JOB SATISFACTION AND TEAM WORK: THE ROLE OF TEAM
PROCESS FEEDBACK AND LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE
Master Thesis, MscBA, specialization Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Management and Organization
August, 16, 2011 ILSE BLANK S1604783 Watermunt 16a 1657 KE Abbekerk Tel:06-18280480 Email: I.Blank@student.rug.nl Supervisor/ university: Drs. H. Grutterink Second assessor: Prof. Dr. G.S. van der Vegt
Supervisor/ field of study: W. Pisano, D. van der Weert
2
ABSTRACT
This survey study among 82 team members of 8 work teams in a secondary school examined the moderating effect of leader-member exchange (LMX) on the relationship between team process feedback and job satisfaction. The results confirmed these expectations and revealed that team process feedback was only positively related to job satisfaction if LMX was high, but not if LMX was low. LMX was also positively related to job satisfaction, while process feedback was not directly related to job satisfaction.
Keywords
3
INTRODUCTION
Since the 1980‟s working in teams in organizations has grown vigorously (Lazear and Shaw, 2007). Teams are „small groups of interdependent individuals who share
responsibilities for the outcomes of their organization‟ (Sundstrom, de Meuse, & Futrell, 1990 in Gundlach, Zivnuska, & Stoner, 2006). The increasing competition, consolidation, and innovation of the last few decades asks for skill diversity, rapid response, flexibility, adaptability, and high levels of expertise. One reason for the increase of work teams is that teams can enable these characteristics (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006).
Logically, due to the increase of team work, the performance of those teams has become more important to firms (Lazear & Shaw, 2007). Team performance is whether the output of a team „meets or exceeds the performance standards‟ of the people who have to review or receive it (Hackman, Oldham, Janson, & Purdy 1975, in De Jong & Elfring, 2010).
One of the most important antecedents that is consistently associated with high team performance is the job satisfaction of individual team members (Lawler & Porter, 1967; Judge, Thoresen, & Bono, 2001). This has several reasons. Firstly, it reduces the amount and duration of absenteeism (Lawler & Porter, 1967; Hackett, 1989; Hausknecht, Hiller, & Vance, 2008), turnover (Lawler & Porter, 1967; Griffeth, Hom & Gaertner, 2000; Hom & Kinicki, 2001), and intention to quit the job (Williams, Konrad, Scheckler, et al., 2000; Hom & Kinicki, 2001; Scott, Gravelle, Simoens, et al., 2006). Secondly, job satisfaction is related to good mental health, and reduces chances of burnouts, depressions, and anxiety (Cooper, Rout & Faragher, 1989; Williams et al., 2000). Thirdly, job satisfaction can make workers exert more effort because it increases their commitment to the organization they are working for (Marsh & Mannari, 1977; Leung, Chen, & Yu, 2008, Markovits, Davis, Fay, & et al., 2010). Finally, high job satisfaction is positively related to organizational citizenship behaviour, which includes voluntary behaviour helping fellow team members with a heavy workload, or helping to orientate new workers (LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002; Dalal, 2005; Bowling, 2010).
One of the most dissatisfying and frustrating issues for team members is when
4
problems or there can be obscurities among members about what to do or how to do it. These are all problems which enhance inefficiency and are very time-consuming to solve (Druskat and Wheeler, 2003; Bornstein, 2003; Jehn, Rispens, & Thatcher, 2010). Without good planning and coordination of the team, the team is not a unified whole. Poor team
coordination ensures process losses and has a negative effect on the team outcomes (Rico, Sánchez-Manzanares, Gil, & Gibson, 2008). Examples of problems in team work can be found in situations in which members are doing tasks which someone else has already completed, or when it is unclear which member need to do which task, or when agreements are not followed up. In short: in chaotic situations in which the team processes are not going well, people can become very frustrated.
Feedback is one of the most important tools to improve team processes (Van der Vegt, Van der Vliert, & Oosterhof 2003). It plays an important role in team and job attitudes such as team commitment and job satisfaction (Lievens & Anseel, 2007) because it affects how team members perceive the team, team processes, and how they fit within them (Lam, Yik, & Schaubroeck, 2002). We, therefore, predict that feedback with regard to team processes will be an important antecedent of job satisfaction because it can be expected to improve team processes and, consequently reduce team members‟ frustration with processes that are not going well.
Another important antecedent of job satisfaction is the dyadic, unique relationship between the leader and his or her individual team members because the team leader has a key role in setting the work climate within the team, motivating team members and affecting their behaviour (Sarin & Conarelli, 2009). This so-called leader-member exchange (LMX) refers to a dyadic and unique interaction and relationship between a team leader and each individual team member (Graen & Uhl-Bien,1995; Schyns & Croon, 2006). In addition to this direct relationship, we also expect that LMX also affects job satisfaction indirectly (Edmondson, 1999; Schyns & Croon, 2006; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009). That is, the literature on feedback has since long stressed the importance of feedback acceptance for bringing about the correct changes in behaviour (Kwok Leung, Su, & Morris, 2001). (Lievens & Anseel, 2007). A good relationship with the leader reflects the member‟s view of the leader‟s
5
expect that LMX has a positive influence on the relationship between team process feedback and job satisfaction.
In the present study we will, therefore, examine the main and interactive effects of team process feedback and LMX on job satisfaction. We will start with a theoretical framework in which we present our conceptual model.
THEORY SECTION
2.1 Job satisfaction and antecedents
For the last century, thousands of studies have examined job satisfaction, defining the subject in several ways. One of the first researchers who recognized job satisfaction is
Hoppock (1935), he defined job satisfaction as circumstances that cause a person to say „I am satisfied with my job‟. He argued that employees may be satisfied with some aspects of their jobs, and dissatisfied with others, and developed a widely used scale to measure job
satisfaction, the so called Job Satisfaction Blank. Later on, Locke (1969) introduced a new theory. He argued that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are emotional reactions to a situation or object, valued against the standard of what one considers good or bad. He also noted that one must take into account the congruence of these values with one‟s needs, since values differ according to intensity and content. A few years after Locke, Hackman and Oldham (1976) developed a model in which they consider satisfaction as one‟s attitude to a job. With this model, the satisfaction in terms of how people feel about aspects of the work setting is measured. Also Spector (1997: 2), approaches job satisfaction as a feeling, but according to him job satisfaction is simply “how people feel about their jobs and different aspects of their jobs. It is the extent to which people like or dislike their jobs”. It has been seen as an
6
attitude to a job or aspects of the job. Since Spector‟s (1997) definition is simplistic and easy to understand and use in research, we will adhere to his definition „the extent to which people like (satisfaction) or dislike (dissatisfaction) their jobs and specific aspects of their job‟.
Earlier research has examined factors contributing to job satisfaction in different areas, ranging from pay to personality to task features. Some hundred years ago, when the first research to job satisfaction was done, pay was seen as the major factor contributing to job satisfaction. Taylor (1911: 25) argued that a manager must give some special incentive to his men beyond what is given as the standard remuneration, in order to obtain initiative of his workmen, because performance, which leads to rewards, leads to satisfaction. Later the Hawthorne studies showed that people might work for other purposes than pay and this led to the realization that the productivity and satisfaction of workers were interrelated (Latham & Brown, 2006). This insight got more shape by the work of Hackman and Oldham (1976) as well as Herzberg (1968), who developed theories about the impact of specific job features which would enhance employees‟ satisfaction with work. The job characteristics model of Hackman and Oldham and the two factor theory of Herzberg have become classic over the last three decades. In the nineties and in the beginning of the new millennium, the focus of research to the antecedents of job satisfaction shifted from job specific characteristics to personal characteristics (Seibert & Kraimer, 1999; Nikolaou & Robertson, 2001; Judge, Heller, & Mount,2002). Judge & Bono (2000) for instance, linked „core evaluations‟, meaning the views people have about themselves, with job satisfaction. It turns out that how people evaluate themselves is positively related to job satisfaction.
7
job satisfaction. A logical effect of the increased interdependency between members, is that it influences their job satisfaction (Van der Vegt, Emans, & Van de Vliert, 2001). When
workers become more dependent on others in order to fulfil their jobs, their job satisfaction will also become more dependent on others, and especially on how others contribute to the team work. It is likely that job satisfaction of team members is not only dependent on specific task features, as mainly investigated in earlier theories, but also on how good the team work is and how processes are running within the team.
2.2 Team process feedback and job satisfaction
Members in teams are dependent on each other to accomplish their tasks and therefore are forced to work together in the team processes (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). Research about coordination difficulties and social loafing have shown how frustrating it is when team processes are not going well. If, for instance, team members hold different norms concerning punctuality, speed, and adherence to deadlines, conflicts may arise. A lack of effective coordination in the team, which is knowing who is going to do what, when and with whom, decreases the team‟s performance (Janicik & Bartel, 2003). Also social loafing has negative effects on the team processes. It is also known as free riding and refers to the situation in which an individual, who is working in a team, fails to contribute his or her fair share to the team‟s effort as perceived by other team members (Aggarwal & O‟Brien, 2008). There are many reasons to explain why members do not fully participate in the team work, for example: they believe that their individual efforts will not be rewarded, they believe that their lack of effort will not be punished (George, 1995), they are less assertive than the other members, or they are afraid to admit their lack of understanding (Aggarwal & O‟Brien, 2008). For that team members are dependent on each other, as explained above, it is quite imaginable that members can become quite annoyed by perceiving other members free riding. Social loafing is an important factor which can decline the performance of the team and result in a very negative experience and atmosphere within the team (Aggarwal & O‟Brien, 2008).
8
Further, by receiving feedback social loafers are less likely to hide from their responsibilities to the team. This is because team process feedback draws attention to each member‟s
contribution to the team work. When perceiving a discrepancy in the desirable team processes and feedback on the current processes, members will be challenged to improve the actual state of team work (Campion & Lord, 1982). Through the feedback the team receives on the
processes, members will try to improve their efforts to get the job done. The team will then work in a more successful manner and logically, the members will be more satisfied about their jobs. Furthermore, it is likely that the free riders of the team will become more
participating and less social loafing by receiving feedback, and thereby, the irritation about free riding can be taken away to the other team members.
Therefore we expect that when team members receive feedback about the team processes, it will have a positive influence on their job satisfaction.
H1: There is a positive relationship between team process feedback and job satisfaction. 2.3 Leader-member exchange and job satisfaction
The leader-member exchange (LMX) theory states that each employee has a unique social exchange relationship with his or her supervisor, rather than a contractual relationship (Graen & Uhl-Bien,1995; Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004). The LMX theory is a useful approach for looking for links between leadership processes and outcomes (Graen & Uhl-Bien,1995). Unlike other theories about leadership, which focus on personal or situational characteristics, the main point of the LMX theory is that it focuses on the dyadic relationship between a leader and a member (Graen & Uhl-Bien,1995; De Conink, 2011). This theory presumes that the team leader has a unique relationship with each team member. By this dyadic relationship, the leader can better meet the requirements of the team members, and therefore the team members will be more satisfied (Sarin & Conarelli, 2009).
Fulfilling the requirements of the team members is the job for a team leader. Previous research by Yukl (1994, in Sarin & Conarelli, 2009) suggests that the effectiveness of a team leader depends on four sources: (1) the level of power and influence possessed by the leader; (2) how the leader interacts with others; (3) the leaders‟ personal qualities; and (4) the
9
performance strategies of the members and they can support with the utilizations of the knowledge and skills of the team members (Hackman & Wageman, 2004). By initiating structure in the team, solutions to the problem of social loafing as mentioned above also lie in the commitment of time and effort of the team leader (Aggarwal & O‟Brien, 2008). Also, leadership has been found to relate to the atmosphere of a team, leaders who are actively facilitating their team are found to lead teams with a positive atmosphere and influence a shared vision in the team (Williams, Parker, & Turner, 2010).
By leading the team effectively, the leader is able to affect the behaviour of members, to set a certain work climate, and to motivate them (Sarin and Conarelli, 2009). One argument for how this works, lies in the theory of team psychological safety. This is defined as „a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking‟, and is positively related to team performance and voice behaviour of individuals (Edmondson, 1999; Schyns and Croon, 2006; Walumbwa and Schaubroeck, 2009). Psychological safety is mostly not directly
discussed in teams, but taken for granted. Psychological safety can be supported by team leader coaching, so that team members are very aware of the team leaders‟ behaviour (Edmondson, 1999; Tyler and Lind, 1992). When the leader doesn‟t react defensively to challenges and questions, when he or she is supportive, coaching-oriented, agreeable and conscientious (Edmondson, 1996; Walumbwa and Schaubroeck, 2009), team members are likely to conclude they operate in a psychologically safe environment. The leader can increase the psychological safety by giving members the feeling that they are secure and capable of change, in order that they feel free to voice their issues. (Edmondson, 1999). It seems therefore that the LMX could, through creating a psychologically safe environment, be an influencing factor on job satisfaction.
Another reason why LMX can be expected to influence the job satisfaction of
10
regarding the members‟ attitudes and feelings (Gerstner and Day, 1997). When having a good LMX, team members will experience more fair treatment by the leader, which in turn will lead to more job satisfaction (Masterson et al., 2000).
Due to these theories, we expect that the quality of the LMX relationship is positively linked with job satisfaction:
H2: There is a positive relationship between LMX and job satisfaction.
As known from the feedback literature, the positive effects of feedback come down to whether feedback will be accepted by the member or not. We expect that LMX is a condition that can make the member accept the team process feedback given by the leader. One reason is that previous research suggests that the amount of credibility the member attributes to the source of the feedback, which is the leader, is of main influence to the extent in which a member will accept the feedback (Fisher et al., 1979). With a high credibility of the source of the feedback, the leader, the member is more likely to accept the feedback (Kacmar, Wayne, & Wright, 2009). Feedback from a leader who is perceived to be highly experienced and reliable, and in which the member trusts the motives behind the feedback (Ilgen & Davis, 2000); and feedback which is perceived as fair by the member (Kwok Leung, Su, & Morris, 2001) is more accepted than feedback without these dimensions. Therefore, the increase in respect and dignity is also reflected in the member‟s view of the leader‟s credibility (Kacmar, Wayne, & Wright, 2009). In this way, a high quality LMX strengthens the relationship between team process feedback and job satisfaction.
11 Team Process
Feedback
Also the opposite side could be explained in this way: team members who rate their relationship with the leader of low quality, will not feel psychologically safe, and not free to speak up in the team. Their relationship with the leader is not based on respect and dignity. Therefore, if they receive feedback about the team processes, they will not be open to listen to it, or accept it. If a team member does not accept the feedback, he or she can even respond to it by attacking the source of the feedback, which is the leader (Kacmar, Wayne, & Wright, 2009). Therefore, giving more feedback would not give a positive effect to members with a low quality LMX. We expect that a low quality LMX will not influence the relationship between team process feedback and job satisfaction.
H3: The expected positive relationship between team process feedback and job satisfaction will be moderated by LMX in the sense that there will be a positive relationship when LMX quality is high and no relationship when LMX quality is low.
The hypothesized model is shown in figure 1.
METHOD
3.1 Sample and Procedure
In order to test our hypotheses we conducted a survey study among 82 employees of a secondary school, for VWO, HAVO and MAVO. The school had 118 employees, and about 1200 students spread over two buildings, with a distance of approximately 500 metres
between them. The language of the questionnaire was Dutch, for it is the common language at the school. All employees received the questionnaire by e-mail, which included a personal
Job Satisfaction
12
code to fill in the questionnaire, and information about the goal and the procedure of the research, and the strictly confidential treatment of the data.
The research was set out among the 108 teachers and education supporting employees, (the caretakers and administrative employees). The ten managerial workers were eliminated from research, for they can not be seen as team members. 82 out of the 108 targeted
employees completed the questionnaire response (76%). There were 40 male (49%) and 42 female (51%) respondents. 2 respondents were under the age of 25 years (3%), 11
respondents were between 25 and 34 years old (13%), 13 between 35 and 44 (16%), 28 were between 45 and 54 years old (34%), and 28 respondents (34%) were 55 years or older. 63 out of the 82 employees (77%) worked in the main building, 19 in the extension building (23%). 47 of the workers had a work time factor of 0,8 or higher (57%). 11 had a factor of less than 0,5 (29%), and 24 between 0,5 and 0,8 (14%). Most of the workers, that is, 64 persons (78%), worked directly under a division leader. Of the others, 8 employees worked under the location director (10%), 1 under an assistant director (1%), 3 under the head of administration (4%), 4 under the head of the caretakers (5%), and 2 under the head organisation and control (3%). 7 employees had been working in their function for less than one year (9%). 25 had been
working there for one to five years (30%), 11 persons six to ten years (13%), 8 persons eleven to fifteen years (10%) and the biggest group, namely 31 employees had been working for more than fifteen years in this function (38%). Depending on their function, employees were divided into teams. All administrative workers formed a team (5 people, 6%), as well as the concierges (6 people, 7%) and the technical assistant teachers (5 persons, 6%). The teachers were divided in teams through the year or education level they mostly teach. These are: Class 1 (13, persons, 16%), Class 2 (12 persons, 15%), and three teams at the different educational levels the school represents, which are lower general secondary education (12 persons, 15%), higher general secondary education (16 persons, 19%) and pre-university education (13 persons, 16%).
3.2 Measures Variables
13
LMX was measured with four questions developed by Liden et al. (2006). An example item was “Ik kan mijn direct leidinggevende vertrouwen dat hij/zij het beste met mij voor heeft.”. The Cronbachs α for this scale was .87.
Job satisfaction was measured with four questions developed by Agho (1992). One of the questions was: “Ik vind veel plezier in mijn werk.”. The Cronbachs α for job satisfaction was .84. All questions could be answered on a four point scale, ranging from strongly
disagree (=1), till strongly agree (=4). Although it is preferable to use a five point scale in the questionnaire, this was not possible in the internal research system used by this school. The second best option, the four point scale, was therefore chosen.
Control variables
Age and gender were included as control variables, because both may influence job
satisfaction (Hunt and Saul, 1975). Age was measured with 5 categories: 25 years or younger, 25-34 years, 35-44 years, 45-54 years, or older than 55 years. This was done because pilot interviews indicated that employees were concerned that filling out their exact age would not sufficiently guarantee their anonymity.
Task interdependence was used as a control variable because it may positively influence job satisfaction, especially at a high level of goal interdependence (Van der Vegt, Emans, & Van de Vliert, 2001). Task interdependence was measured with five items developed by Van der Vegt et al. (2003). An example question is: “De andere leden van de afdeling en ik zijn afhankelijk van elkaar voor informatie en middelen die we nodig hebben om onze taken goed uit te kunnen voeren.”. Cronbachs α was .85
3.3 Data analysis
In order to examine the expected main and interactive effects of LMX and process group feedback on job satisfaction, we conducted a hierarchical multiple regression analysis with three steps. In the first step the control variables age, gender, and task interdependence were entered. In the second step, the main effects, LMX and process group feedback were entered. In the third and last step the product of LMX and process group feedback was entered, to test the two-way interaction. This multiple regression analysis made use of
14
RESULTS
4.1 Correlation analysis
In Table 1, the means, standard deviations and Pearson correlations are shown. In spite of positive trends, team process feedback did not significantly correlate with job satisfaction (r=.163, n.s.), nor did LMX with job satisfaction (r=.218, n.s.).
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations and Pearson Correlations
M SD n 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Age 3.84¹ 1.12 81 -
2. Gender 1.51 .50 81 - .21 -
3. Task interdependence 2.57 .48 78 .07 - .04 -
4. Team process feedback 2.37 .48 70 - .23˜ .08 - .00 -
5. LMX 2.86 .46 79 - .18 - .11 .21 .04 - 6. Job satisfaction 3.09 .43 81 - .05 .12 .09 .16 .22 - Note: *p < .05. **p < .01.
¹: for privacy reasons, respondents had to check one of five age categories instead of filling out their precise age. ˜ marginally significant: p=.053
4.2 Regression analysis
The results of the linear regression analysis of job satisfaction on the team process feedback and the LMX are shown below in Table 2.
Table 2
Hierarchical Linear Regression of Job satisfaction on Task Interdependence, Process Feedback and the LMX
Step Variable 1 2 3
1 Gender .06 .08 .06
Age .00 .05 .05
Task interdependence .04 .02 .01
2 Team process feedback .08 .04
LMX .12 * .08
3 Team process feedback x LMX .18 **
R² .03 .12 .24
∆ R² .03 .09 * .13 **
∆ F .55 3.24 10.47
15
The first step, in which gender, age and task interdependence were controlled for, did not add significantly to the prediction of job satisfaction (∆R² =.03, F=.55, p=n.s.).
The second step with team process feedback and LMX contributed significantly to the prediction of job satisfaction (∆R² = .09, ∆F= 3.24, p<.05). Inspection of the b-coefficients showed that the relationship between team process feedback and job satisfaction was not significant (B=.08, t=1.39, n.s.), therefore, hypothesis 1 was not supported.
The significance of the second step was due to the positive relationship between LMX and job satisfaction (B=.12, t=2.14, p<.05), which meant that hypothesis 2 was supported.
As expected, the third step with the interaction between team process feedback and LMX significantly predicted job satisfaction (∆R² =.13, F= 10.47, p<.01). The interaction effect was further investigated and shown in Figure 2. The simple regression of team process feedback on job satisfaction was measured under different conditions of LMX (M +1 SD; M – 1 SD) (cf., Aiken & West, 1991). Figure 2 showed that with a high quality of the LMX
relationship, there was a positive relation between team process feedback and job satisfaction (B=.22, t=3.20, p<.01), but if LMX was low, there was no relation between team process feedback and job satisfaction (B=-.14, t=-1.6, n.s.). This meant that there was only a positive relationship between team process feedback and job satisfaction when LMX is high, but that, there was no relationship when LMX was low. Hypothesis 3 was thus supported.
Figure 2
16
DISCUSSION
5.1 Findings
Job satisfaction of employees is important to organizational performance, for it prevents workers from turnover, absenteeism, intentions to quit and mental problems, and it provides for higher performances on the job and more commitment to the organization (Lawler & Porter, 1967; Williams et al., 2000; Judge & Thoresen, 2001). Therefore, we set out to examine two antecedents of job satisfaction: team process feedback and LMX. Throughout the past century, a lot of researchers have done research on which factors gain high levels of job satisfaction. Results range from pay (Taylor, 1911: 25), to job
characteristics (Hackman and Oldham, 1976), to self evaluations (Judge & Bono, 2000), to recently more specific task features like interdependence (Van der Vegt et al., 2001). Since employees are working more and more often in teams, it is interesting to investigate what influence this team work has on job satisfaction. It is quite imaginable that when team processes are not going well, people can become very frustrated and dissatisfied. In contrast to what we expected, results did not show a main effect between team process feedback and job satisfaction, but the expected positive relationship between LMX and job satisfaction was proven. Furthermore, there was only a positive relation between team process feedback and job satisfaction when LMX was high, and no relationship when LMX was low.
5.2 Theoretical implications
17
A second theoretical implication is the contribution to the existing feedback literature. Apparently, research has to be done to improve the understanding of how feedback on either processes or outcomes is related to job satisfaction in teams, and under what conditions this link may exist (Van der Vegt et al., 2001). We focused on team process feedback, for it can be very frustrating to members when team processes are not going well. We explained how the effects of feedback depend on the situation, and that LMX is a condition that can make the member accept the team process feedback given by the leader. To make improvements in the processes, team members must respond to the feedback. Therefore they first have to accept the feedback, otherwise they will not change their behaviour to make improvements in the processes (Lievens & Anseel, 2007).
Thirdly, we contributed to the existing literature about leadership. In work teams, team leaders have an important role to the team members, as they divide the work between
members, and are able to influence the atmosphere in the team. This study provides empirical evidence that there is a positive relationship between the LMX and the job satisfaction of team members. Further, we showed that with a good LMX, the members are more likely to accept the feedback given by the leader about the team processes. One reason is that the credibility the member attributes to the source of the feedback, which is the leader, is of main influence to extent in which a member will accept the feedback (Kacmar, Wayne, & Wright, 2009). Another explanation is that if a team member has a high quality relationship with his or her team leader, the member receives respect, dignity and fair treatment from the leader. Therefore, when the leader gives process feedback to the members who perceive a high LMX, the member will be open to listen to the leader and accept the feedback. In this study it has been proven that a high LMX strengthens the relationship between the team process feedback and job satisfaction, which indicates that the person who gives them feedback is important to team members. Future research about job satisfaction and team work is, therefore, advised to take the role of the leader into account.
5.3 Practical implications
18
bring up the LMX level to improve the job satisfaction. Previous research provides guidance for developing an effective way of leading, for instance leaders who actively facilitate their team (Williams, Parker, & Turner, 2010), initiate structure (Aggarwal & O‟Brien, 2008), and be supportive, coaching-oriented, agreeable, and conscientious (Edmondson, 1999;
Walumbwa and Schaubroeck, 2009) are more likely to have a high LMX.
A high level of LMX strengthens the relationship between team process feedback and job satisfaction. In this context, it seems that it is important to members who give them feedback about the team processes. Team process feedback only increases the job satisfaction of members, when the LMX is high. For organizations it is important to stimulate team leaders and members to actively improve the LMX, so that it leads to higher job satisfaction of the members. Leaders must, therefore, be aware that creating a psychologically safe
environment, by giving members the feeling that they are secure and capable of change, make them feel free to voice their issues, which leads to more satisfaction (Edmondson, 1999). The LMX could, through creating a psychological safe environment, be an influencing factor on job satisfaction. This, and fair treatment of members makes the LMX more likely to be good, which in turn is positively related to job satisfaction. Furthermore, a good LMX is a condition for feedback about the team processes being accepted, which is the first step to make
improvements in the team processes and thereby job satisfaction of team members. A practical implication for organizations is that if they perceive that their workers are dissatisfied or if they perceive that the current processes are not going well, they have to stimulate team leaders and members to create a high LMX to improve the team processes and the job satisfaction.
5.4 Limitations
Every research has its limitations, and so does this study. The first limitation is the generalizability of the outcomes. Only the responses of employees of one high school have been collected. It is therefore possible that when using another sample in a different
19
interdependency a team perceives. Possibly, other results could be found when the developed theory of this study is tested on teams which are quite less, or quite more interdependent with doing their tasks; that will say teams in which the members can more or less accomplish their tasks without help of other members. A team of teachers in a high school are working in quite a different environment than for example a team of production workers in a car plant, or a team of bank workers. These aspects could be marked as a limitation of this study, however, it is likely that the results give a good indication of the relationship between team process feedback, job satisfaction and the LMX, because the response rate (76%) and the sample size (82 responses) are rather high, and team members from all levels of the school were included. Most respondents work directly under the division leader, and the amount of men and women were almost evenly spread.
A second limitation is that the questionnaire was set out once, at one time. The
measures of the concepts may produce artifactual covariance independent of the content of the concepts themselves (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Future research can avoid this limitation by testing the theory at different points in time.
A third limitation of this study is that no hard statements can be made about the causality in the analyzed relationships. This is because this study was cross-sectional and the relationships are simple correlations between the items (Van der Vegt et al., 2001). The supposed direction of the relationships are, therefore, merely based on theoretical grounds. Based on the existing literature about job satisfaction, it has been suggested in this research that team process feedback and the quality of the LMX both have a positive influence on job satisfaction (Van der Vegt et al., 2001; Gerstner and Day, 1997). Therefore it might be imaginable that these relationships are just the other way around, that is, high job satisfaction of an employee may, for example, lead to a better relationship with his or her leader. Or that high job satisfaction has a positive influence on the level of team process feedback team members experience. However, the existing theory about the different items of this study does not suggest that this would be the logical order (Schyns & Croon, 2006; Lievens & Anseel, 2007). However, future research could use a control group as an experiment to investigate what results will be found in teams with quite a low job satisfaction. It is also advisable to test the theory on a team at different points in time.
A final limitation is that the questionnaires are filled in by the team members
20
in their responses to questions, and thereby produce relationships that would otherwise not have existed. They also suggest that, related to the consistency motive, „correlations derived from ratees‟ responses are composed of not only true relationships but also artifactual co variation based on ratees‟ implicit theories‟. Podsakoff et al. (2003) point out that individuals tend to present themselves in a favourable light, while this not always shows their true feelings about an issue or topic. Some respondents could be afraid that due to the questions about personal characteristics, like age, gender and in which team they are working, the answers could lead back to specific persons. It is in future questionnaires, which also use an online system and also have to be strictly anonymous, not unthinkable that the responses of the team members could produce socially desirable answers. According to research, it is therefore recommended to ask a lower amount of personal questions which can lead to one single person, to increase the amount of respondents even more. Another solution is to make use of methods other than questionnaires, like observations. In this case, the rater and ratee are not the same person, which make the source of the input to the study different. An independent rater observes the behaviour of the team member, and fills in the questionnaire on basis of these observations.
REFERENCES
Aggarwal, P., & O'Brien, C.L. 2008. Social Loafing on Group Projects. Journal of
Marketing Education, 30(3): 255-264.
Agho, A.O., Price, J.L., & Mueller, C.W. 1992. Discriminant validity of measures of job satisfaction, positive affectivity and negative affectivity. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 65: 185-1965.
Bornstein, G. 2003. Intergroup Conflict: Individual, Group, and Collective Interests.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(2): 129–145.
21
Burke, C.S., Stagl, K.C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E., & Halphin, S.M. 2006. What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 17: 288–307.
Campion, M.A., & Lord, R.G. 1982. A control systems conceptualization of the goal-setting and changing process. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 30: 265-287.
Caudron, S. 1994. Teamwork takes work. Personnel Journal, 73(2): 40-49.
Cooper, C.L., Rout, U., & Faragher, B. 1989. Mental health, job satisfaction, and job stress among general practitioners. Business and Management Journal, 298: 366-370.
Dalal, R.S. 2005. A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Counterproductive Work Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6): 1241–1255.
Dalarue, A., Hootegem, G. van, Proctor, S., & Burridge, M. 2007. Teamworking and organizational performance: A review of survey-based research. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 10(2): 127–148.
DeConinck, J.B. 2011. The effects of leader-member exchange and organizational
identification on performance and turnover among salespeople. Journal of Personal Selling
& Sales Management, 31(1): 21–34.
De Jong, B.A., & Elfring, T. 2010. How does trust affect the performance of ongoing teams? The mediating role of reflexivity, monitoring, and effort. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3): 535-549.
22
Druskat, V., & Wheeler, J.V. 2003. Manageging from the Boundary: The Effective
Leadership of Self-Managing Work Teams. Academy of Management Journal, 46(4): 435-457.
Edmondson, A. 1999. Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 350-383.
Gerstner, C.R., & Day, D.V. 1997. Meta-Analytic Review of Leader-Member Exchange Theory: Correlates and Construct Issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6): 827-844.
Graen, G.B. & Uhl-Bien, M. 1995. Relationship-Based Approach to Leadership:
Development of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory of Leadership over 25 Years: Applying a Multi-Level Multi-Domain Perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2): 219-247.
Griffeth,W.R., Hom, P.W., & Gaertner, S. 2000. A Meta-Analysis of Antecedents and Correlates of Employee Turnover: Update, Moderator Tests, and Research Implications for the Next Millennium. Journal of Management, 26(3): 463-488.
Gundlach, M., Zivnuska, S., & Stoner, J. 2006. Understanding the relationship between individualism–collectivism and team performance through an integration of social identity theory and the social relations model. Human Relations, 59(12): 1603-1632.
Hackett, R.D. 1989. Work attitudes and employee absenteeism: A synthesis of the literature.
Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62: 235-248
Hackman, J.R., Oldham, G., Janson, R., & Purdy, K. 1975. New Strategy for Job Enrichment
California Management Review, 17(4): 57-71.
Hackman, J.R. & Oldham, G.R. 1976. Motivation through the Design of Work: Test of a Theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16: 250-276.
Hackman, J.R. & Wageman, R. 2004. When and how team leaders matter. Research in
23
Hausknecht, J.P., Hiller, N.J., & Vance, R.J. 2008 Work-unit absenteeism: effects of satisfaction, commitment, labor market conditions, and time. Academy of Management
Journal, 51(6): 1223-1245.
Herzberg, F. 1968. One more time: how do you motivate employees?. Harvard Business
Review, 46 (1): 53–62.
Hom, P.W., & Kinicki, A.J. 2001. Toward a Greater Understanding of How Dissatisfaction Drives Employee Turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5): 975-987.
Hoppock, R. 1935. Job satisfaction. New York: Harper and Brothers.
Hunt, J.W., & Saul, P.N. 1975. The Relationship of Age, Tenure, and Job Satisfaction in Males and Females. Academy of Management Journal, 18(4): 690-702.
Fisher, C.D., Ilgen, D.R., & Hoyer, W.D.. 1979. Source Credibility, Information Favorability, and Job Offer Acceptance. Academy of Management Journal, 22 (1), 94-103.
Ilgen, D.R. & Davis, C.A. 2000. Bearing Bad News: Reactions to Negative Performance Feedback. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49(3): 550-566.
Ilies, R. & Judge, T.A. 2004. An experience-sampling measure of job satisfaction and its relationships with affectivity, mood at work, job beliefs, and general job satisfaction.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,13 (3): 367–389.
Ilies, R., & Scott, B.A., & Judge, T.A. 2006. The Interactive Effects of Personal Traits and Experienced States on Intraindividual Patterns Of Citizenship Behavior. Academy of
Management Journal, 49(3): 561-575.
Janicik, G.A. & Bartel, C.A. 2003. Talking about time: Effects of temporal
planning and time awareness norms on group coordination and performance. Group
24
Janssen, O., & Yperen, N.W. van. 2004. Employees‟Goal Orientations, the Quality of Leader-Member Exchange, and the Outcomes of Job Performance and Job Satisfaction. Academy of
Management Journal, 47(3): 368-384.
Jehn, K.A. 1995. A Multimethod Examination of the Benefits and Detriments of Intragroup Conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2): 256-282.
Jehn, K.A., & Rispens, S., & Thatcher, S.M.B. 2010. The Effects of Conflict Asymmetry on Work Group and Individual Outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3): 596-616.
Judge, T.A., & Bono, J.E. 2000. Personality and Job Satisfaction: The Mediating Role of Job Characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2): 237-249.
Judge, T.A., & Thoresen, C.J., & Bono, J.E., & Patton, G.K. 2001. The Job Satisfaction-Job Performance Relationship: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3): 376-407.
Judge, T.A., & Heller, D., & Mount, M.K. 2002. Five-Factor Model of Personality and Job Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis.Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3): 530-541.
Kacmar, K.M., Wayne, S.J., Wright, P.M. 2009. Subordinate Reactions to the Use of Impression Management Tactics and Feedback by the Supervisor. Journal of managerial
issues, 21(4): 498-517.
Kozlowski, S.W.J. & Ilgen, D.R. 2006. Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest (Wiley-Blackwell), 7(3): 77-124.
Kwok Leung, Su, S., & Morris, M.W. 2001. When is criticism not constructive? The roles of fairness perceptions and dispositional attributions in employee acceptance of critical
25
Lam, S.S.K., Yik, M.S.M, & Schaubroeck, J. 2002. Responses to Formal Performance Appraisal Feedback: The Role of Negative Affectivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1): 192–201.
Latham, G.P., & Brown, T.C. 2006. The Effect of Learning vs. Outcome Goals on Self-Efficacy, Satisfaction and Performance in an MBA Program. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 55(4): 606-623
Lawler, E.E., & Porter, L.W. 1967.The Effect of Performance on Job Satisfaction.
Lazear, E.P. & Shaw, K.L. 2007. Personnel economics: The economist‟s view of human resources. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(4): 91-114.
LePine, J.A., & Erez, A., & Johnson, D.E. 2002. The Nature and Dimensionality of Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Critical Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87(1): 52-65.
Leung, M., & Chen, D., & Yu, J. 2008. Demystifying Moderate Variables of the
Interrelationships among Affective Commitment, Job Performance, and Job Satisfaction of Construction Professionals. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 134(12): 963-971.
Liden, R.C., & Erdogan, B., & Wayne, S.J., & Sparrowe, R.T. 2006. Leader-member exchange, differentiation, and task interdependence: Implications for individual and group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27: 723-746
Lievens, F & Anseel, F. 2007. The Long-Term Impact of the Feedback Environment on Job Satisfaction: A Field Study in a Belgian Context. Applied psychology: an international
review, 56(2), 254–266.
Locke, E.A. 1969. What is Job Satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human
26
Markovits, Y., Davis, A.J., Fay, D., & Dick, R. 2010. The Link Between Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment: Differences Between Public and Private Sector Employees.
International Public Management Journal, 12(2): 177-196.
Marsh, R.M. & Mannari, H. 1977. Organizational Commitment and Turnover: A Prediction Study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22: 57-75.
Masterson, S.S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B.M., & Taylor, M.S. 2000. Integrating justice and social exchange: the differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships.
Academy of Management Journal, 43(4): 738-748
Nikolaou, I., & Robertson, I.T. 2010. The Five-Factor model of personality and work behaviour in Greece. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(2): 161-186.
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.
Rico, R., & Sánchez-Manzanares, M., & Gil, F., & Gibson, C. 2008. Team Implicit Coordination Processes: A Team Knowledge-Based Approach. Academy of Management
Review, 33(1): 163-184.
Sarin, S., & Colarelli O‟Connor, G. 2009. First among Equals: The Effect of Team Leader Characteristics on the Internal Dynamics of Cross-Functional Product Development Teams.
Product Innovation Management, 26: 188-205.
Schyns, B., & Croon, M.A. 2006. A model of task demands, social structure, and leader-member exchange and their relationship to job satisfaction. The International Joumal of
27
Scott, A., Gravelle, H., Simoens, S., Bojke, C., & Sibbald, B. 2006. Job Satisfaction and Quitting Intentions: A Structural Model of British General Practitioners. British Journal of
Industrial Relations, 44(3): 519-540.
Seibert, S.E., & Kraimer, M.L. 1999. The Five-Factor Model of Personality and Its
Relationship With Career Success. Academy of Management Proceedings & Membership Directory, A1-A6.
Somech, A., Desivilya, H.S., & Lidogoster, H. 2009. Team conflict management and team
effectiveness: the effects of task interdependence and team identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30: 359–378.
Spector, P. E. 1997. Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Taylor, F.W. 1911, The Principles of Scientific Management, UK: Harper & Brothers
Tyler, T.R., & Lind E.A. 1992. A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in
Experimental Psychology, 26: 116-191.
Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., & Lens, W. 2008. Explaining the relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: The role of basic psychological need satisfaction. Work & Stress, 22(3): 277-294.
Van der Vegt, G.S., Emans, B.J.M., & Van de Vliert, E. 2001. Patterns of interdependence in workteams: A two-level investigation of the relations with job and team satisfaction.
Personnel Psychology, 54: 51-69.
28
Vansteenkiste, M., Neyrinck, B., Niemic, C., Soenens, B., De Witte, H. & Van den Broeck, A. 2007. Examining the relations among extrinsic versus intrinsic work value orientations, basic need satisfaction, and job experience: A Self-Determination Theory approach. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80: 251-277.
Walumbwa, F.O., & Schaubroeck, J. 2009. Leader Personality Traits and Employee Voice Behavior: Mediating Roles of Ethical Leadership and Work Group Psychological Safety.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5): 1275- 1286.
Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M., Bommer, W.H., & Tetrick, L.E. 2002. The Role of Fair Treatment and Rewards in Perceptions of Organizational Support and Leader–Member Exchange.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3): 590- 598.
Williams, H.M., Parker, S.K., & Turner, N. 2010. Proactively performing teams: The role of work design, transformational leadership, and team composition. Journal of Occupational &
Organizational Psychology, 83(2): 301-324.
Williams, E.S., Konrad, T.R., Scheckler, W.E., Pathman, D.E., Linzer, M., MC Murray, J., Gerrity, M., & Schwartz, M. 2000. The Effects of Job Satisfaction and Perceived Stress On The Physicial and Mental Health and Withdraw Intensions of Physicians.
