-edge of organizational practices. Related to this is the potential for common method variance, a frequently identified problem with self-report data (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Spector (2006) argued, however, that it is incorrect to assume that using a single method auto-matically introduces systematic bias; rather, the potential for bias must be assessed given the nature of the data at hand. Conse-quently, we believe that our measures of voice arrangements reflect objectively mea-sured characteristics of involvement, par-ticipation, and representation in the work-place (e.g., the presence of a union, regular meetings with staff, formal employee in-volvement program). Thus, they are less likely to be influenced by potential response biases such as social desirability, which are more commonly associated with subjective measures of voice. Nevertheless, we cannot rule out such biases and the possibility ex-ists that satisfied workers are more likely to perceive the presence of voice arrangements in the workplace or have greater awareness of what happens in the workplace.

Conclusion

This paper has examined the relationship be-tween employee voice arrangements and job satisfaction using data from the AWRPS (2007). The hypotheses tested draw on the HRM and industrial relations literatures. The findings support the proposition that direct voice is positively associated with job satisfaction. In addition, this study found some support for, and a need for further investigation of, the link between complementary voice arrangements and job satisfaction. It is unclear in previous research, whether the benefits of complemen-tary voice arrangements are due to union pres-ence or progressive HRM practices encouraging direct voice (Guest & Conway, 1999). Our

The findings support

the proposition

that direct voice is

positively associated

with job satisfaction.



findings contribute significantly to this debate by demonstrating that although the presence of both union and direct voice arrangements in the workplace may be positively associated with job satisfaction, direct voice appears to be the central mechanism underpinning employ-ees’ job satisfaction. The role union voice ar-rangements play in this relationship remains unclear. Confirming a relationship between employee voice arrangements and job satisfac-tion, as a subset of wider organizational perfor-mance, makes an important contribution to the literature and raises implications for HRM theory and practice. HR managers must be cognizant of the relationship between em-ployee voice arrangements and job satisfac-tion, not only in seeking to build organizations that have committed, loyal, and high-perform-ing employees, but in developing and imple-menting arrangements that allow employees to meaningfully and formally exercise an influ-ence over, and participate in, a wide range of task-related and organizational issues.

Notes1. The following studies all identify the trend of an

increased use of multiple voice arrangements:

Brewster et al. (2007); Bryson, (2004); Bryson,

Gomez & Willman, (2004); Charlwood & Terry,

(2007); Cox et al. (2006); Dundon, Wilkinson,

Marchington, & Ackers, (2004); Gollan & Wilkinson

(2007); Holland et al. (2009); McCabe & Lewin

(1992); Wilkinson et al. (2004); Willman et al.

(2006); Wood & Fenton-O’Creevy (2005).

2. A range of terminology has been used within the

literature, including mutual gains, high perfor-

mance work systems, high involvement manage-

ment, and high commitment management.

3. The rationale for using a minimum of 10 hours a

week in paid employment as the baseline was to

ensure that the employees’ sampled worked

more than one day per week (>8 hours). This, we

believed, was the minimum requirement to en-

sure that the employee had sufficient experi-

ences within the workplace to be able to assess

work patterns and processes.

PETER HOLLAND, MA (Kent) PhD (Tas) is an associate professor in Human Resource Management and Employee Relations in the Department of Management at Monash University, Australia. Peter has worked in the fi nance industry and consulted with private and public sector organizations in a variety of areas. His current research interests include talent management, employee voice and monitoring, and surveillance in the workplace. He has co-authored seven books and numerous journal articles, monographs, and book chapters on a variety of human resource management and employee relations issues.

AMANDA PYMAN is a senior lecturer in HRM and Employment Relations in the Depart-ment of Management at Monash University. Dr. Pyman is also the deputy director of the Monash MBA program. Dr. Pyman lectures in human resource management and em-ployment relations and has published widely in national and international journals. Her main research interests include employee voice, labor market regulation, trade union effectiveness, and privacy at work.

BRIAN K. COOPER is a senior lecturer in the Department of Management at Monash Uni-versity, Australia. Dr. Cooper lectures in research methods and has extensive experience in qualitative and quantitative research methodologies. His research interests include employee well-being and multivariate modelling.

JULIAN TEICHER is a professor in the Department of Management at Monash University, Australia. His research spans the fi elds of human resource management and public man-agement, though his particular interest lies in employee participation and the democra-tization of work.



References

ABS. (2008). Employee earnings, benefi ts and trade union membership Australia (Australian Bureau of Statistics Cat. No. 6310.0). Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Ackers, P., Marchington, M., Wilkinson, A., & Dundon, T. (2005). Partnership and voice, with or without trade unions: Changing UK management approach-es to organizational participation. In M. Stewart, & M. Martinez-Lucio, (Eds.), Partnership and mod-ernisation in employment relations (pp. 23–45). London: Routledge.

Aguinis, H. (1995). Statistical power problems with moderated multiple regression in management research. Journal of Management, 21(6), 1141–1158.

Applebaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P., & Kalleberg, A. (2000). Manufacturing advantage: Why high performance work systems pay off. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

Benson, J. (2000). Employee voice in union and nonunion Australian workplaces. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38(3), 453–459.

Blegen, M. (1993). Nurse job satisfaction: A meta-analysis of related variables. Nursing Research, 42(1), 36–41.

Boxall, P., Purcell, J., & Wright, P. (Eds.). (2007). The Oxford handbook of human resource management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Brewster, C., Croucher, R., Wood, G., & Brookes, M. (2007). Collective and individual voice: Conver-gence in Europe? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(7), 1246–1262.

Bryson, A. (2004). Managerial responsiveness to union and non-union worker voice in Britain. Industrial Relations, 43(1), 213–241.

Bryson, A., & McKay, S. (1997). What about the work-ers? In R. Jowell, J. Curtice, A. Park, L. Brook, K. Thomson, & C. Bryson (Eds.), British social at-titudes: The 14th report: The end of conservative values? (pp. 23–48). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Bryson, A., Cappellari, L., & Lucifora, C (2004). Does union membership really reduce job satisfac-tion? British Journal of Industrial Relations, 42(3), 439–459.

Bryson, A., Gomez, R., Kretschmer, T., & Willman, P. (2007). The diffusion of workplace voice and high-commitment management practices in Britain, 1984–1998. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(3), 395–426.

Bryson, A., Gomez, R., & Willman, P. (2004). The end of the affair? The decline in employers’ propensity to unionise. In J. Kelly & P. Willman (Eds.), Union organisation and activity (pp. 129–149). London: Routledge.

Charlwood, A. (2002). Why do non-union employees want to unionize? Evidence from Britain. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 40(3), 463–491.

Charlwood, A., & Terry, M. (2007). 21st-century models of employee representation: Structures, processes and outcomes. Industrial Relations Journal, 38(4), 320–337.

Cox, A., Zagelmeyer, S., & Marchington, M. (2006). Embedding employee involvement and participa-tion at work. Human Resource Management Jour-nal, 16(3), 250–267.

Danford, A., Durbin, S., Richardson, M., Tailby, S., & Stewart, P. (2009). Everybody’s talking at me: The dynamics of information disclosure and consulta-tion in high-skill workplaces in the UK. Human Resource Management Journal, 19(4), 337–354.

Diamond, W., & Freeman, R. (2002). What workers want from workplace organisations: A report to the TUC’s promoting trade unionism task group. London: Trades Union Congress.

Dundon, T., Wilkinson, A. Marchington, M., & Ackers, P. (2004). The meanings and purpose of employee voice. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(6), 1149–1170.

Eaton, A. E., & Voos, P. (1992). Union and contempo-rary innovations in work organization, compen-sation, and employee participation. In L. Mishel & P. B. Voos (Eds.) Unions and the economic competitiveness (pp. 175–215). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Edwards, P. K. (2003). The employment relationship and the fi eld of industrial relations. In P. K. Ed-wards (Ed.), Routledge companion to strategic human resource management (pp. 1–36). London: Routledge.

Fiorito, J. (2001). Human resource management prac-tices and worker desires for union representation. Journal of Labor Research, 22, 335–354.

Flood, P. C., & Toner, B. (1997). Large non-union companies: How do they avoid a catch 22? British Journal of Industrial Relations, 35(2), 257–277.

Freeman, R. B., Boxall, P., & Haynes, P. (Eds.). (2007). What workers say: Employee voice in the Anglo American workplace. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Freeman, R. B., & Medoff, J. (1984). What do unions do? New York: Basic Books.

Freeman, R. B., & Rogers, J. (1999). What workers want. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

Fulmer, I. S., Gerhant, B. S., & Scott, K. S. (2003). Are the 100 best better? An empirical investigation of the relationships between being a “Great Place to Work” and fi rm performance. Personnel Psychol-ogy 56(4), 965–993.



Gallie, D., White, M., Cheng, Y., & Tomlinson, M. (1998). Restructuring the employment relationship. Ox-ford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Garcia-Serrano, C. (2009). Job satisfaction, union membership and collective bargaining. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 15(1), 91–111.

Gardell, B. (1977). Autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations, 30(6), 515–533.

Goll, I. (1991). Environment, corporate ideology and employee involvement programs. Industrial Rela-tions, 30(3), 138–149.

Gollan, P., & Wilkinson, M. (2007). Contemporary developments in information and consultation. International Journal of Human Resource Manage-ment, 18(7), 1133–1144.

Green, F. (2006). Demanding work: The paradox of job quality in the affl uent economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Green, F., & Tsitsianis, N. (2005). An investigation of national trends in job satisfaction in Britain and Germany. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 43(3), 401–429.

Guest, D., & Conway, N. (1999). Peering into the black hole: The downside of the new employment rela-tions in the UK. British Journal of Industrial Rela-tions, 37(3), 367–389.

Guest, D., & Conway, N. (2004). Exploring the paradox of unionised worker dissatisfaction. Industrial Rela-tions Journal, 35(2), 102–121.

Hammer, T. H., & Avgar, A. (2007). The impact of unions on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover. In J. T. Bennett & B. E. Kaufman (Eds.), What do unions do? (pp. 346–372). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006). How important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 305–325.

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Busi-ness-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268–279.

Haynes, P., Boxall, P., & Macky, K. (2003, May). New Zealanders’ Infl uence at work: Report to the Minis-ter of Labour on the New Zealand Worker Repre-sentation and Participation Survey. Auckland, New Zealand: University of Auckland.

Haynes, P., Boxall, P., & Macky, K. (2005). Non-union voice and the effectiveness of joint consultation in New Zealand. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 26(2), 229–256.

Holland, P., Pyman, A., Cooper, B., & Teicher, J. (2009). The development of alternate voice mechanisms in Australia: The case of joint consultation. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 30(1), 67–92.

Hoste, P., Sevatos, P., & Cooper, C. (2006). Happy-per-forming managers: The impact of affective wellbe-ing and intrinsic job satisfaction in the workplace. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contex-tual work design features: A meta-analytic sum-mary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1332–1356.

Hyman, R. (2004), Where next for partnership? In M. Stuart & M. Martinez Lucio (Eds.), Partnership and modernization in employment relations. London: Routledge.

Jones, M. K., Jones, R. J., Latreille, P. L., & Sloane, P. J. (2009). Training, job satisfaction and workplace performance in Britain: Evidence from WERS 2004. LABOUR [special issue] 23(1), 139–175.

Kauhanen, A. (2009). The incidence of high-perform-ance work systems: Evidence from a nationally representative employee survey. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 30(3), 454–480.

Kochan, T. A. (1979). How American employees view labor unions. Monthly Labor Review, 102(4), 23–31.

Kochan, T. A. (1980). Collective bargaining and indus-trial relations. Homewood, IL: Richard. D. Irwin.

Kochan, T. A., & Osterman, P. (1994). The mutual gains enterprise. Boston: Harvard University Press.

Kroumova, M. K., & Lazarova, M. B. (2009). Broad-based incentive plans, HR practices and company performance. Human Resource Management Jour-nal, 19(4), 355–374.

Locke. E. A. (1976). The nature and cause of job satis-faction. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industri-al and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1349). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Lok, P., & Crawford, J. (2001). Antecedents of organi-zational commitment and the mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(8), 594–613.

Marchington, M. (2007). Employee voice systems. In P. Boxall, J. Purcell, & P. Wright (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of human resource management (pp. 231–250). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McCabe, D., & Lewin, D. (1992). Employee voice: A hu-man resource management perspective. California Management Review, 34(3), 95–111.

Oshagbemi, T. (1999). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single versus multiple-item measures? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(8), 388–403.



Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive advantage through peo-ple. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsa-koff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in be-havioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

Pyman, A., Cooper, B., Teicher, J., & Holland, P. (2006). A comparison of the effectiveness of employee voice arrangements in Australia. Industrial Rela-tions Journal, 37(5), 543–559.

Renaud, S. (2002). Rethinking the union membership/job satisfaction relationship. International Journal of Manpower, 23(2),137–150.

Saari, L. M., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Employee attitudes and job satisfaction. Human Resource Manage-ment, 43(4), 395–407.

Sako, M. (1998). The nature and impact of employee “Voice” in the European car components industry. Human Resource Management Journal, 8(2), 5–13.

Seibert, S. E., Silver, S. R., & Randolph, W. A. (2004). Tak-ing empowerment to the next level: A multiple level model of empowerment, performance and satisfac-tion, Academy of Management, 47(3), 332–349.

Sousa-Poza, A., & Sousa-Poza, A. (2000). Well-being at work: A cross-national analysis of the levels and determinants of job satisfaction. Journal of Socio-Economics, 29(6), 517–538.

Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, cause, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organization-al research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 221–232.

Spence Laschinger, H. K., Finegan, J., & Shamian, J. (2001). The impact of workplace empowerment, organizational trust on staff nurses’ work satisfac-tion and organizational commitment. Health Care Management Review, 26(3), 7–23.

Storey, J. (1992). Developments in the management of human resources. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Strauss, G. (1998). Collective bargaining, unions and participation. In F. Heller, E. Pusic, G. Strauss, & B. Wilpert (Eds.), Organisational participation: Myth and reality (pp. 97–143). Oxford: Oxford University Press

Tailby, S., Richardson, M., Upchurch, M., Danford, A., & Stewart, P. (2007). Partnership with and without

trace unions in the UK fi nancial services: Filling or fuelling the gap? Industrial Relations Journal, 38(3), 210–228.

Teicher, J., Holland, P., Pyman, A., & Cooper, B. (2007). Employee voice in Australia. In R. Freeman, P. Boxall, & P. Haynes (Eds.), What workers say: Employee voice in the Anglo-American world (pp. 125–144). Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

Ugboro, I. O., & Obeng, K. (2000). Top management leadership, employee empowerment, job satis-faction and customer satisfaction in TQM organi-zations: An empirical study. Journal of Quality Management, 5(2), 247–272.

Vaughan, E. (1986). Industrial democracy in Australia: Some day too far away. In E. Davis & R. Lansbury (Eds.), Democracy and control in the workplace (pp. 30–52). Melbourne, Australia: Longman Cheshire.

Verma, A. (2005). What do unions do to the work-place? Union effects on management and HRM policies. Journal of Labor Research, 16(3), 415–449.

Wang, G., & Lee, P. (2009). Psychological empower-ment and job satisfaction: An analysis of interactive effects. Group & Organization Management, 34(3), 271–296.

Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 247–252.

Wilkinson, A., Dundon, T., Marchington, M., & Ackers, P. (2004). Changing patterns of employee voice: Case studies from the UK and Republic of Ireland. Journal of Industrial Relations, 46(3), 298–322.

Willman, P., Bryson, A., & Gomez, R. (2006). The sound of silence: Which employers choose no employee voice and why? Socio-Economic Review, 4(2), 283–299.

Wood, S. J., & Fenton-O’Creevy, M. P. (2005). Direct involvement, representation and employee voice in UK multinationals in Europe. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 11(1), 27–50.

Wood, S. J., & Wall, T. D. (2007). Work enrichment and employee voice in human resource man-agement-performance studies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(7), 1335–1372.

Wright, T. A. (2006). The emergence of job satisfaction in organizational behavior. Journal of Managerial History, 12(3), 262–277.

Documents

Document1